Category Archives: Government Oppression

Theresa May's approach towards asylum seekers and refugees has been of concern since she was Home Secretary. She presided over 'Go Home' vans which were a throwback to the racism of a bygone era that should have no place in the 21st century. Her cutting of the search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean have literally denied a lifeline to refugees who are drowning as a matter of course on the edge of fortress Europe. This year, the government stopped taking the small numbers of refugee children that it had previously conceded to, thanks to Lord Alf Dubs, himself one of the Kinder transport children who fled the Nazis. It is said that a civilisation should be judged by how it treats its strangers. We clearly have a lot to learn about how to be a civilisation.

Kelechi Chioba is an asylum seeker pleading to remain in the UK, for fear for her life if deported to Nigeria. She is an openly queer, disabled, woman suffering from mental health issues, yet the home office state her reasons are 'insufficient'.

Kelechi, who is keen volunteer for the National Union of Students (NUS) Disabled Students' Campaign and Black Students' Campaign (LGBT+ representative), suffers from polio, is wheelchair user and suffers from mental health problems. In Nigeria, she is regarded as a curse and a source of shame upon her family, due to her disability. She has suffered severe abuse at the hands of her family, including verbal abuse, beatings and attempts to end her life. Kelechi, who had secretly enjoyed relationships with women in Nigeria, found she was able to come out openly in the UK and embrace her bisexuality. Kelechi found support in the Black Students' campaign in particular, where she was elected, along with her job share, another Nigerian, to represent LGBT+ students of African, Arab, Asian and Caribbean descent across the country.

Kelechi is a prominent queer activist and is well known, in particular by the Nigerian communities in the UK. She is afraid of what this means should she be forced to go back to Nigeria, a country where it is unsafe to be openly queer. With laws preventing individuals from even joining a gay organisation (there is a 10 year prison sentence), and stories of individuals being killed for being queer, Kelechi, who is vulnerable, as someone who is completely reliant on a wheelchair, is understandably terrified of what might happen to her if she is forcibly returned. With stories of physical and sexual abuse in Yarls Wood coming to the fore, it is essential now more than ever that we protect vulnerable members of our community. We must not forget the death of Jimmy Mubenga who died following restraint in the midst of a deportation flight.

We should not have an immigration system that devalues the lives of those facing oppression such as Kelechi. We have an urgent responsibility, as one of the world's richest nations, to ensure that those fleeing oppression and discrimination wherever they come from, get the same right to a quality of life in the UK as any UK citizen. Whilst in the UK, despite disability and difficulty, Kelechi has worked and volunteered to better the lives of others and it is shameful that the UK government refuses to protect her from the oppression she unfairly receives because of how and where she was born. It is not for us to condemn others to persecution, hate and death as part of our immigration process.

Kelechi could be deported any day, and we need to do everything we can to put pressure on the government and keep her story in the media and people's minds. A fundraising campaign has been launched to pay for living and legal costs so Kelechi can get support in fighting her case.

Whilst Theresa May is shamefully engaged in building a wall to stop refugees in Calais, 'Im proud of the NUS Black Students Campaign, rallying around this valued member of our community, and building a campaign to stand up for justice and humanity.

Please donate what you can, and share her story.

Read the rest here:

Inhumanity Is At The Heart Of The Government's Policies Towards Refugees And Asylum Seekers - HuffPost UK

May 16, 2017 (Mainichi Japan)

NAHA (Kyodo) -- A prominent anti-U.S. base activist in Okinawa said Tuesday he hopes to draw attention to the "undue oppression" seen against base opponents in the island prefecture when he delivers a speech at a meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council in mid-June in Geneva.

"I want to tell that our (freedom of) expression is being regulated through perfunctory laws and that this situation is going unchallenged," said Hiroji Yamashiro, 64, who was detained for around five months from October for what his supporters call minor offenses during base protest activities.

The head of the Okinawa Peace Action Center was released on bail in March and is currently on trial for allegedly obstructing official duties and other offenses.

According to ongoing arrangements by the United Nations and Yamashiro, he has been given two minutes to speak in front of government officials during the U.N. council's plenary session in the week of June 12. He also plans to speak at a related event.

Yamashiro also said riot police and Japan Coast Guard members are frequently using "violence" against protesters at the Henoko coastal area, the site where the Japanese government is building a replacement facility for U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, also in Okinawa.

According to his lawyer, Yamashiro needs to seek permission from the court before traveling to Switzerland because he is on trial.

In September 2015, Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga also made a speech at the U.N. Human Rights Council in the hope of winning international backing for his opposition to the plan to relocate the Futenma base within the prefecture.

The Japanese and U.S. governments have pursued the relocation of the Futenma base from a crowded residential area in Ginowan to the less populated Henoko in Nago, saying the plan is "the only solution" to address noise problems and accident risks posed by the base without undermining the deterrence provided by the Japan-U.S. alliance.

But Onaga and many other Okinawans, who are frustrated with hosting the bulk of U.S. military facilities in Japan, want the base to be relocated outside the prefecture.

Read the original here:

Antibase Okinawa activist to talk about 'undue oppression' at UN - The Mainichi

Sometimes, and at the precise moment, the cavalry comes charging over the hill.

Reader Paul I. Clymer wrote to take issue with my recent column defending the rights of a protester arrested after giggling just once, mind you during a Senate confirmation hearing of attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions in January.

"Rather than spending time talking about Desiree Fairooz and her encounter with federal authorities, I thought for certain you would be criticizing the hate, anger, divisive and despicable remarks of late night comedian (gutter mouth) Steve Colbert about President Donald Trump," Clymer wrote.

To Clymer and others, a TV comedian making a crude comment about the president as midnight approached was curiously viewed as more important column fodder than addressing examples of suppression of the First Amendment, which is under siege in America.

"Imagine the youth of America seeing and hearing such hate and vulgarity about the president," Clymer wrote.

The youth of America seeing and hearing such hate.

From a comedian.

As the clock approached midnight.

On a school night.

Yeah, right.

Just as I was shaking my head in incredulity at Clymer's email and views, the cavalry arrived.

Why did I choose to address the muffling of dissent by government instead of an off-color remark by a comedian about a president who is the poster boy for crudeness? Here's why:

Last Tuesday, a West Virginia veteran reporter, Dan Heyman, was handcuffed and arrested in the hallway of the state Capitol for walking beside and repeatedly asking a question of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who refused to answer a simple question: Would domestic violence be considered a pre-existing condition under the Republican bill to overhaul the nations health care system?

Understand, the reporter wasn't asking Price to tell him the square root of 4,750 while standing on his head whistling "Habanera" from "Carmen." No, this was an easy one: Yes or no. Price didn't answer, so Heyman asked again.

Do you think thats right or not, secretary? Heyman asked, according to an audio recording Heyman provided to The Washington Post. You refuse to answer? Tell me no comment.

A male voice is heard telling Heyman, Do not get close to her. Back up." Her was Kellyanne Conway, special counsel to Donald Trump.

Moments later, an officer in the Capitol pulled Heyman aside, handcuffed him and arrested him. Heyman was jailed on the charge of willful disruption of state government processes and released on $5,000 bail. According to The Associated Press, police said Heyman was "aggressively" trying to get past Secret Service agents and yelling questions at Price.

Heyman, who was wearing a press credential on a lanyard around his neck as he questioned Price, didn't disrupt any process. He was arrested for doing his job, one protected by the First Amendment. Arrested and jailed for being a dogged reporter. Arrested for pressing a government official for answers to a health care issue that may impact millions. Charged with willful disruption of state government processes. In a hallway.

Video shows Heyman didn't threaten or impede Price or Conway, nor did he shove or grab at either to further get their attention. No, all he did was point a smartphone in Price's direction to record his response as Price and Conway walked together in a hallway.

For that, the reporter was arrested.

And Price's rather mind-boggling opposition to Heyman having the audacity to question him in the hallway of a statehouse?

"That gentleman was not in a press conference," he said.

No, seriously. He really said that.

The public should applaud repeated questioning by the media of an unresponsive politician. Without it, this country, one in which this president has labeled media that don't agree with him "the enemy of the people," will suffer from the crumbling of democracy by the hammer of government oppression.

Instead, the Clymers of the world believe I should have delivered a scathing condemnation of a late night comedian making a potty-mouth comment about Trump.

The same Trump who bragged on tape in 2005 of being able to grope women because, as he explained, he's "a star."

The same Trump whose sexual assault accusations against him are so extensive they're almost too long to list.

The same Trump who stated on national television of his daughter, Ivanka: "Yeah, she's really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren't happily married and, ya know, her father "

Gutter mouth, indeed, Mr. Clymer. Gutter mouth, indeed.

Read this article:

GIANFICARO: Nothing funny about stopping free speech - Burlington County Times

About 30 attendees including members of the Black Mothers Forum recited prayers and sang patriotic and religious songs on May 13, 2017, to draw attention to the needs of their communities.(Photo: Garrett Mitchell/The Republic)

In honor ofMother's Day, a group of black matriarchs joined together in Phoenix to raise their voices out ofconcernfor the safety of their children.

Led by Janelle Wood, the group of about 30 friends and neighbors on Saturday morning marched west from Phoenix City Hall to the Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza in an effort to spiritually dismantle systems thathistorically "oppress, depress and arrest the black community," the group said.

Along the way, Wood, the creator of the Black Mothers Forum,led participants in prayerfor healing, restoration and renewed relationships with law enforcement, local government and the justice system.

The prayers were followed by religious and patriotic songs as Phoenix police officers escorted the group through the streets of downtown.

Wood started the Black Mothers Forumin August 2016. Several mothers had wanted to jointogether to "stop the bloodshed in our community."

"How would you feel if you watched your child pulled from you and you had no control over it?" Wood asked. "Together, when we become unitedand educated on certain things, we can speak up to things that are causing our children to go to the prison system, get killed, commit suicide or get involved in drugs."

Nikita Ortiz, 49, said their faith will guide them.

"Without faith, there is no hope for change," she said. "With faith, we can put action to everything we hope to achieve. There is a higher power we want to guide us."

In 2014,USA TODAYreported FBI arrest records showblack citizens in more than 1,000 cities were more likely to be arrested than people of other races.

"We're all looking for change. I'm tired of seeing young people getting killed. I'm tired of seeing police officers get killed as well," said 61-year-old Priscilla Krucko. "We all want change and want the violence to stop."

Many of the mothers at Saturday's march mentioned the ongoing court cases involving three Hamilton High School football players who are alleged to have participated in the abuse and sexual assault of teammates in a hazing ritual.

Nathaniel Thomas, 17,is charged as an adult with several felonies,including sexual assault, in connection with the crimes believed to have occurred over a 17-month span.

Two 16-year-old boys were charged as minors followingtheir arrests at the school in March.

Wood, who said she doesn't have firsthand knowledge of the case,said she felt that the coaches, administrators and other adults at the school should also be held responsible for what occurred under their watch. The head coach was subsequently reassigned off campus.

Janelle Wood, 52, led 30 demonstrators in a May 13, 2017, prayer march through downtown Phoenix to "spiritually dismantle" oppressive systems in the black community.(Photo: Garrett Mitchell/The Republic)

"We want to see healing and restoration in that community, especially with those teammates," Wood said. "The Hamilton hazing incident has really impacted the mothers. We want the focus on the adults who had charge over those young people. They need to take the responsibility. They need to be at the adult court system answering to the felonious charges and not the juvenile they have right now ... They were entrusted to keep them safe."

Wood said she and the Black Mothers Forum are attempting to contact the families of the victims and defendants.

"We believe we need to take responsibility and start to speak, get educated and get organized to start a course of action so our children can fulfill their God-given purpose,"Wood said. "We're tired of our black sons killing each other and being killed by police or anybody else. We're tired of the mass incarceration, tired of the school-to-prison pipeline. We've had it."

The group's next meeting is scheduled for May 21 at Phoenix'sBroadway Heritage Neighborhood Resource Center, 2405 E. Broadway Road.

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2qExQk0

Read more:

Phoenix black mothers group marches, prays for end to violence, oppression - AZCentral.com

There is a practice in classical music which I find to be somewhat disingenuous. That practice is overtly politicized concertizing.

As I've written in the past, almost every great opera has a political edge but it is a natural consequence of the story as opposed to, for instance, a concert against the Trump wall. (June 3, Friendship Park, where the border fence meets the Pacific.)

That Trump wall idea is exactly the concert which The Dresdner Sinfoniker is raising money for on Kickstarter. This group of freedom fighters is traveling halfway around the world to improve the border relationship between the United States and Mexico.

I'm calling BS. Perhaps this is just a case of opportunism, but there is a fundamental misconception at play here regarding the arts and social justice. The traditional term for social justice is freedom.

The arts do not provide freedom. Nothing provides freedom. Freedom arrives by a process of reduction. Remove the oppression and there is freedom. No government in the world provides freedom. Some are more repressive than others but every single government, by definition, removes freedom via the institution of laws.

Wait. Dont governments ensure freedoms? No, no they do not.

Yes, the arts can help us to remove our personal oppression which by proxy can lead to less onerous laws writ large at least thats what Plato thought. In other words, micro freedom can lead to macro freedom, but I dont see macro freedom leading to micro freedom. It is my opinion that the arts are most effective within the micro realm.

As an aside, if we were all more diligent with our micro/personal freedom agendas then neither Trump or Hillary would have even been candidates. We would have had better options. But because we keep looking for a macro move to create our personal freedom we keep getting con artists as leaders and its on both sides of the aisle, bitches. Im not taking any sides.

To add gravitas to the situation, members of the Dresdner Sinfoniker are touting their Berlin Wall heritages. It pains me to say this but the arts did not bring down the Berlin Wall and furthermore I think the Berlin Wall was built to keep East Germans in the country not to keep West Germans out. In this scenario Mexico really would be building the wall instead of the Trump administration.

To compare the hypothetical Trump wall to the Iron Curtain orchestrated by Premier Khrushchev sounds just a tad shrill. I am giving this concert a hard pass based on the context, and on the more damning fact that the Dresdner Sinfoniker performed with The Pet Shop Boys.

If we want to build a wall perhaps it should be between orchestras and West End Girls. Perhaps its time to take out the Eurotrash.

See original here:

Time to take out the Eurotrash - San Diego Reader

While people are taking to the streets in Venezuela, Major League Baseball players in the United States are taking to Instagram.

Concerned over the rising strife and economic despair in their home country, more and more players from Venezuela are openly speaking their minds and challenging the government of President Nicols Maduro in absentia.

Led by Pittsburgh Pirates catcher Francisco Cervelli and Kansas City shortstop Alcides Escobar, two players with active Instagram presences, players are posting videos of clashes between police and demonstrators including an armored car running people over while accusing the government of oppression, corruption and a conspiracy to end democracy.

Can we now call it a dictatorship or not yet? said a Cervelli Instagram posting on May 6, adding, in Spanish, in the comment section, They do what they want, they dont care about anyones life and its never their fault. What do we call that?

The next day Cervelli posted a headshot of himself in uniform with SOS in eye black under the right eye and Venezuela under the left.

Latino players have been here before. Cubans in the late 1950s when Fidel Castro came to power. Dominicans in the mid-1960s during the countrys civil unrest. Nicaraguans in the 70s during the Sandinista revolt and Panamanians in the 80s when dictator Manuel Noriega ruled the country.

And while the players today dont necessarily represent the feelings of all the roughly 80 Venezuelans currently on Major League Baseball rosters, they give voice to a growing opposition willing to risk life and limb in a country wracked by widespread hunger, shortages of all kinds andhyperinflation that the International Monetary Fund projects will reach 720 percent by the end of the year. According to Reuters, at least 37 people have died in the unrest since early April.

The country is at a point where no one knows what will happen, said Escobar in a recent interview with La Vida, conducted in Spanish.

The crisis escalated in the first week of May when President Maduro responded to calls for elections with plans to set up a constituent assembly with power to rewrite the constitution.

In a response that stands in stark contrast to that of most professional athletes in this country during the recent United States presidential election or any elections, for that matter Venezuelan athletes from different sports are taking stands and expressing their opinions without worrying about the possibility of reprisals to friends and family back home. This despite the fact that one of the people to die recently in the street demonstrations was Juan Pernalete Lovera, a scholarship basketball player at the Metropolitan University of Caracas.

No, Im not afraid, said Escobar, who alsorunsa baseball academy in his hometown of La Sabana. I dont hide my opinions because Im feeling everything that is happening. It hurts. I was born, raised, grew up in Venezuela. What Im really doing with my social media is supporting (the people). People are really bad off. Im not posting things against anyone in particular, but (saying) that Venezuela deserves a change.

The Cervelli Instagram posting on May 8, a video featuring 13 MLB players from Venezuela, went viral with 30,000 views in the first 10 hours.

It opened with Cervelli standing behind the upside-down Venezuelan flag, a symbol for protesters back home, while wearing a Pittsburgh Pirates cap and shirt. He stated:We are a group of Venezuelan major leaguers. Were talking not as players, but as citizens. As people who love their country, we want to yell out to the world.

And one by one, in brief but unequivocal phrases, without raised voices, made clear what they thought and felt.

No more oppression, said Pittsburgh outfielder Jos Osuna, a rookie outfielder from Trujillo, Venezuela, who debuted in the Major Leagues on April 18.

We want liberty for Venezuela, said Milwaukee shortstop Orlando Arcia, a second-year player from Anaco.

No more oppression in Venezuela, said Milwaukee first baseman Jess Aguilar of Maracay.

Leave us alone, please. Stop the oppression. They are killing us. They are taking away our future. All these kids; all these students, lamented Atlanta outfielder Ender Inciarte, who hails fromthe coastal city of Maracaibo.

Im against the repression in Venezuela, said Cincinnati third baseman Eugenio Surez, a young rising star raised in the southeastern state of Bolvar.

Im against the oppression. No more deaths, added Pittsburgh backup catcher Elas Daz of Maracaibo.

No more oppression. No more dictatorship, said Milwaukee utility player Hernn Prez, a six-year veteran from Villa de Cura.

We want liberty for our country, said Pittsburgh pitcher Felipe Rivero of San Felipe.

We want peace. No more oppression. No more violence, added Escobar, a 10-year veteran considered among the better defensive shortstops in the majors.

Enough oppression. No more violence for Venezuela, said Kansas City catcher Salvador Prez, a four-time All-Star and Gold Glove winner from Valencia who despite having 494,000 followers on Twitter had avoided until now taking a stance in social media.

Enough corruption. Enough injustice. Please, stated San Francisco outfielder Gorkys Hernndez of Guiria.

Im against the oppression in Venezuela. We want liberty, said Cincinnati infielder Jos Peraza of Barinas.

The Instagram posting ended with the phrase Basta Ya, or Enough with Cervelli adding a comment in Spanish: Millions of voices clamor for Venezuela.

Escobar admitted that the fighting makes it difficult to concentrate on baseball.

Yes, its little hard to be here, he said. Because of all the things happening in our country, sometimes we only think only about Venezuela. We have our families in Venezuela and that sometimes makes us think more about our country.

You hear about it wherever you go. You hear about Venezuela, whats going on, that things are hard, that things are bad. But I cant be silent, he said, adding that Im simply expressing my feelings I cant keep quiet.

It should be noted that there are players who are pro-government. In fact, a couple of former All-Stars are openly Chavistas, supporters of Hugo Chvez, the deceased president who served from 1999 to 2013 and whose party still controls the country. Magglio Ordez, a good-hitting outfielder who played for the Chicago White Sox and the Detroit Tigers, is mayor of the municipality of Juan Antonio Sotillo.

And Carlos Guilln, a shortstop who played for Seattle and Detroit, and who was general manager of the National Team for the recent World Baseball Classic, is president of IRDA, the sports ministry for the state of Aragua, which is governed by Tareck El Aissami, Vice President of Venezuela since January.

Other current players, especially the bigger stars, are taking pains to avoid taking sides. Yet, when Detroit first baseman Miguel Cabrera, a two-time MVP, a Triple Crown winner and arguably the best player in the countrys history, spoke recentlywith La Vida, he made clear the killings had to stop.

Its hard right now because we are going through a harsh situation in Venezuela, Cabrera said. Sending messages right now do not mean anything because theyre fighting, fighting for food, fighting for a better life, fighting for everything, for medicine.

What can I say? Cabrera added. People are fighting in the streets, people are dying in the streets I want to say, Somebody got to step up, somebody got the power to step up and say, Finish, its done, done with the situation, because people are dying in Venezuela.

Meanwhile, Cervelli and Escobar are posting videos of President Maduro dancing at an event at the same time demonstrators sporting gas masks and shields are facing off in the streets against the National Guard.

We need a change in government, Escobar said. Elections. Because after 17-18 years with the same government, we havent improved. Regrettably, what we need is a change in government.

These players, unlike many of their peers, feel that words matter. And they are using a more direct channel social media to raise their concerns for the people. For change. And for peace.

Featured image:Juan Barreto / AFP / Getty Images

Go here to see the original:

While people are taking to the streets in Venezuela, Major League Baseball players in the United States are taking ... - La Vida Baseball (blog)

Critically acclaimed author Margaret Atwood predicted so many of the horrors that are coming true to varying degrees under the Trump administration in her prescient 1985 novel The Handmaids Tale, but even she may have had trouble envisioning just how much the novel would become a part of the pop culture zeitgeist. Thanks to the timelessness of Atwoods work and Hulus series based on the novel that was in production even before Donald Trump ramped up his xenophobic campaign of hate more than a year ago, The Handmaids Tale has become a part of the vernacular with memes of Elisabeth Moss as Offred, the lead character in the series, making the rounds, and feminist resistance fighters on Twitter greeting one another saying, Blessed be the fruit. So its no surprise that Saturday Night Live, in its first episode since Hulus series dropped, took The Handmaids Tale to the next logical level in which even the good guys," due to their privilege, are complicit in the oppression of women.

The plot of the novel and series revolve around the totalitarian government of the Republic of Gilead, formed following an ecological disaster and widespread sterility that result in a conservative revolution that strips women of their rights and reduces them to the viability of their reproductive organs. Women who are thought to be able to bear healthy children are consigned to male commanders to bear their children against their will. The men of Gilead in the novel and the series are fairly divided into camps of monstrosity and not to be trusted for fear they are spies for the heads of the government, but SNL offers up a third option the clueless bro-ey guy who cant be bothered to notice what the women are forced to endure.

In the sketch, Cecily Strong steps into Mosss sensible shoes as Offred, while Vanessa Bayer, Sasheer Zamata, and Aidy Bryant play the handmaids who were all once part of a fun girl squad.

In the not too distant future, the world is a dystopia. Women are enslaved. We have no rights and no freedoms, Strong says in voice-over. Forced by an oppressive government to bear children under penalty of death. ... My name is Offred and I intend to survive.

Following Offreds foreboding statement, a couple of good guys, played by host Chris Pine and Mikey Day, happen across the quorum of handmaids who become increasingly terrified that theyll be punished if caught speaking to men.

As the women greet each other saying Blessed be the fruit, may the Lord open, Pines and Days white guys greet the women as if at a frat party, completely oblivious to the flowing red dresses and winged hats the handmaids are forced to wear.

Girl squad, what the frick is up? Day says while Pines bro chides the women. You missed my Cinco de Mayo half birthday, whatd you do? Flake, or what? Pines guy says as the women twitch in terror of being seen.

Because the guys fail to notice the womens situation, they explain it to them. And, as well-intentioned white men of means can tend to do, Pine offers up an unrealistic solution. My dads a lawyer he could help you out. I mean, he mostly does entertainment law, but Im sure he knows someone good, he says. Just drop me an email. When Zamatas handmaid points out that they cant drop an email (because they are someones property and not afforded electronics) hes affronted. OK, sorry for helping, he responds.

SNL does a solid job of nailing the disconnect shown by the white guys, who would not be considered the enemy by everyday standards, but who, when contrasted with a group completely stripped of their humanity, are fairly monstrous in their complicity. The sketch adds a layer to that idea when Alex Moffat shows up, also completely unaware of the womens plight. Once they get him up to speed on their collective situation he asks, Isnt there a protest or something? When one of the handmaids explains that the protests were several years ago, he replies blandly, I meant to go to that.

Since Trump took office and the record-breaking womens marches have put womens rights and feminist issues front and center, SNL has hit it out of the park with a couple of sketches, and the Handmaids Tale sketch is right up there with the mansplaining skit that was timed for the Day Without a Woman protest that occurred the week Scarlett Johansson hosted.

Watch the Handmaids Tale sketch below.

See original here:

Good Guy Bros Are Complicit in Women's Oppression in SNL's 'Handmaid's Tale' - Advocate.com

At one point in "Objects in the Mirror," the gripping story of an African refugee who somehow makes it out of a Guinean refugee camp that held 90,000 hopefuls in a petri dish of malaria, dysentery, cholera and violent government oppression, a young man stands on a bucolic beach and quietly stares at the Indian Ocean.

"It's hard to believe," he says, "that this place exists on the same earth as that other place back home."

It's not the most poetic line to be found in Charles Smith's new play, which opened at the Goodman Theatre on Monday night under the direction of Chuck Smith, and that moved me greatly not just with its unshakable compassion for its dislocated protagonist, but with its firm determination to reflect the agonizing complexities of identity, trust and loyalty that beset every refugee. But that line does sum up with alacrity the absurdity of the situation wrought by theoretically evolved humans.

In one corner of the world, marauding young men with machetes wander around maiming the noncompliant; in another, the sun sets as happy children play quietly in the sand. Whether you get to spend your youth in the one or the other depends entirely on accident of birth. And whether you get out of the less-desirable scenario, should you be unlucky enough to start there as a kid, is dependent not only on your courage and force of personal will, but on many other factors beyond your control.

MOST READ ENTERTAINMENT NEWS THIS HOUR

Does an adult love you? How much? Will that adult risk everything for you? And then even if all of that is in the affirmative, you still have to find a destination, a place where you can resettle. You still have to find a sympathetic home on the macro level of governmental admission, for sure, but also on the micro level of finding kind people to stand with you on that beach. And as we well know, all of that is very much subject to the political whims of the moment.

For our world exists in a constant state of furious debate over how much those who feel like they have struggled for what they have should be willing to give away especially when the potential donors number in the tens, if not the hundreds, of overwhelming millions.

"Objects in the Mirror" is not the obvious play about refugees; it does not merely restate our ethical obligation, nor does it spend time condemning those anxious to shut the gates.

Charles Smith tells his global story with five characters: a teenager named Shedrick Yarkpai (Daniel Kyri), his uncle and surrogate father, John Workolo (Allen Gilmore); Shedrick's cousin Zaza Workolo (Breon Arzell); Shedrick's mother Luopu Workolo (Lily Mojekwu)and an Australian lawyer, Rob Mosher (Ryan Kitley).

And the playwright makes very clear that those who want to help refugees settle in a new country have to pay a price for any attempts at surrogate fatherhood helping refugees who've learned along the way not to trust with ease is far from easy. Young refugees make mistakes, not unlike young native-born Americans. So do older refugees. All of this has to be understood, and yet often is not present in dramatic works on this subject. It is very much part of the landscape here.

There is a downside to Smith's choice the lack of other characters means that the play inevitably falls into the descriptive narrative rather than the present-tense dramatic, especially in the first act. Rather than see things happen to Shedrick and John as they desperately try to make the right choices, we hear them talk about their experiences to each other. It's jarring at first, and bothersome. But as their journey wends along, you also come to see the upside of that choice.

This small cast inhabits Riccardo Hernandez's overwhelmingly vast visual landscape on the Goodman stage a huge but sparse set that you'd most usually associate with epic productions teeming with actors (Smith has written such plays in the past). Here, Hernandez's design, aided by Mike Tutaj's projections and John Culbert's unflinching lights, shrinks and minimizes the nomadic and stateless humans whose story is being told; it is surely an intentional use of such contrast and, at times, is quite dazzlingly effective. It is a visual portrait of jet-fueled dislocation and migration that you do not have to have been a refugee to have felt.

Chuck Smith (no relation to the playwright and a whisperer of an artist), has directed scores of shows; this really is among his best work. He is using an all-Chicago cast and the acting in this production is blisteringly good. Kyri, whom I've been watching for a while in smaller roles and who is making his Goodman debut, is terrific vulnerable, honest and yet also confounding when the script so demands. Add 10 percent more confidence and adolescent force, he'd be a revelation and give the veteran actor Gilmore even more to fight against. In the play, Charles Smith brings up the homophobia that still is routine in Africa and Gilmore is determined to show us that side of a man who has walked through hell and back to get his nephew out of harm's way.

Gilmore invariably forges colorful characters he is often cast in such eclectic, secondary, meandering roles but here he's the flawed, patriarchal force of the drama, and he finds all of the discipline and power he needs. Mojekwu, meanwhile, is unstinting as a mother as imperfect as she is loving, and Arzell's Zaza, to whom life sends a lot of tough blows, is moving, too, in a quiet kind of way.

You never quite know what kind of man Kitley is playing, you never quite trust his kindness, which is the way it should be, for it is the timeless lot of the refugee fleeing oppression. You can't get out of these situations without trusting the self-interested. And it is always wise to assume everyone has an angle, even when they mean only good.

Shedrick Yarkpai, incidentally, really exists. Smith didn't change his name to tell his story. If you see this piece and by all means take a privileged teen or two with you you'll understand why that choice was so important.

Chris Jones is a Tribune critic.

cjones5@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @ChrisJonesTrib

"Objects in the Mirror" - 4 Stars

When: Through June 4

Where: Goodman Theatre, 170 N. Dearborn St.

Running time: 2 hours, 15 minutes

Tickets: $20-$75 at 312-443-3800 or http://www.goodmantheatre.org/objects

MORE FROM THE THEATER LOOP:

Excerpt from:

'Objects in the Mirror': An African teen's place in the world is made grippingly clear - Chicago Tribune

Tiananmen Square Massacre? The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence, an e-book by Australian-based author Wei Ling Chua.

Wei Ling Chuas E-book can be downloaded here.

Excerpt from Kim Petersens book review:

Chua has pulled together the western media threads, the disinformation, the recantations, and the biases in a campaign to demonize China a fast-rising challenger to the hegemony of western capitalism. It is a must-read book for people wanting a perspective outside the controlled negative western media portrayal.

After reading Tiananmen Square Massacre?: The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence, the second book in the The Art of Media Disinformation is Hurting the World and Humanity series by Chua I immediately knew I had to read the first book in the series. Kim Petersen, 9th June 2014

Excerpt from Preface:

The so-called Tiananmen Square Massacre is one of the most misleading events the US government and the Western media have used to demonize the Chinese government each and every year since 1989. There was ample silent evidence in the images produced by the Western media that told the story of a highly restrained Chinese government facing a protest similar to those in the West at various stages of their economic development.

However, the West capitalized on the situation in 1989 to fuel the publics anger, intending to overthrow a CCP government.

How the Western media lied about a massacre given the silent evidence that suggests otherwise, and the moral implications of Western powers making use of common pain and dissatisfaction within an economic cycle of a society to justify the overthrowing of governments across the globe are issues that this book is structured to explore.

The concept of good governance, human rights and freedom is a complex one. Incidents of government crackdowns on protesters are as frequent in the West as anywhere else. The only difference is that the West has a highly sophisticated, well-funded, well-established and well-controlled media industry run by a handful of big corporations with an agenda. Without their agenda-based support, victims of government oppression in the West will hardly ever be noticed by the wider Western community and the world.

To prove such a point, I have included in my analysis the history of protest management in the US and the creative techniques used by the US authorities against the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

One should always bear in mind that the concepts of good governance, human rights and freedom can only be objectively assessed through the power of comparison. The truth can only be found through filtering the indoctrinated messages propagated by the mainstream media. It is important for one to always think for themselves, and to observe the logic and images beyond the media rhetoric.

Can you tell whats wrong with the following image and narration?

Tiananmen Square Massacre?:The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence

by Wei Ling Chua

Click here to download the book.

Tiananmen Square Massacre? The Power of Words vs. Silent Evidence, an e-book by Australian-based author Wei Ling Chu

See original here:

The 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre? What Happened? - Center for Research on Globalization

There are approximately 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today. Thats about 15,000 chances for an accident to happen or some suicidal madman to start a fiasco that will render the Earth uninhabitable (or nearly so) for humanity. Even a single detonation, without any retaliation, could kill millions of people.

This is an extinction threat. A threat of mass, mass violence. Surely, the goal of avoiding such extreme violence, the kind with the potential to cause the extinction of humanity, ought to transcend all other differences of opinion.

Fortunately, we can wage nonviolence against nuclear weapons. One of the strategies we are using is to identify nuclear weapons producing corporations, and the banks and other financial institutions investing in those nuclear weapons producers. Then we boycott and divest from those banks and other financial institutions. Nonviolent campaigns actually have twice the effectiveness of violent campaigns: The more violence, the less revolution.

This is just as well, as many of us believe that its impossible or at least unlikely to achieve good results by violent means anyway. As stated in a green Anarchist Cookbook, that means determine endsthe use of horrifying means guarantees horrifying ends. To quote Leo Tolstoy:

Some persons maintain that freedom from violence, or at least a great diminution of it, may be gained by the oppressed forcibly overturning the oppressive government and replacing it by a new one under which such violence and oppression will be unnecessary, but they deceive themselves and others, and their efforts do not better the position of the oppressed, but only make it worse. Their conduct only tends to increase the despotism of government. Their efforts only afford a plausible pretext for government to strengthen their power.

Even if we admit that under a combination of circumstances specially unfavorable for the government, as in France in 1870, any government might be forcibly overturned and the power transferred to other hands, the new authority would rarely be less oppressive than the old one; on the contrary, always having to defend itself against its dispossessed and exasperated enemies, it would be more despotic and cruel, as has always been the rule in all revolutions.

While socialists and communists regard the individualistic, capitalistic organization of society as an evil, and the anarchists regard as an evil all government whatever, there are royalists, conservatives, and capitalists who consider any socialistic or communistic organization or anarchy as an evil, and all these parties have no means other than violence to bring men to agreement. Whichever of these parties were successful in bringing their schemes to pass, must resort to support its authority to all the existing methods of violence, and even invent new ones.

The oppressed would be another set of people, and coercion would take some new form; but the violence and oppression would be unchanged or even more cruel, since hatred would be intensified by the struggle, and new forms of oppression would have been devised. So it has always been after all revolutions and all attempts at revolution, all conspiracies, and all violent changes of government. Every conflict only strengthens the means of oppression in the hands of those who happen at a given moment to be in power.

[]

And of this mass of men so brutalized as to be ready to promise to kill their own parents, the social reformersconservatives, liberals, socialists, and anarchistspropose to form a rational and moral society. What sort of moral and rational society can be formed out of such elements? With warped and rotten planks you cannot build a house, however you put them together. And to form a rational moral society of such men is just as impossible a task. They can be formed into nothing but a herd of cattle, driven by the shouts and whips of the herdsmen. As indeed they are.

Even your own philosopher Mr. Rothbard found pragmatic reason to support nonviolent revolution, In the coming period, then, it becomes especially important for radicals in the anti-war movement to avoid as the plague any stigma of violence, which would reverse the process of radicalizing the liberal masses, and give Nixon the opportunity to move unopposed into open fascism.

Nuclear weapons producers include: Boeing, Honeywell International, Lockheed Martin, Airbus Group, Aecom, Northrop Grumman, Leonardo-Finmeccanica, Bechtel, Fluor, Orbital ATK, BAE Systems, Raytheon, Safran, General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Jacobs Engineering, Textron, Thales, Moog, Serco, BWX Technologies, Larsen & Toubro, Aerojet Rocketdyne, CH2M Hill, Engility, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, and Walchandnagar Industries.

The top 10 banks and other financial institutions investing in nuclear weapons, based on the data we have available, are: BlackRock, Capitol Group, Vanguard, State Street, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Evercore, and Goldman Sachs.

All of these top 10 banks and financial institutions are US-based companies. To quote the specifics:

BlackRock (United States) owns or manages shares of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 32,032 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding shares at the most recent available filing date are included. [] BlackRock (United States) owns or manages bonds of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 837 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding bonds at the most recent available filing date are included.

Capital Group (United States) owns or manages shares of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 28,677 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding shares at the most recent available filing date are included.

Vanguard (United States) owns or manages shares of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 26,493 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding shares at the most recent available filing date are included. [] Vanguard (United States) owns or manages bonds of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 1,450 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding bonds at the most recent available filing date are included.

State Street (United States) provided loans for an estimated amount of US$ 352 million to the nuclear weapon companies []. The table shows all loans closed since January 2013 or maturing after August 2016. [] State Street (United States) owns or manages shares of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 27,374 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding shares at the most recent available filing date are included. [] State Street (United States) owns or manages bonds of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 54 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding bonds at the most recent available filing date are included.

Bank of America (United States) provided loans for an estimated amount of US$ 10,048 million to the nuclear weapon companies []. The table shows all loans closed since January 2013 or maturing after August 2016. [] Bank of America (United States) underwrote share issuances for an estimated amount of US$ 4,114 million to the nuclear weapon companies since January 2013 [] Bank of America (United States) underwrote bond issuances for an estimated amount of US$ 4,216 million to the nuclear weapon companies since January 2013 [] Bank of America (United States) owns or manages shares of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 6,646 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding shares at the most recent available filing date are included.

JPMorgan Chase (United States) provided loans for an estimated amount of US$ 12,569 million to the nuclear weapon companies []. The table shows all loans closed since January 2013 or maturing after August 2016. [] JPMorgan Chase (United States) underwrote share issuances for an estimated amount of US$ 406 million to the nuclear weapon companies since January 2013 [] JPMorgan Chase (United States) underwrote bond issuances for an estimated amount of US$ 3,629 million to the nuclear weapon companies since January 2013 [] JPMorgan Chase (United States) owns or manages shares of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 5,514 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding shares at the most recent available filing date are included. [] JPMorgan Chase (United States) owns or manages bonds of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 60 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding bonds at the most recent available filing date are included.

Citigroup (United States) provided loans for an estimated amount of US$ 12,989 million to the nuclear weapon companies []. The table shows all loans closed since January 2013 or maturing after August 2016. [] Citigroup (United States) underwrote share issuances for an estimated amount of US$ 348 million to the nuclear weapon companies since January 2013 [] Citigroup (United States) underwrote bond issuances for an estimated amount of US$ 4,184 million to the nuclear weapon companies since January 2013 [].

Wells Fargo (United States) provided loans for an estimated amount of US$ 6,302 million to the nuclear weapon companies []. The table shows all loans closed since January 2013 or maturing after August 2016. [] Wells Fargo (United States) underwrote bond issuances for an estimated amount of US$ 2,007 million to the nuclear weapon companies since January 2013 [] Wells Fargo (United States) owns or manages shares of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 3,598 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding shares at the most recent available filing date are included. [] Wells Fargo (United States) owns or manages bonds of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 31 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding bonds at the most recent available filing date are included.

Evercore (United States) owns or manages shares of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 10,843 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding shares at the most recent available filing date are included.

Goldman Sachs (United States) provided loans for an estimated amount of US$ 3,495 million to the nuclear weapon companies []. The table shows all loans closed since January 2013 or maturing after August 2016. [] Goldman Sachs (United States) underwrote share issuances for an estimated amount of US$ 1,491 million to the nuclear weapon companies since January 2013 [] Goldman Sachs (United States) underwrote bond issuances for an estimated amount of US$ 3,599 million to the nuclear weapon companies since January 2013 [] Goldman Sachs (United States) owns or manages shares of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 1,249 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding shares at the most recent available filing date are included. [] Goldman Sachs (United States) owns or manages bonds of the nuclear weapon companies for an amount of US$ 8 million []. Only holdings of 0.50% or more of the outstanding bonds at the most recent available filing date are included.

Here is the complete 2016 report, including all of the nuclear weapons investors we have data on, along with recommended nuclear weapons-free banking options for folks residing in the United Kingdom, Italy, or the Netherlands. You can find links to a number of country-specific Halls of Shame here. It is best to avoid all of the banks and other financial institutions listed in the Hall of Shame, but at the very least try to avoid the top 10. Possible alternatives include credit unions or small local banks not listed on the report. Its probably a good idea to write the pro-nuclear bank a letter explaining why you are divesting from them.

I realize the idea of a credit union may be distasteful to libertarians. Even so, consider how much worse it would be to blow up the world. Unless you wish to bring capitalist banks to cockroaches, surely avoiding pro-nuclear-weapon banks should be the priority. One of your own libertarian philosophers, Karl Hess, pointed out the impossibility of remaining neutral in situations such as these (short of not having a bank or credit union account at all), The impossibility of simple neutrality in this situation should be apparent. You cannot just say a pox on both of your houses because, unfortunately, you happen actually to live in one of the houses. By that act alone neutrality is made impossibleexcept for those very rare few who actually can withdraw totally, to dream out their isolation so long as, and only so long as, the unleashed dogs of the system, against which they have refused to struggle, are not set upon them.

The simple act of boycotting banks and other financial institutions is far less risky than the risk taken by green anarchist Henry David Thoreau, who while not as committed to nonviolence as most modern greens, went to jail for tax resistance in protest of the Mexican-American war, which was threatening to expand slavery into Mexico. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. (We note that Thoreaus description of civil disobedience as a duty is rather reminiscent of Stoicism, see Epictetus for example.) And its much less risky than the risks taken by many modern greens, who are willing to risk things such as tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons in freezing weather, and even death.

To quote Chase Iron Eyes:

Who are we to abandon our struggle? Who are we to forsake our ancestors sacrifices? Who are we to forsake the 550 people who have been arrested? Who are we to forsake those who have been shot with rubber bullets, those who have had their limbs blown open by law enforcement explosives? Who are we to forsake whove had their lives put in immediate risk by the water cannons in sub-freezing temperatures? Who are we not to stand up for our treaty rights, our human rights, our civil rights, and our constitutional rights, which are being brutally violated by the corporate state, by the police state. This isnt just a fight for our liberation, and the fight for our liberation is enough, enough on its own, but this is a fight for your constitutional rights, your human rights. This is a fight for a true dignified life. What youre asking us to do when you ask us to leave, is youre asking us to return to a state of imposed poverty. Youre asking us to return to a state of oppression, legal, economic, and political oppression, thats 500 years in the making. But we are also a new generation, with the tools, the mind, the strength, the fortitude, and the dignity, to dissect the institutions that this society has used to erase us, to try to make us feel ashamed of ourselves, and to try to disconnect us from our connections with the land, with the water. Thats why we cant leave. Whats happening here is an international monument, an international prayer monument, a living monument that lives in each and every one of us within which a sacred motion is at work, in every molecule of water on this earth. What we are saying is that we cant live like this anymore, and everybody whos here, everybody who has committed themselves to this struggle is here in love and compassion, bravery, and we are answering to our spiritual nature. Theres nothing to fear from us. We are not violent and we are unarmed, and because of that, we are stronger than any weapon, any bomb, any institution which seeks to brutalize our struggle. We will win this. This is how we win a peaceful revolution. But peace is not passive. Brothers and sisters, peace does not back down. Peace is power. And what you see here, in this whole camp is power, the power to connect with each other, and rely on each other.

If anything, banking with an institution that does not invest in nuclear weapons is probably safer. We are not demanding martyrdom here.

Your own libertarian philosophers, Mr. Rothbard and Mr. Childs, have written on the importance of nuclear disarmament and avoidance of war.

From Mr. Rothbards The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 25, pages 190-191:

It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one. But a particularly libertarian reply is that while the bow and arrow, and even the rifle, can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even conventional aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification. This is why the old clich no longer holds that it is not the arms but the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner. Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. Indeed, of all the aspects of liberty, such disarmament becomes the highest political good that can be pursued in the modem world. For just as murder is a more heinous crime against another man than larceny so mass murder-indeed murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human survival itself-is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit. And that crime is now all too possible. Or are libertarians going to wax properly indignant about price controls or the income tax, and yet shrug their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass murder?

From Mr. Childs Review of Hospers Libertarianism:

Classical liberalism failed largely because of the pitfalls of utilitarianism, evolutionism, and its failure to confront in bold and uncompromising terms the growing militarism of the turn of the century. I think that this is the worst threat to libertarianism as well.

Mr. Rothbard, For a New Liberty page 334, the very nature of modern nuclear warfare rests upon the annihilation of civilians.

Mr. Rothbard, For a New Liberty page 347:

Many libertarians are uncomfortable with foreign policy matters and prefer to spend their energies either on fundamental questions of libertarian theory or on such domestic concerns as the free market or privatizing postal service or garbage disposal. Yet an attack on war or a warlike foreign policy is of crucial importance to libertarians. There are two important reasons. One has become a clich, but is all too true nevertheless: the overriding importance of preventing a nuclear holocaust. To all the long-standing reasons, moral and economic, against an interventionist foreign policy has now been added the imminent, ever-present threat of world destruction. If the world should be destroyed, all the other problems and all the other ismssocialism, capitalism, liberalism, or libertarianismwould be of no importance whatsoever. Hence the prime importance of a peaceful foreign policy and of ending the nuclear threat.

Mr. Rothbard, For a New Liberty page 366:

Since it is in the interest of all people, and even of all State rulers, not to be annihilated in a nuclear holocaust, this mutual self-interest provides a firm, rational basis for agreeing upon and carrying out a policy of joint and worldwide general and complete disarmament of nuclear and other modern weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Rothbard, For a New Liberty pages 368-369:

To which we might add that anyone who wishes is entitled to make the personal decision of better dead than Red or give me liberty or give me death. What he is not entitled to do is to make these decisions for others, as the prowar policy of conservatism would do. What conservatives are really saying is: Better them dead than Red, and give me liberty or give them deathwhich are the battle cries not of noble heroes but of mass murderers. In one sense alone is Mr. Buckley correct: in the nuclear age it is more important to worry about war and foreign policy than about demunicipalizing garbage disposal, as important as the latter may be. But if we do so, we come ineluctably to the reverse of the Buckleyite conclusion. We come to the view that since modern air and missile weapons cannot be pinpoint-targeted to avoid harming civilians, their very existence must be condemned. And nuclear and air disarmament becomes a great and overriding good to be pursued for its own sake, more avidly even than the demunicipalization of garbage.

Granted, Mr. Rothbard and Mr. Childs leaned much further in the direction of pacifism than many modern libertarians, but even so, surely the important matter of not destroying the world should be sufficient cause for solidarity between greens and libertarians on this issue, regardless of our other differences?

Like Loading...

Read the original:

Why Anti-War Libertarians Should Join Greens in Boycotting and Divesting from Nuclear Weapons - Being Libertarian