drudgereport--2019-04-11--HOW ECUADOR LOST PATIENCE

HOW ECUADOR LOST PATIENCE...

When Julian Assange, disguised as a motorcycle courier, first walked up the steps of Ecuador’s small embassy behind Harrods in central London and asked for asylum, few people – including, surely, Assange himself – could have imagined it would be almost seven years before he next exited the front door.  It was mid-June 2012, and as Britain expectantly awaited the opening of the Olympics just over a month later, the WikiLeaks publisher had exhausted every legal avenue in his attempts to avoid extradition to Sweden, where two women had made allegations of rape and sexual assault during a visit by Assange to Stockholm in 2010.  Assange, who had been briefly imprisoned and then on bail for more than a year, argued that Swedish prosecutors should interview him in London. But as well as resisting extradition to Sweden, he also feared being handed over to the US for potential prosecution over the so-called Cablegate documents (published in the Guardian and elsewhere) and other releases. The WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning was already in custody on espionage charges (she would be sentenced to 35 years in prison, later commuted by President Obama. Manning was reimprisoned last month).  Ecuador offered Assange almost his last option to avoid extradition, his last appeal having failed at the supreme court. The country’s then president, the leftwinger Rafael Correa, was sympathetic and Assange was granted asylum two months later.  It was never a very comfortable arrangement at the poky embassy, however. An office was repurposed as a bedroom and workspace, but he was forced, initially at least, to sleep on a mattress on the floor, sharing a bathroom and with access only to a tiny basic kitchen.  With the Swedes determined to extradite him, however, and a US grand jury hearing into WikiLeaks already under way, the Australian resolved to stay put. High-profile visitors came and went – Vivienne Westwood, Lady Gaga and the footballer Eric Cantona among them – and a small group of supporters maintained a periodic vigil outside. But still Assange remained.  Much has happened in the time he has been inside the embassy. WikiLeaks has continued to publish, exposing details of US tactics in trade negotiations, of the country’s surveillance of other governments, and of CIA hacking methods, among other revelations. A WikiLeaks staff member accompanied the whistleblower Edward Snowden to Moscow after he leaked classified NSA documents about US surveillance programmes to newspapers including the Guardian.  Assange has been the subject of a biopic starring Benedict Cumberbatch, which flopped, and a documentary, which premiered at Cannes. He even acquired a cat.  More significantly for the Australian’s legal position, after years of torturous wrangling, his Swedish problem appeared to go away, thanks simply to the passage of time. An investigation into one of the Swedish women’s accusations, of sexual assault, was discontinued in 2015 after the statute of limitations expired, and in 2017, Sweden’s chief prosecutor said she was dropping her investigation into the outstanding allegation of rape after concluding there was no practical way of continuing. She gave herself the option of reopening the case if he later “made himself available”.  But even the apparent resolution of that seven-year legal standoff did not persuade Assange to leave the embassy, despite reports that the Obama administration had concluded it would not be able to prosecute him without pursuing the newspapers that had published WikiLeaks releases, including the New York Times and potentially the Guardian.  And, now that he has been removed from the embassy, the outstanding allegation of rape could be raised again if prosecutors decide to reopen the case. Elisabeth Massi Fritz, who represents his unnamed accuser, on Thursday told the Associated Press that “we are going to do everything” to have the case reopened “so Assange can be extradited to Sweden and prosecuted for rape”.  Assange’s Ecuadorian stay may have spanned two UK general elections (and two major referendums), but successive British governments have remained resolute, insisting that he would be subject to arrest if he left for alleged breaches of his bail conditions when he first sought asylum.  A finding by a UN panel in 2016 that Assange’s continued confinement in the embassy amounted to “arbitrary detention” was dismissed by the UK Foreign Office, which maintained that his presence there was voluntary.  Two significant things changed, however – both of them presidential elections.  Donald Trump was initially a great fan of Assange, praising WikiLeaks repeatedly during the 2016 presidential campaign after emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and his rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign were published by the website. But other US Republicans have remained hostile, and following Trump’s election to the presidency, his administration has vowed to attempt to prosecute Assange.  In February 2017 the then attorney general Jeff Sessions said arresting Assange was a priority, while a mistake in a document filed last November suggested criminal charges had been secretly filed against him. Trump and Sessions’s successor, William Barr, now have the yet-to-be-published report by special counsel Robert Mueller into Trump’s links to Russia, including allegations that the DNC releases published by WikiLeaks were obtained by Russian hackers.  But aside from events in the US, Assange has also had an increasing Ecuadorian problem. WikiLeaks’s DNC publications in 2016 prompted Ecuador’s discomfort at its sometimes troublesome houseguest to flare into irritation, and it temporarily cut off the Australian’s internet access saying he was using it to interfere in the US election.  The relationship between Assange and his hosts deteriorated further after Lenín Moreno was elected to the Ecuadorian presidency in 2017. Moreno had described Assange as a “stone in the shoe”, but said before his election that he could remain in the embassy if he agreed to abide by certain conditions.  In January 2018 it emerged that the country had made Assange an Ecuadorian citizen in a bid to resolve the impasse (its request to have him recognised as a diplomat was dismissed by the UK).  But the Ecuador-Assange relationship remained strained, and last year the country cut off his internet access again, saying he had breached an agreement not to interfere with other states. Assange had tweeted in support of the Catalan independence movement, causing a rift between Quito and Madrid, and challenged the UK’s accusation that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of a Russian former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia.  Moreno later ordered the removal of an additional multimillion-pound security operation set up by his predecessor to protect Assange. In July last year the president said that Assange would ultimately have to leave the embassy, and by October the Australian was suing his hosts, saying their conditions for his stay violated his “fundamental rights and freedoms”. On Wednesday, WikiLeaks held a press conference to say it had uncovered a surveillance operation against him in the embassy, leading to private legal and medical information being offered for sale in what it said was an extortion attempt.  On Thursday morning, finally, Ecuador’s patience had “reached its limit”, Moreno said in a statement justifying his decision to revoke Assange’s asylum status. He is now, once again, in British custody.


drudgereport--2019-04-24--Candidates confront letting notorious felons vote

Candidates confront letting notorious felons vote...

FILE - In this April 15, 2019 photo, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., takes part in a Fox News town-hall style event in Bethlehem, Pa. Democratic presidential contenders are facing a new debate over whether criminals in prison -- even notorious ones like the Boston Marathon bomber -- should be able to win back their right to vote. Sanders says they should, calling voting “inherent to our democracy _ yes, even for terrible people.” Many of his 2020 Democratic presidential rivals aren’t so sure, and at least one opposes it outright. Sanders himself acknowledged that he was essentially writing an attack ad for Republicans to use against him through his support for the issue. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)  Democratic presidential contenders are facing a new debate over whether criminals in prison, even notorious ones like the Boston Marathon bomber, should be able to win back their right to vote.  Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says that they should and that voting is “inherent to our democracy — yes, even for terrible people.” Many of his rivals for the 2020 nomination aren’t as sure, and at least one opposes the idea outright. Sanders himself acknowledged that he was essentially writing an attack ad for Republicans to use against him through his support for the issue.  The question illustrates how Sanders continues to stand to the left of the other candidates as he endorses giving all prisoners, including those convicted of heinous crimes, the right to vote. Prodded by criminal justice activists, Democrats have largely embraced the politically safer cause of winning back access to the ballot box for felons who have served their time.  “Sen. Sanders is taking it one step farther than most campaigns have,” said Mark Mauer of The Sentencing Project, a group that advocates letting prisoners vote. “Even if you’re sitting in a maximum-security prison, you retain most of the fundamental rights of a U.S. citizen.”  Only two states now allow prisoners to vote — Maine and Vermont, Sanders’ home state. But debate over the issues has begun percolating in a handful of other states, backed by advocates who see it as a civil rights issue. Asked Monday during a CNN town hall whether he supported allowing sex offenders or terrorists such as marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to vote, Sanders did not hesitate.  “The right to vote is inherent to our democracy — yes, even for terrible people,” Sanders said. “Once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Oh, that person did that, not going to let that person vote.’ You’re running down a slippery slope.”  Sanders reiterated his support for the voting rights of prisoners on Wednesday, tweeting: “More than 30 countries around the world today such as Canada, South Africa and Finland allow prisoners to vote. This is not a radical idea.”  At Monday’s town hall, California Sen. Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor, stressed that she backed restoring voting rights to released convicts. Of those in prison, she said, “I think we should have that conversation.”  Harris hedged further on Tuesday. “There has to be serious consequences for the most extreme types of crimes,” she told reporters at a campaign stop.  Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she supports a constitutional right to vote but is “not there yet” on prisoners voting. Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, opposes giving prisoners access to the ballot box. “Part of the punishment when you’re convicted of a crime and you’re incarcerated is you lose certain rights,” he said during the town hall.  On Wednesday, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro both said they backed letting nonviolent felons cast ballots behind bars, but they drew the line at violent prisoners.  “For violent criminals, it’s much harder for me to reach that conclusion,” O’Rourke told reporters. “I feel like, at that point, you have broken a bond and a compact with your fellow Americans. There has to be a consequence in civil life for that as well.”  Republicans were quick to criticize Democrats for even contemplating the idea. The Republican National Committee chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel, tweeted that Democrats were trying to “out-Bernie” each other. “Now they’re refusing to rule out letting terrorists to vote from prison,” she said.  The movement to restore voting rights to convicted felons has had some success in recent years.  Activists won their biggest victory in November when Florida voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure reversing the state’s lifetime voting ban for most convicted felons who have completed their sentences. Advocates of a criminal justice overhaul have been able to chip away at restrictions through state legislatures in conservative states such as Kentucky and Alabama.  Chiraag Bains, a Justice Department official in the Obama administration who now works at the liberal think tank Demos, said restoring prisoners’ right to vote is the logical next step in a movement that is trying to reverse laws enacted shortly after slaves won the right to vote. Within 15 years of the end of the Civil War, nearly one-third of the states passed laws barring felons and prisoners from voting, and some were explicit about trying to limit the new political power of African Americans, Bains said.  Restoring the right to vote “is long overdue,” Bains said, noting the bipartisan support for measures loosening restrictions on released felons voting across the South. “I think the public is a lot smarter about criminal justice reform and voting rights” than they’re given credit for.  But beyond Maine and Vermont, no state has gone so far as to loosen restrictions on those serving time behind bars.  The Sentencing Project estimates about 1.3 million citizens cannot vote because they are in prison or jail. Even liberal states such as California bar felons on parole or in prison from voting.  Last year, the activist group Initiate Justice tried to gather signatures for a ballot measure in California allowing all felons to vote, but it didn’t have enough money to fund a campaign. Now it’s trying to persuade the state’s Democratic-controlled Legislature to put a measure on the 2020 ballot — but it would restore voting rights only to parolees, not those in prison.  The group’s founder, Taina Vargas-Edmond, isn’t sure the slimmed-down version will get through the California Legislature. “It has been something of a struggle,” she said. “It’s part of this whole tough-on-crime justice system that we’re all wedded to.”  Vargas-Edmond said it may be an easier political sale to win rights back for parolees, but she believes there’s no need to bar those serving time, either.  “I doubt there’s a single person who ever said, ‘Well, let me not commit this crime because I’ll lose my right to vote,’” she said.  The issue has begun bubbling up in Democratic-run legislatures with increasing frequency, a sign that prisoner voting rights are becoming a legitimate issue, activists say. “We’re in a democratizing moment,” Bains said.  But that doesn’t mean Democrats are united on the issue.  Even in solidly Democratic Hawaii, a measure to let prisoners vote didn’t make it out of the Legislature this year. In New Mexico, a bill to restore some felons’ voting rights made incremental progress but only after a provision to let prisoners vote was removed. The amended bill still died in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.  Although he’s a strong advocate of voting rights for those released from prison, state Sen. Bill O’Neill of New Mexico only signed on as a sponsor after the prison-voting clause was removed.  “That’s too far for me,” O’Neill said. “Practically, I’m just having a really hard time seeing that being implemented, and as a Democrat, I’m already concerned with the attack ads being printed up.”  Associated Press writers Hunter Woodall in Keene, N.H., and Meg Kinnard in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report.


drudgereport--2019-10-04--SHOWDOWN Supreme Court takes up major Louisiana abortion case

SHOWDOWN: Supreme Court takes up major Louisiana abortion case...

The case will test the willingness of the court to uphold Republican-backed abortion restrictions being pursued in numerous conservative states  WASHINGTON, Oct 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up a major abortion case that could lead to new curbs on access to the procedure as it considers the legality of a Republican-backed Louisiana law that imposes restrictions on abortion doctors.  The justices will hear an appeal by abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women, which sued to try to block the law, of a lower court ruling upholding the measure. The Shreveport-based Hope Medical Group said implementation of the law would prompt the closure of two of the state's three abortion clinics. The court will also hear a separate appeal by the state arguing that the abortion clinic lacks the legal standing to sue.  The law includes a requirement that doctors who perform abortions have a difficult-to-obtain arrangement called "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the abortion clinic.  The court begins its new nine-month term on Monday. A ruling in the case is due by the end of June.  The Louisiana law was passed in 2014 but courts have prevented it from taking effect. The Supreme Court struck down a similar Texas requirement in 2016 when conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal justices to defend abortion rights, but Kennedy retired in 2018 and Republican President Donald Trump replaced him with conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as the court has moved further to the right.  The case will test the willingness of the court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority that includes two Trump appointees, to uphold Republican-backed abortion restrictions being pursued in numerous conservative states.  Anti-abortion activists are hoping the court will scale back or even overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Trump vowed during the 2016 presidential campaign to appoint justices who would overturn that landmark ruling.  "I'm hoping the Supreme Court will see this law for exactly what it is: an unconstitutional burden on our fundamental rights," said Kathaleen Pittman, who runs the Hope clinic.  "We are counting on the court to follow its precedent, otherwise clinics will needlessly close and there will be just one doctor left in the entire state to provide abortion care," added Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the clinics.  Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, said in a statement the law is needed because of what he called poor medical standards at abortion clinics.  "Incompetent and unsafe providers should not be allowed to challenge health and safety standards designed to protect women from those very providers," Landry added.  'THE BEST INTEREST OF WOMEN'  "Abortion activists are more than willing to lower the bar on women's health in order to expand abortion, but stricter clinic regulations are in the best interest of women," said Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, which opposes abortion.  Abortion rights advocates have argued that restrictions such as requiring admitting privileges for doctors are meant to limit access to abortion, not protect women's health.  The Supreme Court will review a September 2018 ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the Louisiana law. The court in February on a 5-4 vote prevented the law from going into effect while litigation over its legality continued.  The justices on Friday took no action on another abortion-related case concerning the state of Indiana's effort to revive an abortion-related law requiring women to have an ultrasound 18 hours before having an abortion. Abortion rights advocates have argued that such an ultrasound is medically unnecessary and intended to dissuade a women from having an abortion.  Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals in the majority when it blocked the law from going into effect.  A federal district judge struck down Louisiana's law in January 2016, saying it created an impermissible undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion under existing Supreme Court precedent. The appeals court revived the law, saying there was no evidence any clinics in Louisiana would close as a result of the "admitting privileges" requirement.  The high court legalized abortion nationwide in 1973 and reaffirmed it in 1992 in a ruling that disallowed abortion laws that placed an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.  "An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability," the court wrote in the 1992 ruling.  Since Kavanaugh joined the court last October, it has sent mixed signals on abortion. The court in June declined to hear a bid by Alabama to revive a Republican-enacted law that would have effectively banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.  In May, it refused to consider reinstating Indiana's ban on abortions performed because of fetal disability or the sex or race of the fetus while upholding the state's requirement that fetal remains be buried or cremated after an abortion.  Various conservative states in 2019 have enacted new laws that ban abortion at an early stage of pregnancy. None of those laws has taken effect.  [For a graphic on state abortion laws, see https://tmsnrt.rs/2WZuiVP ]


drudgereport--2019-11-19--BEIJING BEGINS HONG KONG ROUNDUP

BEIJING BEGINS HONG KONG ROUNDUP

An injured youth sits under a space blanket at a casualty evacuation point near Hong Kong Polytechnic University in Hong Kong, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019. About 100 anti-government protesters remained holed up at a Hong Kong university Tuesday as a police siege of the campus entered its third day. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)  An injured youth sits under a space blanket at a casualty evacuation point near Hong Kong Polytechnic University in Hong Kong, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019. About 100 anti-government protesters remained holed up at a Hong Kong university Tuesday as a police siege of the campus entered its third day. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)  HONG KONG (AP) — About 100 anti-government protesters remained holed up at a Hong Kong university Tuesday, unsure what to do next as food supplies dwindled and a police siege of the campus entered its third day.  Police played a waiting game after 10 days of some of the most intense protests the city has seen in more than five months of often violent unrest.  The government has stood firm, rejecting most of the protesters’ demands, even as they shut down major roads and trains during rush hour every day last week, turned several university campuses into fortresses and blocked a major road tunnel, which remained shut Tuesday.  In Beijing, the National People’s Congress criticized the high court in Hong Kong for striking down a ban on wearing face masks at the protests. China has taken a tough line on the protests and said that restoring order is the city’s highest priority.  Protesters have left all the universities except Hong Kong Polytechnic, where several hundred barricaded themselves in and fought back police barrages of tear gas and water cannons with gasoline bombs, some launched from rooftop by catapult, and bows and arrows.  Those still at Polytechnic are the last holdouts. Surrounded, they now face arrest. Several groups have tried to escape, including one that slid down hoses from an overpass to waiting motorcycles, but it didn’t appear that many evaded arrest.  About 600 had left by Tuesday morning, city leader Carrie Lam said, leaving an estimated 100 still inside. They milled about in small groups. They still had boxes of homemade gasoline bombs, but the mood was grim in the trash-strewn plazas, in contrast to the excitement as they prepared to take on police just a few days earlier.  One protester said he had no plan and was waiting for someone to come to help. Another said he wants to leave safely but without being charged. They would not give their full names out of fear of arrest.  “We will use whatever means to continue to persuade and arrange for these remaining protesters to leave the campus as soon as possible so that this whole operation could end in a peaceful manner,” Lam told reporters after a weekly meeting with advisers.  Even as the latest bout of violence winds down, a fundamental divide suggests the protests are far from over.  City leaders say the violence must stop before meaningful dialogue can begin. The protesters say they need to keep escalating the violence to get the government to accept their demands.  The protests took off in June over a proposed extradition bill that would have allowed suspects to be sent to mainland China for trial. Activists saw the legislation as part of a continuing erosion of rights and freedoms that Hong Kong was promised when Britain returned its former colony to China in 1997.  Lam withdrew the bill after a few months, but protesters now want an independent investigation into police suppression of the demonstrations and fully democratic elections, among other demands.  About 200 of the 600 people who have left Polytechnic were under 18 years old. The city agreed not to arrest them immediately, but Lam said they could face charges later.  Family members and teachers arrived sporadically Tuesday to pick up a few remaining protesters under 18, hugging their children before walking back to a police checkpoint, where officers recorded names and other information before letting them go.  An ambulance team was allowed in to treat injured protesters, wrapping them in emergency blankets to keep them warm. Some left with the team, but others stayed, saying they didn’t want to be arrested.  Other parents, holding a news conference, said their children dare not surrender because the government has labelled them as rioters even though some had just gotten trapped by the police siege.  They wore masks and refused to give their names, a sign of the fear that has developed in what has become a highly polarized city.  China hinted it might overrule the Hong Kons high court ruling that struck down a ban on face masks that was aimed at preventing protesters from hiding their identity and evading arrest.  A statement from the National People’s Congress’ Legislative Affairs Commission said the decision doesn’t conform with territory’s constitution, known as the Basic Law, or decisions by the Congress.  “We are currently studying opinions and suggestions raised by some NPC deputies,” the statement said.  Monday’s ruling said the ban infringes on fundamental rights more than is reasonably necessary. The ban has been widely disregarded.  The Japanese government said one of its citizens had been arrested near the Polytechnic campus. Japanese media identified him as Hikaru Ida, a student at Tokyo University of Agriculture. Officials did not say why he was arrested.  Hong Kong also got a new police chief, Chris Tang, who said his priorities would include rebutting accusations against police that he called “fake news” and reassuring the public about the force’s mission.  “We have to maintain the law and order in Hong Kong and there is a massive scale of breaking of law in Hong Kong and there is a certain sector of the community that also condones those illegal activities,” he told journalists.  Tang replaces a retiring chief and was approved by Beijing after being nominated by Lam’s government.  Lam, asked whether she would seek help from Chinese troops based in Hong Kong, said her government remains confident it is able to cope with the situation.  Associated Press journalists Alice Fung and Dake Kang contributed to this report.


eveningstandard--2019-04-23--Change UK candidates for European Elections 2019 Who is standing for pro-remain party

Change UK candidates for European Elections 2019: Who is standing for pro-remain party?

Change UK, the pro-Remain party set up by The Independent Group of MPs, has revealed its candidates for the European elections at a launch in Bristol.  Among them are journalists, barristers and former Labour and Conservative MPs.  These are some of the most prominent candidates who will run for a seat in the European Parliament in May:  The award-winning journalist and TV presenter was the BBC’s former chief correspondent for North America, BBC Newsnight presenter and has written five novels and two non-fiction books.  After a career spanning more than 40 years in journalism, Mr Elser, 66, will stand for the London region, saying at the Change UK candidate launch: “I have never been a member of a political party but I am now.”  The Scottish journalist has been outspoken about a public vote for any deal between the UK and the European Union.  After he was revealed as a candidate, Mr Elser said: “Our political system is a joke. They are laughing at us, not with us.”  The sister of prominent Brexiteer Boris Johnson also announced that she will run as a candidate for the pro-Remain party.  The campaigning journalist and writer told the Evening Standard she will stand in the South West region for Change UK, saying she did not want to see Brexit “rubbing out my children’s prospects and changes of living and travelling and working in Europe”.  The 53-year-old was set to be the big surprise when Change UK unveiled their nationwide list of candidates at the launch in Bristol.  Ms Johnson has previously supported the Liberal Democrats and her candidacy for Change UK will be a blow to the party.  She previously campaigned in elections for her siblings, former foreign secretary Boris, Tory MP Jo and her father Stanley, a former MEP.  A leading EU and human rights barrister at Matrix Chambers, Jessica Simor will also stand as a Change UK candidate in May.  Ms Simor was one of the lawyers who secured a parliamentary vote on Article 50, challenging Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision to use the Royal Prerogative to notify the EU of the UK’s intended withdrawal from the EU.  She has represented clients like Google, the Post Office, National Express as well as NGOs and government departments.  Ms Simor has previously written for the Guardian about “the fundamental rights and freedoms that the EU treaty guarantees us” and sent a Freedom of Information request to the prime minister to disclose legal advice on Brexit to the British public.  The 67-year-old served as the Tory health minister in John Major’s government and has been announced as the West Midlands candidate.  He was first elected to parliament in 1979 as MP for Loughborough and promoted to government eight years later as an assistant whip by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  Mr Dorrell stood down as an MP in 2014 after taking a job with consultancy KMPG, and has since campaigned hard against Brexit.  He is a committee member of the Tories Against Brexit campaign and became chair of the European Movement UK in 2016 in order to lead its campaign to stop Brexit.  Former Labour MP for Wimbledon, Roger Casale joined The Independent Group this year and will run as a Change UK candidate for East of England.  Elected to parliament as one of the surprise results during the Labour landslide of the 1997 general election, the 58-year-old then lost his seat in 2005 to the Conservatives.  He resigned from Labour in 2017 in order to contest the Vauxhall constituency held by pro-Brexit MP Kate Hoey.  A Tory MP for Stroud from 2010 to 2017, Niel Carmichael is now president of the Conservatives for a People’s Vote campaign.  The 58-year-old is an avid supporter of a second referendum on the UK's membership of the EU with the option to remain.  Mr Carmichael announced in April that he was leaving the Conservative Party to join The Independent Group and will run as another candidate in the East of England.  During his time in office, he was one of the most active participants in parliamentary debates, publicly opposed grammar schools and successfully piloted his bill through Parliament for the UK to fulfil its international environmental obligations in the Antarctic.


foreignpolicy--2019-02-21--India Has a Lesson for Trump National Emergencies Are a Disaster for Democracy

India Has a Lesson for Trump: National Emergencies Are a Disaster for Democracy  After declaring a national emergency on Feb. 15, U.S. President Donald Trump said: “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” He was referring to the speed with which he could now initiate special powers to access the funds needed to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Clearly, expediency shaped the president’s decision—and will shape the legal challenges to it, too.  Despite Trump’s self-serving reasons for declaring a national emergency, such executive actions are hardly unusual in the United States. Since 1976, when the National Emergencies Act was passed, this legal instrument has been used on numerous occasions to block properties owned by those contributing to conflicts in Libya and Somalia, support the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, prevent financial deals between U.S. entities and Iran, and take action when democracy was deemed to be undermined in Belarus and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The main difference, of course, between the past and the present is the brazenness with which Trump has circumvented congressional authority on just about every legislative turn since he came into office in 2016.  A national emergency can be a dangerous tool—as India discovered during the Emergency period, from 1975 to 1977. India’s Emergency was far more unprecedented than Trump’s—and far more threatening to democracy. But it shows how much damage such powers can do in the wrong hands.  India has declared a state of emergency only three times. The other two were both military crises, but the Emergency itself was a result of what the government, then led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, considered a threat to its security because of “internal disturbances.” A combination of factors led to the declaration, including rising food prices and economic distress, street protests organized by leaders of a fast-growing opposition who accused Gandhi and her supporters of widespread corruption, the government’s forceful treatment of 400,000 striking railway workers, and an impending court ruling on the 1971 elections.  In declaring an emergency under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, Gandhi blamed the “hidden hand” of the CIA in stoking internal unrest. But whatever she said in public, one of her main purposes was to avoid a court order—which accused her of electoral malpractice in the 1971 elections—so that she could remain in power. The use of such powers to get around a legal threat hasn’t yet happened in the United States, but with Trump facing multiple possible accusations and regularly attacking his own intelligence agencies, it doesn’t seem out of the range of possibilities.  There are, of course, stark differences between India in the 1970s and the recent declaration in the United States. The Indian Emergency Proclamation Order immediately suspended fundamental rights, censored the press, and allowed the state to make mass arrests under the cover of a legal order that was passed to maintain internal security in 1971, months before a war between India and Pakistan broke out. More than 900 such arrests were made in the first 24 hours of the Emergency. Twenty-six political organizations were banned. According to Amnesty International, by the end of the Emergency period, more than 100,000 Indians had been incarcerated. None of this is the case in the United States, where, despite Trump’s repeated threats against the media, the press remains unmuzzled.  With these caveats in mind, India’s 21-month Emergency comes with some possible lessons for Americans.  First, the Emergency called into question the foundation of the social contract between the citizen and the state, as well as that between the government and the opposition. Simply put, the awesome powers held and used by the state once and for all snapped the legitimacy accrued by it in the ballot box. Union workers, thousands of whom were put behind bars, rapidly appreciated the need to link themselves to political parties with the hope of deriving protection in times of crisis.  In the post-Emergency period, barefaced attempts by successive governments to silence the press were justified (at least to themselves) by using the Emergency as an example or a threshold below which state-inspired coercion became acceptable. “It’s not as bad as the Emergency” became the rationale to justify the heavy hand of the state—even when used for nakedly political purposes.  But the Emergency also led to the awakening of a political consciousness in India that coalesced in the formation of an opposition to the Indian National Congress. This grouping of disparate actors with varying political associations finally defeated Gandhi in the 1977 elections, soon after her Emergency powers were rescinded. Many of these actors were released from prison only a few weeks before the elections, and their experiences made clear the need for an alternative in India. Some 2,400 candidates fought the election campaign in 1977. Out of 542 seats, 292 were won by the new Janata party.  This was the first non-Congress government in independent India. Its eventual collapse in 1980, as a result of sharp ideological and personal differences notwithstanding, made it clear that India could be governed by a party or a group of parties apart from the Congress. As a result of the Congress’s attempts to mute difference and opposition during the Emergency, a center-right verve in Indian politics quickly electrified a constituency that proved to be decisive in the late 1990s. This is when the Bharatiya Janata Party, also in power currently, led an alliance and formed the government. In short, the Emergency served to catalyze the political right—and to end the dominance of the old order.  That emergencies have a life of their own became clear within the first few months after Gandhi chose to shut down democracy. Congress leaders, both at the center in New Delhi and in the states, used the time to consolidate their political base, with little or no requirement to adhere to the rule of law. Gandhi’s son, Sanjay Gandhi, experimented with a brutal population control scheme, carrying out forced sterilization campaigns in parts of northern India with opaque judicial and legal mandates.  Attempts to consolidate power and run ad hoc public health campaigns were led, as archival documents underline, without the full authority of the prime minister. Gandhi’s “cabal,” as the British Foreign Office argued, “grew out of the need for secrecy.” Soon after, its members began to keep secrets from Gandhi. In sum, while absolutism was engineered by Gandhi, the leader of the nation, it allowed her and several others within her coterie to exercise a form of despotism that temporarily turned parts of India into an Orwellian state.  The Indian Emergency bears little direct parallels to the situation in the United States as yet. But it underlines why, in democratic systems of government, emergency powers, once unleashed, can and potentially will acquire a life of their own. Relying on emergency powers, if done often enough, not only potentially corrodes institutions but can consolidate power in the other end of the political spectrum. The shape such opposition could take in the United States is unclear, but its effects ought not to be disregarded. As India’s Emergency shows, periods of absolutism aren’t blips in democratic history but have long-lasting effects that are not always immediately obvious.


foxnews--2019-06-01--Abortion seekers welcome in California governor says as pro-life measures gain elsewhere in US

Abortion seekers welcome in California, governor says, as pro-life measures gain elsewhere in US

Gov. Gavin Newsom has a message for women who want an abortion but live in states that have enacted strict pro-life measures: Come to California.  Newsom released a proclamation Friday touting his state’s easy access to abortion, including the use of state funds for ending pregnancies under subsidized health insurance plans for disadvantaged people while U.S. law bans states from using federal money for the same purpose.  RUSH LIMBAUGH UNLOADS ON DISNEY, SAYS IT'S HYPOCRITICAL ABOUT GEORGIA ABORTION LAW  “California will continue to uphold women’s equality and liberty by protecting their reproductive freedom, educating Californians about their rights to reproductive freedom, welcoming women to California to fully exercise their reproductive rights, and acting as a model for other states that want to ensure full reproductive freedom for women,” Newsom said, according to the Fresno Bee.  The move came after a number of states -- including Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi and Georgia -- passed pro-life measures that either severely restrict or ban abortion after six weeks.  The Alabama abortion law particularly prompted an outcry from pro-choice activists because it bans the procedure in nearly all cases, even in the event of rape.  Newsom also joined his fellow Democratic governors in Oregon and Washington and sent a letter urging other states to ramp up abortion protections and access to contraceptives and sex education.  MISSOURI'S LAST ABORTION CLINIC ALLOWED TO STAY OPEN, FOR NOW, IS RIFE WITH 'TROUBLING' VIOLATIONS, STATE SAYS  “We’ve been battling an escalating attack on the freedom of women and families to determine their futures,” the governors write, according to the newspaper.  “Newly enacted and clearly unconstitutional laws in a handful of states compel our states to act now to reaffirm longstanding commitments to safeguard the fundamental rights of women.”  The California governor has jumped on the issue as a part of his political campaign for reelection in 2022.  According to the Fresno Bee, Newsom slammed the states with new abortion laws in a video paid for by his re-election campaign and in another announcement urged movie production companies to move to California.  CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP  Multiple film production companies and movie stars have since announced they won’t film in states that have passed pro-life measures.


foxnews--2019-07-02--Gun rights groups sue California over firearms sales ban to those under 21

Second Amendment right groups sued the state of California Monday over the new law banning the sale of firearms to people under the age of 21.  The groups, the Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, argued in a lawsuit filed in San Diego on behalf of individual gun owners that those 18 and over are adults and have a right to purchase a firearm.  “Once individuals turn eighteen, they are adults in the eyes of the law,” said John W. Dillon, the Carlsbad attorney representing the groups, the Los Angeles Times reported.  “Law-abiding adults are entitled to fully exercise all of their fundamental rights, including their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, not just hunting or sport.”  The lawsuit stems from a new law that was introduced by State Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-LA., last year following the Parkland high school shooting where the 19-year-old gunman took the lives of 17 people.  But the lawsuit argues that any adult who isn’t a convicted felon or mentally ill should be allowed to use the Second Amendment.  “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and adults over the age of eighteen but under twenty-one are not second-class people,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, according to the Times.  CALIFORNIA SEES SURGE IN AMMO SALES AHEAD OF NEW GUN REGULATIONS  The legal challenge was also filed the same day another divisive gun law came into effect which mandates background checks for everyone buying ammunition in the state to ensure the person isn’t convicted felon.  The gun rights groups say the state is unprepared to roll out such law and told the newspaper that the system has problems “worse than even we anticipated.”  “The process takes about a half hour per customer instead of the promised 2 minutes,” said Chuck Michel, whose office filed a legal challenge this year in a bid to overturn the law.  CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP  “We are collecting and will be presenting these facts, and the related constitutional issues, to the court and asking for an injunction to block this useless infringement of law abiding gun owners’ rights,” said Michel.


france24--2019-02-06--US vowed to withdraw half its troops from Afghanistan says Taliban

US ‘vowed’ to withdraw half its troops from Afghanistan, says Taliban

Yuri Kadobnov, AFP | Taliban spokesman Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai attends the opening of the two-day talks of the Taliban and Afghan opposition representatives in Moscow on February 5, 2019.  A senior Taliban official told reporters in Moscow on Wednesday that the US had vowed to withdraw half of its troops from Afghanistan by April. The US however has issued no details of a potential troop pull-out from the war-ravaged country  Speaking to reporters in the Russian capital a week after the Taliban held separate talks with US officials in Qatar, the Taliban’s deputy chief negotiator Abdul Salam Hanafi said the US had agreed to withdraw half their troops from Afghanistan by the end of April.  "The Americans agreed to withdraw half of their troops immediately. The withdrawal will start from February 1 and continue until end of April," Hanafi told reporters in Moscow.  But the US special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, who led the US side at the talks in Doha, Qatar, has repeatedly stressed that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. 'Everything' must include an intra-Afghan dialogue and comprehensive ceasefire".  The US has issued no details on any potential withdrawal plan.  The Afghan government was not represented at both the talks in Doha and Moscow, sparking fears among many Afghans that a hasty pullout of US troops would once again plunge the war-ravaged country into a brutal civil war.  The absence of Afghan government representatives at the talks have underscored the Taliban's hostility toward Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s increasingly marginalised administration in Kabul.  The Taliban has instead sat down at the table in Moscow with Ghani’s main rivals, including Afghan politicians and warlords-turned-politicians who were once sworn enemies of the hardline Sunni Islamist group.  The second day of peace talks in Moscow began hours after US President Donald Trump used his State of the Union address to stress the importance of accelerated talks with the Taliban to end the longest of America's "endless wars".  Trump offered no specifics about when he would bring home the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan but said progress in negotiations with the Taliban would enable a troop reduction and a "focus on counter-terrorism".  Asked about Trump's speech, a Taliban official in Moscow told Reuters that all foreign troops in Afghanistan must leave.  "At the first step, we want all the foreign forces to leave and end the military presence in our country," said Sohail Shahin, a spokesman for a Taliban office in Qatar. "But after ending their military presence, their non-military teams can come and we need them too, they can come and take part in the reconstruction and development process," he added.  Taliban slams ‘indecency’ in ‘the name of women’s rights’  Taliban officials have used the extraordinary exposure at the Moscow talks to detail their vision of Afghanistan after a US troop withdrawal.  Lead Taliban negotiator Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai told reporters that the movement did not want to rule alone but as part of "an intra Afghan Islamic system of governance ... in consultation with all Afghans".  He also reiterated the Taliban's opposition to Afghanistan's constitution, calling it "illegitimate" and maintaining that it should be based on "Islamic principles, national interests, historic pride and social justice".  Stanikzai further demanded the removal of Western sanctions and travel bans on Taliban members, prisoner releases, an end to "propaganda" against the Taliban and clearance to open an official office.  On the critical issue of women's rights, Stanikzai said the Taliban were committed to all rights of women "that have been given to them by the sacred religion of Islam".  In a statement released Tuesday, the Taliban stated that, "Islam has given women all fundamental rights, such as business and ownership, inheritance, education, work, choosing one's husband, security and the right to good life."  But the lengthy statement also warned that, “Under the name of women [sic] rights, there has been work for immorality, indecency and circulation of non-Islamic cultures. Dissemination of western and non-Afghan and non-Islamic drama serials, paving way for immoral crimes, and encouraging women for violating Afghan customs are other instances that have been imposed on Afghan society under the name of women rights.”  In a bid to assuage fears of a US cave-in to the Taliban, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke with Ghani in Kabul late Tuesday.  Ghani's call to Pompeo seemed an attempt to re-assert his government's role in negotiations he has sharply criticised as one-sided.  Robert Palladino, deputy spokesman at the State Department, said Pompeo reaffirmed the US commitment to achieving a lasting peace. Pompeo also emphasised the importance of an intra-Afghan dialogue and the inclusion of the Afghan government in peace talks with the Taliban, according to Palladino.  Ghani tweeted that Pompeo "stressed that our military partnership is unwavering and will remain until a lasting and inclusive peace is achieved". Ghani said that Pompeo also "underscored the central importance of ensuring the centrality of the Afghan government in the peace process" and signaled support for holding Afghan presidential elections in July.  "We both agreed that words, rumors, and speculations cannot replace actions and that our partnership and resolve will remain strong in the pursuit of peace," Ghani tweeted.


france24--2019-02-13--Cameroons opposition leader Kamto charged with rebellion

Cameroon's opposition leader Kamto charged with 'rebellion'

MARCO LONGARI / AFP | Maurice Kamto, leader of the Cameroonian opposition party Movement for the Rebirth of Cameroon (MRC) is greeted as he arrives on stage in Yaounde to address a campaign rally for the Presidential elections, on September 30, 2018.  Cameroon's main opposition leader, Maurice Kamto, has been charged by a military court with rebellion, insurrection and "hostility to the homeland," one of his lawyers said Wednesday.  Kamto, who says he was cheated out of the presidency in last October's elections, could theoretically face the death penalty.  He was arrested in the economic capital Douala on January 28 after his party, the Movement for the Rebirth of Cameroon (MRC), staged protests in several cities against the election result.  The former government minister was charged at a late-night session of a military court in the capital Yaounde and then transferred to a local prison, according to attorney Emmanuel Simh.  Simh, who is also MRC vice president, said the court charged 28 Kamto supporters with the same offences.  Under Cameroon's legal code, all could face the death penalty although the country has not carried out an execution in more than 30 years.  President Paul Biya, in power for more than three decades, secured a seventh consecutive term last October after winning 71 percent of the vote, according to official results.  But the poll was marred by low turnout and violence, particularly in the country's troubled English-speaking regions, and the opposition says the result was rigged.  Kamto came a distant second with 14 percent of the vote, according to the official outcome.  He maintains he was the rightful winner and the official figures were an "electoral holdup."  About 100 other MRC supporters are to appear on Wednesday before the military court, which will decide whether to charge them.  The anti-Biya marches, held in several towns and cities on January 26, were suppressed by the police. At least six protesters were injured.  The European Union this month accused Cameroon of "disproportionate use of force" in dispersing the demonstrators.  "Finding a solution to the challenges faced by the country can only be achieved through dialogue in a calm and inclusive atmosphere where fundamental rights and the rule of law are respected," it said.  The MRC cancelled other planned protests after Kamto's arrest in a bid to restore calm.  Kamto's lawyers have branded his custody illegal. They say he and other detainees at a special police detention unit in Yaounde were prevented from receiving visitors or getting help from their attorneys.  The MRC says around 200 people arrested during the protests are still being held in the capital. The authorities have said 147 people are in pre-trial detention.  Some of them, including MRC treasurer Alain Fogue, have gone on hunger strike, according to the party.  Kamto's ex-campaign director Paul-Eric Kingue and rapper Valsero are also detained with him.  Biya has ruled Cameroon since 1982 with support from the army, state administration and the Cameroon People's Democratic Movement (RDPC) that he created in 1985.  Kamto, a 64-year-old lawyer by training, is considered the main opposition to Biya, who turned 86 on Wednesday.  "It's been a long time since Cameroon had an opponent of this stature," analyst Hans de Marie Heungoup at the International Crisis Group (ICG) think tank told AFP.  "At the start of his career, some called him spineless, but now he really is a relentless political leader."  French foreign ministry spokeswoman Agnes von der Muhll said the government was "worried" by the charges against Kamto.  The Cameroonian opposition "must be able to express itself freely as long as it respects the law," she said in an online news conference.  Human rights groups last month condemned Kamto's arrest and called for his immediate release.  Amnesty International said the wave of detentions "signals an escalating crackdown on opposition leaders, human rights defenders and activists."  "Instead of taking steps towards improving the country's human rights record, we are witnessing the authorities becoming less and less tolerant of criticism. This must stop," said Samira Daoud, its director for West and Central Africa.


france24--2019-09-16--Tens of thousands of General Motors workers strike across US

The United Auto Workers (UAW) union began a nationwide strike against General Motors on Monday, with some 46,000 members walking off the job after contract talks hit an impasse.  The move to strike, which the Wall Street Journal described as the first major stoppage at GM in more than a decade, came after the manufacturer's four-year contract with workers expired without an agreement on a replacement.  Local union leaders met in Detroit "and opted to strike at midnight on Sunday," the UAW said on its Twitter account.  "This is our last resort," Terry Dittes, the union's lead negotiator with GM, told a news conference after the meeting. "We are standing up for the fundamental rights of working people in this country."  UAW officials said the two sides remained far apart in the contract negotiations, with disagreements on wages, health care benefits, the status of temporary workers and job security.  "Our members have spoken; we have taken action; and this is a decision we did not make lightly," Ted Krumm, chair of the UAW's national bargaining committee, said in a statement.  "We are standing up for what is right," Krumm said.  Hours before the strike began, US President Donald Trump tweeted: "Here we go again with General Motors and the United Auto Workers. Get together and make a deal!"  GM's last major strike, according to the Journal, was in 2007 when 73,000 workers at more than 89 facilities walked off the job for two days.  In a statement, GM said it was "disappointing" that the UAW's leadership had decided to call the strike, saying it had presented a "strong offer" in contract negotiations.  "We have negotiated in good faith and with a sense of urgency. Our goal remains to build a strong future for our employees and our business," it said.  UAW's leadership had previously won overwhelming approval from its rank-and-file for a strike if it became necessary.  Workers at Ford and Fiat Chrysler agreed to extend their contracts, but GM management was informed Saturday that the union would not extend its contract.  Earlier on Sunday, contract maintenance workers walked off the job at GM plants in Michigan and Ohio in a parallel dispute with contractor Aramark.  GM has enjoyed several years of strong sales, posting $11.8 billion in operating profits last year, prompting union officials to argue it is time to share the wealth with workers who have borne the brunt of downturns.  But the outlook for GM is less clear, with concerns growing that a recession may be in the offing amid protracted trade tensions.  GM announced last November it was effectively shuttering five plants in North America, including facilities in Michigan and Ohio that were "unallocated" for production.  Protecting jobs and saving those plants have been key issues in the negotiations.  In its response to the strike, GM's management revealed that its offer included a promise of $7 billion in investments that would save or protect 5,400 union jobs and address the issue of the two "unallocated" plants.  It also promised that a new all-electric truck would be built in a US plant.  Adding to the friction is a federal corruption probe of the union leadership, which resulted in an FBI search last month of the home of UAW President Gary Jones.  A member of the UAW's executive board, Vance Pearson, was arrested on Thursday on charges of conspiracy to use union dues for lavish personal expenses.  Pearson, a UAW director in St. Louis, Missouri, was accused of using union conferences as a cover to justify long-term stays at luxury resorts in California.


freedombunker--2019-01-24--The Covington Debacle Shows the Founders Were Right to Distrust Democracy

In the shallow world of modernity, we throw around a word like “democracy” as a stand-in for “things that I like.”  Many in popular culture and elite institutions promote democracy as a cure for all that ails us—an unquestioned and unqualified blessing.  Still others turn on a dime and hope for its demise as soon as it produces outcomes they don’t like.  While democracy often plays a good and necessary role in a self-governing society, we have lost the healthy skepticism of its worst excesses that the Founding Fathers understood when they established the governing institutions of the United States.  These excesses were on full display over the weekend.  The frenzied hate mob unleashed on Catholic, “Make America Great Again” hat-wearing teens—falsely accused of harassing a Native American at the March for Life over the weekend—is a shameful reminder of how fake news can destroy lives and perpetuate evil.  Particularly disturbing is how so many people—celebrities, politicians, and even some respected leaders who should have been warier of grabbing their pitchforks before the facts had been unveiled—fell in with the scramble to condemn the students as hateful racists.  Many of these voices called for violence and other heinous actions against the children from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky. There could be no quarter, no forgiveness, no mercy. The mob needed its pound of flesh.  Celebrities and so-called thought leaders spun out articles and social media posts comparing the Covington Catholic students to segregationists and Ku Klux Klansman, condemning the Catholic Church for a “shameful history of Native American abuses,” and even angrily claiming that smirks and smiles are actually racist.  Even the students’ local diocese quickly rushed into the fray to condemn the students, in effect giving cover to the media outlets seeking to ruin the students’ lives and reputations.  The story was just too good to fact check, too easy to force into a cherished narrative: that white, male Christians are unleashing violence, bigotry, and harassment on minorities all over America.  The problem is, the entire narrative was based on a wild distortion of what occurred.  The vicious and often unhinged diatribes we saw launched against the Covington Catholic students laid bare an irrational rage burning beneath the rule of law.  The truth is, fake news was every bit as much a problem in the late 1700s, when our country was formed, as it is today.  It is no stretch to think that left unchecked, the mob—especially the rage-fueled left—would have unjustly stripped these students of their basic freedoms and abandoned the notion of a presumption of innocence in a rush to judgment.  This is the same pattern we saw transpire in the confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  So, is the problem our reckless and agenda-driven media? Yes, in part.  Media coverage of this incident was dreadful and shameful—a confirmation for many that even America’s most established and influential media institutions have become hopelessly biased and reckless in the age of Trump.  But the problem goes deeper than that. The truth is, fake news was every bit as much a problem in the late 1700s, when our country was formed, as it is today.  The use of the printing press allowed knowledge to travel like wildfire but also gave hucksters and falsehood peddlers a new tool for spreading their wares more effectively.  True, our news today travels much faster, and social media can spread hysteria like a virus. But there’s also an upside.  Public intellectuals and members of the media continually decry the decentralized nature of the internet and its ability to generate “fake news” and misleading stories. They long for the day when America had just a few big outlets acting as responsible news arbiters.  Some even suggest that the answer is to create government agencies to sort through this information and tell us what the truth is, such as what Europe is experimenting with.  This is a terrible way to address the issue.  Their own journalistic malpractice is the heart of the problem.  It was legacy media outlets in the first place—like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN—that perpetuated the deceptive reporting we witnessed over the weekend and failed to follow basic journalistic practices, such as inquiring about both sides of a heated dispute.  News outlets point to foreign agents and anonymous Twitter accounts that promoted a slanted view of the controversy, but they are just using them as scapegoats. Their own journalistic malpractice is the heart of the problem.  This wouldn’t be the first time these outlets got a story massively wrong and deceived the American people, but now we at least have greater means to debunk falsehoods when they arise.  It was the skeptics who took the time to study the story from all angles, like Robby Soave at Reason, who blew the story up. Soave reviewed footage from the hours of amateur video taken of the incident. While legacy media outlets were still peddling the initial, deceptive narrative, it was collapsing with a simple review of easily obtainable evidence that refuted it.  As my colleague, Kelsey Harkness, noted on “Fox & Friends”: “Just imagine if there were no hourlong, or two-hourlong videos that could exonerate these high school boys. Their lives could be ruined.”  If anything, we need to learn a valuable lesson from this incident.  We should today heed the wisdom of John Adams, who wrote to his friend John Taylor about the excesses of democracy.  This lesson is especially important now as it’s clear that many—especially on the left—have deep and unrelenting contempt for their fellow citizens who disagree with them. He explained that while democracy is no worse than “monarchy or aristocracy,” it is often bloodier than either and “wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”  Pure democracies devour themselves, Adams wrote, as citizens turn against citizens. “It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy.”  The failures of democracy are the result of the fallen nature of man—a condition that cannot be cured and cannot be changed.  This is why the framers of the Constitution formed our federal republic with a complex web of checks on power.  The framers designed our system to slow down decision-making.  Democracy had its place—most specifically in the frequent elections of the House of Representatives—but it was removed from decisions dealing with fundamental rights, such as free speech and the right to bear arms enshrined in the First and Second Amendments.  This is the balance the Founders sought to preserve our freedom, and in many cases, save us from ourselves.  The framers designed our system to slow down decision-making—especially at the highest, federal level—to frustrate the ambition of the leaders who represent us, to throw water on the temporary, to excite passions of the people, which may lead the country to folly or tyranny.  These concepts may be lost on progressives and those on the left who believe in the evolution or perfectibility of man (which seems untenable given that they see a potential fascist in everyone who disagrees with them).  But the Founders likely wouldn’t have been surprised by the noxious media frenzy that set out to destroy a few high school students in the name of social justice.  The Founders well understood the threat of fake news. They wisely assessed that despite the threat, the government could not be a trusted arbiter of what is real and fake—so they created the First Amendment.  Then, knowing that this judgment of truth and falsehood could be left only to the people in a free society, they put guardrails on the people themselves so that they could not use this power to tyrannize their fellow citizens on a whim.  This is the genius of America. This is why we have the world’s oldest republic.  The Founders may not have known us, but they knew history, and they themselves. They knew that unrestrained democracy would lead to a destruction of all freedom, the annihilation of God-given individual rights that governments of all types had trampled throughout human history.  In an age in which contempt for fellow citizens is reaching pathological levels, we can be thankful that these institutions exist to protect us.  Yet given the retreat of constitutional government over the past century, we have less cause for certainty that they will continue to save us from ourselves.  This article was reprinted from The Daily Signal.


freedombunker--2019-02-05--San Francisco Facial Recognition Ban Proposed

Aaron Peskin, a member of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, has proposed a new ordinance that could severely limit city agencies' use of enhanced surveillance of the city, including a ban on facial recognition technology. "I have yet to be persuaded that there is any beneficial use of this technology that outweighs the potential for government actors to use it for coercive and oppressive ends," Peskin said.  Peskin is not alone in worrying about how government agents can abuse the technology. Woodrow Hartzog, a professor of law and computer science at Northeastern University, and his colleague, Rochester Institute of Technology philosopher Evan Selinger, make a strongly persuasive case that "facial recognition is the perfect tool for oppression." As a consequence of the technology being "such a grave threat to privacy and civil liberties," they argue that "measured regulation should be abandoned in favor of an outright ban."  Their list of the harms to privacy and civil liberties entailed by the widespread use of this technology by government agencies is chilling. They point out that people who think that they are being watched behave differently. In addition, they cite a host of other abuses and corrosive activities entailed by the technology:  Disproportionate impact on people of color and other minority and vulnerable populations. Due process harms, which might include shifting the ideal from "presumed innocent" to "people who have not been found guilty of a crime, yet."   Denial of fundamental rights and opportunities, such as protection against "arbitrary government tracking of one's movements, habits, relationships, interests, and thoughts." The suffocating restraint of the relentless, perfect enforcement of law. The normalized elimination of practical obscurity.  Why ban rather than regulate this surveillance technology and not others such as geolocation data and social media searches? Hartzog and Selinger argue that systems using face prints differ in important ways that justify banning them. Given the spread of CCTVs and police body cameras, faces are hard to hide and can be inexpensively and secretly captured and stored. All-seeing cameras and never forgetful digital databases will put an end to obscurity zones that secure the possibility of privacy for us all.  In addition, existing databases, such as those for driver's licenses, make facial recognition tech easy to plug in and play. In fact, it's already been done by the FBI. In their 2016 report, The Perpetual Line-Up, Georgetown University researchers found that 16 states had let the FBI use facial recognition technology to compare the faces of suspected criminals to the states' driver's license and ID photos, creating a virtual line-up of each state's residents. "If you build it, they will surveil," assert Hartzog and Selinger.  China's social credit system is already taking advantage of facial recognition technology. According to Fortune, the Chinese government is deploying facial recognition tied to millions of public cameras to not only "identify any of its 1.4 billion citizens within a matter of seconds but also having the ability to record an individual's behavior to predict who might become a threat—a real-world version of the 'precrime' in Philip K. Dick's Minority Report."  "The future of human flourishing depends upon facial recognition technology being banned before the systems become too entrenched in our lives," conclude Hartzog and Selinger. "Otherwise, people won't know what it's like to be in public without being automatically identified, profiled, and potentially exploited. In such a world, critics of facial recognition technology will be disempowered, silenced, or cease to exist."  Perhaps that's too ominous. Widespread use of facial recognition technology can certainly make our lives easier to navigate. But it doesn't take a cynic to worry that governments will demand the right to plunder private face print databases. It's not too soon to consider if the tradeoffs between convenience and not-implausible government abuses of the technology are worth it.  The proposed ordinance in San Francisco requires agencies to gain the Board of Supervisors' approval before buying new surveillance technology and puts the burden on city agencies to publicly explain why they want the tools as well as to evaluate their potential harms. That's at least a step in the right direction.  For more on how we are already constructing a pervasive surveillance state, see my January feature article, "Can Algorithms Run Things Better Than Humans?" The answer depends on what you mean by "better."


freedombunker--2019-02-23--Do Animals Have Rights

Do Animals Have Rights?

Since Peter Singer published Animal Liberation in 1975, animal rights activists have proposed the idea that animals should be granted the same rights as human beings. Various movements have emerged, and throughout the past decade, endeavors have turned out to be increasingly successful. Referring to scientific studies with animals exhibiting attributes similar to human beings, activists argue that animals are akin to human beings and should thus be protected with the same body of rights. So why is it that animals do not have the same legal status as human beings?  The line of reasoning in favor of granting animals equal rights to human beings emphasizes the fact that scientists have found traits in animals we normally associate with human beings. As an example, a group of scientists showed that monkeys demonstrate self-consciousness at the same level as human beings. This has usually served as a justification for human rights, so why don’t we—as a minimum—grant equal rights to the most developed animal species? After all, the principle of habeas corpus—derived from the Magna Carta with the intention to prevent unlawful detentions—would protect those species from encroachment and arbitrary violations of rights, thus avoiding painful and degrading treatment.  Despite convincing scientific evidence, this argument does not provide any philosophical justification of animal rights.  The fact that some animals exhibit traits similar to human beings certainly provides a strong argument for granting at least some animals rights. But despite convincing scientific evidence, this argument does not provide any philosophical justification of animal rights. An adequate argument for animal rights would require further philosophical inquiry and not only descriptive conclusions. Of course, we can feel reverence and pity for animals being treated badly, but this does not lead to the conclusion that animals should enjoy the same legal status as persons.  There is a strong reason for maintaining that rights only apply to human beings. While fundamental rights surely are valuable in their nature, they would be worthless without any mechanism to uphold them. That is why we expect other people to respect our rights.  The mechanism that upholds our rights is the fact that other people are constrained by duties in their behavior towards us. In our everyday lives, we experience numerous situations in which fraudulent or violent persons could profit from violating our rights. Nonetheless, we see—of course, with some exceptions—that individuals cooperate and respect other people’s rights. Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin, and one cannot claim to have certain rights without having to comply with corresponding duties.  Rights would merely be well-intended declarations if it were not for our moral duties toward other people.  Thus, rights would merely be well-intended declarations if it were not for our moral duties toward other people. If it is my claim to live freely on my property without intrusion, my neighbor’s duty impedes him from violating my right to property and life. Suppose, however, he trespasses on my plot and engages in vandalism on my property. He will then be held accountable through judicial reprisals, for he has violated my property rights and failed his duty to respect my rights. This is completely reasonable, but we will certainly face obstacles if my property was violated by, say, an elephant or a chimpanzee.  If we assume that animals are granted the same legal status as human beings, justice requires that we now drag the culprit to court. For, remember, if our animal has rights, it will logically also have duties. In other words, it is responsible for its own actions. Therefore, it is now subject to the same legal procedures as human beings. This raises embarrassing practical questions, for who will defend the animal in court? And will the animal be able to comprehend what is going on? History provides us with a great variety of absurd trials involving animals.  It is inconceivable that those animals would comprehend the slightest fraction of the legal code, of moral questions and the procedures in court.  Faced with criminal charges, animals suffered capital punishment for various crimes in early Europe. There are numerous instances of animals that were tortured and hanged for their vicious crimes. Yet some animals were in fact acquitted for their charges during this paradigm of animal trials. For instance, a donkey was acquitted in 1750 after facing charges of bestiality. But although torture and brutal hangings surely have inflicted pain upon supposedly guilty animals, an important question remains: Did those animals understand human law and morality? I stand to question that. It is inconceivable that those animals would comprehend the slightest fraction of the legal code, of moral questions and the procedures in court. And that is exactly the reason why animals do not have rights.  Dragging animals to court surely seems absurd. Nevertheless, granting rights to animals entails exactly this consequence. Because rights and duties are cognate, animals cannot only enjoy being protected by rights. They will also be subject to corresponding duties. But being unable to comprehend those duties and moral foundations, animals cannot have rights. As Roger Scruton writes, the Constitution was written under the assumption that people are familiar with their duties. We know it’s wrong to steal, kill, and cheat other people. But animals don’t.  We can have obligations from special commitments, but that is not the same as saying that animals have particular claims towards us.  Though I strongly oppose the idea of granting animals the same rights as human beings, this does not conflict with the proposition that animals should be treated properly. I’m sure most readers here find animal cruelty repugnant, but this, however, is not equal to granting animals rights.  As Carl Cohen noted, we can have obligations from special commitments, but that is not the same as saying that animals have particular claims towards us. Animals are simply unable to discern right actions from wrong ones by applying moral judgments, which is the reason why it is futile to talk about animal rights.  I will now leave it up to the reader to imagine a chimpanzee in the dock indicted with, say, charges for vandalism on my property as hypothesized earlier. Wouldn’t it be absurd?


freedombunker--2019-06-19--Mass Peaceful Demonstrations Protect Hong Kongs Autonomy from Chinafor Now

Mass Peaceful Demonstrations Protect Hong Kong’s Autonomy from China—for Now

Protesters in Hong Kong have achieved a major victory in their fight to protect their legal system from Chinese interference.  On June 15, in response to massive popular resistance, Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced she would suspend a vote on a proposed new law that would allow China to extradite suspects accused of certain crimes and prosecute them in Chinese courts.  Protesters are now demanding that the bill be withdrawn, not just suspended. If the law comes up for vote, it will likely pass.  For over a week, some 1.3 million people had gathered daily outside Hong Kong’s legislature to protest the legislation, which protesters say China will abuse to extradite political dissidents. They managed to postpone a June 12 vote by blocking entry to the legislative building. Days later, consideration of the law was indefinitely postponed.  That temporarily protects Hong Kong’s judicial system, one of the island territory’s few remaining areas of government autonomy from China.  Protesters are now demanding that the bill be withdrawn, not just suspended. If the law comes up for vote at a later date, it will likely pass in Hong Kong’s legislative council, where pro-China forces dominate.  Chinese rule over Hong Kong, an island territory off the coast of Shenzhen, has long been disputed.  The British colonized Hong Kong in the 1800s following the Opium Wars. But China never accepted this territorial claim, and insisted throughout the 20th century that Hong Kong belonged to China.  In 1997, after a decade of negotiations between the United Kingdom and China, Hong Kong returned to China—with some strings attached. Knowing that Hong Kong had developed under a Western system of government, then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping made Hong Kong a “Special Autonomous Region” and agreed to give the island a 50-year transition period to come fully under Chinese rule.  For two decades, the “one country, two systems” arrangement seemed to give Hong Kong relative autonomy from Chinese interference.  Under this system, Hong Kong would retain its judicial system and legislative council, affording the island relative independence in its day-to-day operations. But Hong Kong would belong to China. The arrangement became known as “one country, two systems.”  Controversially, full suffrage and free elections were not part of the 1997 deal.  For two decades, though, the “one country, two systems” arrangement seemed to give Hong Kong relative autonomy from Chinese interference.  Then, in 2014, China announced that people would be allowed to vote in Hong Kong’s 2017 chief executive election only from a short list of preapproved candidates.  Thousands took to the streets to demand universal suffrage. To protect themselves from police spraying tear gas at the front lines, they used umbrellas, giving rise to the name the “Umbrella Movement.”  In the years since the uprising, I have interviewed numerous democracy activists in Hong Kong as part of my academic research into the evolution of social movements.  Emboldened by international support, Hong Kong’s young activists have continued their efforts to protect their independence from China.  Many participants told me that they believed the 2014 Umbrella Movement had ended peacefully because China didn’t want another Tiananmen Square on its hands. In 1989, Chinese soldiers opened fire on student protesters in Beijing, killing hundreds and raising global uproar.  Emboldened by international support for the Umbrella Movement, Hong Kong’s young activists have continued their efforts to protect their independence from China. Nine Umbrella Movement leaders ran for local office in Hong Kong in the territory’s 2015 elections.  In 2016 elections, two pro-independence politicians even won seats in the legislative council. However, they were quickly expelled for “failing” to properly recite their loyalty oaths at a swearing-in ceremony.  In 2017 Carrie Lam, a candidate loyal to Beijing and the driving force behind the extradition law, was elected Chief Executive—Hong Kong’s highest public official.  Under Lam’s leadership, traditionally pro-democracy politicians were removed from office. Some were even arrested and jailed as dissidents.  Increasing Chinese influence on the island territory also threatens Hong Kong’s clout as a major economic hub.  For decades, Hong Kong’s relative autonomy has made the island territory an appealing place to do business in Asia. Human rights organization Hong Kong Watch believes that “Spiriting people away over the border would undermine business confidence.”But under stronger Chinese rule, financial markets and regulatory systems in Hong Kong may become less reliable as they begin to reflect the national interests of China—not those of the free market.  The American Chamber of Commerce and several prominent Hong Kong business leaders have publicly spoken out against the extradition law.  “Spiriting people away over the border would undermine business confidence,” one hedge fund manager told the nonprofit human rights organization Hong Kong Watch.  Hong Kong’s legal system is now the only surviving pillar of “one country, two systems,” which was created to give Hong Kong autonomy over its legal, economic and financial affairs.  If the postponed extradition law passes, there will be no meaningful remaining barriers between democratic-leaning Hong Kong and authoritarian China.  For many in Hong Kong, that’s an intolerable future.  China is a known violator of human rights. The government has jailed hundreds of human rights lawyers since 2015.An assessment by the World Justice Project, a nonprofit organization that works to advance the rule of law worldwide, ranks Hong Kong 16th and China 82nd worldwide based on their constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil justice, and criminal justice.  China is a known violator of human rights. It systematically surveils and represses ethnic minorities like the Uyghurs, a Muslim population in China’s northwest region, and restricts internet access. The government has jailed hundreds of human rights lawyers since 2015.  Political dissidence is not tolerated in China. The late Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, was sentenced in 2009 to 11 years in Chinese prison for “inciting subversion of state power.” He died in prison in 2017 after being denied travel abroad for cancer treatment.  Hong Kong, on the other hand, has a rich history of mass demonstrations.  In Hong Kong’s 1966 Star Ferry riots, people protested the British colonial government’s decision to increase transit fares. And every July 1 since 2003—the anniversary of the 1997 transition from British to Chinese rule—people have taken to the streets pleading for universal suffrage.  “One country, two systems” has allowed Hong Kong residents to openly disagree with policymakers in a way mainland Chinese cannot. The extradition law’s threat of trial and punishment in China would have a chilling effect on future democracy demonstrations there.As required by Hong Kong’s legal system, democracy protesters arrested for their political activism are given legal representation, trials, and serve time in Hong Kong’s well-regulated prisons.  The extradition law’s threat of trial and punishment in China would have a chilling effect on future democracy demonstrations there.  If “One country, two systems” falls, what remains of Hong Kong’s democracy will go down with it.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


freedombunker--2019-06-29--Promising the Impossible While Sacrificing Liberty

In a June 13 speech, Bernie Sanders offered the clarion call for his presidential run—that solving the problems facing America requires we  Unfortunately, in echoing both the Soviet and EU constitutions, Sanders is also promising mutually contradictory rights, which logic demonstrates cannot possibly be delivered.  The Constitution of the Soviet Union assured citizens of multiple rights, including to education, housing, health protection, work, “maintenance in old age,” and even “rest and leisure.” But the exercise of such rights was always subject to the condition that they were not “to the detriment of the interests of society or the state.” In other words, individual rights only actually existed where and when the state decided it didn’t get in the way of what it wanted to do. More briefly, it meant citizens’ individual rights didn’t exist except on paper.  Along the same lines, the EU Constitution parallels ours in asserting individual rights, such as freedom of religion and expression. However, the Charter of Fundamental Rights also guarantees rights to education, housing assistance, job placement services, preventative health care, social services, social security benefits, paid maternity leave, and more.  Unfortunately, the expansive combination of rights promised in each of these cases is inconsistent with the fundamental right to be free, including the right to exercise decisions over the use of our own property. That is because “positive” rights to housing, education, health care, etc., provided or mandated by government, require that someone else must be forced to pay for them. But that inherent obligation necessarily violates others’ liberty by taking their income and property without their consent. Consequently, the liberty “guaranteed” as a fundamental right does not exist in practice.  When government creates new positive rights, taking the resources to pay for them necessarily takes away others’ inalienable rights and liberty.  The key is that the positive rights to certain things require the violation of others’ negative rights against having their property taken by the government. In contrast, negative rights are prohibitions laid out against others’ abuses, particularly by the government, exemplified by the strictly limited, enumerated powers the US Constitution granted our central government and what the Bill of Rights put off-limits to political trespass.  But negative rights are eaten away by every expansion of what government promises. Americans’ constitutional rights reflect the Declaration of Independence’s central assertion that all have inalienable rights, including liberty, and that government’s purpose is to defend those rights. But the only rights that can be inalienable for all must be consistent with the equal rights of others. Every citizen can enjoy negative rights against government abuse without infringing on anyone else's equal rights because they impose on others only the obligation to not interfere. But when the government creates new positive rights, extracting the resources to pay for them necessarily takes away others’ inalienable rights and liberty.  Liberty means people rule themselves, and voluntary arrangements are the means of resolving conflict. But when government assigns positive rights to others, it means someone else rules over the choices and resources taken from those forced to pay. However, since no one has the right to rob others, if government is to remain within the narrow range consistent with equal rights, no one can delegate that power to government.  America was founded on the idea that we have inalienable negative rights that do not originate with the government, which the government, therefore, cannot take away.The more seriously such entitlements are taken, the less liberty will remain. But as people have learned to get public support by dressing up more things they wish others to pay for in the language of rights, our government has increasingly turned to violating the rights it was instituted to defend.  However noble-sounding promises of more for you at others’ expense can be made to sound by way of sins of omission, they violate America’s core values represented in our founding documents. Most seriously, it would completely undermine any assurance that Americans’ right to liberty, and the property that sustains it, would be secure. And the more seriously such entitlements are taken, the less liberty will remain.


freedombunker--2019-08-03--Everyone Has a Right to Call Politicians Idiots

Everyone Has a Right to Call Politicians “Idiots” …

No, calling politicians idiots or "Four Horsemen [of the Apocalypse]" isn't "inciting violence" or "encouraging gun violence." It is urging people to dislike the politicians—a basic right of every American. That's so when people criticize President Trump or the Republican Congressional leadership or the left wing of the Democratic party or anyone else. It's so regardless of what groups those politicians belong to.  It's true that some tiny percentage of listeners may react to such criticism by deciding to violently attack its targets, whether the targets are on the Left or on the Right. But one basic premise of free speech isn't that we don't treat speech as "inciting violence" (a label for constitutionally unprotected speech, see Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)), and suppress its communication to the 99.9999% of people who don't act violently because of it, just because of a risk that 0.0001% would act violently.  And that's so even for much harsher speech, such as calling people traitors or fascists or other such labels that some might see as morally justifying attacks. It is even more clearly true of simply calling them idiots or "Four Horsemen" (for a famous earlier Four Horsemen reference, see here). That's true, I think, not just a matter of law but also of political ethics: There's no basis for morally condemning such speech as supposedly "inciting violence." (One might mildly condemn it as being nonsubstantive, but that condemnation would of course apply to a vast range of common criticism, and of common praise, of political figures from both sides.) It most certainly does not "NEED[] TO COME DOWN."  Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley have set themselves up as leaders of the left wing of the Democratic Party. They have achieved national prominence, not just individually but as a group. In my view, their policies and views merit criticism; but even if you agree with them, surely others have a right to disagree. People have a right to criticize them as a group and not just individually. People have a right to continue to criticize them even when the politicians had gotten threats from third parties (as Omar, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez, and Pressley reportedly have, and as I'm sure many other politicians have as well).  People have a right to criticize them disrespectfully and not just respectfully. They have a right to criticize them with slogans and not just substantively, again just as they do with President Trump or Republican Congressional leaders or anyone else. And of course they have a right to call them "idiots."  UPDATE: I revised the post slightly to make clear that my analysis applies just as much to calling people "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" as "idiots."  UPDATE: Some people seem to think that this speech becomes incitement of violence because it's a gun store that puts it up, presumably because somehow viewers of gun store advertising are particularly likely to buy a gun and shoot a politician because she was called an "idiot" (and, obviously hyperbolically, an idiotic Horseman of the Apocalypse). No: Calling a politician an idiot, whether it's on a gun store billboard or anywhere else, isn't incitement of violence, whether as a legal or as a moral matter. It's criticism, and one of the fundamental rights of free citizens.  Note also the implications of that sort of argument: If this sort of criticism becomes illegal or immoral when a gun store says it, surely the same must be even more so as to gun rights advocacy groups (which tend to have much more public stature than ordinary gun stores). Presumably it would be as to prominent gun rights advocates, too. And if something like "idiot" is "inciting violence" in that context, then of course most other criticisms would qualify. (Indeed, criticizing a politician as advocating bad policies would be slightly more likely to encourage violence than criticizing them for being "idiots," not that either likelihood is substantial enough to warrant condemning the criticism.) What a convenient way for politicians and advocates to try to suppress criticism that comes from their political adversaries.