Category Archives: Government Oppression

2017-08-06 06:06

Simamkele Dlakavu

Four years ago, South Africa was introduced to the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in a press conference that was dominated by a significant majority of Black men wearing red berets.

The EFFs commander in chief, Julius Malema, made a promise: We will fight against white supremacy and we will fight for restoration of Black African dignity.

Many of those disillusioned with the chosen political direction by the ANC government, which prioritised superficial racial unity without justice for the Black majority , joined the movement. We heard the echoes of our past as it continued to speak.

Our past spoke through our material realities, where the faces of poverty continue to be ours, while three white men continue to own the same wealth as the bottom half of the population, according to an Oxfam report.

We became Fighters (publicly and privately).

Since its formation, the EFF has grown to secure its position as the third largest political party in South Africa and the official opposition party in two provinces, the North West and Limpopo.

In last years local government elections, the party increased its share of votes by 20%.

For us, members of the party, the past few years carry many moments of significance.

Remember the celebration we had when our members of Parliament took office and demanded the return of our land, as well as engaging in land occupations? I do.

We were satisfied when Primrose Sonti reminded the political elite in Parliament that families of miners murdered by the police in Marikana could not feed themselves, while they lived lavishly.

We cheered at our TV screens when Sonti told Jacob Zuma that he was heartless and a thief.

Remember? We also took pride in the fact that the EFF wholeheartedly supported #FeesMustFall.

The mass-based movement continues to grow and, through its media-savvy techniques and political tactics, it captures our national imagination daily.

However, the crucial internal and political challenge that the EFF is yet to confront with the same vigour is gender justice.

Class and race

I have spent the past two years looking into the partys gender discourse for my Master of Arts thesis.

Through my research, it became apparent to me that the EFF centres class and race in their theoretical grounding.

This theoretical foundation informs the partys interpretations to structural exclusion facing the Black majority in South Africa, as well as their political programmes and, as we know, theres a definite connection between theory and practice.

By centring race and class systems of oppression in their theoretical outlook, the EFF presents gender oppression as a supplementary factor in their radical, leftist, anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist character.

The privileging of race and class as the main sources of systematic oppression can be located in the EFFs chosen ideological grounding of Marxism, Leninism and Fanonism.

This has allowed for the EFF to give pedagogical authority to men who failed to speak to the forms of gender oppression experienced by Black South Africans.

It has resulted in an ideological vacuum in the partys approach to structural challenges facing Black women in the country.

Marxism, Leninism and Fanonism, as theories developed by men, are inadequate interpretative tools to analyse the systematic forms of oppression experienced by the majority of the population in the country: Black women.

This theoretical limitation in relation to gender has influenced the EFFs election manifesto and political programmes.

After the 2016 local government election, Gender Links gave the EFF a 28% rating on the promotion of gender awareness in their manifesto.

The EFF was even surpassed by the ANC, which was rated as the leading political party for promoting gender awareness in their election manifesto, at 44%.

Therefore, as the EFF continues to grow, it is my view that the party needs to broaden its ideological footing.

That process should begin by looking at and amplifying theories developed by Black and African feminists.

In doing so, the EFF will be challenging the entrenched colonial myths and exclusionary practices that mark African women as persons who dare not imagine themselves as intellectuals and makers of theory the very stuff that informs both policy and access to critical resources in our societies (Patricia McFadden).

If the party continues to underplay and ignore these theories, it will be ill-equipped to achieve economic freedom for all Black people, especially Black women.

Furthermore, it will be unable to dismantle patriarchy and sexism, which it defines as enemies of the revolution envisioned by the party.

Another limitation has been the partys failure to hold toxic and violent forms of patriarchy accountable within its own ranks.

Gender justice

Recently, two of its male student leaders (current and former) were accused of rape, yet there has been no internal political consequence for their actions.

Instead, the University of Cape Towns Students Representative Council was the body that provided accountability; they were able to act quickly and they suspending one of the accused from his position until investigations were finalised.

Both these accused rapists continue their daily political work for the party with confidence.

Furthermore, in the recent leadership elections of the EFF Student Command, some of the women candidates were tormented on social media by men within the party.

Black women candidates were called whores and accused of sleeping with leadership for positions, instead of these men analysing their political messaging and track record.

Again, there have been no disciplinary actions taken against these men. How are these inactions a demonstration of a commitment to anti-sexism by the EFF? Why are toxic forms of masculinity allowed to flourish within the party without any cost?

The face of the party and its leadership have made a significant shift in the last four years. There were only three women present in the pool of men during the EFFs first press conference.

Today it is the leading political party to achieve gender parity, according to Gender Links, in the 2016 local government elections, at 49%.

There are provinces like the North West where over 60% of EFF counsellors are women.

Although significant, the partys commitment to gender justice cannot solely be reflected in Black womens representation in leadership positions within the EFF, and I say this because of the genuine emancipatory project to exist for us.

I appeal to the EFF that gender justice needs to move beyond acquiring balanced numbers.

Dlakavu is a student

TALK TO US

In what way can the EFF broaden its ideological footing to promote gender equality?

SMS us on 35697 using the keyword FIGHT and tell us what you think. Please include your name and province. SMSes cost R1.50

See original here:

On the EFF and gender - News24

It IS in the public interest for Downey to be prosecuted over the four soldiers massacred in 1982

IT is hard to stomach when evil murderers get public money to defend themselves but justice would not be served otherwise.

Nor will it be if the prime suspect in the IRA Hyde Park atrocity never faces trial because this same Legal Aid fund will not foot the bill.

Getty Images - Getty

Justice will not be done if John Downey, already freed after a blunder, dodges a private prosecution too.

It was deemed in the public interest to give 380,000 to men so wicked they ultimately got whole life terms.

So, too, to give Downey 50,000 to defend himself before his criminal trial collapsed.

Now it is squarely in the publics interest for him to be prosecuted over the four soldiers massacred in 1982.

Despite big donations from Sun readers, it can only happen with Legal Aid.

The Government must act.

YOU can back the Hyde Park Justice Campaign in several ways.

Credit or debit card donations can be given athttp://www.crowdjustice.org/case/hyde-park-justice.

You can donate online using these bank details: Sort code 18-00-02, and account number 04507118.

You could also go to your own bank with the details.

Donors can also send cash or cheques to: Hyde Park Justice Campaign, Fourth Floor, 158 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TR.

Any money left over will be donated to other legal actions for serving members of the Armed Forces or victims of terrorism and their families.

PA:Press Association

JEREMY Corbyn is mute as Venezuela burns.

So his allies speak for him and their defence is both laughable and appalling.

They say this once oil-rich countrys collapse is not the fault of socialism but of America for bankrolling unrest.

And Corbyns young fans say Venezuela is irrelevant and cannot discredit him.

PA:Press Association

It wasnt irrelevant when he cited it as the shining example of socialisms better way.

Nor when he and guru Seumas Milne delightedly congratulated President Maduro now its virtual dictator, rigging elections and crushing dissent.

It IS relevant to Britain.

Because this is their lifelong belief system being tested right now, in real time and destroying a nation through the poverty, starvation and oppression that are its natural consequences.

It is hard proof of the hideous damage Corbyn would do to the many, not the few.

Luke Inman - The News of the World Glasgow

WHEN will the Government get its priorities straight on roads?

One hare-brained new scheme is to build giant tents over the most polluted ones to keep fumes away from homes.

How can we find millions for that when our pock-marked roads are worse than those in Namibia and Ecuador?

Fix them first. Tents later.

WHITEHALLS fetish for keeping harmless historic documents secret must end.

What damage can be done by making public a paper relating to a foreign jaunt Charles and Diana went on in 1986?

AP:Associated Press

The independent body overseeing the release of national records says civil servants cover-up culture is getting worse and often has no justification.

We should have an automatic right to see all 30-year-old Government documents and be given a damn good reason if not.

Read this article:

The Government must act on legal aid madness and make sure justice is done over the Hyde Park bombing - The Sun

On Wednesday, July 26, President Trump tweeted:

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

Download our free report, Intergenerational Trauma: Understanding Natives Inherited Pain, to understand this fascinating concept.

Four hours later he also tweeted:

IN AMERICA WE DONT WORSHIP GOVERNMENT WE WORSHIP GOD!

Why does the President of a self-proclaimed Christian nation choose to oppress transgender people by specifically banning them from service in the U.S. military?

Because President Trump, and many Evangelicals, believe in the false notion of Christendom and its perverted role of enforcing the doctrines of the Church.

But they are incorrect.

First of all, there is no such thing as Christendom. According to the model and teachings of Jesus, Christian Empire does not exist. Jesus came to make disciples, plant a church, and offer himself as a living sacrifice. He came here to lay down his life, not save it. And he warned his disciples that they should expect, and do, the same. But the Empire must save its life. The Empire must protect itself. The purpose of Empire is in direct opposition to the teachings and the model of Jesus. Thus, Christendom is the prostitution of the Church to the Empire.

And second, since the 4th century, beginning with the writings of Augustine of Hippo, Christendom has been used to justify creating theological categories of other in order to sanctify their mistreatment and oppression. Throughout the centuries Christian Empire has provided the justification for the oppression of many groups, including heretics, Muslims, indigenous people, people with black skin and now the LGBTQ community.

As a Native man, someone from a group of people who have been oppressed, mistreated and ethnically cleansed from these lands because we were categorized as other by the Christian Empire known as the United States of America, I am deeply concerned by the words and actions of President Trump regarding transgender people. It is extremely difficult to govern a country, let alone claim to follow Christ, when you cannot even treat your neighbor and your fellow citizens as fully human.

I welcome you to read another article I recently published titled Where Augustine Goes Off the Rails which details how the church got from a message of mercy and grace in Luke 7 to the Doctrine of Discovery. How it got from following a savior who was persecuted and executed for his faith, to an imperial power that oppressed, persecuted and even executed those it determined to be other.

Mark Charles is a speaker, writer and consultant from Fort Defiance, Arizona (Navajo Nation). He is a graduate of UCLA and the organizer ofA New Conversation: A Public Reading of the US Apology to Native Peoples. He also consults as a Resource Development Specialist for Indigenous Worship at the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship and is the Primary Investigator on a study conducted through Brigham Young University on the Navajo perception of time.

Read the original post:

President Trump Bans Transgender From MilitaryJust the Latest Form of Oppression in the USA - Indian Country Today Media Network

Yesterday, President Trump announced his support for a bill first proposed by GOP senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue that would drastically reduce legal immigration. The plan would cut immigration levels in half, and institute a merit-based point system to allocate many of the remaining immigration slots. All told, it would reduce legal immigration by over 500,000 per year. The bill would also reduce refugee admissions to a maximum of only 50,000 per year, compared to 110,000 in fiscal year 2017. If nothing else, the administrations endorsement of this bill should put to rest the oft-heard claim that Trump only opposes illegal immigration.

I. How the Bill Would Inflict Massive Harm on Millions of People.

If it gets through Congress, this bill would inflict massive suffering on enormous numbers of people. Hundreds of thousands who could otherwise find greater freedom, happiness, and prosperity in the US will instead be consigned to poverty and oppression in the Third World, in many cases for the rest of their lives. For many of the excluded refugees, their fate could be severe persecution or even death, or at best prolonged misery in refugee camps.

Some may dismiss these effects because they are not the fault of the United States. The US government, they might say, is not responsible for poverty and oppression in other countries. Perhaps so. But immigration restrictions are not just a matter of the US standing aside and letting injustice continue elsewhere in the world. They involve the use of government coercion to prevent would-be immigrants from finding freedom in this country, taking jobs with willing American employers, and so on. That is why most people today agree it was morally wrong for the US government to deny entry to Jewish refugees in the 1930s, even though the US was not responsible for the repression they faced in Europe, and even though it was not yet clear that the Nazis would seek to exterminate the Jews, as opposed to merely oppress them.

Refugees and potential immigrants would not be the only victims of Trumps proposed policy. Many native-born Americans would suffer too. Increased immigration restrictions reduce their ability to interact with, work with, and hire immigrants. If, like many conservatives, you believe it is wrong for the government to tell us what kind of health insurance we must buy or what kind of food we can eat, you should also be skeptical of letting the government dictate which immigrants you are allowed to associate with or engage in economic transactions with. Immigrant workers, business owners, and entrepreneurs also make major contributions to the economy, which would be severely curtailed if Trumps proposal is implemented. Instead of improving the economy, as advocates hope, the bill would do serious damage to it. As GOP Senator Lindsey Graham points out, the bill would particularly damage sectors such as agriculture, tourism, and many service industries.

II. The Bill has no Benefit Remotely Comparable to the Enormous Harm.

A policy that inflicts enormous harm on would-be immigrants and also hurts many natives could perhaps be justified if it created some comparably great benefit. That is not even remotely the case here. The administration claims that it could protect American workers from wage competition. Economists across the political spectrum agree that immigration has large net benefits for Americans, overall. It is possible that immigration lowers the wages of some low-skilled workers, particularly high school dropouts, though even here the evidence is mixed. Even the specific case of the Mariel Boatlift, which the administration likes to cite in support of its position, does not actually support it, according to recent research, well summarized by Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute.

Even if immigration does reduce the wages of low-skilled natives, or some subset thereof, it doesnt follow that restrictionism is the right solution to this problem. We do not generally assume that the government should use force to insulate people from the effects of labor competition. If workers moving from West Virginia to much wealthier Virginia create competition that reduces pay for some already in the latter state, few argue that the government should take steps to prevent it. Competition is part of the price we pay for a dynamic economy that increases wealth for all in the long run, including by reducing the price and increasing the quality of goods produced by new workers.

If compensation is nonetheless desirable, there are far better ways to do it than consigning large numbers of immigrants to a lifetime of Third World poverty and depriving the US economy of the benefits they create. As economist Bryan Caplan outlines, we can instead tap some of the vast wealth created by immigration and transfer it to low-wage native workers, for example by boosting the earned income tax credit. We can also adopt policy reforms that would make it easier for both immigrant and native workers to move to areas with greater opportunity an approach that would simultaneously lift up the poor and greatly benefit the overall economy.

The administration claims that its merit-oriented point system will improve the quality of immigrant labor. In reality, as Alex Nowrasteh explains, the proposed bill would do nothing to increase the quantity of high-skill immigration to the US. Indeed, it would result in a far lower rate of such immigration than exists in Canada, and Australia, the ostensible models for the approach it adopts.

The bills approach also has an even more fundamental flaw: it assumes that bureaucratic measures imposed by the federal government are a good way to measure worker merit, in this case a crude point system that takes account of English proficiency, higher education degrees, and whether the applicant has a job offer that pays at least 150% of the median household income in the state in question. The best judges of worker merit are not federal officials but potential employers. They are the ones in the best position to know what qualifications are actually useful for the job at hand, and they have far better incentives to get the decision right than government bureaucrats do.

Conservatives are generally among the first to recognize this when it comes to assessing native workers. It is no less true with respect to immigrants. At the risk of stating the obvious, it should be clear that there are many jobs for which a college degree is not a relevant credential. It is similarly clear that people can be valuable contributors to the economy even if they make less than 150% of the median household income in the state where they live.

The bills criteria also err by ignoring the possibility that workers can improve their language proficiency and other credentials after arriving in the US. Data show that todays immigrants assimilate and rapidly improve their English proficiency at roughly the same rate as in past generations. They also often increase their education level after coming to the US.

To put the point differently, it is worth asking whether the rest of the population would be better off if we deported some large percentage of the native-born Americans who would score poorly on the bills point system. After all, many millions of Americans do not have college degrees, have jobs that pay less than 150% of the median household income, and so forth. The answer is obvious: even aside from humanitarian considerations, getting rid of this portion of the population (or some large fraction of it) would make the rest of us worse off. Workers of different skill and education levels can each benefit from the productivity of the others. What is true of native-born workers also applies to immigrants, as well.

Similar points apply to other standard right of center complaints about immigration that might be pressed into service to defend this bill including claims that immigrants overburden the welfare state, increase crime, or destroy American culture. Like the labor quality argument, these objections, too, are in most cases false, overblown, or susceptible to less draconian fixes.

Here, as elsewhere, it is a grave error to assume that the world is a zero-sum game, whether between the rich and the poor, between different racial and ethnic groups, or between immigrants and natives. If we want to make America great again, we should remember that all of these groups can prosper together and that immigration is a big part of what made this nation great in the first place.

Original post:

Trump's cruel and counterproductive effort to slash legal immigration - Washington Post

Chinese internet giant Tencent has taken down a local, Chinese-language chatbot developed with Microsoft's artificial intelligence by a Beijing-based company after it was less than complimentary about the ruling Chinese Communist Party.

"The group chatbot services are provided by independent third party companies," Tencent said in a statement. "We are now adjusting the services which will be resumed after improvements."

Since beginning operation in March, the Baby Q and XiaoBing chatbots had recent given a number of responses unlikely to be welcomed inside the Great Firewall, where government censors are quick to pounce on a long list of banned, politically "sensitive" expressions.

Asked if it would agree with the phrase "Long Live the Communist Party," the Baby Q bot replied tartly: "Why would I wish long life to such a corrupt regime?"

Later, asked by another user if it loved the ruling party, it returned a curt "No, I don't."

Baby Q, which was developed by the Beijing-based company Turing Robot, also appeared to harbor some unauthorized views on patriotism.

"What is a patriot?" asked one user. To which the AI program retorted:

"A patriot is someone who still wants to be Chinese in spite of corrupt officials sending their families and assets overseas, the collusion between government and business, increasing tax revenues and growing oppression of ordinary people."

Asked if democracy was a good idea, the bot replied: "We must democratize."

Another user picked up a catchphrase beloved of Chinese President Xi Jinping, asking the bot: "What is your Chinese dream?"

"My Chinese dream," the bot replied, "is to emigrate to the United States."

Baby Q was taken offline after these exchanges, with online reports claiming that its programmers had been called in to "drink tea" with the internet police.

A Tencent account-holder who had previously chatted with the bot said he was surprised by the move.

"For a computer to say such things is the natural result of logical processes in its programming, and yet the government regards ... it as taboo," the account-holder said.

Shenzhen-based Internet entrepreneur Zhang Jinjun said the chatbot's "misbehavior" is likely the result of access to data outside of the government's tightly controlled online parameters and could have come from people it has chatted with in recent months.

"In the space of communicating with a million people, it is going to start to build its own knowledge base," Zhang said. "It is quite likely that it will draw conclusions that are similar to universal values [of freedom, rule of law and democracy]."

"It is pretty close to the mainstream of political culture and the direction of history," he said. "It is highly likely that the bot would form ideas critical of China's political system when viewed from within its own system of understanding."

An employee who answered the phone at Tencent's publicity department declined to comment when contacted by RFA.

Reported by Xin Lin for RFA's Mandarin Service. Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.

The rest is here:

China's Tencent Takes Down Chatbot After it Criticizes the Ruling Party - Radio Free Asia

MP SPEAKS | BNs repressive tactics, beginning with forcing DAP to hold a party re-election four years later after our last re-election in 2013, banning G25s book and forcing political cartoonist Zunar to cancel his 'Ketawa Pink Pink' exhibition in Penang, is a harbinger of more oppression should BN win the coming 14th general elections.

Even though Penang is ruled by a Pakatan Harapan state government that promotes freedom of speech and artistic expression, there is no guarantee that Zunar can hold his exhibition featuring 50 pieces of his artworks due to alleged threats from his opponents.

Zunar said he was supposed to hold the event dubbed 'Ketawa Pink Pink' tomorrow on Beach Street, from 8am to 12pm, but was forced to cancel his cartoon exhibition in Penang because of alleged threats from a group from Umno Penang. Instead of holding their own cartoon exhibition, they had distributed posters urging their members to come and "visit" Zunars exhibition.

DAP can understand Zunars fear of physical intimidation when last year, his exhibition in Komtar resulted in not only Zunar being physically attacked by a Penang Umno Youth member, while the police arrested him under the Sedition Act. Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin should be ashamed of such behaviour of Umno Youth members, which Zunar had described as "very rowdy and aggressive".

DAP agrees that the banning of the book by G25, which is a collection of essays 'Breaking the Silence: Voices of Moderation - Islam in a Constitutional Democracy', is "illogical" and "utterly ridiculous", when the authorities failed to explain how the book is prejudicial to public order. This is not just another example of the Malaysian government suppressing free speech.

The BN governments refusal to give reasons, lends suspicion that this is a naked abuse of power intended to send a chilling message and extract political capital in the run-up to the general election. G25 comprises former top civil servants, diplomats and pro-BN personalities such as Chandra Muzaffar. Chandra said the ban is an attempt to curb balanced, rational and open-minded thinking on matters pertaining to the practice of Islam in Malaysia and that the essays were not just about the practice of Islam, but about upholding the federal constitution.

Instead of banning books, civil action of defamation can always be filed if any party feels offended. Clearly BN is intent in maintaining Malaysia as both a kleptocracy and autocracy, with neither room for dissent nor protection for genuine whistleblowers of corruption at the highest levels.

LIM GUAN ENG is DAP secretary-general and Bagan MP.

Originally posted here:

Zunar's plight sign of more oppression should BN win GE - Malaysiakini (subscription)

Plans for a sculpture near a Welsh castle have been shelved after thousands signed a petition claiming it celebrates the subjugation and oppression of the Welsh people. Here, Dr Matthew Stevens argues that is a misguided stance which fails to recognise the rich historical and cultural inheritance of Wales.

It saddens me to see the negative popular reaction of some to the recently approved art instillation at Flint Castle.

It is a reaction that radically underplays the deep, rich, fascinating and, most importantly, complex medieval cultural inheritance of Wales.

I worry, though I would be reluctant to say for sure, that it might also underscore a troublesome lack of self-confidence in a proud Welsh identity.

In 1066, some 951 years ago, a Norman Frenchman and his rabble conquered England and secured it with his own iron ring of castles, the centrepiece of which was the Tower of London.

The Tower is now celebrated not as the instrument of Norman oppression it was created as, but as part of the rich tapestry of English heritage. In 1277, some 740 years ago, Flint castle was begun by Edward I. Cannot we too, as a nation, manage similarly to wrest free our own cultural inheritance from the centuries-old past, and make Wales iron ring our own?

As noted in the Welsh Government press release, the architect states "the sculpture will take a balanced form, some buried beneath the ground, the remainder projecting into the air, to demonstrate the unstable nature of the crown". This sculpture is a crooked crown, knocked off kilter by the people, and rightly so.

There are at least two good reasons why we ought to see the sculpture as celebrating Welsh resilience and the futility of foreign "conquest".

First, the short reason.

Yes, Flint was one of the first four castles built by Edward I to secure his military gains following his first war against the last Prince of Wales, Llywelyn ap Gryffydd, in 1277, along with Builth, Aberystwyth and Ruddlan. Now, three of these castles are in the hands of Cadw, and the fourth, Aberystwyth, belongs to the local council, and the Welsh flag flies proudly over all sites. The iron ring as it were, is now Welsh and in Welsh hands. From a heritage perspective, the iron ring has long, long since been knocked off kilter by the people of Wales. That is something to celebrate.

Second, the long reason.

If one wants to go digging around in the history of the conquest they need to know that the situation was much more complex than English versus Welsh.

Wales, in the 1100s and 1200s, was divided between the Marches of southeast and south Wales, and native controlled north and west Wales. And within native Wales there were three Welsh kingdoms, Deheubarth in the southwest (think Cardiganshire), Powys in mid-east Wales, and Gwynedd in the northwest. These kingdoms fought tooth and nail for dominance over one another until Llywelyn the Great ap Iorwerth of Gwynedd used both talk and war to dominate the other kingdoms. This included, at one point, sidling up to bad King John of England and even marrying his illegitimate daughter Joan!

Five things to think about before you get too angry about the Iron Ring sculpture

The princes of Gwynedd then started calling themselves Prince of Wales, and bullied the other Welsh kingdoms to toe the line until their relations with England soured, followed by Edwards conquest. But in reality, the princes of Powys resisted, making alliances with the English king when helpful, and as Prof. David Stephenson has recently published the men of Powys were in armed conflict with Gwynedds princes of Wales more than 25 times between 1132 and 1282, including as allies of the English in Edward Is 1277 and 1282 campaigns of conquest.

Much of the old kingdom of Powys outlived the conquest and the construction of the iron ring, until the princely lines of Powys simply died out. One ought not overstate the role of the iron ring.

Edwards four castles of 1277, including Flint, were also not as helpful as he would have liked. Edward again waged war on Wales in 1282, after which about ten more castles were built by Edward, or men to whom he granted lands conquered from the Prince of Gwynedd, including iconic Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech castles. These too proved not enough, and following the widespread and destructive rebellion of Madog ap Llywelyn in 1295 during which Caernarfon castle and at least three others were taken by the Welsh he began work on Beaumaris castle, which ultimately he could not finish because he ran out of royal funds.

In fact, Edwards arguably futile castle building was so expensive that it hampered his other political aspirations in Scotland, and substantially contributed to the virtual state of English bankruptcy under which the ill-fated and constantly cash-strapped Edward II would come to the throne in 1307, only to be deposed by his wife and teenaged son in 1327 and miserably executed. The cost of the iron ring, one could argue, unbalanced the English monarchy for two generations.

Moreover, as fate would have it, the last of Edward Is Plantagenet dynasty, his great great grandson Richard II himself a notorious tyrant was deposed after he was caught by his enemies and forced to surrender at Flint castle. Richard II, whose rule effectively ended in Wales on the site where Edward Is first great castle was begun, would later be ingloriously starved to death in captivity. This is the transfer of power to the usurper Henry IV which was famously dramatized by Shakespeare, something of which the Welsh Governments press release shows awareness.

Lastly, the deposition of Richard II and the shaky revolution in England would form the backdrop for the rebellion of Owain Glyndr, who would conquer and control the iron ring castles of Aberystwyth and Harlech in 1404, holding a Welsh parliament at Harlech in 1405 and making it his military headquarters for the next four years. Throughout the rebellion Owain would do everything in his power not just to assert control over Wales, but to destabilise the new English monarchy. This included, in 1405, making his tripartite alliance with two factions of rebellious English barons, and even hosting an invading French army which spent the summer campaigning with the Welsh.

Even beyond the Middle Ages skipping over such crucial characters as the Welsh Henry VII one could go on to point out how the English Civil War was fought in Wales around the castles of the iron ring, such as Flint, which were generally manned by conservative Welsh royalists, in opposition to Cromwells overwhelmingly English parliamentarian forces. In fact, Flint and Aberystwyth, cornerstones of Edwards 1277 iron ring, are in the ruinous state we see them in today because Cromwell ordered them destroyed after capture to prevent Welsh royalists again occupying them. By the seventeenth century the iron ring was thoroughly Welsh.

Against this complex backdrop of the rich historical and cultural inheritance of Wales, it is sadly short-sighted to see the iron ring as simply a marker of Edward Is conquest. It is not inappropriate to put this installation of an off-kilter ring, representing a destabilised crown, next to Flint castle. Flint, and the rest of the iron ring, in the fullness of history, do not represent centuries of steady oppression, but the resilience of the Welsh, who have punched above their weight in directly or indirectly destabilising the English monarchy and government over the centuries. The iron ring is woven into the tapestry of Welsh history in a thousand ways, and the off-kilter ring as proposed, to be lined with engravings celebrating local perspectives on the site, would require some creative negativity dismissive of much of the history of north Wales to be seen strictly as a symbol of English oppression today.

Matthew Frank Stevens is senior lecturer in medieval history at Swansea University and fellow of the Royal Historical Society (2010-present). He completed a PhD in history at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth in 2005 and has since been a postdoctoral fellow of the Economic History Society at the University of Oxford (2005-6), researcher at the Institute of Historical Research, University of London (2006-10) and visiting fellow at Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toru, Poland (2010). He has wide ranging interests in the interrelationships between the economy, law, gender and race in the medieval and early modern periods. He is author of Urban Assimilation in Post-Conquest Wales: Ethnicity Gender and Economy in Ruthin, 1282-1348 and is currently preparing his second book, Race Law and the Origins of National Identity: Northern Europe in the Middle Ages for Manchester University Press. He may be reached at m.f.stevens@swansea.ac.uk .

Go here to read the rest:

To see the Iron Ring simply as a symbol of Welsh oppression is short-sighted and underscores a troublesome lack of ... - WalesOnline

The Welsh Government has been forced to back down over plans for an Iron Ring sculpture that opponents have dubbed a monument to oppression.

More than 10,000 people signed a petition calling on the Welsh Assembly to scrap its proposals for the controversial artwork outside Flint Castle in Flintshire, north east Wales.

Announcing the 395,000 sculpture last Friday, the Welsh Government said it symbolises a giant rusted crown.

Flint Castle was where in 1399 Richard II surrendered the crown to Henry IV, an event that shaped the history of Britain and Europe.

But opponents of the sculpture point out that Iron Ring is the term used for the castles built by Edward I to assert his might over the uprising Welsh in the late 13th century.

Welsh Government cabinet member Ken Skates announced they will pause and review the plans, just days after describing the sculpture as the perfect way of recognising the importance of Flint Castle.

We have listened and recognise the strength of feeling around the proposed art installation at Flint Castle and feel it is only right that we now take a pause and review the plans for the sculpture, said Skates.

Working closely with local partners we will continue to work on proposals for developments at Flint, including reviewing new visitor facilities.

Plaid Cymru AM Llyr Gruffydd welcomed the climbdown, saying: This crass design for a sculpture to symbolise Wales oppression was inappropriate and insulting to the people of Wales.

It showed a serious lack of judgement by the Welsh Government, which failed to consult with local people about this 400,000 sculpture.

The Labour government has rightly been shamed into rethinking its design, however it has failed to acknowledge how disrespectful this plan was. The Cabinet Secretary for the Economy should apologise for its bad judgement.

Go here to see the original:

Welsh government shelves plans for Iron Ring sculpture dubbed 'monument to oppression' - iNews

Lakisha Johnson and daughter. Photo credit: Reuters

Politicians had the best of intentions when they crafted policies to make higher education more accessible to everyone by handing out generous student loans. But they ended up plunging millions of Americans deep into debt and subjecting them to relentless efforts to recover that debt.

A Reuters investigation into student loan debt collections highlights the plight of a Philadelphia woman, Lakisha Johnson.

Lakisha Johnson figured all she needed was her 2016 tax refund to get her and her daughter out of a homeless shelter and back into a place of their own.

The U.S. Department of Education had other plans.

Johnson, a home health aide, and 12-year-old Aijiah were forced to move out of their West Philadelphia apartment just before Thanksgiving last year, after the landlord jacked up the rent from $675 to $875. Soon, they were living on a bunk bed in the shelter a few blocks from Aijiahs school. The girl was petrified that a classmate would see her using the secured entrance of the crowded, noisy shelter.

With the $13 an hour she earns caring for her elderly charges, Johnson planned to stay at the shelter or with anyone who would let the two sleep on a floor, a couch or a spare mattress until April. In past years, thats when she received her federal Earned Income Credit tax refund.

The check never came.

On the phone, an Internal Revenue Service agent told her the Department of Education (DOE) was holding back the $8,220 refund to recoup some of her student loan debt. It would probably do the same next year, the agent told her, to recover the rest of the nearly $17,000 she owed.

Johnson is just one of eight million borrowers in the United States who are in default on a combined $137.4 billion in government-held or government-backed student loans. Eleven percent of all student debt is severely delinquent or in fault, a higher rate than the mortgage foreclosure rate at the peak of the sub-prime real estate bust. But unlike mortgages, a form of debt that can be discharged, there is no way to shake student loans.

Since the summer of 2015, Reuters has found, student loan servicers and private debt collectors have garnished about $3 billion in wages. And last year, tax refund seizures and Social Security benefit reductions amounted to another $2.6 billion, up from $2.2 billion in 2015. Since 2009, the federal government has clawed back at least $15.2 billion. Writes Reuters:

Default, which usually occurs when a borrower hasnt made a payment for 270 days or more, can make it only harder for a debtor to regain financial stability. It can trash credit scores, scaring off potential employers. It can disqualify debtors for auto loans, apartment rentals, utilities and even cellphone contracts. In about 20 states, student loan borrowers who default can lose their drivers and professional licenses.

Needless to say, those impacted from the student debt-collection regime are disproportionately poor and minorities.

The Reuters article focuses mainly on the aggressive tactics of debt collectors and the failure (or refusal) to inform many debtors of all of their options, such as shifting to a plan that limits repayments to a percentage of income. In effect, the debt collectors come across as the bad guys in the story.

But Reuters does quoteJack Remondi, CEO of Navient Corp., a loan servicer operating under contract with the Department of Education:

Remondi blamed rising student loan defaults on the front end of the process, such as the government policy of lending to borrowers regardless of their credit standing and without consideration of whether the investment they are making is reasonable.

Bacons bottom line: That is the root of the problem. Under the guise of creating opportunities for the poor, the government policy of treating access to higher education as a right and indiscriminately handing out loans to unsophisticated consumers turned millions of Americans into debt peons. Government policy made their condition worse. Government policy, far from liberating the American poor, is grinding many into deeper poverty. Between shoveling out student loans and stoking the issuance of sub-prime mortgages a decade ago, misguided policies emanating from the good intentions of federal policy makers have shattered the lives of millions of poor. (Dont get me started on the issues of under-performing schools and the mal-incentives of the welfare state.)

Meanwhile the poverty-creation machine chugs on unperturbed in Virginia. Here is data from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia encompassing public four-year colleges, private four-year colleges, and community colleges:

All told, 36% of students at 20% of the poverty line and below fail to graduate.College loans, it must be said, also have allowed many students to lift themselves out of poverty, so it would be a mistake to dismantle the entire system. But student lending is in desperate need of reform. Good intentions are not enough.

Read this article:

How Good Intentions Created a Tool of Oppression - Bacon's Rebellion

Tyranny and oppression still alive and well in Navajo County

Jury summons, by definition, invokes power from the court to demand your presence under penalty of law. Many claim that jury duty is a privilege or civic duty, but I assert that it is more than that an honor and the ultimate exercise of true democracy.

When serving on a jury, you exercise three votes. The first vote is when you elected a judge or legislator to enforce and create the laws. The second vote is to protect fellow citizens from overzealous prosecutors (government tyranny), and the third is when your decision has more power than the judges, the legislators, Congress or President.

Your decision is only answerable to yourself and God.

This was the safety valve and equalizer that our wise and noble forefathers placed into the Constitution, specifically to fight tyranny and oppression against We, the People and to preserve our freedoms. This is the greatest exercise of freedom and is a democratic honor. Freedom is unalienable as it comes from God not a privilege granted from government and to deny freedom to a man is the greatest sin and crime of mankind.

On July 18, I reported to the Navajo County Superior Courthouse as required per the summons, and there is a process and series of qualifying questions by which prospective jurors are eliminated. The first round of elimination is conducted by the judge (there were more than 100 citizens present as prospective jurors) as people are advised of any conflicts that would objectively disqualify them to serve.

Lawyers and judges select juries by a process known as voir dire, which is Latin for to speak the truth. In voir dire, the judge and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine if they are competent and suitable to serve in the case. The reasoning for this is obvious and logical as jurors should be ethical, impartial and fair.

However, Tuesday morning I was summarily dismissed without the due process of qualifying questions and/or conditions that would exclude me from exercising my right as a citizen of Navajo County. If a superior court judge can do this, then why even bother with legislators, lawmakers, or constitutional processes? We wouldnt need laws, prosecutors or defense attorneys, just one supreme monarch that solely make all the decisions for society and mankind.

Is this the type county or country that We, the People desire to live in? If we dont have the right to participate in the process of government, is it still a democracy? I swore an oath to the Constitution and it guarantees individuals their right for self-governance in a representative democratic republic and to be free from these abuses of controlling tyranny and oppression.

Sterling Smith,

Show Low

View original post here:

Tyranny and oppression still alive and well in Navajo County - White Mountain Independent