Category Archives: HUMAN RIGHTS

Time for Australia to Say ‘Indigenous Lives Matter’

… . HUMAN RIGHTS … .

An article by Pascale Hunt in The Diplomat

Anti-racism protests across Australia amassed tens of thousands of supporters over the weekend. The murder of George Floyd, a black man, by a police officer in the United States on May 25 provided the catalyst for a global wave of solidarity with the black community to condemn police brutality and demand meaningful change. But neither Floyd’s murder, nor the anti-racism movement that it has sparked, should be considered surprising or spontaneous deviations from the circumstances found in local communities the world over. In Australia, the glaring issue of Aboriginal deaths in custody has become the obvious parallel drawn – 432 deaths since the Royal Commission in 1991, and not a single conviction. As in the United States, these crimes have occurred against the backdrop of centuries of structural and cultural violence.
.


A rally organizer leads a march from King George Square to South Brisbane at a Black Lives Matter protest on June 6, 2020, to support the movement over the death of George Floyd in the U.S. and the deaths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands people in custody in Australia. Credit: AP Photo/John Pye

The nature of the unequal interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within the structure of Australian society today prevents equality not only from being realized but from even being imagined. In understanding the dynamics of this reality, and if we hope to make progress toward equality and reconciliation, we should understand violence as tri-faceted in its manifestations, including not only direct (meaning physical) violence, but also structural and cultural aspects. Structural violence refers to violence that is embedded economically, socially, or legally, manifesting as unequal opportunities to realize quality of life, security, and self-actualization, whereas cultural violence is revealed in the social legitimization and justification of structural and direct violence.

The Indigenous peoples of Australia have suffered direct, structural, and cultural violence since colonization began over 200 years ago. While the exact numbers are contested, it has been estimated that there were between 300,000 and 1 million Indigenous peoples living on the Australian continent at that time, dispersed across over 200 nations – many of those lives were lost in direct combat and massacres at the time of British settlement. Today, the Indigenous peoples of Australia compose only 2 percent of the country’s population, making up a miniscule minority in their own lands – and life expectancy for Indigenous communities is some 25 percent below the rest of the Australian population. Australia has been accused of ethnic cleansing and of breaching the principles outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – according to the United Nations Convention on Genocide, Article II, assorted historical policies of child removal and forced assimilation are considered genocidal.

It was only as recently as 1967 that Indigenous Australians were recognized as citizens – and in almost all contemporary statistics, Indigenous people are in much worse circumstances than other groups in the country. One of the most shocking examples is that today, the average lifespan for Indigenous Australians is 20 years less than the non-Indigenous population, despite both groups residing in what has been called “the wealthiest country in the world.” Furthermore, it is worth noting that Indigenous identity itself never existed until the colonial event to juxtapose it – since then, Indigeneity has transformed from a colonial construct into a politicized identity, as Indigenous peoples continue to struggle for recognition of their basic rights.

It should be understood that continued suppression of Australian Indigenous peoples, appearing today in the form of structurally and culturally violent policies and attitudes, is required to maintain the security of the settler colonies’ original interest. The nature of the settler-colonial context is an example of cultural violence itself – the land was declared terra nullius, meaning “land belonging to no one,” from the outset, justifying the immediate atrocities committed as well as the subsequent dehumanizing structures that continue to characterize the settler-Indigenous relationship. The settler-colonial context in general – and the conflicts that arise from it – are distinctive in that their primary interest was, and is, in securing permanent control of the land through dispossessing native populations, achieved by suppressing the significance of Indigenous presence. In the Australian case, the significance of Indigenous people’s territorial dispossession is compounded by their deep cultural and spiritual interconnectedness with their ancestral land.

How Indigenous Australians have been affected by historically embedded structural violence is evident in that they are often required to hand over land rights in exchange for basic services that other Australians get without strings attached.

Indigenous rights that are protected in the Northern Territory Land Rights Act (1976) prevent the government and private companies from accessing rich uranium deposits – a concession that exemplifies a huge opportunity cost for the mining industry that is largely responsible for Australia’s national wealth. With this in mind, relatively recent events such as the Northern Territory intervention of 2007 – in which the government enacted a unilateral military occupation of NT communities’ land, quarantined 50 percent of Indigenous welfare payments, suspended the Racial Discrimination Act, and subjected Indigenous children to non-consensual health checks under the pretext of protecting them – can be interpreted as a strategic continuation of the original colonial-imperial agenda.

The mining industry is the biggest contributor to Australian GDP growth, and comes into direct conflict with Indigenous land rights, posing a significant struggle over the control of resources that support the maintenance of mining profits. Legislation such as the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (1976) in the Northern Territory has in some instances allowed the Indigenous community to influence development decisions – or at least share in the capital benefits – but in general, the legal, policy, and institutional environment remains hostile to Indigenous interests, heavily favoring those of mining corporations. Amendments to the Native Title Act made in 1998 imposed stricter requirements for registering Native Title claims, and simultaneously removed the “right to negotiate” from the renewal of mining leases. Not by coincidence, the NSW Office of the Environment and Heritage shows that between June 2012 and June 2013 there were over 99 applications for the destruction of Aboriginal heritage sites for development purposes – all of which were approved.

(Article continued in right column)

Question(s) related to this article:

Are we making progress against racism?

(Article continued from left column)

Importantly, mineral development prevents and excludes Indigenous people from being on country, hunting and gathering, and carrying out rituals. Their capacity to negotiate with developers is severely undermined by government non-funding of Native Title Representative Bodies, which exist to support traditional owners in negotiations with commercial interests, leaving many Indigenous individuals and organizations with no choice but to rely on project developers for funding. This dynamic fundamentally alters the negotiating process. Ultimately, mining companies are driven by aspirations for capital accumulation that override their ostensible commitment to corporate social responsibility norms.

The media continues to facilitate the structural and cultural violence that permeates the relationship between settler and Indigenous Australians. Conventional reporting structures that rely on official sources and dualistic tug-of-war conceptions of conflict situations often ignore the root causes of conflict, the diversity and legitimacy of various stakeholders’ perspectives, and the complexity of myriad processes taking place. In the Australian media, Indigenous peoples are often portrayed as less successful in society, encouraging perceptions that this is the outcome innate group traits such as substance abuse or lack of initiative, rather than a consequence of broader structural factors and policies that prevent Indigenous peoples from realizing their goals. This effect is multiplied due to the comparative size of the Indigenous population to the rest of the country in Australia, as well as the intense concentration of media ownership in the country, which undeniably promotes elite and private interests. A feedback loop is created when culturally violent attitudes are distributed, justifying the structurally violent system, creating more circumstances that can be reported in a way that compound both. The inevitable outcome is a reinforcement of status-quo ideology, and a barrier preventing conflict comprehension and conflict resolution.

A primary obstacle to the reconciliation process in Australia is achieving acknowledgement among the wider public that the conflict is still happening. The official reconciliation process has been a mostly top-down approach, reflective of the colonial project from which the current system derives. It has failed to seriously address the injustices that have been done – primarily, the forced dispossession of land that lies at the heart of the conflict. It has been largely symbolic, emphasizing apology and forgiveness over structural and relational change – in other words, official reconciliation has failed to address the causal connection between structurally entrenched social disadvantage and the original dispossession of land that occurred. Nuanced contextualization that accounts for the historical abuses that have characterized the Indigenous-settler relationship is essential in order to understand the nature of the contemporary conflict and explore options for holistic reconciliation and conflict transformation.

Reconciliation itself has been criticized as a replacement for calls for sovereign recognition, and for characterizing historical events as “past injustices” that are unrelated to contemporary realities. While the process ostensibly aimed to address structural injustices affecting Indigenous communities, it failed to locate these structural injustices within the historical colonial context of land dispossession and the imposition of policies that continue to control Indigenous destinies. Former Prime Minister John Howard advocated a “practical reconciliation” agenda, in which policies would be implemented to target social inequalities in areas of employment, education, housing, and health – suggesting that reconciliation efforts should “focus on the future.” This discourse emphasized friendship and forgiveness – an idea that is beneficial to those seeking to reinforce a unified nation-state, but fails to recognize Indigenous calls for justice.

Since the 1960s, there have been several nonofficial political campaigns centered on the concept of land rights and self-determination of Indigenous Australians and challenging the established history of the settler society. One of the most iconic – inspired by the U.S. Civil Rights movement – was when a group of students took part in a peaceful protest known as the “Freedom Rides,” travelling around New South Wales fostering awareness about Indigenous sovereignty. These representations of the continent’s history spurred growing demands for recognition of Indigenous rights and sovereignty, directly challenging the state’s reputation as a liberal democracy, and called for the establishment of a treaty such as had been the practice in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. In 1988, the largest-ever protest for Indigenous rights occurred in Sydney during the bicentennial celebrations and aimed to raise awareness about the original custodianship of the continent. While over 20,000 Indigenous Australians congregated in solidarity and protest of the previous 200 years of treatment, their presence was ignored by media reports – which instead chose to cover the many ships gathered in Sydney Harbor for the government-sponsored Australia Day celebrations.

In recent decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the symbolic use of Indigeneity as a part of the Australian nation-building project – discounting the truth of Indigenous Australians and appropriating the country’s controversial history by establishing a false connectedness between settlers and the land, thereby weakening Indigenous claims to sovereignty. Instead of addressing the unequal relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, the government promoted a nationalistic rhetoric that preached a “unified Australia” at the expense of Indigenous voices. It was a presentation that was beneficial to the state – facilitating the mythic character of the Australian nation as the “lucky country” in a way that dismissed the perspective of the Australian Indigenous population. In effect, it masked Indigenous dissent in a cover of self-congratulatory celebrations that were aimed at allowing settler Australians and the Australian state to stand proud with their identity, at the expense of the message that 20,000 Indigenous Australians that had gathered for. There is glaring opportunity for the media to play a more effective role in acknowledging history and facilitating discussion about the context underpinning the present situation.

In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologized to the stolen generations. The apology was greatly important for many Indigenous peoples and provided a sense of healing and symbolic justice. However, the over-emphasis on the apology in the media has allowed politicians to dodge meaningful reforms toward actual justice for Indigenous Australians. In February 2015, Rudd reflected on his apology, noting that as a country, “our achievements have been meager… the purpose of the apology was not to provide the nation a fleeting feel-good moment… it was to harness our collective energies for breaking the cycle of Indigenous disadvantage for the future.”

Permeating structural and cultural violence against Indigenous Australians has not been sufficiently addressed, and this hinders progress toward reconciliation and conflict resolution. The settler-colonial context, which manifests today in structurally violent attitudes and culturally violent policies with the media as a key player in maintaining the status quo, prioritizes national business interests that exacerbate the original injustice of Indigenous land dispossessions. A comprehensive understanding of the nature and context of the conflict, facilitated by dialogue and respect, is essential, along with an acknowledgement that the present situation is derived from the historical and contemporary denial of Indigenous rights, freedoms, and human needs.

It is understandable – given the history of structural, cultural and direct violence in Australia – that many Indigenous peoples feel that they will not have true justice until they are granted substantive land rights, sovereignty, and the ability to control their own destinies. While it may be too late in the game to turn over the extent of reparations that is deserved, the reconciliation process could undoubtedly involve more substantive, structural change that would make a real difference to the living conditions, dignity, and identities of Indigenous peoples, and contribute toward mending the broken relationship between settler Australians and the original custodians of this land.

East Asia, HUMAN RIGHTS

What is Juneteenth and how are people commemorating it this year?

… . HUMAN RIGHTS … .

An article from Reuters (reprinted by permission)

Juneteenth, an annual U.S. holiday on June 19, has taken on greater significance this year following nationwide protests over police brutality and the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks and other African Americans.
.


FILE PHOTO: The Emancipation Proclamation is displayed at the National Archives building in Washington, January 13, 2006. President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War, formally proclaiming the freedom of all slaves held in areas still in revolt. This original document is displayed for public during four days once a year. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo

WHAT IS JUNETEENTH?

Juneteenth, a portmanteau of June and 19th, also is known as Emancipation Day. It commemorates the day in 1865, after the Confederate states surrendered to end the Civil War, when a Union general arrived in Texas to inform the last group of enslaved African Americans of their freedom under President Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. In 1980, Texas officially declared it a holiday. It is now recognized in 46 other states and the District of Columbia. Although in part a celebration, the day is also observed solemnly to honor those who suffered during slavery in the United States with the arrival of the first enslaved Africans over 400 years ago.

(Article continued in right column)

Question(s) related to this article:

Are we making progress against racism?

(Article continued from left column)

WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT THIS YEAR?

This year Juneteenth coincides with global protests against racial injustice sparked by the May 25 death of Floyd, a black man, in Minneapolis police custody. It also accompanies the coronavirus outbreak, which has disproportionately affected communities of color. Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump, who had already been under fire for his response to both crises, drew further criticism for scheduling a Friday re-election rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He has since moved it to Saturday. Tulsa is an important and especially sensitive site where a white mob massacred African-American residents in 1921. Community organizations nationwide will devote the day to discussions on policing and civil rights ahead of the November election.

[Editor’s note: Although Juneteenth is not a national holiday in the U.S. there is a move in the Congress to do this.]

HOW ARE PEOPLE MARKING THE DAY?

People will mark the 155th anniversary across the country with festive meals and gatherings. While many cities have canceled this year’s annual parades because of the pandemic, other groups have opted for virtual conferences or smaller events. In Washington, groups plan marches, protests and rallies. Amid the wave of racial justice protests, some U.S. businesses have committed to a change of policies, including recognition of the holiday. Among the companies that have announced they will recognize Juneteenth as a paid company holiday are the National Football League (here), the New York Times, and Twitter and Square.

HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

USA: Historian Robin D.G. Kelley: Years of Racial Justice Organizing Laid Groundwork for Today’s Uprising

EDUCATION FOR PEACE .

Excerpts from a report on Jun 11 in Democracy Now (The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org.)

AMY GOODMAN: For more on the mass uprising engulfing the U.S. and what protesters are demanding now, we go to Los Angeles, where we’re joined by Robin Kelley, professor of African American studies at UCLA. He studies social movements, author of many books, including Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination. . . .


video of full report

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Kelley, I want to go back to something that you  wrote  immediately following Trump’s election in November 2016. You wrote that the U.S. needs a multiracial movement committed to, quote, “dismantling the oppressive regimes of racism, heteropatriarchy, empire, and class exploitation that is at the root of inequality, precarity, materialism, and violence in many forms.” You’ve just talked about how the demands of this movement are very different. Do you see what’s happening now as what you wanted to happen in November 2016?

ROBIN D.G. KELLEY: Exactly. And not only that, but what I wrote in 2016 was actually a reflection of what was already happening on the ground. So, in some respects, remember, the Movement for Black Lives put out their policy platform in August of 2016.

(Article continued in right column)

Question(s) related to this article:

Are we making progress against racism?

(Article continued from left column)

And one of the things we all have to acknowledge is that we’re not here by accident. You know, this is not a spontaneous response to the pandemic, and suddenly white people are waking up and saying, “Oh, wait a second, Black lives matter.” No, this is a product of enormous work, going back well before Trayvon Martin. But you think about all the organizing work, the Movement for Black Lives, Black Lives Matter, the women who organized Black Lives Matter, initiated — Opal Tometi, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors — people like Melina Abdullah, Charlene Carruthers of Black Youth Project 100, all the scholar activists who have been working on this question — Barbara Ransby, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore — and then, before that, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, Copwatch, Dignity and Power, Critical Resistance, the African American Policy Forum. These were initiatives on the ground who did all this political education, all this organizing work — We Charge Genocide, Dream Defenders, the Rising Majority, Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity, and also groups like SURJ, you know, [Showing] Up for Racial Justice, which deals with white racism.

So you have an infrastructure in place that has been doing this work for a decade or more — more than a decade. And that’s why people are out here. That’s why people can come out into the streets and simply roll off their tongues words like “defund the police,” connect transphobia, homophobia, gender oppression, patriarchy to racial capitalism and to racial violence, connect these things in ways that I think are kind of unprecedented. But again, without the organizing work, we would not be here, you know? And I think it’s very important to even go back and acknowledge how the foundations were laid by the Combahee River Collective, by people like Barbara Smith, raised by the Third World Women’s Alliance, I mean, fighting around questions of connecting sterilization, abortion rights with racism. You know? So, these kinds of links, these connections — and also with war — are important. So, there’s a long history that got us here.

And the real question now is whether or not this can be sustained, because we know, throughout history, we’ve had revolutionary moments, after Reconstruction in the 1870s, followed by backlash and by what we can describe as American fascism. We have the sort of Second Reconstruction of the 1960s, followed by backlash, the rise of the Klan, the tamping down on the strike wave in the 1970s, neoliberalism. And now we’re facing another one. We have these forces trying to transform the world in a way that could actually bring safety and prosperity to all versus a president and a regime that asks, “What happened to Gone with the Wind? …

EDUCATION FOR PEACE, HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

Protests worldwide embrace Black Lives Matter movement

… . HUMAN RIGHTS … .

An article from Thomson Reuters (reprinted by permission)

Thousands of people took to the streets in European and Asian cities on Saturday [June 6], demonstrating in support of U.S. protests against police brutality.


Video of demonstrations around the world

The rolling, global protests reflect rising anger over police treatment of ethnic minorities, sparked by the May 25 killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis after a white officer detaining him knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes with fellow officers beside him.

After a largely peaceful protest in London, a few demonstrators near British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s residence threw bottles at police, and mounted officers charged push protesters back.

Earlier, more than a thousand protesters had marched past the U.S. Embassy, blocking traffic and holding placards.

Many thousands had also crowded into the square outside parliament, holding placards reading “Black Lives Matter”, ignoring government advice to avoid large gatherings due to the risk from the coronavirus.

“I have come down in support of black people who have been ill-treated for many, many, many, many years. It is time for a change,” said 39-year-old primary school teacher Aisha Pemberton.

Police in the German city of Hamburg used pepper spray on protesters and said they were ready to deploy water cannons. One officer was injured, they added.

Several hundred “hooded and aggressive people” had put officers under pressure in the city centre, police said, tweeting: “Attacks on police officers are unacceptable!”

(Article continued in right column)

Question(s) related to this article:

Are we making progress against racism?

(Article continued from left column)

In Paris the authorities banned demonstrations planned outside the U.S. Embassy and on the lawns near the Eiffel Tower.

However, several hundred protesters, some holding “Black Lives Matters” signs, gathered on Place de la Concorde, close to the Embassy. Police had installed a long barrier across the square to prevent access to the embassy, which is also close to the Elysee presidential palace.

In Berlin, demonstrators filled the central Alexanderplatz square, while there was also a protest in Warsaw.

PLACARDS AND FLAGS

In Brisbane, one of several Australian cities where rallies were held, police estimated 10,000 people joined a peaceful protest, wearing masks and holding “Black Lives Matter” placards. Many wrapped themselves in indigenous flags, calling for an end to police mistreatment of indigenous Australians.

Banners and slogans have focused not just on George Floyd but on a string of other controversies in different countries as well as mistreatment of minorities in general.

In Sydney, a last-minute court decision overruling a ban imposed because of the coronavirus allowed several thousand people to march, with a heavy police presence.

In Tokyo, marchers protested against what they said was police mistreatment of a Kurdish man who says he was stopped while driving and shoved to the ground. Organisers said they were also marching in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

“I want to show that there’s racism in Japan now,” said 17-year-old high school student Wakaba, who declined to give her family name.

In Seoul, dozens of South Korean activists and foreign residents gathered, some wearing black masks with “Can’t breathe” in Korean, echoing George Floyd’s final words as he lay on the ground.

In Bangkok, activists avoided coronavirus restrictions by going online, asking for video and photos of people wearing black, raising their fists and holding signs, and explaining why they supported the Black Lives Matter movement.
Protesters were expected to gather in Washington for a huge demonstration on Saturday as demonstrations across the United States entered a 12th day.

Reporting by Reuters bureaux around the world; Writing by William Mallard and Hugh Lawson; Editing by Frances Kerry and Kevin Liffey
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

global, HUMAN RIGHTS

‘A part of history’: Calm prevails over D.C.’s biggest George Floyd protest

… . HUMAN RIGHTS … .

An article from Thomson Reuters (reprinted by permission)

Tens of thousands of demonstrators amassed in Washington and other U.S. cities on Saturday [June 6] demanding an end to racism and brutality by law enforcement, as protests sparked by George Floyd’s fatal encounter with Minneapolis police stretched into a 12th day.

Reuters Video of Washington demonstations

A Lincoln Memorial rally and march to the White House marked the largest outpouring yet of protests nationwide since video footage emerged showing Floyd, an unarmed black man in handcuffs, lying face down and struggling to breathe as a white police officer knelt on his neck.

Demonstrators rallied on Saturday in numerous urban centers – among them New York, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and Miami – as well as in small, rural communities across the country.

“It feels like I get to be a part of history and a part of the group of people who are trying to change the world for everyone,” said Jamilah Muahyman, a Washington resident at a demonstration near the White House.

One of the more surprising Black Lives Matter rallies was a gathering of 150 to 200 people in the east Texas town of Vidor, notorious for its long associations with the Ku Klux Klan.

Floyd’s May 25 death has sparked a storm of protests and civil strife in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, thrusting the highly charged debate over racial justice back to the forefront of the political agenda five months before the Nov. 3 U.S. presidential election.

With the notable exception of Seattle, where police used flash-bang grenades in a confrontation with demonstrators in the city’s Capitol Hill district, Saturday’s protests on the whole took on a relaxed tone compared with those of recent days.

The week began with sporadic episodes of arson, looting and vandalism in several cities that authorities and activists have blamed largely on outside instigators and criminal elements.

Police have at times resorted to heavy-handed tactics as they sought to enforce curfews in some cities, including New York and Washington, where baton-swinging officers in riot gear dispersed otherwise orderly crowds.

Those clashes have only galvanized the focus of the protests into a broader quest for reform of the criminal justice system and its treatment of ethnic minorities.

“I’m just hoping that we really get some change from what’s going on. People have been kneeling and protesting and begging for a long time, and enough is enough,” said Kartrina Fernandez, 42, a protester near the front of the White House.

“We can’t take much more.”

The intensity of protests over the past week began to ebb on Wednesday after prosecutors in Minneapolis had arrested all four police officers implicated in Floyd’s death. Derek Chauvin, the white officer seen pinning Floyd’s neck to the ground for nearly nine minutes as Floyd repeatedly groaned “I can’t breathe” was charged with second-degree murder.

But Saturday marked the largest demonstration over Floyd’s killing to date.

Crowds numbering in the tens of thousands converged on the nation’s capital, despite health risks posed by the coronavirus, though official estimates of the turnout were unavailable.

The rallies in Washington, as elsewhere, were notable for drawing racially mixed crowds.

(Article continued in right column)

Question(s) related to this article:

Are we making progress against racism?

(Article continued from left column)


Another website with many photos of the demonstrations throughout the United States

“Especially as a white person, I benefit from the status quo, and so not showing up and actively working to deconstruct institutional racism makes me complicit,” said Michael Drummond, 40, a government employee, explaining his reason for taking part.

Hundreds of miles to the south, in Floyd’s birthplace of Raeford, North Carolina, hundreds lined up at a church to pay their respects during a public viewing of Floyd’s body prior to a private memorial service for family members.

Floyd’s funeral is scheduled for Tuesday in Houston, where he lived before relocating to the Minneapolis area.

In New York, a large crowd of protesters crossed the Brooklyn Bridge into lower Manhattan on Saturday afternoon, marching up a largely deserted Broadway. Thousands of others gathered in Harlem near the northwest corner of Central Park to march downtown, about 100 blocks, to the city’s Washington Square Park.

In Philadelphia, demonstrators gathered on the steps of Philadelphia Art Museum steps chanting, “No justice, No peace.” Others marched along Benjamin Franklin Parkway, through John F. Kennedy Plaza, and around Philadelphia City Hall.

On the West Coast, protesters briefly blocked traffic on San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge as motorists honked in solidarity.

An almost festive atmosphere prevailed among protesters assembled at an outdoor strip newly rechristened Black Lives Matter Plaza – the phrase “Black Lives Matter” painted in large yellow letters on the pavement – a block from the White House.

It was near the spot where U.S. Park Police and military personnel cleared Lafayette Square of peaceful demonstrators with chemical spray and smoke grenades on Monday night, paving the way for President Donald Trump to walk from the White House through the park to a church to hold a bible aloft for cameras.

On Saturday, Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, a vocal critic of Trump’s response to the protests this week, was spotted in the crowd while songs such as “Sweet Caroline” by Neil Diamond and “Alright” by Kendrick Lamar blared from loudspeakers.

The demonstrators included families and people of all ages carrying signs with slogans such as “Fed up,” “All lives do not matter until black lives do,” and “My black son matters.”

Police officers were present but in smaller numbers than earlier in the week. They generally assumed a less aggressive posture, wearing patrol uniforms rather than body armor and helmets.

In another sign of easing tension, Major General William Walker, commander of the D.C. National Guard, told CNN that the nearly 4,000 additional Guard troops deployed to the city from 11 states at the Pentagon’s request were likely to be withdrawn after the weekend.

“They will be redeploying this week, probably as early as Monday,” Walker said.

Reporting by Nandita Bose and Makini Brice in Washington and Lucas Jackson in New York; Additional reporting by Linda So, Mike Stone, Suzanne Barlyn, Barbara Goldberg, Scott Malone, Raphael Satter and Andrew Hay; Writing by Frank McGurty and Steve Gorman; Editing by Daniel Wallis, Robert Birsel
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

Herstory of Black Lives Matter

… . HUMAN RIGHTS … .

Excerpt from the website of Black Lives Matter

In 2013, three radical Black organizers — Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi — created a Black-centered political will and movement building project called #BlackLivesMatter. It was in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman.

The project is now a member-led global network of more than 40 chapters. Our members organize and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks’ humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.

As organizers who work with everyday people, BLM members see and understand significant gaps in movement spaces and leadership. Black liberation movements in this country have created room, space, and leadership mostly for Black heterosexual, cisgender men — leaving women, queer and transgender people, and others either out of the movement or in the background to move the work forward with little or no recognition. As a network, we have always recognized the need to center the leadership of women and queer and trans people. To maximize our movement muscle, and to be intentional about not replicating harmful practices that excluded so many in past movements for liberation, we made a commitment to placing those at the margins closer to the center.

(Article continued in right column)

Question(s) related to this article:

Are we making progress against racism?

(Article continued from left column)


Painting a street near the White House on June 6, 2020 (click on image to see video)

As #BlackLivesMatter developed throughout 2013 and 2014, we utilized it as a platform and organizing tool. Other groups, organizations, and individuals used it to amplify anti-Black racism across the country, in all the ways it showed up. Tamir Rice, Tanisha Anderson, Mya Hall, Walter Scott, Sandra Bland — these names are inherently important. The space that #BlackLivesMatter held and continues to hold helped propel the conversation around the state-sanctioned violence they experienced. We particularly highlighted the egregious ways in which Black women, specifically Black trans women, are violated. #BlackLivesMatter was developed in support of all Black lives.

In 2014, Mike Brown was murdered by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. It was a guttural response to be with our people, our family — in support of the brave and courageous community of Ferguson and St. Louis as they were being brutalized by law enforcement, criticized by media, tear gassed, and pepper sprayed night after night. Darnell Moore and Patrisse Cullors organized a national ride during Labor Day weekend that year. We called it the Black Life Matters Ride. In 15 days, we developed a plan of action to head to the occupied territory to support our brothers and sisters. Over 600 people gathered. We made two commitments: to support the team on the ground in St. Louis, and to go back home and do the work there. We understood Ferguson was not an aberration, but in fact, a clear point of reference for what was happening to Black communities everywhere.

When it was time for us to leave, inspired by our friends in Ferguson, organizers from 18 different cities went back home and developed Black Lives Matter chapters in their communities and towns — broadening the political will and movement building reach catalyzed by the #BlackLivesMatter project and the work on the ground in Ferguson.

It became clear that we needed to continue organizing and building Black power across the country. People were hungry to galvanize their communities to end state-sanctioned violence against Black people, the way Ferguson organizers and allies were doing. Soon we created the Black Lives Matter Global Network infrastructure. It is adaptive and decentralized, with a set of guiding principles. Our goal is to support the development of new Black leaders, as well as create a network where Black people feel empowered to determine our destinies in our communities.

The Black Lives Matter Global Network would not be recognized worldwide if it weren’t for the folks in St. Louis and Ferguson who put their bodies on the line day in and day out, and who continue to show up for Black lives.

global, HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

Amnesty International: Ignored by COVID-19 responses, refugees face starvation

. HUMAN RIGHTS .

An article from Amnesty International ( licensed under a Creative Commons attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0 licence)

The inhumane treatment of refugees and migrants threatens to stall progress on tackling COVID-19, Amnesty International said today, warning that overcrowded camps and detention centres will become new epicentres unless urgent action is taken. The organization said  that lockdowns and movement restrictions have exacerbated dire living conditions, leaving millions of people at risk of starvation and illness.

The organization is calling for concerted global action to ensure hundreds of thousands of people on the move are provided with adequate access to food, water, sanitation and healthcare to ensure their survival as countries prepare to come out of lockdown.

“It is impossible to properly contain this virus when so many people worldwide are living in desperately overcrowded, unsanitary camps and detention centres. At a time when we need compassion and cooperation more than ever some governments have instead doubled down on discrimination and abuse – preventing deliveries of food and water, locking people up, or sending them back to war and persecution,” said Iain Byrne, Head of Amnesty’s Refugees and Migrants Rights team.

“In many camps death by starvation is now reported to be a bigger threat than the virus itself. This is an appalling abdication of the collective responsibility to protect refugees and migrants, and we are urging states to take immediate action to prevent this becoming a human rights catastrophe.”

Many governments have taken actions driven by discrimination and xenophobia, which needlessly place refugees at risk of starvation and disease.

For example,  water supplies were deliberately cut off by local authorities in Bosnia’s Vucjuk camp  to force the relocation of the camp’s inhabitants. Many refugees live in precarious economic situations, and lockdowns and curfews are making it harder than ever to earn a living. In Jordan’s Zaatari camp, lockdowns prevent people from working at all—meaning no food or income to pay for even basic necessities. In April, residents of makeshift camps in France’s Calais settlements  were not receiving adequate deliveries of food and water due to lockdowns, and restrictions on movement made it impossible for them to shop for themselves, even if they had money to do so.

(Article continued in right column.)

(Click here for the French version of this article or click here for the Spanish version.)

Question related to this article:

How can we work together to overcome this medical and economic crisis?

(Article continued from left column.)

Many governments have continued to unnecessarily detain people seeking asylum, putting them at risk of contracting the virus. There aren’t enough tests and protective equipment for staff and people being detained, potentially igniting a powder keg of illness and fatalities. People held in immigration detention in Australia  have been begging to be released because they are frightened that staff who have not been issued with PPE will unknowingly bring the virus in.

Other governments have violated international law by forcing people back to danger under the pretext of containing COVID-19.

Fueled by an existing anti-migrant and opportunistic agenda, the U.S. has turned back over 20,000 people in violation of domestic and international legal obligations since March 20.

Similarly, Malaysia turned back  a boat of Rohingya people seeking safety; although Bangladesh eventually allowed the boat to land, at least 30 people had reportedly died when their vessel drifted at sea for two months. Presently, there are reports that several hundred people urgently need search and rescue assistance.

Forcing people back to countries where they are reasonably expected to face persecution, torture or other cruel or degrading treatment amounts to refoulement  which is illegal under international law. There are no circumstances where the principle of non-refoulement does not apply.

Amnesty International is calling on governments to:

* Provide adequate food and water supplies and health care to camps and quarantined people

* Consider temporary regularization of all migrants, regardless of their documentation status, ensure that economic stimulus packages and protections apply to asylum seekers and refugees, and continue to allow resettlement where possible

* Decongest camps, immigration detention centres and informal settlements, and rehouse residents in dignified and sanitary conditions with adequate access to healthcare, food, and water. Immigration detainees should be released if their right to health cannot be guaranteed in detention.

* Uphold the right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement.

“Governments keep saying we are all in this together. This means nothing unless they step up to protect the millions of people worldwide who are experiencing this pandemic far from their homes and loved ones,” said Iain Byrne.

“Any government which allows refugees to die of starvation or thirst during lockdown has failed dismally at tackling this crisis.”

global, HUMAN RIGHTS

Amnesty International: How human rights can help protect us from COVID-19

. HUMAN RIGHTS .

An article from Amnesty International

The way governments decide to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic will impact the human rights of millions of people.

Amnesty International is closely monitoring government responses to the crisis. These are extraordinary times, but it’s important to remember that human rights law still applies. Indeed, it will help us get through this together.

Here’s a quick look at how human rights can help protect us, and what the obligations of governments are in relation to the pandemic.

The right to health

Most governments have ratified at least one human rights treaty which requires them to guarantee the right to health. Among other things, this means they have an obligation to take all steps necessary for the prevention, treatment and control of diseases.

In the context of a spreading epidemic, this means ensuring that preventive care, goods and services are available to everybody.

In Hong Kong, one of the first places to be hit by COVID-19, a local NGO noted that nearly 70% of low-income families could not afford to buy the protective equipment the government was recommending, including masks and disinfectant. If states are endorsing the use of such items, they must ensure that everyone can access them.

Access to information

This is a key aspect of the right to health, but we have already seen governments ignoring it.

In December 2019, doctors in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first reported, shared with colleagues their fears about patients with respiratory symptoms. They were immediately silenced and reprimanded by the local authorities for “spreading rumours”.

Meanwhile, in the region of Jammu and Kashmir, authorities have ordered the continued restriction of internet services, despite a growing number of cases. This makes it extremely difficult for people to access vital information about the prevalence and spread of the virus, as well as how to protect themselves.

Everybody has the right to be informed of the threat COVID-19 poses to their health, the measures to mitigate risks, and information about ongoing response efforts. The failure to guarantee this undermines the public health response and puts everyone’s health at risk.

Rights to and at work

People in precarious forms of labour are being disproportionately affected by the pandemic, which is already starting to have a massive impact on people and the economy. Migrant workers, people who work in the “gig” economy, and people in the informal sector are more likely to see their rights to and at work adversely impacted, as a result of COVID-19 and the measures to control it.

(Article continued in right column.)

(Click here for the French version of this article or click here for the Spanish version.)

Question related to this article:

How can we work together to overcome this medical and economic crisis?

(Article continued from left column.)

Governments must ensure that everyone has access to social security – including sick pay, health care and parental leave – where they are unable to work because of the virus. These measures are also essential to help people stick to the public health measures states put in place.

Health workers are at the frontline of this pandemic, continuing to deliver services despite the personal risks to them and their families, and governments must protect them. This includes providing suitable, good quality personal protective equipment, information, training and psycho-social support to all response staff. People in other jobs, including prison staff, are also at higher risk of exposure, and should be protected.

Disproportionate impact on certain groups

Anyone can get COVID-19, but certain groups appear to be at greater risk of severe illness and death. This includes older people and people with pre-existing medical conditions. It’s also likely that other marginalized groups, including people living in poverty, people with disabilities and people in detention, including migrants and asylum seekers, will face additional challenges in protecting themselves and accessing treatment.

In designing responses to COVID-19, states must ensure that the needs and experiences of specific groups are fully addressed.

Rights to housing, water and sanitation

For people who are homeless or living in informal settlements, self- isolation, social distancing, and other protective measures are extremely difficult if not impossible to stick to.

The COVID-19 crisis has shone a spotlight on the importance of the rights to adequate housing, water and sanitation. These rights are critical for protecting oneself from the virus, for stopping its spread and also recovering from it. 

At a minimum, governments should ensure that people who are homeless, including children in street situations, are provided with emergency accommodation where they can protect and isolate themselves. Governments must also put in place measures to make sure no one is made increasingly vulnerable to COVID-19 because of a lack of housing – for example by being evicted if they can’t pay rent or mortgage.

Governments must also urgently put in place adequate, affordable and safe water and sanitation facilities that are accessible to everyone who is homeless or living in inadequate housing.

Stigma and discrimination

According to media reports, people from Wuhan have faced widespread discrimination and harassment in China. This includes being rejected from hotels or barricaded in their own flats, and having their personal information leaked online.

There have also been widespread reports of anti-Chinese or anti-Asian xenophobia in other countries, including US President Trump repeatedly calling COVID-19 a “Chinese virus”. In London, a student from Singapore was badly beaten up in a racially aggravated attack. There is no excuse for racism or discrimination. Governments around the world must take a zero-tolerance approach to the racist targeting of all people.

Meanwhile President Trump has used the pandemic to justify racist and discriminatory policies, and is reportedly planning a blanket ban on asylum-seekers crossing from Mexico.

Such an outright asylum ban would go against the government’s domestic and international legal obligations, and would serve only to demonize people seeking safety. A similar 2018 ban was swiftly declared unlawful by every court to have considered it.

Furthermore, during a public health crisis, governments must act to protect the health of all people and ensure everyone’s access to care and safety, free from discrimination. This includes people on the move, regardless of their immigration status.

The only way the world can fight this outbreak is through solidarity and cooperation across borders. COVID-19 should unite, not divide us.

(Thank you to the Good News Agency for calling this article to our attention.)

global, HUMAN RIGHTS

Coronavirus reveals need to bridge the digital divide

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

The global crisis brought on by the coronavirus pandemic has pushed us further into a digital world, and changes in behaviour are likely to have lasting effects when the economy starts to pick up. But not everyone is ready to embrace a more digitized existence.

A new analysis from UNCTAD  maps the changing digital landscape since the last major global calamity, the 2008/09 financial crisis. It looks at how a digitally enabled world is working for some, but not all equally.

According to the analysis, the coronavirus crisis has accelerated the uptake of digital solutions, tools, and services, speeding up the global transition towards a digital economy.

However, it has also exposed the wide chasm between the connected and the unconnected, revealing just how far behind many are on digital uptake.  
 
“Inequalities in digital readiness hamper the ability of large parts of the world to take advantage of technologies that help us cope with the coronavirus pandemic by staying at home,” said UNCTAD’s technology and logistics director, Shamika Sirimanne.

“This situation has significant development implications that cannot be ignored. We need to ensure that we do not leave those who are less digitally equipped even further behind in a post-coronavirus world.”

The power of digital revealed

The analysis provides snapshots of how technology is being used as a critical tool in maintaining business and life continuity.

Measures to contain the coronavirus pandemic have seen more businesses and governments move their operations and services online to limit physical interaction to contain the spread of COVID-19.

Digital platforms are also thriving as consumers seek entertainment, shopping opportunities and new ways of connecting during the crisis.

“There are incredible positives emerging that show the potential of a digitally transformed world,” notes Ms. Sirimanne.

Digitalization is allowing telemedicine, telework and online education to proliferate. It is also generating more data on the expansion of the virus and helping information exchanges for research.

There has been a leap in teleworking and online conferencing, amplifying the demand for online conferencing software such as Microsoft Teams, Skype, Cisco’s Webex and Zoom, the analysis says.

According to Microsoft, the number of people using its software for online collaboration climbed nearly 40% in a week.

(Article continued in right column.)

Question related to this article:

Is Internet freedom a basic human right?

(Article continued from left column.)

In China, the use of digital work applications from WeChat, Tencent and Ding took off at the end of January when lockdown measures started to take effect.

Other benefits include using artificial intelligence to help find a cure and a significant shift to e-commerce, benefitting small and big businesses alike.

However not all technology companies are profiting and there are some serious consequences of the rush to online platforms. These include mounting security and privacy concerns, according to UNCTAD.

The downside and the digital divide

The fast-paced shift towards digitalization is likely to strengthen the market positions of a few mega-digital platforms, the analysis finds.

This finding echoes the conclusions drawn in UNCTAD’s 2019 Digital Economy Report, which pointed out that the world’s top seven digital platforms already accounted for two-thirds of the value of digital platforms globally in 2017.

They have benefitted from network effects and from their ability to extract, control and analyse data, then transform it into digital intelligence that can be monetized.

“This situation will now be amplified as more people come or are forced online due to the coronavirus crisis,” said Torbjörn Fredriksson, UNCTAD’s digital economy head. “Those that do not have access are at risk of being left further behind as digital transformation accelerates, especially those in least developed countries.”

The least developed countries (LDCs) are the most vulnerable to the human and economic consequences of the pandemic, and they also lag farthest behind in digital readiness.

Only one in five people in LDCs use the Internet, and in most developing countries, well below 5% of the population currently buy goods or services online.

Lack of Internet access at home also limits connectivity, cramping, for example, the possibilities for students to be connected if schools are closed. “The education gap may also expand in developing countries, compounding inequalities,” said Sirimanne.

Low broadband quality hampers the ability to use teleconferencing tools. Mobile data costs also remain expensive across the developing world.

A development opportunity?

The coronavirus pandemic’s ability to show fractures can, hopefully, be turned into an opportunity, said Ms. Sirimanne. “More developing countries are exploring e-commerce and other digital solutions that can help build local resilience to future shocks,” she said.

The main policy takeaway from the analysis is that much more attention should be given to bridging existing and emerging digital divides to allow more countries to take advantage of digitalization.

New policies and regulations are needed to ensure a fair distribution of the gains from digital disruptions.

“If left unaddressed, the yawning gap between under-connected and hyper-digitalized countries will widen, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities,” she added.

“As with the coronavirus crisis and other development challenges, the world will need a coordinated multilateral response to deal with the challenge of digitalization.”

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, global, HUMAN RIGHTS, United Nations,

International Criminal Court Offers Hope to Afghanistan’s Victims

. HUMAN RIGHTS .

An article by Patricia Gossman from Human Rights Watch (reprinted according to Creative Commons License)

Afghans who are skeptical about whether the US-Taliban agreement  and planned intra-Afghan peace talks  can deliver a better future, now have reason to believe that justice might not be squandered in the process. Today, judges on the International Criminal Court  (ICC) authorized the court’s prosecutor to investigate possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan since May 1, 2003. 


Afghan family leaves site of attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, December 22, 2016.  © 2016 Reuters

It was a rocky road to get here. In November 2017, after a more than 10-year analysis of the Afghanistan situation, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda asked the court to approve an investigation  into alleged crimes, including targeted attacks on civilians by the Taliban and other insurgents; torture, rape, and enforced disappearances by Afghan police and security forces; and torture by the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 

(Article continued in right column.)

Question related to this article:

Can the International Criminal Court provide justice?

(Article continued from left column.)

Despite acknowledging the court’s jurisdiction over the crimes and that Afghanistan was making no effort to seek accountability, an ICC pre-trial chamber rejected the investigation  as not being in the “interests of justice.” In the ruling, the judges noted that “changes within the relevant political landscape” – likely referring to the US-Taliban talks as well as the Trump administration’s public attacks  on the ICC – would make an investigation too difficult. 

But in today’s decision, the appeals chamber overruled the lower court’s interpretation of the court’s founding treaty – which had been widely criticized, including by Human Rights Watch  – and allowed the investigation to go ahead. 

Coming amidst genuine movement toward peace talks, the ruling is an important reminder of the costs of impunity. The Bonn Agreement, signed in December 2001 after the defeat of the Taliban government, failed to provide justice for rights violations by all sides and fueled further atrocities by allowing serious human rights abusers to maintain official and unofficial positions of power. 

Today’s decision reaffirms the ICC’s role as an institution that might change these dynamics by challenging entrenched impunity. It has offered Afghans who have long sought justice hope that they may one day see it realized.  

global, HUMAN RIGHTS, South Asia,