All News Feeds

Tears, shouting, procedural tantrums: just your standard day in the Commons, until democracy took a sinister turn | Marina Hyde

The Guardian | Protest -

When MPs are intimidated and precedent binned, let’s not pretend there’s any justification – whichever side it comes from

For reasons I won’t trouble you with, I missed the events of Wednesday afternoon and evening in the House of Commons. Normally, that would be a cause for anxiety in a person as committed to service journalism/category 5 drama as myself. Like many in the immediate wake of the political upheavals of 2016, I found myself sinking into the dopamine-assisted rhythms of the new normal, where, on both sides of the Atlantic, you sometimes felt you’d missed an entire news cycle if you left a screen to make a cup of tea.

In 2022, I did a book tour that involved nightly stage events discussing the political turmoil of the past few years/minutes. Because this coincided with the prime ministership of one Liz Truss, there came a point every evening where I worried my information may not be entirely au courant, and had to ask the audience (who had their phones) whether or not she was still prime minister. And, as you’ll recall, one day she wasn’t.

Continue reading...

‘Virile’ exchanges expected as Macron heads to annual French farming show

The Guardian | Protest -

President faces uncertain reception at Salon d’Agriculture after weeks of protests by furious farmers

Most politicians kiss babies; French leaders pat cows and make a fuss of lambs.

The Salon d’Agriculture, the country’s annual farm show that opens on Saturday, is a date presidents cannot afford to miss.

Continue reading...

Sunak decries ‘intimidation’ by protesters amid row over chaotic Gaza vote

The Guardian | Protest -

PM speaks out over MPs’ safety, saying it is ‘unacceptable’ for politicians to feel intimidated

Rishi Sunak has hit out at the behaviour of protesters who he says are threatening MPs, after warnings that politicians’ safety was put at risk during this week’s chaotic parliamentary debate on Gaza.

The prime minister said on Friday it was “unacceptable” for MPs to feel intimidated in their jobs, amid an ongoing row over whether the Commons speaker was right to bend parliamentary rules this week in an effort to protect MPs’ safety.

Continue reading...

Not acceptable for protesters to target MPs in their homes, says Stella Creasy

The Guardian | Protest -

Labour MP says abuse and threats she has faced are indicative of serious problem that risks undermining democracy

A leading Labour politician has said there is no justification for MPs to be targeted in their homes and that public life is “drowning in hate and violence”.

Stella Creasy wrote in the Guardian that it was not acceptable to picket MPs in their home in response to an opinion piece by Just Stop Oil justifying the targeting of MPs.

Continue reading...

Death and rape threats, bricks through windows: MPs must be able to serve without living in fear | Stella Creasy

The Guardian | Protest -

Our febrile political culture cannot normalise the idea that politicians’ homes and families are legitimate targets for protesters

It’s the thing every MP fears, but it is increasingly becoming an occupational hazard: the brick hurled at the office window, the rape and death threats that arrive in the post, angry voices abusing you, your staff or your family, both on and offline. In recent years, I’ve experienced all of these things, and I know I’m not alone. Public life is drowning in hate, and violence and harassment towards political representatives is increasingly being normalised. Unless we take responsibility for addressing this, the outcome will not simply be that the loudest voices and largest wallets win: democracy will lose.

Every MP has not just the shadow of the deaths of our beloved friends David Amess and Jo Cox looming in our thoughts, but also knowledge of the day-to-day violence our colleagues experience. I don’t need to agree with Tobias Ellwood or Mike Freer on policy to know that a line has been crossed when their private addresses and constituency offices have been targeted – and they are not alone. As campaign groups seek to be heard, they are taking every more incendiary directions. Just Stop Oil implied in the pages of this newspaper that it would challenge MPs “at their homes”, and protests over Gaza have happened outside MPs’ houses, with protesters daubing constituency offices with red paint.

Continue reading...

Harold Washington’s lessons for taking on a political machine

Waging Nonviolence -

This article Harold Washington’s lessons for taking on a political machine was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'KB_NBk2lSxNfyVOYigo0Pw',sig:'MRNssiV4MuPi1EnrBQT2rzjWjgrIj379V8l0wwx6ulM=',w:'594px',h:'399px',items:'1182145873',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

Four decades ago, at the start of 1984, Harold Washington was finishing his historic opening year in office as Chicago’s first Black mayor. An outsider candidate who had been persuaded to run by the city’s social movements, Washington represented a major break from the past, and his 1983 victory served as an important milestone in the efforts of civil rights activists to gain footholds in electoral politics. Today, as social movements increasingly take interest in running insurgent candidates for office, Washington provides a vital model for how grassroots forces can bring new constituencies into the electoral realm and upend the established practices of insider politics.

Once in office, the mayor — widely known in the city simply as “Harold” — faced entrenched opposition. And yet he was able to take significant strides in dismantling the city machine. Run for decades by Richard J. Daley, this machine long maintained a racist and inequitable system of distributing municipal resources.

Tragically, Washington died of a heart attack just months into his second term, in 1987. His sudden passing created a lasting trauma for progressive forces in the city and raised questions about what more he might have been able to accomplish had he lived.

Previous Coverage
  • Should we disrupt the Democratic Party or try to take it over?
  • More recently, the 2023 election of a new progressive mayor in Chicago, Brandon Johnson, has both generated fresh hope and created revived interest in the lessons that might be drawn from Washington’s example in taking on Chicago’s old guard some 40 years ago.

    As a filmmaker, Joe Winston has tackled topics ranging from conservative organizing in America’s heartland (as director of 2009’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas”) to the influence of the ultra-rich on our political system (as producer of 2013’s “Citizen Koch”). His latest film, “Punch 9 For Harold Washington,” is showing in coming months in cities including Denver, Atlanta, Nashville and Chicago, and it has just been made available for both educational use and community screenings.

    Recently, we spoke to Winston to discuss insights that Washington’ story can provide for social movements looking to bring new voices into electoral politics today. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    Tell us about your background and how you got involved in this story.

    My film, “Punch 9 for Harold Washington,” is about Chicago’s first African American mayor. When he was elected in 1983, I was a junior in a high school that was located just three or four blocks from Harold’s apartment. He was a huge figure in Chicago, and the turbulent times of his election, governance and untimely death are something that no one who lived through it can ever forget.

    As a documentary filmmaker, I realized years later that the story of Harold Washington has universal significance. As a trailblazing Black mayor in a city which was undergoing rapid demographic change, the kinds of coalitions that Harold had to build in order to win an election — and then subsequently to govern — had tremendous resonance. That was particularly true in the Obama era. Barack Obama came to Chicago as a community organizer partly because Harold Washington had taken office. And, subsequently, the white backlash to Obama’s presidency mirrored almost exactly what Harold Washington had to navigate as mayor of Chicago.

    Before he decided to run for mayor in 1983, Harold almost had to be drafted by social movements. He made a number of demands that local organizers had to meet in order for him to run, including the demand that they register 50,000 new voters — which seemed like an impossibly huge number.

    Right. Washington is a fascinating and complex figure. He was 61 years old when he first became mayor in 1983, and he had actually run for mayor before — in 1977, during a special election that was called shortly after the death of the legendary political boss Richard J. Daley. That election attracted a lot of candidates, and Washington only placed third. His experience of an underfunded, hastily put together campaign taught him that in order to beat an entrenched political organization like the Cook County Democratic Party machine, he needed more than a great campaign. He needed to be assured that there was a true groundswell and a broad coalition willing to support him.

    By the time 1982 came around, Harold was serving in the U.S. Congress and he was reluctant to run for mayor again, unless he saw that there was a lot of infrastructure in place. And this time there was. There were a lot of people working in the neighborhoods who had opposed Mayor Daley on Vietnam, racism, development and countless other issues. They knew what they wanted, and they mobilized the community. Depending on which figure you cite, they registered as many as 200,000 new voters for the 1983 mayor’s race — far more than he had demanded. And that convinced Harold Washington that it was his time to run again.

    In your film, a Chicago politician named David Orr, who had served in the City Council when Washington was in office, says that was “the first time this coalition had come together.” What were the distinctive elements of the coalition that Washington created?

    The famous Harold Washington Coalition was made necessary by the ethnic makeup of Chicago at the time. The city was about 40 percent African American, 40 percent white, and 20 percent other ethnic groups, primarily Puerto Rican and Mexican. So no single ethnic group in Chicago could win a majority on its own. Washington and his allies understood this. They formed an alliance that joined African American with white liberals — and they also brought in the Hispanic community, which previously had not been very politically active. That gave them just the numbers they needed to overcome the entrenched machine and white resistance.

    One of the exciting things about the Washington campaign of 1983, that would be echoed in the Obama campaign of 2008, is that both brought in people who were new to electoral politics, people in groups who were energized by a sense of new possibilities. Washington not only formed an electoral coalition of these different groups, but he translated it into a governing coalition.

    One thing that seems to make Harold Washington different from other politicians is that he seemed to reject polite politics and to embrace polarizing subjects. When he talked about the legacy of Richard J. Daley, whom many people in Chicago still loved, Harold didn’t pull any punches. Instead, he denounced Daley as a flat-out racist. It seems he had a strategy of energizing his base, while also somehow reaching out to the middle over time. That’s different from how most politicians think about messaging. What do you think?

    A lot of the messaging that Harold Washington used was being carried out over Black radio and newspapers — publications like the legendary Chicago Defender — that most white Chicagoans didn’t pay any attention to. So when Washington defeated two white Democrats in the Democratic primary, the major news media was shocked. They didn’t think this guy had a chance, because they hadn’t been paying attention to what was being discussed in the media consumed in Black neighborhoods.

    These days, media targeting looks different, but certainly Washington was a great political communicator. He could be very blunt and populist in his appeal to voters. But he was smart enough and understood policy well enough to really engage them. He didn’t have to waffle on the issues, although he certainly had to try to be polite. There would have been plenty of opportunities for a Black politician to be much more negative about the power structure that existed in the city at the time. To this day, Black politicians always have this onus on them: they are always expected to reach out, and Washington was certainly subject to those burdens.

    It seems like Washington did things to intentionally agitate and engage his base, which did push away some people. But he wasn’t concerned about that, because he had a strategy to build a majority. Do you think that’s correct?

    Well, I would take issue with that a little bit. The truth is that when we’re telling his story, we are focused on the political combat that he engaged in. By the time he ran, he already had opponents who were saying the worst possible things about him. When he was running in the general election against a Republican opponent, his opponent’s slogan was “Before it’s too late.” Everybody in Chicago knew what that meant: It was a blunt, racial appeal. So in some cases, I think Harold Washington was really just fighting back. I don’t think he intended to push away a single voter. In fact, winning over white voters was the thing he worked the hardest at.

    Harold’s vision for Chicago was very detailed. He made it very clear that he was taking on an entrenched system of corruption that was harming the entire city. He put through programs that not only helped African Americans, but actually benefited a lot of white neighborhoods, which themselves had been neglected.

    One of the ways that he ended up beating the deadlock in city council is by putting forward a bond issue on infrastructure and then going directly to the public to say, “Your city council members are blocking this.” He appealed to the common interest of people throughout the city of having their roads repaired.

    Yes, that was one of his great victories.

    In the film you show how, once Harold came into office, he made an attack on the patronage system in Chicago politics his central fight. But because this system was so deep-seated in city politics, his attack created massive resistance from the city council. It probably made it more difficult for him to accomplish things in the short run than if he tried to make peace and cut deals. Why do you think he took on this strategy?

    The battle that you’re describing is the crux of the Washington story. Harold was very determined not just to put a new face on the old system, but to overthrow the system completely. It was an enormous challenge, and it led to a stalemate known as the “Council Wars,” which stymied much of his governance for his first three years.

    #newsletter-block_b6c692dcd7e1633b0260ebfb696df1c2 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_b6c692dcd7e1633b0260ebfb696df1c2 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

    Many of his allies did not want him to do this, because it was incredibly difficult. But Washington knew exactly what he was doing. He himself had come up through this very same system, having served as a precinct captain as a young man. His father had tried to work his way up from the bottom ranks of the Democratic Party, too, and was rebuffed by the Daley machine. So, for Harold, this was the fight of his life. He felt the system was wrong, and that it needed to be changed.

    It’s interesting that, before running for mayor in the 1983 election, Harold was serving as Congressperson in Washington, D.C. Prior to that, he had been in the state government. So he had figured out how to operate inside of the machine system, even if he eventually came to hate the machine. How do you look at Harold’s political evolution?

    Washington came up through the machine in a ward organization during the Daley years. Then he found his place in the state legislature, where you’re kind of at arm’s length from the Cook County machine. Those legislators had a little bit more latitude. For a couple of decades, Washington managed to stay within his lane, deciding which votes he could take and which ones he needed to skip in order to get good work done. In the state legislature, Harold passed the first holiday in the country commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King, for example. But he broke with the machine in the late ‘70s. At that point, his opponents tried to run somebody against him, but Harold beat them. So by 1980 or so, Harold was completely independent; he had his own power base, and he was able to become a U.S. congressman. The machine itself was weakened after the death of Richard J. Daley in 1976, and that set the stage for Harold to later become mayor.

    There was a history of reform candidates in Chicago who couldn’t get much done. Because they were always on the outside, they didn’t know the machine’s internal workings. You could say that one part of Harold’s genius was that he really knew the system, and this is what allowed him to take it apart.

    I think that’s absolutely correct. It’s quite remarkable that he was so schooled in this system of politics and power, but then he chose to take it on. It’s rare, but that is part of what made him the right person to do the job.

    In your documentary, there’s a scene where they talk about disrupting the patronage system, and Harold decides to fire everyone who doesn’t show up for work and isn’t in the office. Would you say that he had a vision of using the power of the institutional bureaucracy in a way that might be different from other politicians?

    At the time that Washington was elected mayor of Chicago, the city employed something close to 40,000 people, with various positions directly appointed. When Washington took office, most of these people had been employed by his opponents. So the machinery of bureaucracy was working against him. This was kind of the mirror image of what President Trump would talk about as the “deep state.” There really was a deep state in Chicago of bureaucrats who had been appointed to patronage jobs. The reason that they were in the Department of Housing was not because they knew anything about housing, but because they had turned out 1,200 votes in their precinct in the last election. Harold and his allies realized this was a system that could not continue.  

    A variety of people, including Barack Obama in“Dreams from My Father,” have made the point that the coalition that put Harold in office ended up being overly dependent on the charisma and the personality of one individual. So when Harold died suddenly, the machine was able to come back and co-opt parts of his coalition.

    Previous Coverage
  • How movements can keep politicians from selling out
  • The saddest part of the Harold Washington story is that he simply did not live long enough to consolidate his coalition into something that could outlast him. Harold died of a sudden heart attack in 1987. He collapsed at his desk, having won re-election just a few months prior. This was an enormous trauma for the Black community in Chicago, as well as for all progressives, inside and outside of Chicago.

    Politically, it set off complete chaos. The fracturing of the Washington coalition was an immense tragedy. And it did unfold with horrifying speed — basically in one week’s time. Part of the problem was that a lot of city council members, and even a number who were in the Washington coalition, had come up through the old system of patronage and corruption. They were really much more comfortable with that. It was only Harold Washington’s immense popularity and force of personality that kept them in line. So it became pretty easy for the operators of the Chicago machine to bring around just enough Black members to form a new majority and take power again.

    There’s that old line from Will Rogers: “I’m not a member of any organized party. I’m a Democrat.” Progressive coalitions are always tricky to hold together. And the Washington coalition had not been together very long. Daley’s son came in as mayor soon after, and the son ended up ruling longer than his father had.

    In terms of their reliance on a single leader, do you think there were alternatives that movements could have pursued?

    It’s clearly a tremendous weakness for a movement to be dependent on any one person. Black Lives Matter groups and younger activist groups have taken this to heart. But at the same time, the forceful leadership and the cohesiveness that Washington applied was crucial to getting so much to change so fast. Harold destroyed a decades-old system of patronage and corruption very quickly, and change like that is hard to make happen. Having your leader die on you, four years after getting elected, is a crippling wound. There is no simple answer. There’s just a continuing need to nurture new political talent. And we must have an understanding that these movements take time.

    Harold was not the first Black mayor of a major U.S. city after the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Before 1983, you had black mayors in places like Cleveland, Washington D.C., Detroit, Atlanta and Los Angeles. And yet many people talk about Harold Washington as a model in a different way. Why do you think that is?

    I think what was really special about Harold was that as a trailblazing Black mayor of a major U.S. city, he neither presided over a city which whites had abandoned, like Cleveland, Detroit or St. Louis, nor was he looking to just put a new face on the old system. Harold was someone who came into office promising revolutionary change, as a Black mayor in a city where Black people were a substantial ethnic group and not the majority. So I think that makes him tremendously important. What he was able to accomplish was a real civil rights movement candidacy and governance, but one in which he did have to reach out beyond African Americans to form coalitions to make it happen.

    We are in a moment where there has again been a lot of interest in social movement circles in running insurgent electoral campaigns — something that’s been on the rise at least since Bernie Sanders’ presidential run in 2016. We’ve seen things such as the rise of The Squad in Congress coming out of that. What do you think are the lessons that Harold Washington offers for activists who are looking to bring social movement energy and issues into electoral politics today?

    The fact that Washington had to build a coalition beyond his base is really crucial. The fact that he couldn’t just depend on his ethnic group identification to carry him to victory. And the fact that he did it through bread and butter issues. He understood infrastructure and development and redistribution — and how all these things would actually get done in ways that could broaden his appeal. He had programs for the whole city, and I think he provides a really valuable example of how politicians can broaden their coalitions.

    It’s also crucial that Harold Washington’s candidacy came from a movement. Although voters later might remember his qualities as a politician — his charisma and his political skills — he wasn’t out there by himself. There was an entire movement behind him that had goals and also had the ability to mobilize people.

    Washington is somebody who was not only brought up in bare-knuckle, Democratic Party politics, but also in the social movements. In the 1940s he went to Roosevelt College, which was a rare integrated institution of its day that admitted Blacks, Jews and women. He was surrounded by really smart people who were doing things like lunch counter protests very early, 25 years before you were seeing the events that we celebrate from the 1960s.

    In terms of bringing social movements into governance, what are the mechanisms of accountability or inclusion that make grassroots groups part of a governing project?

    David Orr, who was a close ally of Washington’s, told us an interesting story we didn’t end up having room for in the film. He said that Harold had a meeting with him shortly before his death, where he was talking about his reelection, having secured his position and working majority on the council. He finally had the ability to enact the programs that the two of them and many others have been fighting for. And then Harold turned to Orr, who was much younger than him, and said, “You know, I need people to be on the outside pushing this. Change is hard. And I want to see protests out there.”

    #support-block_80f3df89143511f036359a7c6c055630 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

    Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

    Donate

    This meeting was never documented. But certainly Washington was somebody who was aware of the tension between grassroots advocacy and insider governance. There were staff people who were brought into his administration that came from activism, instead of conventional politics. And there were lots of others who stayed on the outside and kept pushing. Had Harold been around longer, that tension would have always been there. But he embraced it. He understood the usefulness of having both of those forces pushing for change.

    Harold Washington’s story is pretty well known. In making your film, did you feel like there was an aspect that hadn’t been told already?

    There have been a lot of films about political campaigns. They make for good stories because there’s a natural beginning, middle and an end. There’s a winner and a loser. But we had always wanted to dig deeper into governance, which is less sexy and much harder to project. To me, a lot of the stories about inspirational candidates fall short, especially for the left. Really, the election is only the beginning. There’s so much that has to happen after that. I wanted to present a documentary of a unique person and place that could inspire people to want to do governance better — and maybe give some tips on how to do that.

    Because he died unexpectedly, and relatively young, there’s a huge sense of lost potential that surrounds Harold Washington. And there is the idea that by the start of his second term he had finally subdued his opposition and got the position where he could start really accomplishing things. Of course, all of that was cut short.

    There’s a tendency to say that Harold’s accomplishments were completely vaporized when Daley took over. But when you look more closely at it, I think that’s not true. When Washington disassembled the political patronage machine, no one was able to put it back together in quite the same way. People had to govern differently. They were forced to be more inclusive and to distribute services equally to all areas of the city. I don’t think that would have happened without Harold.

    This article Harold Washington’s lessons for taking on a political machine was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

    Removing UK climate protesters’ defence ‘could erode right to trial by jury’

    The Guardian | Protest -

    Attorney general’s attempt to end climate protesters’ use of consent defence is slippery slope, says KC

    A UK government attempt to remove one of the last remaining defences for climate protesters would be a slippery slope to the erosion of the constitutional right to trial by jury, the court of appeal was told on Wednesday.

    The attorney general, Victoria Prentis KC, is arguing that one of the last available defences being used by environmental protesters should be removed. Prentis is making the appeal in the case of a defendant known as C, after a string of acquittals by juries of defendants for acts of criminal damage involving daubing paint on buildings.

    Continue reading...

    Forget Labour and the Tories: the ‘carbon parties’ will not save us. That’s why Just Stop Oil wants your votes

    The Guardian | Protest -

    We are seeing cowardice on a huge scale, so we will ratchet up pressure on MPs. We’ll also seek our own voice in parliament

    After two years of civil resistance, Just Stop Oil has made the issue of new oil and gas licences part of the political debate. These consents, which had previously passed almost unnoticed, have now become a major event. The government has responded to the movement by issuing three sets of repressive legislation. That is a response – even if not the one required or demanded. Yet people are still on the streets in defiance.

    The Conservative party has spent months raising the profile of Just Stop Oil, and painting the Labour party as its political wing. If only this were true. Still, this means that, ahead of and after the general election, Just Stop Oil is now part of the national political debate.

    Sarah Lunnon is a co-founder of Just Stop Oil

    Continue reading...

    Protesting Greek farmers applauded as they parade tractors out of Athens – video

    The Guardian | Protest -

    People cheered farmers in Athens after they protested overnight outside the Greek parliament. At least 8,000 farmers, beekeepers and livestock breeders joined the protest near Syntagma Square, echoing grievances at similar demonstrations across Europe, where farmers say they face higher costs and taxes, red tape, excessive environmental rules and competition from cheap imports

    Continue reading...

    Polish farmers dump Ukrainian grain as dispute with Kyiv deepens – video

    The Guardian | Protest -

    Protesting Polish farmers dumped grain out of a freight train during nationwide protests that have taken on an anti-Ukrainian character.

    The farmers, who say that cheap agricultural goods have undermined their business, want to stop the import of Ukrainian grain and to extend the ban to other goods including fruit, eggs and meat

    Continue reading...

    Gaza’s social media activists are a potent force for change in the fight against racism | Kenneth Mohammed

    The Guardian | Protest -

    The new wave of Palestinian protesters are heirs to giants such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, CLR James and Rosa Parks

    History is often written by ordinary people dedicated to a cause in the pursuit of peace and justice. Israel’s reign of terror over Palestine since the 7 October attack by Hamas has seen the rise to prominence of several such activists using social media to highlight the graphic truth of the horrific suffering there.

    Railing against the state propaganda machines, people such as Motaz Azaiza, Bisan Owda, Plestia Alaqad, Hind Khoudary and the veteran journalist Wael al-Dahdouh have brought shocking, heart-rending images straight to our phones. Pictures of weeping parents kneeling over the tiny, bloodied corpses of children have stirred up deep anger against Hamas, the Israeli government and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and at the complicity of the US, UK and EU governments.

    Continue reading...

    English farmers to be offered ‘largest ever’ grant scheme amid food security concerns

    The Guardian | Protest -

    Agricultural sector hit by post-Brexit turmoil with protests over trade deals, environmental legislation and rising costs

    Rishi Sunak will promise farmers the “largest ever” grant scheme tomorrow, as well as the creation of a food security index, after criticism that Brexit trade deals and poor responses to flooding and rising costs have put England’s ability to feed itself at risk.

    Against a backdrop of turmoil in the agricultural sector, with farmers in the UK and across the continent causing havoc with tractor protests against environmental regulations and a perceived lack of support, Sunak will respond to farmers’ calls for a commitment from government that the UK’s food self-sufficiency will remain at or exceed the current estimated level, which is about 60%.

    Continue reading...

    UK minister rules out swap for Briton Vladimir Kara-Murza jailed in Russia

    The Guardian | Protest -

    Foreign Office says it will not trade Putin opponent for spies in jail in Britain, despite fears for his life after Navalny’s death

    A Foreign Office minister has ruled out a prisoner swap for the imprisoned Russian opposition figure Vladimir Kara-Murza, a British citizen, who MPs have expressed concern about after the death of Alexei Navalny.

    Kara-Murza’s wife was now adamant that she wanted everything to be done to get her her husband out of Russia, said the Conservative backbencher Bob Seely, who urged the government to countenance swapping imprisoned spies for the pro-democracy activist who was now the most high-profile Russian political prisoner.

    Continue reading...

    ‘Assault on rights of juries’: activist decries Tory challenge to legal defence for protesters

    The Guardian | Protest -

    Exclusive: Acquitted activist says attorney general trying to remove ‘last remaining defence’ for climate protesters

    The woman at the centre of an attempt by the government’s senior law officer to remove one of the last remaining legal defences available to climate protesters says the move is an assault on the rights of juries to acquit defendants.

    The young woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found not guilty by a jury of criminal damage in a climate trial last year.

    Continue reading...

    A gunman killed and injured protesters at a BLM march. Why did police blame the victims?

    The Guardian | Protest -

    Survivors of a mass shooting have publicly shared video contradicting police claims that victims were armed and part of a ‘confrontation’

    Two years after an attacker shot five volunteers before a Black Lives Matter march in Portland, Oregon, killing a 60-year-old woman and leaving one of her young friends paralyzed, a new visual investigation of the attack reveals that the assailant tried to provoke a stand-your-ground situation, daring three women to fight him, before suddenly opening fire when they refused.

    Research agency Forensic Architecture collaborated with survivors on a reconstruction of the attack, analyzing helmet-camera video recorded by one of the victims, police radio traffic obtained through public records requests, and the testimony of 11 witnesses – including the volunteer armed guard who stopped the rampage by shooting and disarming the gunman.

    Continue reading...

    ‘The Iranian regime holds all the cards’: children of jailed Nobel winner on learning to live without their mother

    The Guardian | Protest -

    Human rights activist Narges Mohammadi has been in prison in Iran for most of her children’s lives. Now living as exiles in Paris, they say they will never lose hope of seeing her again

    Last December, just an hour or so after she stood on the world stage to accept the Nobel peace prize for her mother, Iranian human rights activist Narges Mohammadi, 17-year-old Kiana Rahmani found herself staring at the outline of a cell taped on the floor of the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo.

    Part of an exhibition commemorating what the Nobel committee described as Mohammadi’s “fight to promote human rights and freedom for all”, the tape marked the dimensions of her mother’s isolation cell in the notorious Evin prison in Tehran. Roughly 2 metres by 3 metres, it was about the size of a car parking space.

    Continue reading...

    ‘It is too dangerous’: father of Italian antifascist held in Hungary fears for her safety

    The Guardian | Protest -

    Roberto Salis speaks out to emphasise the urgency of bringing his daughter Ilaria back to Italy

    As a far-right march commemorating Nazi forces in the the second world war passed through Budapest on Sunday, a mural was painted on a wall imagining the death by hanging of the Italian anti-fascist activist Ilaria Salis. The 39-year-old, a teacher from northern Italy, has been held in prison in Hungary since her arrest last year and, last month, was brought into court in chains on charges of attempted assault.

    Her father, Roberto Salis, told the Guardian in an interview that he feared for his daughter’s safety and emphasised the urgency of bringing her back to Italy as soon as possible. Her case has triggered a formal diplomatic protest from the Italian government and dozens of rallies in her home country demanding her return.

    Continue reading...

    Alexei Navalny: police in Russia crack down on protests as activists are detained – video report

    The Guardian | Protest -

    More than 100 people were detained in eight cities across Russia on Saturday after they came to commemorate the late Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny, according to OVD-Info, a group that monitors political repression in Russia. The death of Navalny, once Putin’s most significant political challenger, is a watershed moment for Russia’s shattered pro-democracy movement, which has largely been jailed or driven into exile since the Ukraine invasion of 2022. Navalny, 47, died while being held in jail on 16 February at 2.17pm, said his official spokesperson, Kira Yarmysh, citing a message from Navalny’s mother and challenging Russia’s official explanation that Navalny died after a fall at the Arctic penal colony where he was being held

    Continue reading...

    The leading ‘day after’ plans for Palestine-Israel are doomed — here’s one progressives can get behind

    Waging Nonviolence -

    This article The leading ‘day after’ plans for Palestine-Israel are doomed — here’s one progressives can get behind was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

    The Palestine solidarity movement has been an important voice for justice in recent months. It has mobilized millions behind the call for a desperately needed ceasefire, and has successfully pressured some key politicians, like Bernie Sanders, to take a stronger stand against Israel’s relentless bombing of Gaza. 

    That said, the Palestine solidarity movement, and the American left more broadly, don’t seem to have a practical, pragmatic or achievable long-term vision for the future of Palestine-Israel. 

    That’s unfortunate, because the two options topping the news — maintaining the status quo and a carceral two-state solution — are both bad. 

    Not having a workable vision could be one reason pressuring Biden to demand a ceasefire in Gaza has been less successful than, for example, pressuring him into meaningful action on climate issues. Unlike with Palestine-Israel, activists working on the climate have long had informed, reality-based and entirely practical visions for a fossil-free future (such as the Green New Deal). 

    The only vision that’s united the American left on Israel-Palestine is the “one-state solution,” in which Jews and Palestinians magically form one secular, democratic state like all the ones that we already know — as if with a ginormous copy-and-paste. 

    #newsletter-block_4a0e38fd50c7ad7f83a9298dcc600726 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_4a0e38fd50c7ad7f83a9298dcc600726 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

    Unfortunately, neither Palestinians nor Jewish Israelis actually want that.

    Support among Palestinians for a one-state solution has hovered around 10 percent since 2020. For one thing, they understandably seem to fear that discrimination against Palestinian citizens would continue. Also, could it be that after 750 years of occupation by various non-Arab powers, from Mamluks to Jews, Palestinians have some longing for real self-determination?

    As for Jewish Israelis, a recent poll by the conservative Jewish People Policy Institute shows that 97 percent — whether left or right, secular or religious — want Israel to remain “a Jewish state.” Even allowing for a generous margin of error, it’s clear that very few Jewish Israelis are ready to give up their political self-determination. 

    Meanwhile, the U.S. and Europe are pressuring Israel to accept a carceral “two-state solution” in which Jews and Palestinians are restricted to their own bunkered territories by an increasingly reinforced border wall — like today, in other words, but with “autonomy” for the Palestinians. That could be better than nothing, but it won’t lead to any lasting peace, either, since both peoples will continue to consider the land beyond the wall theirs. 

    Neither violence nor separation will bring freedom to either people, as Oct. 7 and what’s followed have amply demonstrated.  Luckily, Netanyahu is extremely unpopular for his immense failures before, on and after Oct. 7 — like propping up Hamas in order to divide Palestinians. (He was already deeply unpopular for his attempts to cripple the Israeli Supreme Court, which generated nine months of huge protests.) 

    While the trauma from Oct. 7 has blinded much of the Israeli public to the carnage in Gaza, there’s recently been a renewed surge of direct action and protest against Netanyahu. If the American left can help pressure Biden to obtain a real ceasefire, Netanyahu’s career will be over, along with the war — and the momentum that ousts him could well sweep away those with similar views.

    Previous Coverage
  • We can end mass atrocities in Gaza and beyond
  • It would be a pity to squander such an opportunity by pushing for a hugely unpopular one-state or a deeply flawed two-state solution. 

    Fortunately, the American left doesn’t have to come up with their own great plan, because there’s already a homegrown left vision in Israel-Palestine, that’s supported by a large and increasing number of Arabs and Jews. It’s utopian but also deeply pragmatic, and I believe it has the strongest chance of working of any “day after” plan.

    A Land for All, formerly known as “Two States, One Homeland,” is a group advocating for two completely autonomous states, each with its own institutions and citizenship, with clear but open borders between them. Citizens of Israel and Palestine will have full access to live, work, travel and worship anywhere in their mutual homeland, with non-discrimination in housing enforced by a mutual judicial institution. 

    This vision of an Israeli-Palestinian confederation is the same, with only slight differences, as what worked to bring relative peace to many formerly violent places on earth — like Northern Ireland, or for that matter Europe, where countries that warred for centuries would now never consider fighting each other. It can work in Israel-Palestine too: Two million Palestinians are currently living with Jews within Israel, as Israeli citizens, obviously with no walls to keep the two peoples apart.

    Eight years ago, I met one of the founders of A Land For All, Meron Rapaport, and was instantly captivated by the simplicity, obviousness and justice of the idea. Rapaport didn’t think it had much chance of success at that time, but he thought the day might come when the status quo would be widely seen as untenable, and a pragmatic but beautiful vision might fill the gap. 

    Now is such a time. 

    Composed of both Israeli Jews and Palestinians, with an equal number of each in leadership positions, A Land For All’s annual conferences, public and academic events, and publications have already resulted in the option of confederation entering the vocabulary of activists, experts and opinion makers. 

    And a poll by Palestinian-Israeli Pulse showed support for confederation growing among the general public as well — from 24 percent in 2016 to 29 percent in 2023 — and surging dramatically among the Israeli left — from 35 percent in 2016 to 66 percent in 2023. (The same poll shows support for the “classical” two-state solution declining among both Jewish and Palestinian Israelis, from 53 percent in 2016 to 34 percent in 2023.) The group has begun a more grassroots campaign as well, to further influence public opinion in Israel-Palestine — and abroad, since international help and pressure are needed.

    #support-block_b0d5a1ba41a9dc085db83dc1c5fbea50 { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

    Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Become a sustaining monthly donor today!

    Donate

    The group’s Palestinian and Jewish directors, Rula Hardal and May Pundak, recently toured the U.S., speaking with audiences and meeting with leaders of several progressive Jewish and Palestinian groups, who reacted warmly to the Land For All vision. 

    A Land For All is continuing to work with progressive groups in the U.S. to help make this vision more visible to movement grassroots. (On Feb. 20, I am co-hosting a public Zoom session, together with the Center for Artistic Activism and members of A Land For All, to start brainstorming ways to spread a much-needed vision of justice and freedom into our movements.) 

    When the war ends — if Netanyahu goes to jail for massive corruption and Hamas loses its murderous hold on Gaza — the vision of A Land For All will still face huge challenges from extremists. The support and pressure of the American left will be critical to ensuring that, despite the opposition, this deeply pragmatic (yet utopian) vision can gain traction and win — an outcome the whole world needs.

    This article The leading ‘day after’ plans for Palestine-Israel are doomed — here’s one progressives can get behind was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

    Pages