Category Archives: Government Oppression

I sat down today to write what will be my final piece for The Michigan Daily. Much of my content these last two years has been heavy. I was excited to use my last column to write something hopeful about how maybe our generation still has a chance to restore civility and decorum in our politics and society; how maybe we could be the generation that finally builds a diverse, prosperous, United States.

All of that will unfortunately have to wait, because on April 7, The Michigan Daily published an Op-Ed equating the Russian genocide in Ukraine to Israels actions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My gut reaction was three-fold: as a Jew, I was disgusted; as a student of history and politics, I was insulted; as a staff member of The Daily I dont even know where to begin. I have to be honest: I sat down to write an ad hominem attack against the author of that Op-Ed, but that wasnt going to help anyone. Yelling apartheid! and antisemite! back and forth at one another accomplishes nothing.

After addressing some of my concerns with the author of the Op-Ed, Jared Eno, it is clear that his intent is not to vilify the Israeli or Jewish people far from it: I feel a particular responsibility to speak out about the oppression of Palestinians because my grandfather was a Zionist who participated in the founding of Israel, he said in an email. The insult and disgust I felt at first read has largely gone away, and I am left with this striking realization: we can call Israel out for its indiscretions we can question any number of its actions in the Palestinian territories but we can also debate the solutions to that problem without spewing vitriol in each others faces. Nobody at The Michigan Daily is going to solve a decades-old geopolitical nightmare, but we can definitely find more constructive ways to talk about it.

Eno argued that the Palestinian struggle for self-determination is analogous to the Ukrainians fight to stave off a hostile foreign invasion. Therefore, he says, it is counterintuitive to support Ukrainians, but not Palestinians grouping them in the article under the umbrella of all oppressed peoples. Unfortunately, this is the same charge leveled in recent years by avowed anti-Zionist U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who used the term apartheid to describe Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories.

To get up on a soapbox and proclaim Israel to be a moral authority on Western democracy would be silly, but the word apartheid is loaded, and carries a unique weight when used to denigrate Israel. Israel has committed gratuitous acts of violence across the Palestinian territories for decades; this much is undeniable theyve done it in the last week. But one would be wise to remember where the word apartheid comes from, who we most commonly see using these terms and why its use in the context of Israel can (often accidentally) end up being used as a prop for antisemites to delegitimize the Jewish state.

The South African apartheid regime came to power in elections during the 1950s and early 1960s, supported exclusively by whites and with the stated goal of creating a white ethno-state built on the backs of an African subject class. This isnt conjecture it was the fundamental philosophy of Hendrik Verwoerd, the former South African State President and primary architect of apartheid. To claim that Palestinians, in fact, face discrimination in society would be like saying the sky is, in fact, up. But frankly, its a real slap in the face to Black South Africans to be compared to Palestinians, who, in spite of undeniable public discrimination, have their own autonomous governments in much of the West Bank and all of Gaza the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, respectively. Mere membership in Mandelas ANC party was a crime in South Africa until 1990.

While apartheid does have a formal legal meaning outside the context of South Africa, that use of the term hardly holds the place in our vernacular as does its South Africa-specific homonym. That broader definition, though, gives cover to those who accuse Israel of apartheid. While some people, such as Eno, are clear that they do not mean to apply the South African context to the word, it is still there. No amount of cognitive dissonance can stop a person from associating apartheid with the one country ever to openly implement it. Associating Israel with apartheid is associating it with the murderous South African regime, intentionally or otherwise, simply because of the connotation the word takes on in Western society.

It shouldnt come as a shock to hear that a country which was founded in large part as a safe haven for a people who survived a genocide would take particular offense to being branded an apartheid state. Israel does not grant full equal rights to Palestinians. Thats not a secret. But this is a people which has survived multiple attempts at ethnic cleansing in the past century. Suggesting that theyre perpetrating a similar offense to apartheid South Africa will not make Israel move on the Palestinian issue, and branding it as an apartheid state is not the same as or necessary for demanding reform. Words matter, and those words are both ineffective and patently untrue.

You dont have to take my word for it when I say that Ukrainians would not take kindly to a rejection of Israeli democracy. You can take the word of the leader of the free world, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (who, for the record, is a Jew, and a descendant of Holocaust survivors). Zelenskyy told an assembled press corps that Ukraine strove to be a big Israel with its own face, with soldiers in cinemas, supermarkets To the Western ear, that might sound kind of terrifying. Americans in particular are used to a society in which the military essentially does not play a role in daily domestic life.

But what Zelenskyy is proposing isnt a state of permanent martial law hes not going to preside over a post-war Ukrainian junta. Hes aligning himself with the Israeli vision of democracy, wherein the state security apparatus must be integrated into society in order to safeguard it. When Zelensky talks about a big Israel, hes not just talking about soldiers in the streets. Israelis have a bond with the Israeli Defense Forces few other countries share with their armed forces. Part of that comes from its compulsory service policy, but its also because the IDF have had to repel hostile combat forces from the Israeli homeland since the day Israel declared its independence.

Israelis feel so intertwined with the IDF because they have watched it defend them from neighbors who have denied Israels right to exist from the instant it left the British Empire. If that sentiment rings a bell, its because its exactly what Ukrainians have borne witness to for the last two months. After this war, Ukrainians will feel that same connection to their military as Israelis. They will not fear the military in society as an oppressive force they will welcome them as heroes and defenders of their freedom and safety, just as most Israelis do with the IDF.

Zelenskyys big Israel vision is one of the only direct link these two conflicts share. Israel has very little to do with Russias war in Ukraine (which Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid has publicly and repeatedly condemned). There was no reason for Eno to bring Israel into this conversation. In doing so, he distracts from the far more pressing issues at hand the necessity of arming Ukraine to the teeth, and helping them fend off an unprovoked war of aggression. Coincidentally, thats exactly what the Russian government is trying to do by claiming that Israel is using the invasion of Ukraine to distract the world from the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Its Whataboutism 101 Yeah, Putin is a nightmare, but what about the Israelis? What about the Israelis, who have endured three major Arab terror attacks in the last month? What about Israelis, who have to fight an enemy known to use civilians as human shields, only to be lambasted as butchers for defending their innocent civilians from Hamas the internationally recognized terrorist organization and religious fanatic paramilitary that, de facto, has occupied a major portion of its territory for half of its 70+ year existence?

Israel has repeatedly raided the al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem in recent days, and news coverage has predominantly looked like this, noting in the headline the injury count for Palestinians and largely not even discussing the recent spate of random murders of Israeli civilians by Palestinian militants. It features prominently that those raids came during Ramadan, but largely neglects that the most recent outbreak of violence which has killed Israeli civilians is also occurring during Passover.

Part of Enos Op-Ed centers on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Its vital to dispense with his notion that BDS is not inherently antisemitic. BDS activists claim they are working to end international support for Israels oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law, by encouraging businesses and consumers alike to avoid financial interaction with Israeli-based entities as much as possible. So, Eno is technically right that, inherently and explicitly, the BDS movement does not present itself as antisemitic.

But that doesnt mean it cant be or isnt co-opted by people (like Omar and Tlaib) who simply loathe Israel. The Anti-Defamation League, one of the leading NGOs combating antisemitism, somewhat brushes off the word inherently as a technicality: Many of the founding goals of the BDS movement, including denying the Jewish people the universal right of self-determination along with many of the strategies employed in BDS campaigns are antisemitic. Many individuals involved in BDS campaigns are driven by opposition to Israels very existence as a Jewish state. If youre still not convinced, though, maybe you can be swayed by the government of Germany, which directly labeled BDS as antisemitic.

While it is clear in speaking to him that Enos support of BDS is genuinely rooted in his personal morality and not in opposition to the existence of a Jewish state, he is simply not the expert on antisemitism and anti-Zionism that the leaders of the ADL are. While his beliefs may be sincere and altruistic, he ignores the unfortunate reality that not everyone who agrees with him shares the purity of his intent. Eno cites the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which includes the statement, Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. Thats a valid argument. But where I take umbrage with BDS isnt in its explicit aims, but with how it can be twisted.

Boycott is a perfectly legitimate form of protest against a state. However, the current Western geopolitical climate revolves around collective anti-Russian sentiment, and youve probably seen reports about boycotts of Russian imports. While the point of these moves is to punish the oligarchs who fill Vladimir Putins war chest, scenes of ATM lines and supply shortages in Russia for the last two months demonstrate that boycotts and sanctions hit civilians harder than anyone else. If BDS wants to hit the Israeli government where it hurts, it should focus on exposing and holding accountable the rampant corruption in the Likud Party, which has dominated Israeli politics for much of the countrys recent history. That way, they wont giving them the benefit of the doubt accidentally leave millions of Israeli civilians in financial ruin.

This all leaves us with a difficult question: why are attempts to marginalize the Jewish people not granted the same scrutiny as similar attacks on other ethnic groups? We ostensibly live in a society built on mutual tolerance and respect, whether youre a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Russian, Ukrainian, Israeli, Palestinian or anything else, but antisemitic discrimination is rarely treated with the same outrage as other publicized incidents of prejudice. According to U-M Prof. Deborah Dash Moore, This requires a pretty long answer. When asked if antisemitism receives the same media/societal attention and concern as other forms of racial or ethnic discrimination (anti-Black, Asian, Latino, or Muslim) in the United States, Moore replied flatly, No it does not.

In an email, Moore provides a number of explanations: In part it has to do with Jewish efforts not to be racialized as other in the U.S., especially after the adoption of a multicultural model that drew attention to African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino/Hispanic Americans, Native Americans) that became law (e.g. in the census). The long and the short of it is this: white American Jews look and act just enough like white American Christians that when we are oppressed, persecuted or defamed, there is plausible deniability available for the malicious actor to pretend that it isnt really about Judaism. It is that plausible deniability that allows many BDS supporters to hide behind the veil of boycott as legitimate dissent, that allows for the perpetuation of the myth of dual loyalties that American Jews have toward the U.S. and Israel and that allows for whataboutism that uses Israel as a distraction from more pressing global crises.

I sat down to write a hit piece. I wont deny it; even though we wont get anywhere with the same charged rhetoric and insult-hurling that has ground the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a stalemate for years, I walked into this with the intention of doing just that. But out of that bitterness and resentment came an opportunity to discuss why its harmful to use words like apartheid when describing a country that rose from the ashes of genocide. Its an opportunity to talk about how BDS perpetrates dangerous antisemitic tropes even if it is not the intent of many of its supporters who firmly support Israels right to exist, but not some actions it takes to maintain that right. Its an opportunity to demand better of a Michigan congresswoman whos on the front lines of the fight against Israel, but remains conspicuously silent when an al-Aqsa Martyr guns down five innocent civilians in Bnei Brak, or why her campaign paid out $170,000 to a company whose leader openly accused Israel of ethnic cleansing. What started out in my mind as a heated, personal dispute has been resolved as a plea to lower the temperature of our dialogue and try to reach a consensus about an issue that has plagued the world for nearly 3,000 years. Not bad for my last piece after all.

Jack Roshco is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at jroshco@umich.edu.

Go here to see the original:

Let's leave Israel out of the war in Ukraine - The Michigan Daily

The international community was jolted, halted, dismayed and alarmed by the sudden news of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Aklehs death by an Israeli sniper in Jenin.

The news coverage, the outcry and the nature of the cold-blooded murder managed to momentarily shift the worlds disproportionate fixation on Russias invasion of Ukraine as other global conflicts continue to wreak havoc on humanity. Her role as a journalist highlighting the atrocities committed by Israeli forces led to her demise as the perpetrators sought to normalize the occupation of Palestinian territories by muzzling out freedom of speech once again. Here lies the truth.

As the old adage from French poet Jean Cocteau goes: True realism consists in revealing the surprising things which habit keeps covered and prevents us from seeing.

The second part of this adage is important while analyzing Aklehs death at the hands of Israeli forces. Habitual behavior or habit in this case entails states, entities, politicians and demagogues preventing voices covering egregious human rights violations amid racism and state sponsored terrorism from reaching the global audience. In Shireens case, it must be considered habitual for the Israeli government to target voices of reason which seek to resist its decades old state sponsored policy of apartheid against occupied Palestinians.

To illustrate, the reaction of the IDF and Knesset to the murder was a deliberate attempt to twist the narrative and absolve itself from culpability by adding an element of obscurity regarding the cause of Aklehs death. The disinformation campaign unleashed by the Zionist regime managed to echo in global capitals and was reiterated by some of Israels staunchest supporters, including US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price. As international journalists railed against the spokespersons remarks in the aftermath of the killing his response was to claim that the US has utmost trust in the accountability process initiated by the IDF. Utmost trust in perpetrators seeking to stifle voices through force is perhaps what was meant.

To officially side with the narrative of the oppressor and muzzle dissenting voices of the oppressed, serves as a reminder that Aklehs death translates into freedom of speech continuing to be mercilessly suppressed by governments, entities and systems sanctioning oppression. The modus operandi of the Israeli government actually mirrors pre-1994 South Africa, where the then white minority government monopolizing resources in occupied territory would prevent the stories of oppression or resistance in segregated areas and Bantustans from reaching the international audience. Those revolting through peaceful protests would be met with crackdowns from the apartheid state, as witnessed during the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960. The difference between then and now however was that South Africa witnessed an economic and political boycott by the overwhelming majority of the international community who refused to recognize the white minority government for its crimes against humanity.

Fast forward to 2022, and Israel continues to operate with impunity with mild condemnation not translating into concrete action or accountability. It is with this historical baggage that voices such as Shireen Abu Akleh were silenced because they brought the truth before international viewers in a land witnessing the proliferation of illegal Jewish settlements, international apathy to the plight of Palestinians and the weaponization of Zionism from the Knesset. For a country which touts itself to be a democracy and brandishes its image of being a harbinger of freedom of speech, Aklehs murder demonstrates the narcissistic approach adopted by the Israeli security apparatus against voices of truth.

While working for Al Jazeera Arabic, Shireen exposed the violence perpetrated against the occupied force during the Second Intifada which saw Israel employing gunfire, aerial bombings and provocations with impunity as provacatuers such as former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the Al Aqsa compound to ignite religious tensions. The ensuing 3,000 Palestinian deaths including that of a boy sheltering behind his father in the Gaza Strip to fight for freedom were stories which Abu Aklehs reporting encapsulated for a more informed audience. Her work was an alternate and correct view of the war crimes committed by a state sponsor of apartheid instead of a Jewish democratic state seeking to defend itself.

It was also during her 2005 interview of incarcerated Palestinian prisoners at the Shikma Prison that she attempted to uncover how inmates could possibly have been subject to sham trials and wrongful detentions. The result was the IDF seeking to target her on the premise of photographing security areas at the Shikma Prison. This was not about photographs by picturing and filming reality.

In 2022 not much has changed in Israel, its demagogic approach or its stifling of dissent through force. It has actually worsened with a series of right-wing, far-right governments coming to the helms of policy making over the past few years who have attempted to normalize oppression.

From the Naftali Bennet administration to his predecessor Benjamin Netanyahu, Zionist supremacy has been used as a policy tool to both expand domestic political clout and to carry out armed operations against a population not equipped to respond proportionally with impunity. This includes the 2021 Israeli Palestinian crisis which was triggered by unrest in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood with far-right bigots such as Itamar Ben Gvir advocating for apartheid unleashed on the local population. A year later, Shireen was found unveiling the truth of Israeli oppression as the IDF raided a house in Jenin when an incoming sniper led to her demise. Her injured producer Ali Samoudi corroborated the claims of witnesses that Israeli forces killed her. Nothing more is closer to the truth.

There can, hence, never be any moral or false equivalence on Shireens murder where the Israeli narrative is considered equally accurate or sacrosanct. Advocacy for the rights of Palestinian people as freedom of speech by figures such as Shireen was stifled deliberately to ensure that Israels war crimes as a source of international embarrassment never come to the fore. This is precisely why the Israeli army chief, Aviv Kochavi, claimed that it was difficult to determine the exact cause of her death or how Palestinian militants could be responsible instead.

The truth is that the occupation is in place, apartheid is being sanctioned and independent voices of freedom are being deliberately targeted through state sponsorship. That explains her demise.

The writer is a former visiting fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington DC and is a broadcast journalist.

Read more:

Normalizing apartheid - The News International

All the asylum seekers whom ministers want to send to Rwanda have been placed in detention centres after arriving in the UK on small boats, the Home Office has confirmed.

When the government announced its controversial plans last month to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, officials said some of those issued with notices of intent that they would be offshored would be served with the notices while living in the community and would have 14 days to appeal against the decision. About 100 asylum seekers are thought to have been issued with notices of intent so far.

However, the Home Office has confirmed to the Guardian that everyone they want to send to Rwanda has been locked up in detention centres, with the community option not currently being used.

Many who arrive on small boats are in poor physical and mental condition, and some charities have reported that those detained for offshoring are traumatised, bewildered and do not understand what is happening to them.

The news comes as the Mail on Sunday reported that 10 asylum seekers have withdrawn their asylum claims since the Rwanda plan was announced, in a development hailed by some government sources as a sign that the plan drawn up by the home secretary, Priti Patel, is having the desired deterrent effect.

However, there is little indication that the policy is having a deterrent effect in northern France, with about 9,000 asylum seekers crossing the Channel so far this year, including hundreds since the policy was announced in mid-April. More than 100 people have made the Channel crossing since Thursday.

Those detained so far for offshoring include a group of people from Sudan who crossed the Channel in a kayak on 9 May not using the people smugglers whose business model the home secretary has said she wants to smash some Albanian asylum seekers and at least one man from Afghanistan who arrived approximately a week ago in a small boat.

Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter every weekday morning at 7am BST

Enver Solomon, the chief executive of Refugee Council, said: The government is now so determined to treat any person fleeing war or oppression, including those escaping Ukraine and Afghanistan, as a commodity to be shipped to Rwanda that it is choosing to detain them immediately. This is appallingly cruel and will cause great human suffering. We urge the government to immediately rethink its plans and focus on the workable alternatives clearly at their disposal. Safe routes including allowing people to apply for humanitarian visas is one important option.

Bella Sankey, the director of Detention Action, said: It seems that Priti Patels Rwanda expulsion policy is being used as justification to detain increasing numbers of traumatised people indefinitely in prison-like facilities. Weve heard reports of people confused about why they are detained and wholly unable to access legal advice.

A Home Office spokesperson said: Our new, world-leading migration partnership with Rwanda will see those who make dangerous, illegal or unnecessary journeys to the UK relocated to Rwanda and, if recognised as refugees, they will be supported to build a new life there. The government has the power to detain individuals for examination or pending their removal from the UK those who have been issued notices of intent are being detained under these existing powers.

Go here to read the rest:

Home Office detains all asylum seekers it plans to send to Rwanda - The Guardian

Victor Ogunje in Ado Ekiti

In her attempt to mobilise women for the All Progressives Congress governorship candidate in the June 18 election, Biodun Oyebanji, the Ekiti StateFirst Lady, Erelu Bisi Fayemi, has told women to reject parties that lack policies that can protect their rights .

Speaking pointedly, Mrs Fayemi told the female folks to reject theSocial Democratic Party and the Peoples Democratic Party(PDP), describing them as bereftof policies that can uplift women politically, economically, socially, and educationally.

Mrs Fayemi applauded his husband, Dr Kayode Fayemi, for being a women -friendly governor, who had uplifted the female gender in all spheres, saying voting for the opposition parties would reverse the positive impacts the APC had brought to women in the state.

The First Lady said this in Ado Ekitiyesterday during a rally organised by a group named Ekiti Women inPolitics to mobilise support for Oyebanji ahead of the governorship election.

Addressing themammoth crowd of women that massed at the rally, held at the Fajuyi Pavilion, the first ladyharped on the need for the progressive policies initiated by the current government to outlive the present situation for womensbenefit .

She said: Our government under Governor Fayemi had done a lot for women. But my mind is at rest that Mrs Olayemi Oyebanji just like I have done will protect and prevent women from oppression in Ekiti.

This is the least we can do for you.

For this to be actualised, come out on June 18 and vote for Biodun Oyebanji. This election is a must- win for APC for the sake of Ekiti women. Dont fight, be focused in this campaign and deal with issues that will promote our candidate.

Before Fayemi came, our women were marginalised in politics. But today, we have provided opportunities for a lot of them. We give them business opportunities, support their education, give them appointments from the state to the ward levels and even at the party level.

I am passionate about women because

as someone who is a development practitioner, there is no way a nation, state or community can develop when women are sidelined.

Also speaking, the APC Deputy Governorship candidate, Mrs Monisade Afuye, said some of the positions being savoured by women under the present government could have been illusive, but for Mrs Fayemis persistence and steadfastness in her advocacy for the rights of women.

She said: Mrs Fayemi has rescued us from oppression and servitude. She worked hard to ensure that our government comply with the 35% affirmative action. We even got more than

35% in Ekiti. Women are no longer pushovers in politics and in governance.

Go out and mobilise your women counterparts to vote for APC. Go to all the nook and cranny and preach the gospel of good governance that APC represents in Ekiti.

When Segun Oni came in 2007, he nearly killed most of the civil servants. He asked them to get their primary six certificates and many of them had accidents and died on their ways. Dont let them return us to that era.

Lending credence to the fact thatAPC is the only party that has women-oriented

policies, the wife of the APC Governorship candidate, Dr. Olayemi Oyebanji, said no goverment has ever recognised women like Fayemi in the history of Ekiti.

Mrs Oyebanji promised to sustain the tempo of women empowerment and platforms created by the first lady and her husband to make the female gender relevant .

The First Lady had shown love and provided good platforms for women to thrive in politics. I will sustain all that Mrs Fayemi has beendoing for women, I will even surpass it. I plead with you not to allow anyone to stop your relevance in politics and governance, she advised.

Reeling out what Fayemi has done for women in term of appointments, the Director General, APC Women Campaign Council, Chief Oluremi Ajayi, said: Under this government, women produced 44 councilors, four Council Vice Chairmen, four assembly women, many commissioners, special advisers, board members and a national assembly member.

For this coming election, we also have a wowan Deputy Governorship candidate. Tell your people resident outside Ekiti to come home and vote in this governorship election. Go home and be good ambassadors to sustain the good policies we are enjoying under Fayemi.

Like Loading...

Read the original:

Ekiti 2022: Reject Parties that Lack Women-oriented Policies, Fayemi Tells Women - THISDAY Newspapers

She sits on the brown leather couch, her wrinkled fingers tracing the delicate black characters on the weekly Chinese newspaper. Ever so slightly, her eyes squint as she struggles to dissect each character on the page with little success.

Grandmama, I ask, as she cradles my tiny bodyon her lap, why didnt yougo to college? Her dark eyes stare back softly: I had no choice.

Foot binding, the horrible practice of womens subjugation, and a powerful metaphor for male dominance, was banned in 1949, just before my grandmother was born in 1956. But the forces of patriarchal dominance continue to bind womens fates.

When Chinese men are 17, it is prime time for them to begin considering career paths, whether it be military school, a four-year degree or entering the workforce. At 17, my grandmother had just given birth to my father. All of her male friends were still in school as her young soul was burdened with motherhood.

A Chinese womans value is linked to her obedience, her appearance and her ability to raise male heirs. And while Communist leader Mao Zedong did say, Women hold up half the sky, gender equality was not made law until 1995. It is true there are more educational opportunities for women in China today than before. Even so, according to the New York Times, there are unofficial but widespread gender quotas in universities that favour men, and women must score higher than men to get in. In 2012, the education ministry defended these quotas as being in Chinas national interest.

More on Broadview:

Of 14,000 national civil service jobs, five percent require applicants to be male, stating that these jobs are too tedious andheavy for women to bear. Likewise, employed women are paid 20 percent less than their male counterparts.

After centuries of oppression, feminist movements have slowly sprouted throughout the nation.

I spent three years living in mainland China, and in my time there I connected with many others who shared my feminist values. Last June, a friend of mine received massive backlash on social media after reposting hashtags about the #MeToo and #NotYourPerfectVictim movements. All her posts were shadow banned blocked frompublication by the government.

She was not alone. Since 2018, millions of Chinese women who have used #MeToo on social media found their postings to be among the top 10 most censored topics on Chinese social media apps. Dozens of prominent Chinese feminist activists have even reported their accounts being suspended or removed.

So long as authoritarian, patriarchal leaders remain in power, Chinese citizens, and especially women, will have their voices taken away, their resolve to fight back drained with each passing day. As an American citizen, I am fortunate to be writing about my experiences and perspectives on womens oppression. This is a privilege that women in China do not have. Until they achieve full equality, my fight for their rights will continue.

***

Sophia Li is a freelance writer in Dallas who was raised in a Chinese immigrant household.

This column first appeared in Broadviews June 2022 issue with the title Their fates are still bound by patriarchy.

We hope you found this Broadview article engaging.

Our team is working hard to bring you more independent, award-winning journalism. But Broadview is a nonprofit and these are tough times for magazines. Please consider supporting our work. There are a number of ways to do so:

Thank you for being such wonderful readers.

Jocelyn Bell

Follow this link:

Patriarchy still binds the fates of women in China - Broadview Magazine

In another deplorable, anti-democratic action by the cultural establishment in the US and Europe, three music festivals have excluded Russian DJ and performer Nina Kraviz from their events this summer. Kraviz has been banned from appearing at the Movement Music Festival in Detroit; the Crave in The Hague, the Netherlands; and PollerWiesen in Dortmund, Germany, on the grounds that she has not been sufficiently vocal about opposing the Putin regimes reactionary invasion of Ukraine.

Kraviz has become the focus of a right-wing campaign stirred up by the media, includingTimemagazine. In mid-May,Timepublished a witch-hunting article essentially singling out the prominent DJ for attack. Referring to the anti-Russian cultural boycott, the piece referred to Kraviz as the latest artist at the center of this maelstrom. This had something of the character of a self-fulfilling prophecy. By naming names in this manner,Timewas seeking to place Kraviz at the center of this maelstrom.

The article went on to argue that the DJ and singer was arguably the most famous Russian pop musician on a global scale: over the last decade, shes built an ardent following with 1.8 million Instagram followers, performed on Coachellas mainstage, and collaborated with the likes of Grimes and St. Vincent. She sits close to the center of the global electronic music world, and was namedMixmags 2017 DJ of the Year.

Timeclaimed, on the basis of a few memes and online images, that Kraviz has left a social media trail of support for Russian President Vladimir Putin. After the war began in February, she made one vague post about peace before falling silent on social media for months, which prompted the criticism of those who feel that she should use her platform as one of Russias foremost cultural exports.

The hypocrisy, or the lie of the soul, if one prefers, is simply colossal. Where were the similar demands that US performers use their platforms to denounce the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries targeted for Americas murderous liberating efforts?

In fact, the various festival organizers, no doubt under pressure from governments at different levels and Ukrainian nationalist forces, are allowing themselves to become instruments for the whipping up of anti-Russian chauvinism and hatred, poisoning the political and cultural atmosphere and facilitating the war drive of the Biden administration and the other Western governments.

None of the three festivals provided an honest account of the decision to exclude Kraviz, or even gave explicit reasoning for this decision, asMixmag, the Britishelectronic dance and clubbing magazine, pointed out.Mixmag noted that PollerWiesen said, this decision was made by us following a process of open dialogue with all parties involved.

Similarly, The Crave wrote: After long and intensive discussions both internally and externally we have decided that Nina Kraviz will not play The Crave Festival 2022.Movement Detroit, where Kraviz was listed as one of the big names to expect, tweeted: Nina Kraviz is unable to play Movement this year.

Earlier in May, the Rotterdam-based company Clone Distribution severed its ties with Kravizs label Trip Recordings, citing different views on ethical and moral matters.

Clones statement in regard to Kraviz exemplifies the anti-Russian hysteria that has overtaken significant sections of the affluent petty-bourgeoisie. It combines exaggerations about the impact of the Russian invasion and absolution of the US and NATO with anti-communism and a generally authoritarian outlook. The statement reads, in part: In the past, even after the annexation of the Crimea, Nina Kraviz has put forward several outings which can be taken as pro-Putin. Moreover she has clearly been flirting with CCCP/USSR-sentiments on several occasions, while the USSR was a regime that has stood for the oppression of minorities, has marginalised the LGBTQ+ communities, a regime which murdered millions of people!

The statement goes on to smear Kraviz as someone who has been able to continue her lifestyle and her life as a performing artist as if nothing is happening, while the looting, the raping, the murdering and the destruction of a country by her countrymen continues. Clone keeps repeating phrases about Kravizs right to keep silent or hold any views she might choose before making clear it intends to punish her for exercising those rights.

The Movement Music Festival came under the direct pressure from a group calling itself Ukrainians of Metro Detroit, which organized a petition on Change.org. The petition demands that Kraviz speak out for the victims of this war given your platform and millions of fans. Silence only breeds more injustice. Otherwise, the group threatens, we ask Movement and the City of Detroit to consider whether your past pro-Putin views reflect the values of our community, and re-evaluate their invitation to welcome you to the City. They clearly followed through on their threats.

Kraviz has replied to the complaints, writing on Instagram, As a person, musician and artist Im deeply moved by whats happening in the world. Its appalling what my countrys relations with Ukraine have become. I am against all forms of violence. I am praying for peace. It pains me to see innocent people die.

She went on, I am a musician and was never involved in supporting the politicians or political parties, and I am not planning to do it in the future. I dont understand politics or the social processes it creates. So I dont think it is right to talk about whats happening on social media. In my opinion, it might increase the degree of all-consuming hatred, and does not assist in understanding.

Kraviz is still scheduled to perform at the CORE Festival in Belgium May 27-28 and Junction 2 in London June 18-19.

Responses on social media have been generally hostile to the actions taken against Kraviz. Comments posted on a local Detroit television stations Facebook page included the following:

Forcing an artist to announce their political position during a war when their homeland has been throwing vocal opponents and their family members in jail is cruel and unfair. This action does nothing for the support of Ukraine.

Stop punishing citizens for government actions.

Music and sports are the only segments which connect people around the world.Leave them alone.

Surely, crushing people that have absolutely nothing to do with the Russian/Ukrainian war will show Putin.

Shes an artist, not a defense strategist Cmon guys, shes not invading anything but nightclubs.

That's not right, she shouldn't have to share her political views and definitely should not have to swear she supports someone elses.

What does a Russian dj in America have anything to do with Russia and Ukraine? This is a stupid bully tactic. Shes not in Russia. She is not invading Ukraine. She is playing music for crying out loud.

Disgusting. Make her risk her life over what... a proxy war thats just getting people killed for profit?

I wonder how the US would react if Russia started building bases and storing nukes near our borders?

Anti-Russian hysterics.

Put all these Ruskis in internment camps, thatll fix Putin.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

See original here:

Russian DJ and performer Nina Kraviz banned from three music festivals - WSWS

GENEVA (16 May 2022) - UN human rights experts* urgently called on Israel and the international community to stop the forced evictions, arbitrary displacement and forcible transfer of Palestinian communities from Masafer Yatta in the occupied West Bank.

Following the judgement of the Israeli High Court of Justice earlier this month, around 1,200 Palestinian residents of Masafer Yatta, including 500 children, face imminent risks of forced evictions, arbitrary displacement and forcible transfer, in serious breach of international humanitarian and human rights laws, said the experts.

We are monitoring with concern the latest information indicating that the Israeli forces have demolished structures in the Masafer Yatta communities of Khribet al Fakhiet and al-Markez. These demolitions place them at immediate risk of forcible transfer.

On 4 May, the Israeli High Court of Justice rejected appeals against eviction orders issued to Palestinian inhabitants of Masafer Yatta, the area designated as a closed military training site, Firing Zone 918, south of Hebron. The decision effectively ends the legal proceedings that lasted for more than two decades, thereby permitting the Israeli forces to clear and use the area for military training.

By upholding this policy to drive Palestinians out of Masafer Yatta, the Israeli judicial system has given carte blanche to the Israeli Government to perpetuate the practice of systematic oppression against Palestinians, said the experts.

This is all the more disconcerting, as it is done to allow Israeli military trainings in the area. How can this be given priority over the rights of the Palestinian residents? Israel has shown no imperative military necessity to vacate the area. The displacement of the Masafer Yatta communities may thus amount to a war crime.

The experts expressed particular concern that the Court narrowly construed the definition of forcible transfer prohibited under international humanitarian law and inexcusably dismissed the relevance of fundamental provisions of international law in the domestic context.

Dismissing, as not relevant or not binding, norms and principles that are foundational of international law is a worrisome indication that the Israeli judicial system is supportive of laws and practices that have progressively crystallized the subjugation of the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory, the experts said.

A Court that does not provide justice based on international norms and that perpetuates the violations of fundamental human rights of people who have been under military occupation for 55 years, becomes itself part of the structural system of oppression.

The experts further called on the international community to take steps to prevent the forcible transfer of the Masafer Yatta residents.The international community must not become complicit to this serious violation of international humanitarian and humanitarian laws by remaining silent: it must exert available diplomatic, political and economic measures prescribed by the UN Charter to bring Israeli violations to a halt, said the experts.

The experts are in contact with the Government of Israel on the issue.

ENDS

Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967; Cecilia Jimenez-Damary, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons; Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Councils independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

UN Human Rights, Country Page: Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel

Read the rest here:

UN experts alarmed by Israel High Court ruling on Masafer Yatta and risk of imminent forcible transfer of Palestinians - OHCHR

The French city of Grenoble has formally allowed Muslim women to wear burkinis, or swimming costumes covering the whole body, in public pools.

Members of the municipal council narrowly approved the new rules during a meeting on Monday despite political opposition.

After a tense debate, there were 29 votes in favour of the measure, with 27 councillors voting against and two abstentions.

France's interior ministry has stated that it will block the move, which contradicts French laws on secularism and the "neutrality of public service".

Grald Darmanin described the decision as an "unacceptable community provocation, contrary to our values."

But the mayor of Grenoble, Eric Piolle, has repeatedly argued that debate over burkinis is a "non-issue".

Piolle has stated the change in swimming pool regulations -- brought in before pools open in mid-June --aims to "remove aberrant clothing bans" and combat "injunctions on women's bodies".

From 1 June, Grenoble will relax its rules and allow both women and men to swim topless or wearfull-body swimming costumes for sun protection or religious beliefs.

The move has been backed by women's rights activists in France, who have campaigned for people to "wear what they want" at swimming pools.

But MPs from the ruling En Marche party of President Emmanuel Macron have argued that Islamic veils go against France's strict secular values, which separate state and religion.

Opponents also argue that the burkini is a symbol of women's oppression,similar to the full veil that is worn in some Muslim-majority countries.

The right-wing president of the Auvergne-Rhne-Alpes hasthreatened on Twitter to pull all regional funding to the city over the new rules.

The regional prefect of Isre had announced on Sunday that he will refer the council's decision to the administrative court of Grenoble.

"I can't wait for the government to explain to us why we should hide all our religious signs in a swimming pool," Piollo told Franceinfo in response on Monday.

The Grenoble mayor has cited another French city Rennes, which passed a similar measure approving burkinis in 2018.

Two years earlier, an estimated 30 French coastal resorts banned women from wearing burkinis on beaches.

France's highest administrative court later ruled that the anti-burkini decrees were a serious and manifestly illegal attack on fundamental freedoms.

In Grenoble, the NGOAlliance Citoyenne has organised several recent stunts in the city's swimming pools to support the new rules.

The group has also campaigned against France's Football Federation, which bans the wearing of Islamic hijabs in competitions.

Read the original post:

Controversy as French city allows women to wear 'burkinis' in pools - Euronews

WARSAW, PolandBe not afraid, President Joe Biden said in his fiery speech at the Royal Castle in Warsaw on March 25, 2022, exactly one month after Russian president Vladimir Putins armed forces invaded Ukraine. Bidens visit to Poland was part of a series of intensive back-to-back meetings with the leaders of NATO, the Group of Seven Industrialized countries (G-7), and the twenty-seven-member European Union (EU).

As the Catholic U.S. president invoked the famous phrase of the late Polish-born Pope John Paul II during his visit to Warsaw, the Russian Federations missiles destroyed targets in western Ukraine next to the Polish border on the very same daysending an unequivocal message to the United States and its global partners.

Choosing Poland for Bidens historical speech was no coincidence. Poland is a frontline country for both NATO and the EU. Since the outbreak of the war, almost three million Ukrainians have crossed the border with Polandmaking it the biggest host for Ukrainian refugees.

Interestingly, Poland being a frontline country is nothing new. In World War I, Poland was a battlefield in a war between Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire on one side and Tsarist Russia on the other. Twenty years later, WWII started with Nazi Germanys attack on Poland in September 1939. The tragedy resulted in the death of over six million Polish citizens, including more than three million Polish Jews. It is quite conceivable that a possible World War III might also go through Poland.

When U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin returned to Poland after their secrecy-shrouded visit to meet with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv on April 24, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov warned against an imminent WWIII. Ironically, however, Russia has not until now called its war against Ukraine a war, but simply a military operation.

It is indeed a global war already. In Warsaw, Biden reiterated that the unprovoked war in Ukraine is part of a global struggle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and oppression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force. This great battle for freedom will define the future of the world and it will not be an easy one. With those words, Biden appealed to the global communityclearly echoing the celebrated Truman Doctrine.

Bidens Update of the Seventy-Five-Year-Old Doctrine

In February 1946, George Kennan, the American charge daffaires in Moscow, sent a famous long telegram to Washington sharing his observations about the Soviet system and the threat of communist expansion. His telegram provided the primary underpinning for the Truman Doctrine, whose aim was to contain communist expansion at the dawn of the Cold War.

Addressing the Joint Session of the U.S. Congress on March 12, 1947, President Harry S. Truman announced that every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. It is a choice between the will of the majority that guarantees individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression, or the power relied on terror and oppression that is forcibly imposed with the control of media, fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms.

U.S. containment policy was implemented for the first time in 1949 by providing aid to Greece and Turkey which, as the Truman White House believed, would save these countries from falling into the hands of communists. Soon afterward, the Greek crisis was resolved; both countries joined the newly created NATO security alliance. As a result, together with the Marshall Plan, which aimed at rebuilding postwar Europe, the Truman Doctrine defined the U.S. containment policy throughout the Cold War.

At the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Truman Doctrine, the global community now witnesses a similar conflict unfolding. Even though the Soviet Union collapsed over thirty years ago, Russia is yet again trying to expand its former territory westward, pushing its borders to NATOs eastern frontier, formed by Poland and the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Like in the past, it is more than a regional conflict; it is a proxy war between democracy and autocracy.

Poland at a Crossroads

Extending the Truman Doctrine to preserve the essential principles of a free society, Biden henceforth invited like-minded countries to defeat democracys mortal foes. Poland, as the place of his historic speech, had profound symbolic meaning and purpose. While Poland strategically remains NATOs critical ally during Russias expanding war in Ukraine and beyond to Moldova, the Warsaw government hardly fits elegantly into the undisputed league of exemplary democracies.

Since 2015, the Polish authorities illustrated the lack of commitment to the rule of law, democratic values, and the freedom of the press. Warsaws right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party and its coalition governments sweeping changes to the judicial system violated the EUs democratic standards; thus, Brussel has blocked 36 billion post-Covid-19 recovery loans and grants to Poland.

Tapping into these prevailing undercurrents, apart from invoking the pope, Biden also purposefully summoned former Polish president Lech Wasa in his Warsaw speech. He essentially reminded the Poles that their government is trying to impose changes to the historical remembrance of the Solidarity Movement and its democratic transformation by eliminating Wasa from public memory. It seems that the U.S. president was fully aware of the legacy of Wasa, whose contributions had systematically been erased from official school handbooks. Indeed, Polands democratic foundation has gradually eroded since the PiS coalition took power in 2015. According to the 2021 Global Democracy Index, Poland has become the most autocratizing country in the world.

Invoking the Catholic and Solidarity leaders in his speech, Biden sent a coded but unmistakably clear message to the government leaders in Warsaw. In other words, he consciously sensitized the nature of American-style culture warin Poland and the Polish governments stance against the established democratic norms.

Bidens New Truman Doctrine

The democratic and universal values must first be defended and strengthened in the bastion of democracy: the United States. After four years of President Donald Trump, who supported autocratic leaders like Putin and undermined democratically-elected leaders like Zelenskyy, Biden inherited a herculean task ahead to regain the credibility of adhering to the American ideals.

After Hillary Clinton lost the electoral college vote but won the popular vote over Trump, Senator Tim Kaine, Clintons vice-presidential candidate, described the need for a renewed foreign policy. In his pivotal Foreign Affairs article in 2017, A New Truman Doctrine: Grand Strategy in a Hyperconnected World, Kaine wrote about the tendency of Trumps America first policy and articulated the value of coherent and bipartisan foreign policy strategy that balances Americas greatness through goodness.

Upholding his Inaugural Speech, President Biden is now revitalizing the tradition of the Truman Doctrine that we lead not by the example of our power but by the power of our example. The Biden White House has galvanized democratic world leaders to extend their military, economic, diplomatic, and moral support for Ukraine through Poland and other NATO partners. In response, the U.S. Congress approved an unprecedented $6.5 billion for military assistance in March as part of $13.6 billion for Ukraine and its allies. On April 28, Biden asked Congress to approve an additional $33 billion for military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. The president also requested the power to seize and sell the assets of wealthy Russians, claiming to support Ukraine and its fight for freedom.

Poland remains a frontline NATO member and an important American partner to challenge Russias ongoing aggression, reported war crimes, and corruption. However, the Biden administration must focus on Poland not only as a European ally but also as a credible democratic nation. Thus, both the United States and the EU must engage and assist Poland instructivelyespecially in political, economic, and military realms. The United States, its G-7 allies, and the EU should use this window of opportunity to decisively convince the Warsaw authorities to legitimize their actions in line with democratic values and universal normsparticularly when the Polish government is accused of constituting draconian legislations over abortion and human rights restrictions vis--vis the LGBT community, and the negations of the treaty obligations with the EU.

Poland should be the shining example of democratic triumph on NATOs eastern flank and primarily even for more vulnerable countrieslike the Baltic states. Poland still has a thriving civil society that defends democratic freedoms tirelessly. While the United States and its democratic allies are engaged in the great battle for democracy, they must not overlook the nature of anti-democratic governance by the right-wing leaders in Warsaw. There is no strategic necessity that would justify the blind support for the Polish autocratizationor sacrifice democracy for the support of an important allied country. Like in the United States, the New Truman Doctrine should also flourish in Poland.

Dr.Patrick Mendis, a former American diplomat and a NATO military professor, is currently a distinguished visiting professor of transatlantic relations at the University of Warsaw in Poland. Dr.Antonina Luszczykiewicz, a Fulbright scholar, is an assistant professor at the Jagiellonian University in KrakowPoland. Both served as Taiwan fellows of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China.The views expressed in this analysis do not represent the official positions of their current or past affiliations or governments.

Read the original post:

Will Poland Become a Shining, Democratic American Partner? - The National Interest Online

The leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion overruling Roe v. Wade was a shock, but the content of the draft should not have been a surprise. Overruling Roe has been a stated goal of the Republican party, repeated in its presidential platforms in every election since the decision was handed down in 1973. With a 6-3 Republican majority in firm control of the Court, the end of Roe should have been expected.

Yet people were surprised. Part of the reaction comes from the fact that Roe had survived other Republican majorities. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed the central holding of Roe in 1992, was decided by a Court with eight Republican appointees. The Roe Court itself had a 5-4 Republican majority.

Things are different now than they were fifty or thirty years ago. Justices vote in line with the preferences of their appointing President more consistently than they used to. But the overruling of Roe also conflicts with a general sense in that the Supreme Court usually expands peoples rights; it doesnt take them away. This understanding falls neatly into the story of progress that we like to tell ourselves: American history moves forward; it doesnt go back.

Thats a comforting story, but it isnt true. American history does go back, and the Supreme Court does take rights away. The most striking example of this occurred after the greatest expansion of constitutional rights, the Reconstruction Amendments.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress transformed American society with three amendments designed to make a new nation. The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment established birthright citizenship, including the formerly enslaved as full members of the American nation. It gave those new citizens, and everyone else, rights of liberty and equality to protect them from oppression by the States. (The Bill of Rights, like most of the 1787 Constitution, protected people only from the federal government.) The Fifteenth Amendment prohibited racial discrimination with respect to the right to vote. All the amendments gave Congress power to pass laws for their enforcement. Together, they sought for the first time to make America a multiracial democracy.

It workedfor a while. Reconstructed southern governments operated integrated schools and police forces. They reformed divorce laws and provided social services on a scale never before seen in the South.

But not everyone was willing to accept the new society. Some whites resented seeing government services supporting Blacks, which marked them as insiders. They resented sharing those services with Blacks, which marked them as equals. And they resisted violently.

It took the U.S. Army to keep them in line, and eventually the will to maintain what was in essence a military occupation of the South faded. As a way of settling the disputed election of 1876, the federal troops ended their supervision. What followed was called Redemption. Whites took back control, often through violent coups led by white supremacist paramilitary organizations. And very quickly, the rights promised by the Reconstruction Amendments went away.

The Supreme Court did not help. It read the Fourteenth Amendment narrowlyin the words of a dissenting Justice, it turned what was meant for bread into a stone. It struck down a federal law prohibiting racial discrimination by restaurants and inns, commenting that at some point blacks must cease[] to be the special favorite of the laws. (This in 1883, when slavery was only eighteen years in the past.) Faced with massive and systemic violations of the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court threw up its hands. [R]elief from a great political wrong, it said, had to come from the legislative and political department of the government of the United States.

Eventually that relief did come. Almost a hundred years later, the Civil Rights movement fought to fulfil the promises of Reconstruction. Congress enacted more anti-discrimination laws and, crucially, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For a brief periodthe time historians now call the Second Reconstructionthe Court worked with Congress to make a more just and equal society.

But starting around 1980, with the election of Ronald Reagan, things took a new turn. The 1980 Republican platform lamented that government power has grown unchecked under Democratic administrations and promised freedom from its pervasive and heavy-handed intrusion. Republicans, it continued, pledge to continue and redouble our efforts to return power to the state and local governments. Reagans four Supreme Court appointments fulfilled the pledge, making the Court more suspicious of federal authority and more receptive to claims of states rights.

In constitutional law, a preference for state authority is called federalism, and constitutional scholars typically called this era the New Federalism. But people seldom favor state authority in the abstract, without some idea of what that power will be used for. In recent years, the issues on which the Supreme Court favors the states have become clearer. Congress can still enact broad laws to regulate the economy: the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. But it cannot protect the right to vote against racial discriminationin a series of decisions, the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act. It cannot use its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to protect individuals against discrimination by statesin a different series of decisions, the Court struck down federal anti-discrimination laws and the Violence Against Women Act.

The selective and carefully targeted nature of the judicial pushback against Congress shows that what is happening now is not really about states rights any more than the Civil War was. It is about rolling back the gains that equality movements made in the century and a half since the end of the first Reconstruction. (If you doubt this, watch how quickly abortion opponents drop the appeal to states rights in favor of a national ban.)

The decisions and even the phrases of the current Court echo those of an earlier era. Striking down an attempt to integrate schools, John Roberts pronounced that the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. Endorsing a challenge to the Voting Rights Act, Antonin Scalia criticized the law as a racial entitlement. Blacks must cease to be the special favorites of the law. Attempts to promote equality are an affront to the natural order of things. That is what the attack on affirmative action is about, and it is what a decision overturning Roe would be about, too. The time they want to return to is not 1787 but 1876.

Ive taught constitutional law for twenty years now, and for twenty years the last section of my syllabus has been called The New Federalism. For the past ten, Ive put a question mark at the end of that phrase because I havent been sure whats really going on. But now I am, and the question mark is going away. So is the fig leaf of states rights. The constitutional era we live in now is getting the name it deserves: the Second Redemption.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

Originally posted here:

The Roe Leak Shows the Supreme Court's Ongoing Effort to Overturn Established Rights - TIME