Category Archives: Government Oppression

A Two-Part Series

-an excerpt from The Veterinarians Wife, A Memoir by Susie Berta, edited/abridged for this column

PART TWO

On May 30, 1988, our troupe of traveling musicians boarded a bus at our hotel in West Berlin and headed to Checkpoint Charlie the one place foreign visitors could cross through the Wall from west to east and back again. After passing through the American guard post, we were stopped at the East German guard post. Dour, well-armed East Berlin border guards scanned the underside of our bus with a mirror attached to a long pole. Then, they boarded to collect our passports and hold them until our departure.

Once through that ordeal, we were cleared to go and found ourselves in East Berlin a starkly different place from colorful, modern West Berlin. The Wall was now behind us, but it had an energy, like a constant itch that got under everyones skin and stayed there a harsh, ever-present reminder of the continual oppression and captivity of the German people living within its confines.

East Berlin was a disorienting time warp: Everything was outdated, old-fashioned; the buildings were all a dull, industrial monochrome; the cars were small, tan boxes on wheels, squared-off two-door sedans called Trabants. East Berlin was all a depressing gray scape.

But the Schauspielhaus the venue where we would sing of brotherhood, unity and joy was different, incongruous in fact. It had just been newly renovated, and its new interior of red velvet, white marble and crystal chandeliers was as plush and opulent as any royal palace in Europe.

And we were sold out.

The audience was filled with people who had a deep love of music, an even deeper sense of desperation and a hunger for freedom. They came to hear our music and our message.

They most certainly were not free to leave with us, as they were trapped behind an immovable, fortified concrete wall 90 miles long encircling the city, lined with 302 functioning watch towers, each occupied by armed guards with shooting orders. It was a wall that was two walls, separated by a ribbon of space about a 100 yards wide known as a death strip running the entire length. The death strip was furnished with zig-zag barriers that looked like thick letter XXs lined up in rows, and it was paved with raked sand or gravel, rendering footprints easy to notice. It offered no cover, and most importantly, it presented clear fields of fire for the Wall guards.

We took our places on stage, the chorus so close to the audience that we could almost reach out and shake hands. We could see the threads in the buttons on their shirts, the lines in their faces, the colors of their eyes and the tears that flowed from them as we sang to them in their language. They heard the message of unity: Freude! (Joy!) and Alle Menschen werden Brder (When All Men Are Brothers) without knowing whether they would ever be free.

After the final, rousing notes, and chill bumps rippled over our arms in exhilaration as the tiny hairs stood at attention on the backs of our sweaty necks, the audience jumped to their feet, cheering wildly and clapping with arms raised high.

They wept openly. And so did we. Not a dry eye in the house not in the audience or on the stage. The applause soon fell into that distinct, rhythmic European-unison clap. These folks were tireless in their appreciation and continued their applause while Mr. Shaw took bow after bow, finally leading the concertmaster from the stage. Even after the stage was completely vacated, the clapping continued. It echoed backstage and reverberated down the staircase, all the way through the long hallway of the basement to our dressing rooms.

After the chorus boarded the bus, the guards returned our passports at Checkpoint Charlie. Turning left onto Friedrichstrasse, we were free.

Leaving those people behind was painful. The day and the entire experience moved us into reverent, unanimous silence. Perhaps we had provided them a bit of freedom after all, a kind of liberty of the soul that only music and human compassion can manage. None of us knew then that it would be only a little over a year until the Wall would come down, and they would have their freedom after all.

We would also have no way of knowing that the very next day, the Orly airplane crash anniversary would still have the last eerie word.

On June 3, shortly after noon, we boarded a chartered Air France flight, just as the Atlanta folks had done in 1962. No one spoke aloud of the significance and the similarities around this date and time, but they were inescapable. The Orly spirits were with us, and they were restless. The differences were several, of course: We were at Charles De Gaulle Airport, not Orly Airfield; we were flying to Cardiff, not Atlanta; and in hindsight we all survived the trip.

But not without incident.

At 12:30 p.m. Cardiff time, we landed safely, and all breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Then it happened.

As we taxied toward the terminal, the wing tip rolled past the building and sheared off a couple rows of bricks, clean as a whistle.

The chill we felt disembarking that plane was more than just a reaction to the cold, rainy day. We had been duly reminded. The Orly ghosts were present and stirring. We were hushed for a moment, in reverence for those who had gone before us and in gratitude for everything that had come after them.

Those who visit The Woodruff Arts Center in Atlanta today to attend a concert, play or to enjoy an art exhibition may sit outside on the circle of stone seats surrounding the Rodin sculpture, The Shade (LOmbre). Perhaps they will eat an ice cream cone, sketch, nap, rest or play and take the time to read the memorial plaques installed there.

They should know that when it was built in 1968, the building was known as the Atlanta Memorial Arts Center now known as the Woodruff Arts Center after its major benefactor.

They should know that it was built as a memorial to the people of Atlanta who died on June 3, 1962. They should know that The Shade was a memorial gift from the government and the people of France.

When visitors find the quiet circle and read the names on the plaques, it is possible to feel the presence of the benevolent ghosts who linger there. They are the people the citizens, the families, the children who in death galvanized Atlantas arts community, igniting the cultural push Atlanta needed to move forward and imbue the arts with new life.

Longtime Newnan resident Susie Berta has many creative pursuits, including music, art, writing, cooking, gardening, entertaining and decorating. She is now pursuing her passion for writing and recently published her memoir, The Veterinarians Wife. She can be reached at susie.berta@gmail.com .

Go here to see the original:

Orly and other ghosts - Newnan Times-Herald

Hong Kong, June 4 (ANI): China is intent on erasing the memories of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 and has banned public commemorations on the 33rd anniversary of the countrys most dubious instance of State oppression.

The draconian National Security Law will be used to crack down on anyone showing public dissent or remonstration or organising memorial functions on the occasion.

With all dissent smothered on mainland China, the communist government is focusing its energies on the autonomous region of Hong Kong where it is worried pro-democracy sentiments may surface while remembering the thousands of people who were gunned down by Chinese soldiers following explicit orders of the communist government to disperse a large crowd of students and activists who had gathered at Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

For the first time, even the Catholic church has decided not to provoke the communist police. The Hong Kong Catholic Social Communications Office, the communications department of the Diocese of Hong Kong has announced that there will be no memorial Mass on the massacres anniversary.

For the last one week, the media covering Hong Kong is unanimous in thinking that they will see more state-sponsored Chinese oppression against any event to remember the Tiananmen Square event, which exposes Beijings authoritarian and repressive style of governance.

The government has in the last two years systematically progressed towards cessation of all dissent on the anniversary date of June 4. In 2020 it brought in the draconian security law. Then it said protests are anti-national and would attract the provisions of the security law.

In December 2021, it went a step ahead and removed the pillar of shame, an iconic memorial dedicated to the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. The memorial designed by Danish sculptor Jens Galschiot symbolised the ruthless killings committed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) in June 1989 when thousands of students gathered in central Beijing demanding political reforms and democracy.

The same month, the Chinese University of Hong Kong tore down the Goddess of Democracy statue, a replica of the one created by protesters in Beijing during the Tiananmen protests. A museum set up in Hong Kong in memory of the Tiananmen victims was forcibly closed down.

And this year, it has ordered that all dissent shall remain buried. The only opposition to the communist decree is from Taiwan where, according to media reports, a scaled-down replica of the Pillar of Shame statue honouring the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre will be unveiled at a commemorative vigil in Taipei, Taiwan on June 4 evening.

In effect, nowhere in China will the massacre be allowed to be remembered on its anniversary this year. Taiwan will be the only exception as it stands up to the anti-democratic orders of the Chinese government.

Over three decades since the mass killing, the day haunts the Communist Party of China. Soldiers of the PLA army ruthlessly killed the Tiananmen Square protesters through a bloody crackdown after CCP imposed martial law in June 1989 to forcefully end the months-long protest. At least 10,000 civilians, mostly students, were killed by the PLA.

The incident led to internal condemnation of China and till today, the countrys claims about respecting human rights is always suspect. The country was virtually isolated by the global community. It shook the communist leadership so much that the then top leader, Deng Xiaoping, used the occasion to purge several party leaders for creating the chaos. They were the scapegoats. Deng also used the occasion to tighten the CCPs grip over the country.

The CCP tried to protect the Tiananmen protests as the result of provocative actions by counter-revolutionaries. However, everybody saw through the fake propaganda.

Since then, the government has hyped the propaganda in the run-up to every anniversary of the killings. Obviously, the propaganda failed to work and that is probably why the government has in 2022 decided to ban all ceremonies. The government asked the Hong Kong police to issue warnings to residents to desist from organising any memorial functions. It also warned that sharing social posts describing their mood on the occasion of the anniversary could be grounds for incitement.

The police also forced the disbanding of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements, the original organiser of the Victoria Park vigil. The police started probing whether the Alliance was an agent of foreign forces, forcing it to disintegrate.

This years June 4 that is what the Tiananmen Square Vigil is known in Hong Kong will be the first occasion when Hong Kong will fall silent, without any protests or commemoration. That will be the beginning of a new chapter of CCP aggression against the island which, in 1989, played a crucial role in organising the escape for the Tiananmen activists who survived the 1989 massacre. (ANI)

This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

See more here:

China erasing Tiananmen memories fearing resurrection - ThePrint

In a major speech last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken elaborated on the Biden administrations emerging China policy. During those remarks, Blinken explained how U.S. policy will focus on efforts to shape the strategic environment around Beijing. That is, to compete withrather than directly confrontChina across the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological landscape over the next decade.

Through the specific lens of technology competition, Blinken noted that Beijing has perfected mass surveillance within China and exported that technology to more than eightycountries. Signaling American disapproval of how Chinas technological exports are bolstering Beijings efforts to dominate markets and normalize the use of surveillance, big data, and analytics to fuel oppression and stifle dissent, Blinken argued that the United States and its like-minded partners envision a future where technology is used to lift people up, not suppress them.

But how far is the United States willing to go to confront Chinese technology firms it accuses of enabling human rights violations both within China and abroad? If recent reports prove accurate, we may soon find out. In early May, the Financial Times reported that the Biden administration is considering adding Hikvisionthe worlds largest producer of video surveillance equipment and servicesto the United States most punitive sanctions regime, the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.

Hikvision may be less familiar than other Chinese global technology giants (think, Huawei, ZTE, and TikTok) subject to U.S. government scrutiny and action in recent years, but it is already under varying levels of U.S. financial sanctions targeting the companys human rights record and threats to national security. Despite the significant existing constraints on Hikvisions ability to conduct business with U.S. companies and the U.S. government, an SDN listing would mark a substantial escalation. This escalation would not only carry significant global ramifications for the worlds largest supplier of video surveillance products but would also intensify Sino-U.S. technology competition.

Designation under the SDN freezes a targets assets and subjects any U.S. person or organization conducting business with the sanctioned entity to potential penalties. Traditionally, SDN designations are used against individuals and organizations targeted under U.S. counterterrorism, counternarcotics, or counterproliferation programs. However, 2016s Global Magnitsky Act granted the executive branch broader authority to designate individuals and entities engaged in human rights violations and corruption anywhere in the world.

The Biden administration widely utilized this Global Magnitsky, or GLOMAG, designation during its first year in office, using the authority to sanction individuals and organizations across the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Asia. This use of the GLOMAG authority to confront human rights abusers and corrupt officials abroad is consistent with the Biden administrations emerging national security strategy, specifically the emphasis it places on promoting democracy and countering international corruption.

Hikvision enters the picture in connection to numerous reports of its involvement in mass surveillance of ethnic Uyghurs, and its role in enabling what the U.S. government now describes as a genocide in Chinas Xinjiang province. Ubiquitous video surveillance paired with artificial intelligence capabilities is a cornerstone of the repression of ethnic Uyghurs in Xinjiang, with a former detained citizen claiming that many surveillance cameras in Xinjiang were branded with Hikvision logos. In 2018, Hikvision reportedly developed and marketed software with a so-called minority recognition function designed to differentiate between Uyghurs and Han Chinese. As Jon Bateman recently wrote in his assessment of the potential impact of an SDN designation, Hikvision arguably has the worst human rights record of any globally recognizable Chinese tech company.

Part of the story, therefore, is that the United States may be seeking to exercise the full scope of its authorities under the Global Magnitsky Act: exerting maximum pressure on any individual or organization responsible for building and selling technologies that are used to commit human rights violations. From this perspective, sanctions are a tool for promoting the United States techno-democracy agenda. In fact, Hikvision would not be the first Chinese technology company accused of enabling human rights abuses to be targeted with an SDN designation. That distinction belongs to the Chinese firm CEIEC, which was sanctioned in 2020 for providing Venezuelas Maduro regime with a commercial version of Chinas Great Firewall.

But, while CEIEC is a Chinese technology with an international presence, its similarities to Hikvision largely end there. Hikvision is a global market leader, operating in more than 180 countries across the defense, public safety, commercial, and personal security marketplaces. It retains an extensive presence in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western nations. And it isby farChinas largest artificial intelligence firm. An SDN designation for a global technology company this large and deeply integrated into American cities, schools, hospitals, and homes will be painful and costly. More than 100 U.S. municipalities invested in Hikvision technology in recent years, even as the federal government undertook a Congressionally-directed divestment from the company. If Hikvisions business activities in the United States were fully blocked, the future of these systems would be immediately cast into doubt. Even the delivery of critical software patches or firmware updates would require a license from the Department of Treasury.

Outside of the United States, the dominance of U.S. financial institutions and dollar-denominated transactions could almost certainly weaken Hikvisions global sales and its ability to secure access to suppliers. Approximately 25 percent of Hikvisions sales come from abroad, and, without any formal announcement by the U.S. government, Hikvision has still incurred substantial economic losses. Hikvisions stock has lost more than 20 percent of its value since the Financial Times story broke, erasing $15 billion in market capitalization.

One should not underestimate how important Hikvision is to Chinas broader ambitions to lead the world in artificial intelligence by 2030. As noted, Hikvision is Chinas largest artificial intelligence firm, and it is one of Chinas artificial intelligence national championsa highly meaningful designation that reflects the importance of the company to Chinas global technology ambitions.

Based on translations of recent articles and speeches by Chinese academics and government officials, a potential U.S. decision to escalate sanctions against Hikvision would merely confirm the prevailing sentiment in Beijing. As one prominent Chinese scholar wrote earlier this year in an assessment of the Biden administrations China strategy: The high-tech R&D and cutting-edge manufacturing fields have actually become the main battlefields of the United States new containment strategy against China. Through this lens, both Chinese academics and government officials have repeatedly characterized U.S. efforts to pursue technology partnerships with like-minded partners and alliesincluding the Quad, AUKUS, and the U.S.-E.U. Technology and Trade Councilas thinly veiled efforts to block China from pursuing its legitimate economic interests. As Xi Jinping claimed in his remarks at the World Economic Forum, such efforts are focused on building exclusive yards with high walls, which [overstretch] the concept of national security to hold back economic and technological advances of other countries, and of fanning ideological antagonism and politicizing or weaponizing economic, scientific and technological issues.

This is all to say that, regardless of the ultimate decision on sanctions for Hikvision, the battle lines between Washington and Beijing on these issues are drawn. Washington has announced its intention to promote consensus-based, values-aligned technology standards, and Beijing is continuing to hone and amplify its messaging, warning against those wearing a democratic vest and arriving as a teacher to swindle and cheat on all sides. There is legitimate concern that an escalating series of reciprocal sanctions would leave both sides wounded, accelerating a technological decoupling to an unsustainable pace. China recently introduced its own Unreliable Entity List, which would target entities endangering Chinas national sovereignty, security, or development interests, but it has yet to exercise this authority.

Despite China and the United States signaling their views quite clearly, the bigger challenge in the global struggle over the role of technology in society is that it is not binary. It is not one purely defined by democracies and autocracies, or by individual superpowers like the United States and China. The arena where norms and standards will ultimately be determined will be heavily influenced by the hedging middle. The uncomfortable truth for the United States is that states, even democratic ones, want to harness the benefits of emerging technology and data analytics. These capabilities, of which AI-enabled video surveillance is merely one, promise to keep our cities safe, improve public health outcomes, optimize government services, and enhance national defense. However, as the mounting evidence in Xinjiang underscores, the same technologies that offer so much potential are susceptible to abuse. So, while the United States may view sanctions against Hikvision as a necessary measure to hold those enabling human rights abuses in Xinjiang to account, they will not answer a more important question for the 180 countries where Hikvision technology is in-use: what comes next?

What differentiates a democracy-affirming producer of video surveillance technology from a company like Hikvision? Will the United States make this distinction based on a companys customers or its technology? Looking at the hedging middlewhich is comprised of states pursuing their own sovereign interests untethered to global norms dictated by Washington or Beijinghow would a financially crippled Hikvision affect their calculus? Will it mean they are forced to pay higher prices or completely rebuild systems currently based on Hikvision equipment?

Follow this link:

Is the U.S. Ready to Escalate Technological Competition with China? - The National Interest Online

BUNER: Former prime minister and Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chairman Imran Khan on Friday alleged that top leaders of the ruling coalition in the centre Nawaz Sharif of the PML-N and Asif Zardari of the PPP wanted to eliminate him from politics over high treason.

The two most corrupt [former rulers of the country], who looted the country for 30 years, parked their illicit wealth in foreign banks and were convicted by the courts, are trying to get rid of me through a case of high treason. I want to make it clear to them that I am not the one, who will surrender to the imported government or any superpower, the former premier told a gathering of his partys workers here on Friday.

Provincial Chief Minister Mahmood Khan, former defence minister Pervez Khattak, aide to the former prime minister Shahbaz Gill and local MNAs and MPAs also attended the event.

Mr Imran alleged that leaders of the Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif-led coalition wanted to get corruption cases against them quashed.

PTI chief says wont surrender to imported govt

They (Zardari and Sharif) want to introduce a system of governance, where only small thieves are punished, while the big thieves get off scot-free. We, the patriotic citizens, have to fight against them and that system, he said.

The former prime minister also accused the federal government of planning to rig the next general polls with the connivance of the Election Commission of Pakistan.

He said the imported government had subjected PTI workers to unprecedented oppression during their recent Azadi March on Islamabad.

Such cruelty hasnt happened even in the India-held Kashmir. I found out about it the day after our protest ended, he said.

Mr Imran said the people should rise against that oppression and if they didnt do it, their children would suffer.

He said he called off the Azadi March after consulting his lawyers over the Supreme Court directions about it.

The former prime minister said he had never been scared of the corrupt and would prefer rendering his life to yielding to them.

He said India, Israel and the US were opposed to a strong Pakistan and therefore, they hatched a conspiracy against his government to weaken the country.

Mr Imran said the Indian TV channels and newspapers celebrated his ouster as the prime minister. He claimed that the ruling Sharif family had strong ties with the Indian business community.

The former prime minister said the International Monetary Fund had pressured the last PTI government to increase oil prices but instead, the latter reduced those rates to the peoples relief.

Our [PTI] government protected the people from inflation but the slaves of the United States, who are now ruling the country, hurled petrol bomb at them by hiking prices, he said.

Mr Imran said the imported government was blindly following the IMFs orders.

He said had his government not been ousted, he would have said absolutely not to the IMF.

In a veiled reference to the security establishment, the former prime minister asked neutrals if the national security and integrity was not important.

I had warned them [neutrals] there would be a huge economic setback if the conspiracy against my government succeeded, he said.

The former prime minister said whenever Pakistani currency devalued, the wealth of Sharifs increased.

He said as the prime minister, he didnt make personal visits abroad.

Mr Imran asked the residents of Buner to respond well to his call to fight for the countrys real independence.

Published in Dawn, June 4th, 2022

Continued here:

Govt trying to get rid of me through treason charge: Imran - DAWN.com

One of the Elizabeth IIs proudest achievements has been her central role in creating the Commonwealth. But as her reign reaches its final stages, some are asking whether this disparate group of nations really has a future.

In 1952, the year she ascended the throne, Elizabeth became head of what is one of the worlds biggest international organisations, made up of 54 countries, mostly former colonies of the United Kingdom.

Nowadays it accounts for around 2.6 billion people, or about one third of the worlds population.

In March, in her annual message to the Commonwealth, Elizabeth said: Today, it is rewarding to observe a modern, vibrant and connected Commonwealth that combines a wealth of history and tradition with the great social, cultural and technological advances of our time. That the Commonwealth stands ever taller is a credit to all who have been involved.

Officially, the Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 54 independent and equal countries.

But with its roots in empire, the stains of colonialism have never been entirely washed away. For some this undermines its values in a modern world.

According to Philip Murphy, professor of British and Commonwealth History at the University of London: I think perhaps the Commonwealth has historically run its course what youre really seeing now is the ghost of an organisation.

He told Reuters that the Commonwealth might have a role in dealing with the legacy of the British empire and colonialism, and issues such as reparation and restitution.

Others are more sanguine. The Commonwealths supporters say it provides a global network to foster cooperation and trade links. In addition, it promotes democracy and development, and addresses issues such as climate change.

When Barbados cut its ties with the British monarchy last year and became a republic, it was keen to remain part of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth is beneficial to many Caribbean nations as well as many African nations and it links us into countries like Australia and New Zealand and Canada, said Barbados-based David Denny, general-secretary for the Caribbean Movement for Peace and Integration, a non-governmental organisation.

There are questions, though, over who will lead it after the current monarch. Some, including Mr Denny, have argued that its head should not be a British royal, despite Commonwealth leaders agreeing in 2018 that Elizabeths son and heir Prince Charles should succeed her.

But even as the spirit of republicanism grows stronger everywhere from the Caribbean to Australasia, there are few signs of members heading for the exit.

Many countries from the developing world have joined the Commonwealth long after Empire ended, most recently Rwanda, in 2009.

And this central-African country, along with fellow Commonwealth members Cameroon and Mozambique, were never part of the British Empire.

These states believed prestige and influence came with Commonwealth membership.

In the case of Rwanda, joining the Commonwealth was also intended as a diplomatic slap in the face to the French government from a Francophone country.

Rwanda has even introduced cricket in its schools and encouraged the use of English.

Its wily autocrat leader Paul Kagame will host the 2022 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2022 this month (from 20 to 25 June). This is a prime example of how developing nations can use Commonwealth membership to their advantage.

Kagame hopes hosting this big international event will allow him to showcase Rwandas economic and social development and attract more investment.

Hes probably calculated this benefit will outweigh the damage from the inevitable and unflattering spotlight on his regimes human rights record.

Kagames act of saving his country after the genocide a quarter of a century ago is in the historical record. But his political oppression at home and penchant for dispatching death squads to silence opponents abroad are also in the open.

Dont expect the British government to flag up these abuses, as Home Secretary Priti Patel prepares to send asylum seekers (but hopefully not Rwanda asylum seekers) there.

But if a dubious human rights record was a bar to membership, the Commonwealths numbers would be seriously depleted.

Nowadays it covers a spectrum of Western and non-aligned governments, developed and developing economies, democracies, and authoritarian regimes.

They tend to show little political alignment, and often diverge on diplomatic issues. Members India and Pakistan have fought three wars against each other and remain bitter enemies.

But Commonwealth membership doesnt require countries to be close friends or share political ideology. And just as well. In the 21st century, countries have multiple identities and complex relationships with other nations.

Cameroon, Mauritius, and the Seychelles, for example, enjoy both Commonwealth and Francophone memberships. Pan-Africanism and membership of the African Union is at least as important to many Commonwealth countries.

As British and Royal influence diminishes, the Commonwealth is almost certain to prevail. In future decades its quite likely that Gambia and Zimbabwe, under new leadership, will return to the club.

The Commonwealths purpose and usefulness remain a matter of debate and opinions vary widely from member to member. But the Queen will no doubt take pride from knowing that the club of nations she nurtured will continue long after she has gone.

Read more here:

The Commonwealth will outlive the Queen, even if nobody quite knows what its role is - iNews

Bryan Cadogan is the Clutha District Mayor.

When we take those precious few seconds during an Anzac parade to thank our lucky stars for the freedoms and privileges our democracy offers all Kiwis and when we watch TV and shake our heads in disbelief at the tyranny, corruption, oppression, and lives so distant from our own, is it not time for us to seriously consider the value of our democracy, and the part that democracy has in preserving our freedom, rights, and privileges?

In New Zealand we have two pillars that symbolise our democracy - central government and local government. Each team has distinct roles and obligations and, unfortunately for the team I play on, there is a huge power imbalance.

Central government determines the laws and local government is tasked with enacting them.

READ MORE:* Council chief recommends staying with LGNZ but two councillors urge colleagues to reject her advice * Timaru remains only council to quit Local Government NZ* Local Government New Zealand calls for halt to ad campaign for water reforms* Councils need more powers to deal with elected members who are failing - LGNZ president* Councils back plan to introduce civics education to secondary schools* Politicians need to regain control of local government

All councillors take a solemn oath to act faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of their skill and judgement, execute and perform, in the best interests of their district.

Despite all the bull and derogatory statements that come our way, I have never seen a first-time councillor who wasnt overwhelmed with the enormity of the commitment.

I know when I first took the oath as mayor it was with tears running unashamedly down my face - which goes to the very heart of the values hopes and dreams that we have for the districts we love, and the burden of responsibility that we must fight for our people.

Until the world created Facebook warriors this notion was rarely questioned.

Governments can come, governments can go this too is a critical part of democracy, along with the tolerance that is needed to endure for three years when your party loses.

For councils, we have an added dimension of responsibility as a public entity, regardless of who is in government or what legislation changes. The power hierarchy has councils able to critique, but always respecting the laws of the land.

Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), the local collective that makes up half the democratic structure that preserves and reflects your freedom and privileges, is consequently a compromised beast, dissimilar to central government where majority rules.

Local government must have an autonomous arrangement. We took an oath that is fundamental to our existence, to act in the best interests of our district - sorry but thats non-negotiable, and we will not cede our autonomy.

If all the North Island councils collectively pushed an idea, they may have the majority and we will consider their stance, but unlike central government we do not collapse to the will of the majority.

This straddles every LGNZ function. They cannot dictate or demand anything of councils - their strength is to facilitate, in effect they are our support network.

We collectively task them with gaining policy insight that we as small councils couldnt individually resource, and they are our primary conduit to MPs.

They have a mandated structure whereby every three years we vote on appointing elected member leadership roles within the LGNZ framework.

LGNZ has credibility, respect, and a proud history of holding councils together. I know there have been many times when something has hit the fan that I pick up the phone, and after talking to some of the mayors I respect, it is LGNZs advice that I seek.

I labour these points because in recent weeks all councils have been bombarded with multiple duplicated requests for our councils to leave LGNZ.

Oh my God. Just at a time when we need all the coordinated strength we can muster, to stand resolute and be determined to play our part in injecting your values, principles and needs into the plethora of reform proposed, there is a call to dismantle one of the cornerstones of our democracy and scatter councils to the four winds with no mandated structure or cohesive voice.

Do you honestly realise what you are proposing?

Kavinda Herath/Stuff

Clutha District Mayor Bryan Cadogan

Thankfully Clutha district councillors are unanimous that we remain in LGNZ.

And like many councils around the country, consider it would be ludicrous to dismantle our strength and structure leaving central government to its own devices.

LGNZ was instrumental in establishing the three working parties to challenge and scrutinise the proposed Three Waters reform legislation.

This week the second of those working groups, the Rural Supplies Technical Working Group that I was proud to chair, released its 30 recommendations. Those 30 recommendations are all examples of where we have taken the opportunity to change the legislation, and accepted the opportunity to refine and insert our communities values and needs.

When you combine it with the Governance Working Groups 44 recommendations, you are now seeing a suite of changes that fundamentally change the original legislation. I am not saying its perfect, but it is a huge improvement.

LGNZ took a fair bit of criticism at the time for the stance of agreeing to establishing these groups, and it has most definitely caused a rift amongst membership.

But to date, the combined recommendations are the only changes that have been made to where it really matters, the legislation.

Those who continue to run away (noisily) from the fight have achieved absolutely nothing other than create division and confuse the public. So in my books that makes the score 74 to 0 - and totally vindicates LGNZS tactic.

I thank them for giving us the chance to do the right thing by the people we serve.

Originally posted here:

Why I truly value LGNZ, compromised beast that it is. - Stuff

Positions on the Ukrainian war and our stand

1) The Russian invasion of Ukraine is an imperialist attack.[2]. Analyses may differ on the source of this imperialism[3], on the extent of its dynamics, on the causes of this particular invasion, and even on its function in the capitalist world arena. But what is fundamental is that it is an unjust war of the strong against the weak.[4] And in particular, it is a national type of oppression - that is a challenge at gunpoint to the right of a population to exist as a political entity and to decide for itself and freely about its own existence.

2) From this point of view it is a matter of principle[5] for the left to take a clear position on the war being waged: It must place itself on the side of the weak, those who are under attack and fighting back i.e. on the side of the Ukrainian people. The right of a people, a population, a nation, to define itself is a fundamental component of an emancipatory programme.

3) This means that in this war the left cannot be indifferent: it is not a war that is simply taking place somewhere out there, without subjects and without responsibilities. It is a military attack and there is contestation and resistance to it. The left must take a stand against the war being waged by Russia, and consequently, in favour of those who oppose it, basically the Ukrainian people but also the Russian left. That means in favour of the war being waged by the Ukrainian people.

4) For the same reason that it cannot be indifferent, the left cannot remain neutral either, supposedly pacifist[6] or against both side.[7] The Russian army is in the wrong and therefore we demand that it should withdraw and, if it does not do so on its own accord, it must be forced to withdraw, that is be defeated.[8] The Ukrainians have a just cause in their struggle for the withdrawal of the Russian army from their territory and, therefore, we must support them politically and materially.[9]

5) Also, the left, by definition, cannot adopt views or attitudes of indifference - theorizing that we dont care what happens elsewhere as we are only concerned with our own struggles or have a policy of no interference. On the contrary, we have acknowledged that capitalism and the various systems of oppression and problems it creates have an international and global dimension.[10] No position of the enemy is within our own country is therefore justified[11] and would be programmatically suicidal. The oppressed of the whole world need us (they need our solidarity and support) and we need them too. There is no reason to abandon this principle now quite the opposite.[12]

6) Our support for the oppressed internationally is not only for reasons of abstractly internationalist principle or because we programmatically recognize the international nature of exploitation and oppression. It also has a much more expedient significance: every victory for the system of the dominately powerful, every defeat of our own camp, strengthens and reinforces our own conditions of subjugation, and vice versa. Imperialism, and every aspect of it, however large or small,[13] (as well as sexism, exploitation, and other forms of domination), must be defeated in order to strengthen the general correlation of powers in favour of the weak throughout the world. Conversely, every victory of the strong over the weak strengthens and unites them.

7) Obviously, we are in a world where the ruling classes, both internally and externally (they consider it their right to have external spheres of influence), are allied against us[14] but they are also sometimes in competition with each other.[15] In particular with regard to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is an opportunity for various Western imperialisms to suddenly feign interest in the Ukrainian people: but this, however hypocritical[16] it may be, does not negate the justness of the Ukrainian struggle.[17] We must follow the principles that the socialist movement has always held.

8) Every form of resistance against a national oppression, a specific invasion, must be supported, regardless of who else supports it - and there is usually some well-meaning opponent of the oppressor who will try to benefit. Therefore, we have rightly supported the struggle of the oppressed every time, even if it was supported by rivals or our, imperialisms.[18] The Ukrainian people do not cease to be fighting for a just cause on account of being supposedly supported by members of NATO in the face of the Russian invasion; likewise, the Kurdish cause didnt cease to be a just one because they were armed by NATO against ISIS.

9) The involvement of the rival imperialisms (and their ruling classes) is never for those fighting a struggle, but rather to undermine the power of their opponents, to gain points of influence and to guide the leadership of the movements (through local ruling classes).[19] However, this does not automatically turn them into indirect wars of the powerful (interimperialist); on the contrary, this is what is mainly at stake in war from a social aspect, especially in a national war where the population demands its political entity! The peoples themselves, especially in national issues, are never puppets as the powerful would have it, they are political subjects. So the Ukrainian war is in no way a war by proxy as if the Ukrainian people in particular were pawns and not able to claim and have their own political entity.

10) The same applies to the involvement of our own imperialism and its government, as well as the various international aggregations in which it participates (EU, NATO, international economic leaders, IMF, Worldbank, OMC, etc.). Issues of principle that we have, i.e. dismantling the EU, IMF or NATO, socialism, world peace, etc. do not respond to the question of their involvement as no involvement would be tantamount to letting the Ukrainians die. Therefore, we neither denounce nor deny aid to the Ukrainian people in general. Our response must be more specific regarding the points, the methods, the terms:

For example, we must accept and reinforce the policies of welcoming migrants from Ukraine[20] and in no way denounce Western imperialism for interfering by helping Ukrainians.

- We must think ahead and be ready to prevent their troops from interfering, but also to oppose the militarization of Western societies against the Russian imperialist bogeyman.[21] We want the latter to be defeated but by the people and the mass movement of Ukraine (and Russia), not by guardianship and for this they must be strengthened politically and materially.

Furthermore, we must go beyond what these imperialists want to do and in a more substantial way: for example we must demand the cancellation of Ukraines debts, as the Ukrainian social movements have highlighted, and we know, as in the case of Greece, how popular this is in the capitalist circles!

We must take an equally specific and undogmatic view of their sanctions against Russia as with aid to Ukraine. The fact that we (the left) do not control their range is not a reason for either general denial or general support. We have to formulate specific positions with the help of our Ukrainian and Russian comrades and our appreciation of their reach. Thus, we cannot disagree with sanctions on the Russian oligarchy (economic or political) which to be effective, however, would have to challenge tax havens and therefore the freedom and opacity of the world markets! On the other hand, we must oppose sanctions that are directed primarily against the Russian people (or other peoples).

So whatever the case, we accept the support of the Ukrainian people and their resistance but refuse any aid which has an extortionate character. Because this may be more complicated than it seems, the final say on the need for aid must be held by the Ukrainian militants, their movements and their organisations.

11) Our solidarity and support for a just struggle is always undivided and unconditional[22] for two reasons: first, because programmatically we must treat victims not as mere objects but as real subjects[23] and secondly, so that we have the freedom to have our own opinions - and to speak them - without them being coercive. Thus, we must support the Ukrainians themselves in the war they are waging against the Russian invasion and, above all, we must agree to support them in whatever decisions they themselves make about how to wage it. That is why, in particular, we support their resistance, armed or unarmed - it is not our place to decide what is best for them.[24]

12) A just struggle must be supported regardless not only of the individual perceptions of the people waging it, but also of the nature of their leaderships.[25] A people, a nation struggling against an agressor is still a society permeated by class, patriarchal, etc., relations; it is never homogeneous, even if the particular struggle itself may contain elements of superficial unanimity against the agressor.

13) Despite the diversity of national liberation struggles, their outcome is always judged by the general dynamics of social liberation that they create. Therefore:

a) the support of Ukrainians in the war is not only against their ethnic oppression; it is also for the general emancipation of different social groups including workers, ethnic (Roma), gender, etc.

b) the hegemony of the local bourgeoisie tends to be challenged by the very dynamics of the struggle even when it is merely one of national liberation[26], as, by definition it is carried out to turn the oppressed into political subjects.

c) the final outcome will also depend on the hegemony of the struggle by the socially oppressed strata and their own will at the expense of the programmes of the ruling class (oligarchs, etc.), which is why the social programme of the war and the challenging of bourgeois hegemony in practice are of such great significance.

d) and for this same reason, the strengthening of the groups, parties, trade unions, collectives (large or small) that make up the sections of society struggling and fighting against the aggressor is even more important.

14) In this social war (which is ultimately a national one) of the Ukrainian people against imperialism, the left, and especially the international left, has an enormous responsibility.[27] First of all, for not handing over national liberation to the bourgeoisie by refusing to join the struggle of the Ukrainians . Secondly, because it has to ward off the elements of blackmail that the aid from the rival imperialists entails in order to neutralise the people themselves and satellite their country. Thirdly, since class struggle, the particular struggle of the oppressed is not only not cancelled by war, but constitutes what is mainly at stake, and the left is necessarily involved in the main way to a victorious outcome. It is our duty, the duty of all the left in the world and above all for the working classes, the trade unions, the grass roots movements and all the oppressed to measure up to our brothers and sisters in Ukraine and Russia, who both ask for and need our help. For the defeat of the imperialist invasion, for the victory of social liberation in Ukraine, in Russia and in the rest of the world.

What we need to do:

a) Acknowledge our mistakes and shortcomings so far, especially in our positions up to now.[28].

b) We should not hesitate to confront the majority of the Greek left, which is essentially bankrupt in its task of supporting the Ukrainian struggle. Looking for excuses and theories to justify itself, killing any principle of support for the oppressed and recognition of the necessity of their self-emancipation and, in practice, siding with imperialism (with the sole concern to defeat the Ukrainians).

c) To make direct contact with movements, trade unions, collectives, etc., which constitute the society that is fighting. Clearly, not in order to tell them what to do or impose our own geopolitical or social plans on them, but to listen to them, ask them what they need and organize it, etc. We can also join the networks of support to the Ukrainian people[29] against Russias war.

d) To convey their voice, their views and their struggles both in the resistance and in their political and social reality to Greek society. To try to help them in what they need and not what some omniscient smart aleck from here imagines they need.

e) To stop indiscriminately reproducing Putinist propaganda (i.e. Nazi nation or non-nation) and to seek out the truth even when there are questions, real or imagined, about history, social and political reality, the burden of capitalism (and oligarchs), etc.[30]

Read this article:

Support the Ukrainian people in their resistance against the war! - International Viewpoint

New Delhi:A number of scholars and educationists from Karnataka have protested against the ongoing saffronisation of education in the state, by resigning from state government committees and bodies.

A revision committee headed by Rohith Chakrathirtha, which was constituted in 2020 after the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in Karnataka, to examine social science and language textbooks, recently revised social science textbooks from Classes 6 to 10 and Kannada language textbooks from Classes 1 to 10. Chapters on revolutionary and freedom fighter Bhagat Singh, Mysore ruler Tipu Sultan, Lingayat social reformer Basavanna, Dravidian movement pioneer Periyar and reformer Narayana Guru have allegedly been removed from the syllabus or severely curtailed with. Facts on Kannada poet Kuvempu were also allegedly distorted. Meanwhile, a speech by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh founder Keshav Baliram Hedgewar has made its way to the Class 10 revised Kannada textbook.

Writers S.G. Siddaramaiah, who was president of Rashtrakavi Dr. G.S. Shivarudrappa Pratishthana, H.S. Raghavendra Rao, Nataraja Budalu and Chandrashekhar Nangli wrote to chief minister Basavaraj Bommai on Monday, resigning from various posts they held, The Hindu reported.

The recent unconstitutional attack and oppression in education, cultural, and political spheres of the State has left us concerned. The governments silence and lack of action on those who have been openly inciting communal hatred undermining the State and federal structure has left us anxious and scared, their letter said.

Siddaramaiah has also written to minister for primary and secondary education B.C. Nagesh and withdrawn permission for the inclusion of his poem Manegelasada Hudugi in the Class IX Kannada textbook. Earlier, two prominent authors Devanoora Mahadeva and G. Ramakrishna had revoked permission for textbooks to carry their writings.

Hampa Nagarajaiah also resigned as president of Rashtrakavi Kuvempu Pratishthana, saying that the government was taking no action against Chakrathirtha even though he made defamatory statements against Kuvempu and the state anthem. Since the government has not only not taken any action against people who have defamed Kuvempu and the anthem, but since they have been made members of the official committee, it sends a wrong signal to people, Nagarajaiahs letter to Bommai states.

Educationist V.P. Niranjanaradhya declined an honour from the state government for his work on the National Education Policy. The State government has resorted to communalise and saffronise education and in this process, no curriculum framework, constitutional values and education policy have been followed. Since this exercise and the programme to which I am invited both are led by the Education Minister, I stand by the constitutional values and boycott it, he responded to the invite, according to The Hindu.

Several student groups too have been protesting over the changes and have planned further protests.

See the original post:

Karnataka: Scholars, Writers Resign From Govt Bodies to Protest 'Saffronisation' of Textbooks - The Wire

Barbados and Guyana are already making moves to live up to commitments made during the recently concluded Agri-Forum and Investment Expo.

This, as President Dr Irfaan Ali announced that farmlands in Guyana will be allocated to Barbadian youth for food production.

While delivering the keynote address at the Barbados Agro Fest last Friday, he again underscored the importance of agriculture being critical to regional development.

He said:The relationship that we are building between Guyana and Barbados is to bring economic prosperity to both countries. We are not looking at winning in one area or creating a situation where we are carving out an area for you and an area for Guyana. That is not what we want. We want a holistic approach to this relationship so that we create economic prosperity in every sector and in everything that we do together as one country, Guyana and Barbados."

Barbadian farmers are currently participating in a mentorship programme in Guyana. According to President Ali, 50 acres of land have been allocated for young people as part of the Black Belly Sheep Project in Guyana. another 50 acres have been allocated for people with disabilities, single parents and women and 50 acres will be allocated to young people in Barbados for them to advance food production.

He said the plan is for these farms to work together in an integrated way to supply the market in Barbados.

Many Guyanese are now questioning why the President is "giving away land to foreigners" when Guyanese youth could stand to benefit.

They took to social media to express their angst.

In a statement posted on Facebook, Attorney Rickford Burke said:

Guyanese youth cannot get land in their own country because of PPP racism and political oppression. But the same PPP government is willing to give Barbadian young people land in Guyana to create a spectacle. Of course this is only to gain regional and international legitimacy and remain cozy with Barbadian Prime MinisterMia Amor Mottley. This is their part of their inducement so she can keep saying how good they are and they can try to use her image to help them sloganeer against African Guyanese outrage over their racism, apartheid governance and attempt to implement PPP East Indian supremacy.

One man posted: "I have visited Barbados and none of the farms I visited had youths working on them, mostly middle-aged men and women. If youre going to give farmlands to youths, what about the Guyanese youth. What about the youths in Albouystown, Angoys Avenue, West, East, and North Ruimveldt. Or those in Bath, Corentyne and other parts of Guyana. You travelled over 500 miles to award farmlands to youths in another country while youths in yours are unemployed, underemployed, and in need of government assistance."

"Ali is way above his head. Give the Guyanese people the land. Not all will be employed in the oil sector. Give the youths the land and use the oil money to help them with machines, drip irrigation with plastic covering and provide good roads and irrigation. Government should set up chilling facilities to help Guyanese farmers. With more airline flights to America and Canada farmers in Guyana can have a piece of the market that Dominica has. Hot peppers ,Bora, ochre.dasheen, mangoes etc," another said.

One commenter urged the Guyanese government to rethink its stance as it wasn't too long ago that its people were ill-treated by Bajans.

"Guyana govt forgot about the horrible, inhumane treatments Guyanese endured at the hands of Barbadians not too long ago. Suddenly everybody running to Guyana to reap what they didn't sow. And while it is not wrong to help, what happen to Guyanese people? Have the Guyanese youths been provided with farmlands? Or lands to raise chicken and cattle?"

Another posted: "I hope this is lease land and they are paying a monthly rent since it seems like the government believes that the Guyanese people are not worthy to develop our own land and make Guyana the food basket of the Caribbean and South America - This is a blatant slap in the Guyanese people faces - the only way to get this government OUT is to VOTE - use yall God-given rights and VOTE this government out and take BACK yall LAND - simple as that! Unbelievable!!"

"Ain't this beautiful? Let's hear the supporters shout loud and proud now. PPP all de way...Guyana is a special place on earth where everyone other than Guyanese enjoys all things special though its their country..." one woman posted.

Several people defended President Ali's announcement saying that youth in Guyana had little interest in returning to the land.

Follow this link:

Get to know the - Loop News Caribbean

It actually wasnt hyperbole when John Draper, the director of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline/988 expansion initiative, said that America is on the precipice of launching the largest mental health and suicide prevention service in this nations history.

However, much else that got said at last weeks Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Forum on Geolocation for 988 was hyperbolic. Government and mental health professionals seemed to be doing a hard-sell to promote public acceptance that anyone calling, texting, or chatting through the new 988 crisis hotline number should be grateful to have their exact geolocation automatically exposed to within three meters. This, in turn, left many questions about governments commitment to taking seriously the mounting public concerns about crisis lines that do covert call tracing and forced interventionseven as those concerns did finally emerge in several impassioned speeches that shook the direction of the forum.

Over the past two years, Mad in America has reported on a groundswell of voices arguing that call centers in the self-described anonymous and confidential National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (NSPL) covertly and unnecessarily trace far too many calls, resulting in unwanted police encounters and traumatizing detentions and forced treatment in psychiatric hospitals. These protests have included the NSPLs own Lived Experience Committee. Nevertheless, the nonprofit Vibrant Emotional Health, in charge of the NSPL and the roll-out of 988, has been lobbying government for direct control over cutting-edge call-tracing and geolocation-tracking powersthough NSPL centers already simply have to call 911 to get such call tracing done.

The issue has so far gone largely unreported in major news media, though Slate recently covered the controversy, while a New York Times story on 988 never mentioned it. Yet it has wide national relevance: The NSPL had 3.6 million contacts in 2021, and that number is expected to increase dramatically with 988 implementationand with it, the numbers of people whose calls will be traced. Federal funding for the NSPL has leapt tenfold, turning a single crisis line into a billion-dollar industry, and the grand vision of proponents is that 988 will become a first-line access point for all mental health services around the country.

So the call-tracing and forced interventions issue needs more public debate. Yet, through much of the carefully curated FCC forum it was difficult to discern that there was anything at all controversial under discussion.

The forum began with a four-hour parade of high-ranking officials, including FCC commissioners, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) leaders, and representatives of crisis call centers and mental health organizations that work closely with the NSPL. They unanimously extolled the need to be able to instantly and precisely geolocate anyone contacting 988, because seconds count when working to save lives of people who are in the act of killing themselves.

FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks described vulnerable people with low income, unstable housing, and mental health challenges who might feel suicidal, and said, lack of geolocation poses a grave threat for them.

NSPL/988 director Draper similarly stated that call-tracing and precise geolocation were needed for life-saving purposes such as helping people who are losing consciousness, and theyre going to die.

Meanwhile, Draper and others repeatedly downplayed the NSPLs current rate of tracing calls2 percentas rare, a small percentage, very rare, etc. But is 2 percent of callers actually rare? And Drapers own data actually implied a still higher rate for thosewith suicidal feelings. Only 23 percent of callers to the NSPL express such thoughtstherefore, those unwanted interventions are apparently being implemented on 8 percent of the callers who express suicidal worries.

Either way, nearly every day hundreds of Americans who contact the NSPL are getting unwanted visits from police or other mobile intervention teamsabout 60,000 people in 2021.

Draper briefly described the risk assessments that lead to these forcible interventions. However, he didnt mention well-documented, extremely high error ratessince few people call the NSPL during the act of killing themselves, it becomes anyones guess if, or when, someone who has called simply to talk about suicidal feelings might or might not actually kill themselves.

And Sandri Kramer from Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services in California, which runs one of the nations busiest centers by call volume, provided insights into who these people are: Over half of their centers contacts are people under the age of 25 including many children, over half are people of color, and about 2/3 are women. Basically, these are people who are likely to already be experiencing oppression and vulnerability in other aspects of their lives and communities. Nevertheless, hours of the FCC forum went by without discussion of any possible problems with subjecting these people against their will to police visits and forced psychiatric interventions.

Then, finally, came the panel about 988 Consumer Considerations With Geolocationlike an eruption.

Keris Jn Myrick, co-director of the Mental Health Strategic Impact Initiative, said that she was struck by how leaders of the 988 initiative were making the a priori assumption that geolocation tracking is a good thing. Myrick said the issues are complex. Many timesI have had this happen in my own lifewere calling for help, and it ends up in harm, it ends up in handcuffs. And, for worse, for many people, it also ends up in death; not at their own hands, but at the hands of the response team.

When people call crisis lines, Myrick added, racism and other institutional and systemic inequities mean that not everybody gets the same response. Myrick described one county in California near her home where there were five deaths because of a mental health emergency response and four of those five deaths were Black folks. And [Black people] make up in that particular locality less than 5 percent of the population.

Shelby Rowe, director of the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, pointed out that 988 is not being implemented in a political vacuum. Therefore, the lack of confidentiality could well have different hazardous consequences in states with different laws and prevailing prejudices. If you are a trans girl of color in certain states Will that geolocation data be used to turn your parents into child protective services?

Similarly, Madhuri Jha of the Kennedy-Satcher Center for Mental Health Equity described the risks to undocumented immigrantswithout sanctuary clinics, by tracing their calls we likely consign them to indefinite detention in an immigration prison.

Psychologist David Jobes of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention said that many people with suicidal feelings dont need psychiatric hospitalization in the first place, so if were going to forcibly intervene then we need to create alternative places for those people besides hospitals. Too often crisis line staff and clinicians are erring on the side of caution in hospitalizing people, said Jobes, leading to nightmare stories of people being boarded overnight, sometimes for days, even weeks in the emergency department. That is not therapeutic.

In line with others, Hannah Wesolowski from the National Alliance on Mental Illness said, NAMI strongly recommends that the FCC proceed with a recommendation in your 2021 Report to Congress to establish a multi-stakeholder advisory committee, with us experts tasked with developing detailed recommendations [on 988 geolocation].

The FCC facilitator then pushed the forum on through its scheduled programming: The final two hours were intended to be spent ironing out technical solutions to implement geolocation tracking.

But something different happened.

Senior representatives from AT&T, Verizon, Intrado, and T-Mobile reported that the technical hurdles to implementing 988 geolocation tracking were manageable. However, as their prepared speeches yielded to discussion, it became clear that theyd all been moved by what theyd heard from the Consumer Considerations panel. They no longer felt that acting quickly was wise.

This was given especially strong voice by Rosemary Leist, a policy and government affairs manager from T-Mobile. After listening to everybody on the forum today, said Leist, she now believed a phased and multi-faceted development approach for 988, over the course of years, made more sense. She said industry needed more time to develop appropriate policies and technical standards, call centers would need to adapt to rising call volumes, and communities should be building sufficient and appropriate support services for callers in distress. Installing mass-scale geolocation tracking immediately could prove counterproductive. [S]omething this big and draconian, in my opinion, should be meticulously organized and planned for, Leist saidthen also expressed support for a multi-stakeholder working group.

Feasible ideas for safeguards got raised at the forum, including less precise geolocating, transparent disclosure of call-tracing practices in all 988 marketing materials and directly to callers, fines or removal from the 988 network for improper storage or use of peoples personal data, and formal reviews of call-tracing practices with accountability mechanisms.

However, none of those possible compromises were raised by anyone other than the people on the consumer panel. And the forum organizers had noticeably not brought in any group with expertise on privacy issues. This, combined with the fact that the organizers corralled the critical voices into one panel instead of allowing such voices to participate throughout the day, inevitably raised questions of bias. This bias seems to reflect the we know whats best for you attitude that permeates most of our mental health service systems. So, will the FCC even follow their own previous recommendation of establishing a multi-stakeholder committee to examine geolocation tracking concerns, or is the FCC already collaborating too closely with SAMHSA and Vibrant Emotional Health?

Meanwhile, how dangerous could automatic geolocating turn out to be? No one mentioned one of the most at-risk groups: Pregnant women. Already, many states have criminalized substance use during pregnancy, and more have, or are on the verge of, criminalizing abortion. In effect, then, if a pregnant woman who is using a substance or considering abortion calls 988, it would be the same as a caller seriously saying they were literally in the act of killing themselves or were about to kill someone else. If the call-center had already geolocated the woman to a state where substance use or abortion is criminalized, theyd have a legal duty to report and to send police to arrest the woman. Is that what leaders of the 988 initiative call help?

***

Editors Note: MindFreedom is hosting a discussion on this topic on Wednesday, June 1, at 6 p.m. eastern time. Rob Wipond, Keris Myrick, Karin Jervert, and Robert Whitaker will be the panelists for the discussion, which will be moderated by Ron Bassman.

Read more here:

Government Forum Reveals 988 Call Tracing Remains a Threat - Mad In America - Mad in America