FOTO ESSAY

Toppled monuments: A selection of controversial figures

Global anti-racism protests following the killing of George Floyd fuel the controversy over the interpretation of the colonial and Confederate eras. In Europe and the US, monuments are damaged, razed and removed.

Edward Colston: slave trader and philanthropist

Controversy over the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol was rife for years. On June 7, demonstrators removed the bronze from its pedestal and tossed it into the water. While Colston was working for the Royal African Society, an estimated 84,000 Africans were transported for enslavement; 19,000 of them died along the way. But he went down in history as a benefactor for his donations to charities.

    Robert Baden-Powell: initiator of the Boy Scouts

Activists accuse Robert Baden-Powell, the man who initiated the Boy Scout movement, of racism, homophobia and admiration for Adolf Hitler. His statue stood on Brownsea Island in southern England. Amid the current wave of monuments being toppled by protesters, local authorities have now removed Baden-Powell's statue as a precaution.

DON'T FORGET LADY BADEN POWELL WHO FOUNDED GIRL GUIDES

Leopold II: Belgian colonial-era monarch

Belgium has quite a few statues of King Leopold II. The monarch ruled the country from 1865 to 1909 and established a brutal colonial regime in Congo that is in fact considered one of the most violent in history. Protesters smeared several statues of Leopold II with paint. Authorities removed the above statue from its pedestal in the Antwerp suburb of Ekeren and sent it to a museum depot.

Christopher Columbus: revered and scorned

In the US, too, disputes have flared over monuments dedicated to controversial historical figures. Among others, protesters have targeted Christopher Columbus. A statue in Boston was beheaded (photo). North American indigenous groups reject the worship of Columbus because his expeditions enabled the colonization of the continent and the genocide of its autochthonous population in the first place.

Columbus in Latin America: a different point of view

Some people see Columbus as one of the most important figures in world history, but for many people in Latin America the explorer's name stands for the beginning of a painful era. From the perspective of the indigenous population, Spanish colonialism is a dark chapter in their history. In Latin America, too, statues of Columbus have been destroyed or damaged in the past.

Jefferson Davis: Civil War president

Jefferson Davis was President of the Confederate States of America, one of the leaders in the country's mid 19th-century Civil War. Protesters toppled and spray-painted the Confederate president's statue in Richmond, Virginia. House speaker Nancy Pelosi urged the removal of Confederate statues from the US Capitol because they were monuments to men "who advocated cruelty and barbarism."

Robert E. Lee: a divisive figure

Another Confederate statue in Richmond, this one a monument to General Robert E. Lee, is to be removed in the next few days. Governor Ralph Northam has given orders to take down the monument. Many African Americans regards the statues of Confederate politicians and soldiers as symbols of oppression and slavery.

Christopher Columbus: revered and scorned

In the US, too, disputes have flared over monuments dedicated to controversial historical figures. Among others, protesters have targeted Christopher Columbus. A statue in Boston was beheaded (photo). North American indigenous groups reject the worship of Columbus because his expeditions enabled the colonization of the continent and the genocide of its autochthonous population in the first place.

    

CAPITALISM IS CRISIS
Stocks sink worldwide as coronavirus infections rise again

By STAN CHOE

1 of 7 https://apnews.com/962b5be432072598f46937ff1f16b9c7
A man looks at an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei 225 index at a securities firm in Tokyo Monday, June 15, 2020. Asian shares were mostly lower Monday on concern over a resurgence of coronavirus cases and pessimism after Wall Street posted its worst week in nearly three months. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko)

NEW YORK (AP) — Stocks are falling again Monday on fears that new waves of coronavirus infections could derail the swift economic recovery that Wall Street was sure was on the way.

The S&P 500 was down 0.9% in midday trading, though it pared its loss through the morning after being down 2.5% earlier. It follows up on even sharper losses in Asia and milder moves in Europe. The recent stumble for U.S. stocks means they’re now 11% below their record set in February, after a furious rally had brought them back within 6% in the middle of last week.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 338 points, or 1.3%, at 25,267, as of 11:27 a.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was down 0.4%.


Roughly three out of four stocks in the S&P 500 were lower, but the losses had been more widespread earlier in the morning, and gains for media companies, home builders and some other stocks helped pull the market off its lows.

Case numbers are still growing in states across the country and nations around the world. Governments are relaxing lockdowns in hopes of nursing their devastated economies back to life, but without a vaccine, the reopenings could bring on further waves of COVID-19 deaths.

“If globally, we are still in wave 1, then it is possible that without a vaccine, the big wave is still lying out there somewhere waiting to hit,” said Robert Carnell, regional head of research Asia-Pacific at ING.

China is reporting a new outbreak in Beijing, one that appears to be the biggest since it largely stopped its spread at home more than two months ago. In New York, the governor is upset that big groups of people are packing together outside bars and restaurants without face masks, and he threatened to reinstate closings in areas where local governments fail to enforce the rules.

That’s the biggest worry for markets: If infections swamp the world, governments could bring back the orders for people to stay at home and for businesses to shut down that sent the economy into its worst recession in decades. Even if that doesn’t happen, rolling waves of outbreaks could frighten businesses and consumers enough to keep them from spending and investing, which would itself hinder the economy.

The worries hit stocks whose profits most need a reopening economy particularly hard. Travel-related companies had some of the market’s sharpest losses, with Norwegian Cruise Line down 5.8% and United Airlines down 5%.

These stocks had been among the market’s strongest just a week ago, when investors were ebullient about expectations for a coming economic recovery. The hopes got a shot of adrenaline earlier this month when a report showed that U.S. employers added jobs to their payrolls in May, a big surprise when economists were expecting to see millions more jobs lost. That raised expectations that the economy could climb out of its hole nearly as quickly as it plunged into it.

Full Coverage: Financial markets

That optimism sent the stock market on a second leg of its rally, which began in March after the Federal Reserve and Congress promised unprecedented amounts of aid to support the economy. The Fed has cut interest rates back to nearly zero and expects to keep them there through 2022, along with pumping money into far-reaching corners of financial markets to keep them running smoothly. Its chair, Jerome Powell, may offer more details about the Fed’s outlook in scheduled testimony before Congress this week.

All through its torrid rally, though, many professional investors were warning that the market’s gains may have been overdone considering how long and uncertain the economic recovery looked to be. The S&P 500 climbed nearly back to its record high last week after earlier being down nearly 34%.

Some of the rally was likely driven by a big influx of individual investors into the market. Brokerages reported big increases in client numbers and trading earlier this year, and stocks popular with individual investors have returned 61% since the market hit a bottom on March 23, according to Goldman Sachs. That’s much more than the 45% rise for stocks popular with hedge funds and traditional mutual funds.

In another sign of increased caution in the market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note ticked down to 0.68% from 0.69% late Friday. It tends to rise and fall with investors’ expectations for the economy and inflation, and it had been above 0.90% earlier this month.

In Asia, South Korea’s Kospi dropped 4.8%, Japan’s Nikkei 225 lost 3.5% and the Hang Seng in Hong Kong fell 2.2%. In Europe, France’s CAC 40 slipped 0.2%, Germany’s DAX lost 0.2% and the FTSE 100 in London dipped 0.7%

___

AP Business Writer Yuri Kageyama contributed.

BP to take up to $17.5bn hit on coronavirus 

AFP/File / Paul ELLIS'Potential for weaker demand for energy'

British energy giant BP said Monday that it will take a hit of up to $17.5 billion in the second quarter as "sustained" coronavirus fallout ravages global oil demand.

The company, fresh from outlining plans to axe almost 10,000 jobs on COVID-19 fallout, said in a statement that it will suffer a negative impact of between $13 billion and $17.5 billion (11.4 billion euros and 15.3 billion euros) in non-cash impairments and write-offs.

BP also cut its long-term oil price forecast after the deadly virus outbreak slammed the brakes on the global economy and hurt oil prices this year.

"With the COVID-19 pandemic having continued during the second quarter of 2020, BP now sees the prospect of the pandemic having an enduring impact on the global economy, with the potential for weaker demand for energy for a sustained period," BP said, adding the virus was set to accelerate a transition to lower carbon energy.

The group continued: "BP has revised its long-term price assumptions, lowering them and extending the period covered to 2050.

"As part of its long-term strategic planning, and in the context of its continuing focus on capital discipline, BP is also reviewing its intent to develop some of its exploration intangible assets.

"These actions will lead to non-cash impairment charges and write-offs in the second quarter, estimated to be in an aggregate range of $13 billion to $17.5 billion post-tax."

BP Chief Executive Bernard Looney warned that the COVID-19 pandemic "increasingly looks as if it will have an enduring economic impact".

“So, we have reset our price outlook to reflect that impact ... We are also reviewing our development plans.

"All that will result in a significant charge in our upcoming results, but I am confident that these difficult decisions ... will better enable us to compete through the energy transition.”

BP now expects European benchmark London Brent North Sea oil prices to average $55 per barrel between 2021 and 2050, while it also lowered its guidance for gas prices.

The London-listed energy major had announced plans one week ago to axe "close to 10,000" jobs, or almost 15 percent of its global workforce.

FALLING RATE OF PROFIT

And it warned that oil prices had plunged well below the level which the group needed to turn a profit.

After companies worldwide closed their doors and airlines grounded planes towards the end of the first quarter, oil dropped off a cliff, causing prices to briefly turn negative.

Prices have however rebounded sharply in recent weeks as governments ease lockdowns and businesses slowly reopen.

'We are done dying': protesters march on Georgia capitol

AFP / Wes BRUERProtestors gather for a march organized by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Atlanta, Georgia, to protest the fatal shooting of a black man by a white police officer

Protesters were marching on the Georgia state capitol on Monday after the fatal shooting of a black man by a white police officer sparked further public outrage over the deaths of African-Americans at the hands of US law enforcement.

Georgia prosecutors said they were weighing bringing charges against the police officer who shot dead 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks in a Wendy's parking lot in Atlanta on Friday night.

"If that shot was fired for some reason other than to save that officer's life or to prevent injury to him or others then that shooting is not justified under the law," Fulton County district attorney Paul Howard said.

The officer, Garrett Rolfe, has been dismissed from the force and Atlanta's police chief resigned following the shooting, which came two-and-a-half weeks after the death of George Floyd, a black man killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis.

Floyd's May 25 death sparked a wave of protests for racial justice across the United States and calls for police reform.

Stacey Abrams, a former Democratic candidate for governor of Georgia who is under consideration as Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's running mate, said Brooks's shooting was "murder."

"The decision to shoot him in the back was one made out of maybe impatience or frustration or panic, but it was not one that justifies deadly force," Abrams told CNN. "It was murder."

Tomika Miller, Brooks's wife, told "CBS This Morning" that Rolfe and the other officer who was on the scene should go to jail.

AFP / Elijah Nouvelage

A man holds a sign outside the Wendy's restaurant where Rayshard Brooks was shot dead by police

"If it was my husband who shot them, he would be in jail," Miller said. "He would be doing a life sentence. They need to be put away."

Brooks was shot while running away after a scuffle with the two officers which was caught on video.

The autopsy report said he died of two gunshot wounds in the back.

- 'We are done dying' -

AFP / Elijah NouvelageThe death of 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks was ruled a homicide by the county medical examiner's office on Sunday, a day after the Wendy's restaurant where he died was set on fire and hundreds of people marched to denounce the killing
Scores of protesters were out on the streets of Atlanta on Monday morning for a march on the capitol called by the Georgia chapter of the civil rights organization the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

"We are done dying," the NAACP said in a statement.

"The Georgia NAACP will use the Constitutional right to assembly to demand state legislators address our legislative demands and ensure criminal justice reform ... and ending police violence against our communities."

Lloyd Pierce, coach of the local NBA team the Atlanta Hawks, was expected to address the crowd outside the capitol, where the Georgia legislature was holding its first session since the coronavirus pandemic.

Floyd, 46, died when a white police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, triggering a wave of civil unrest unseen in the United States since the 1968 assassination of civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr.

Police reform has been one of the most persistent demands of protestors who have taken to the streets of US cities and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced Monday that she was setting up a working group to review the use of force by police.

The Atlanta Police Department/AFP / Handout

This undated handout photo obtained June 14, 2020, courtesy of the Atlanta Police Department, shows Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe

Lightfoot said the goal would be to "create better policies and better training for our officers so that we can empower them to address situations appropriately and prevent any excessive use of force incidents."

In California, police unions in San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles condemned Floyd's death and pledged to reform their policies on use of force and root out racist officers.

- 'Defund the police' -

AFP / Kerem Yucel

A woman walks past a makeshift memorial to George Floyd near the site where he died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Some activists on the left have taken up "defund the police" as a rallying cry, one that US President Donald Trump has jumped on to use as a cudgel against his Democratic rival for the White House, Biden.

Biden, for his part, has tried to distance the party from the defund movement, instead advocating increased funding for community policing.

Brooks's death came after police responded to a complaint that a man was asleep in his car, blocking the drive-thru lane at the Wendy's.

Brooks allegedly failed a sobriety test administered by police, and when the officers tried to arrest him, a struggle broke out.

Video of the incident showed two police officers wrestling Brooks to the ground in the parking lot.

Brooks grabs one of their Tasers, shoots it wildly at officer Rolfe as he runs away and is shot in the back.

The Wendy's restaurant where Brooks, a father of four, died was set on fire by protesters on Saturday.

Philippine journalist convicted of libel, given 6-year term

By JIM GOMEZ and AARON FAVILA an hour ago

Rappler CEO and Executive Editor Maria Ressa, wearing a protective mask, exits a disinfection area before attending a court hearing at Manila Regional Trial Court, Philippines on Monday June 15, 2020. Ressa's verdict is expected to be announced Monday for a cyber libel case. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila)









MANILA, Philippines (AP) — An award-winning journalist critical of the Philippine president was convicted of libel and sentenced to jail Monday in a decision called a major blow to press freedom in an Asian bastion of democracy.

The Manila court found Maria Ressa, her online news site Rappler Inc. and former reporter Reynaldo Santos Jr. guilty of libeling a wealthy businessman. The Rappler’s story on May 29, 2012, cited an unspecified intelligence report linking him to a murder, drug dealing, human trafficking and smuggling. The site’s lawyers disputed any malice and said the time limit for filing the libel complaint had passed.

“The decision for me is devastating because it essentially says that Rappler, that we are wrong,” Ressa said in a news conference after the ruling. Her voice cracking, she vowed that “we will keep fighting” and appealed to journalists and Filipinos to continue fighting for their rights “and hold power to account.”

Ressa was sentenced to up to six years but was not immediately taken into custody. She posted bail for the case last year, and her lawyer, Theodore Te, said they will appeal the verdict.

“The verdict against Maria Ressa highlights the ability of the Philippines’ abusive leader to manipulate the laws to go after critical, well-respected media voices whatever the ultimate cost to the country,” said Phil Robertson of Human Rights Watch, adding the verdict was “a frontal assault on freedom of the press that is critical to protect and preserve Philippines democracy.”

President Rodrigo Duterte and other Philippine officials have said the criminal complaints against Ressa and Rappler were not a press freedom issue but a part of normal judicial procedures arising from their alleged violations of the law.

Businessman Wilfredo Keng dismissed the allegations in the 2012 story as baseless and false and said Rappler refused to take down the story online and publish his side of the story. He provided government certifications in court to show that he has no criminal record and sought 50 million pesos ($1 million) in damages, but the court awarded a much smaller fine.

Rappler’s lawyers said the story was based on an intelligence report and that the one-year period under Philippine penal law when a libel complaint can be filed had ended when Keng filed a lawsuit in 2017, five years after the story was published online.

A cybercrime law, which Rappler allegedly violated, was also enacted in September 2012 or four months after the story written by Santos was published. Rappler’s lawyers said Philippine penal laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Rappler, however, acknowledged that it updated the story in February 2014 to correct a misspelled word but said it did not make any other changes. The Department of Justice, which brought the libel charges to court, contended that by updating the story, Rappler effectively republished the story online in 2014, an argument dismissed by the news site’s lawyers.

The Department of Justice cited another law to say that a complaint can be filed under the 2012 cybercrime law for up to 12 years, countering Rappler’s argument that Keng’s complaint was invalid due to being outside the one-year deadline for libel.

If the Manila court upholds the Justice Department’s position, journalists and media agencies can be sued up to 12 years after publishing a story.

As Rappler’s chief executive officer, Ressa faces seven other criminal complaints in relation to legal issues hounding her news agency, including an allegation that it violated a constitutional ban on media agencies receiving foreign investment funds.

Ressa, who has worked for CNN and was one of Time magazine’s Persons of the Year in 2018, has accused the government of abusing its power and of using the law to muzzle dissent.

Many news outlets in the Philippines and beyond have criticized Duterte’s policies, including his signature anti-drug campaign that has left thousands of mostly poor drug suspects dead.

Duterte has openly lambasted journalists and news sites who report critically about him.

He has openly lashed out against the owner of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a leading daily.

He has vowed in the past to block the renewal of the congressional franchise of leading TV network ABS-CBN. It was shut down by the government’s telecommunications regulator last month after its 25-year franchise expired. Congress has been hearing the major network’s request for a renewal of its franchise.

The shutdown has been criticized as it cut off a major source of information on the COVID-19 pandemic in a Southeast Asian hot spot of the disease


Associated Press journalist Kiko Rosario in Bangkok contributed to this report.

Duterte-critic journalist convicted in Philippine libel case

AFP / TED ALJIBE

Philippine journalist Maria Ressa has vowed to fight after a libel conviction that activists say marks a dangerous erosion of press freedom

Philippine journalist Maria Ressa was convicted Monday of cyber libel and faces up to six years behind bars in a case that watchdogs say marks a dangerous erosion of press freedom under President Rodrigo Duterte.

Ressa, 56, and her news site Rappler have been the target of a series of criminal charges and probes after publishing stories critical of Duterte's policies, including his drug war that has killed thousands.

The award-winning former CNN journalist was sentenced to up to six years' jail in the culmination of a case that has drawn international concern.

It was not immediately clear how long she would actually have to serve if the conviction becomes final, and Judge Rainelda Estacio-Montesa allowed Ressa to remain free on bail pending an appeal.

"We are going to stand up against any kind of attacks against press freedom," a defiant Ressa told journalists after the conviction in Manila.

"I began as a reporter in 1986 and I have worked in so many countries around the world, I have been shot at and threatened but never this kind of death by a thousand cuts," she said.

Monday's verdict decided a trial that stemmed from a businessman's 2017 complaint over a Rappler story five years earlier about his alleged ties to a then-judge on the nation's top court.

Ressa, who Time magazine named as a Person of the Year in 2018, did not write the article and government investigators initially dismissed the businessman's allegation.

But state prosecutors later filed charges against her and Reynaldo Santos, the former Rappler journalist who wrote it, under a controversial cyber crime statute aimed at online offences such as stalking and child pornography.

Santos was also found guilty on Monday and allowed to remain free on bail.

The law they are accused of violating took effect in September 2012, months after the article was published.

But prosecutors say Rappler's typographical correction to the story in 2014 to change "evation" to "evasion" was a substantial modification and the article was thus covered by the law.

- 'Assault on independent media' -

Duterte's spokesman Harry Roque said the president backs free speech and has never filed a libel case against a journalist while in government.

"The president supports freedom of expression and freedom of the press. I hope that's clear," Roque said.

But rights groups and press advocates say the libel charge along with a series of tax cases against Rappler, and a government move to strip the news site of its licence, amount to state harassment.

"Ressa... and the Rappler team are being singled out for their critical reporting of the Duterte administration," Amnesty International said.

AFP / Ted ALJIBE

The award-winning former CNN journalist was sentenced to up to six years' jail
"With this latest assault on independent media, the human rights record of the Philippines continues its free fall."

Human Rights Watch said the case "will reverberate not just in the Philippines, but in many countries that long considered the country a robust environment for media freedom".

The Philippines has fallen in the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index to 136 out of 180 nations and territories.

Ressa's verdict comes just over a month after government regulators forced off the air the nation's top broadcaster ABS-CBN, following years of threats by Duterte to shut down the network.

Both Rappler and ABS-CBN have reported extensively on Duterte's anti-drugs campaign in which police have gunned down alleged dealers and users in operations condemned by rights groups.

Some of the crackdown's highest-profile critics have wound up behind bars, including Senator Leila de Lima, who is serving three years in jail on drug charges she insists were fabricated to silence her.

In 2018, Duterte denounced Rappler as a "fake news outlet" and subsequently banned Ressa and her colleagues from his public engagements.

Muslims join to demand police reforms, back black-led groups

By MARIAM FAM

In this Sept. 24, 2019 file photo, Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates speaks during a House Committee on the Judiciary‚ Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship and Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations joint hearing on the administration's 'Muslim ban' on Capitol Hill in Washington. In the wake of George Floyd's death in police custody, dozens of American Muslim organizations have come together to call for reform to policing practices, and to support black-led organizations. “These demands are a floor for our groups and not a ceiling. Some would call for much more,” Khera said in response to e-mailed questions. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
In the wake of George Floyd’s death in police custody, dozens of American Muslim organizations have come together to call for reform to policing practices, and to support black-led organizations.

“The victimization of unarmed Black Muslims has a long and troubling history,” said a coalition statement signed by more than 90 civil rights, advocacy, community and faith organizations. “As American Muslims, we will draw on our diversity, our strength, and our resilience to demand these reforms because Black lives matter.”

Proposed changes include prohibiting racial profiling and maneuvers that restrict the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain, such as choke holds; making it legally easier for prosecutors to hold law enforcement accountable; and redirecting police funding “into community health, education, employment and housing programs.”

The statement also calls for establishing “a federal standard that use of force be reserved as a last resort, only when absolutely necessary” and after exhausting all reasonable options.

“These demands are a floor for our groups and not a ceiling. Some would call for much more,” Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, one of the statement’s co-conveners, said in response to e-mailed questions. “We’re also urging all American Muslims to call their members of Congress right now and to demand a stronger response from them.”

Like members of other faith groups, many Muslims in America have joined in the outrage unleashed after Floyd, a black man, died after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed a knee to his neck. Groups from multiple denominations across faiths have publicly called for action against racism and aligned with the goals of peaceful demonstrators.

In street protests, statements, sermons and webinars, American Muslims have rallied against racism and discussed reforms.

“Muslim American organizations are committed to advocating at all levels to put an end to excessive use of force which has led to the murders of countless Black Americans,” said Iman Awad, legislative director of Emgage Action, one of the statement’s signatories. “Our message is that we will continue to fight but most importantly uplift the work being done by our Black leaders.”

Muslims in America are ethnically and racially diverse and Floyd’s death has also reinvigorated conversations about the treatment and representation of black Muslims in their own faith communities.

“I’m hopeful and heartened by the number and diversity of groups that have signed on,” said Kameelah Rashad, president of Muslim Wellness Foundation, also a co-convener. “That says to me that there’s at least recognition that we as a whole can no longer separate Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, surveillance, and violence. People are reconciling with the notion that means our struggles are intertwined.”

Now, she said, is the time for action


In this Jan. 13, 2015 file photo, Kameelah Rashad, president of Muslim Wellness Foundation, demonstrates outside the U.S. Courthouse in Philadelphia. In the wake of George Floyd's death in police custody, dozens of American Muslim organizations have come together to call for reform to policing practices, and to support black-led organizations. “I’m hopeful and heartened by the number and diversity of groups that have signed on,” said Rashad. “That says to me that there’s at least recognition that we as a whole can no longer separate Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, surveillance, and violence." (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)


“It’s vital that non-Black Muslims develop a respect for the resilience and resistance of Black people.”

The statement said: “Black people are often marginalized within the broader Muslim community. And when they fall victim to police violence, non-Black Muslims are too often silent, which leads to complicity.”

Moving forward, American Muslim communities must make space for black-led organizations, Awad said.

Also, “we must commit to having leadership positions which reflect the diversity of our faith community,” she said. “We cannot be successful until we have all voices represented at all levels within our organizational structures and our communities must do better.”

The statement said the demands represent only a “down payment” on needed reforms.

“If this deep-seated discrimination cannot be done away with through reform, then these systems will need to be abolished and re-imagined entirely.”
__

Associated Press religion coverage receives support from the Lilly Endowment through the Religion News Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

Amazon, IBM, And Microsoft Won’t Say Which Police Departments Used Their Facial Recognition Technology
Activists are worried about several key questions that remain unanswered.

Caroline Haskins BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on June 12, 2020

Idris Solomon / Reuters
Demonstrators protest against anti-Black racism in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, in New York City, June 11.

This week, IBM, Amazon, and Microsoft pledged to restrict or eliminate law enforcement’s access to facial recognition technology. Those announcements received lots of accolades, but they left many key questions unanswered. None of the companies disclosed how many police departments used their facial recognition technology — or might be using it currently.

On Monday, IBM said it would stop offering, developing, or researching facial recognition. Amazon followed suit on Wednesday, saying it would impose a one-year moratorium on selling its facial recognition technology, Rekognition, to police. And on Thursday, Microsoft announced that it would not sell facial recognition technology to police departments in the United States, “until we have a national law in place.”

But activists who have been fighting against facial recognition were not satisfied with the announcements. On Thursday, Myaisha Hayes, campaign strategies director for MediaJustice, said in a statement, "We have no doubt that Amazon’s announcement is no more than a political stunt meant to quell widespread momentum and demands for the corporation to stop profiting from our oppression and cut ties with all law enforcement agencies."

Evan Greer, the deputy director of digital rights activist group Fight for the Future, added in a statement, "Amazon needs to end their role in the assault on Black lives. This means ending their surveillance partnerships with over 1,350 police departments, cutting ties with ICE, and joining IBM in ending all research, development, and sale of their facial recognition software. Anything less is unacceptable."

Spokespeople for IBM and Amazon declined to comment.

A spokesperson for Microsoft told BuzzFeed News, “We do not sell our facial recognition technology to US police departments today, and until there is a strong national law grounded in human rights, we will not sell this technology to police departments.”

Several questions remained unsettled after the announcement:
None of the three companies committed to restricting police access to other kinds of software. Microsoft powers the New York Police Department’s Domain Awareness System, which organizes street camera footage, license plate photos, 911 call data, and other police information.

Only IBM said it would halt research into facial recognition. Microsoft and Amazon have not made that commitment.

Microsoft and Amazon both called for national legislation to regulate law enforcement’s use of facial recognition, but gave no further details.

It’s also unclear whether Amazon and Microsoft’s commitments would be binding outside the United States.

MORE ON THIS
Many Police Departments Have Software That Can Identify People In Crowds

Caroline Haskins · June 12, 2020

New York Has Repealed A Law That Kept Police Disciplinary Records Secret

Ellie Hall · June 12, 2020

Amazon Is Suspending Police Use Of Its Facial Recognition Tech For One Year

Caroline Haskins · June 10, 2020



Caroline Haskins is a technology reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York.

LGBTQ Americans Just Won A Massive Civil Rights Victory At The Supreme Court

A majority of justices ruled that an employer violates federal law when they fire someone for being gay or transgender.

Dominic HoldenBuzzFeed News Reporter

Zoe TillmanBuzzFeed News Reporter
Reporting From Washington, DC, June 15, 2020

Saul Loeb / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday issued its most sweeping decision ever to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination, finding that a federal ban on sex discrimination in workplaces also protects employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Despite same-sex couples winning the right to marry in 2015, firing workers for being LGBTQ has remained legal across much of the United States, since federal law does not specifically name sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes, unlike race or national origin. In a 6-3 decision, the court held that a federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination based on "sex" — Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — applied to cases involving LGBTQ workers.


"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear," Justice Neil Gorsuch — one of President Donald Trump's appointees to the higher court — wrote in the majority opinion. "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

Monday's decision will have a ripple effect across the nation, particularly by banning workplace bias in dozens of the country’s Republican-controlled states, which never enacted state laws banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

Title VII states that it's unlawful for employers to refuse to hire someone, to fire a worker, or to otherwise discriminate based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Gorsuch wrote that Congress may not have been thinking about sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination when lawmakers included the term "sex" in that part of the Civil Rights Act, "[b]ut the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands."

"The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex," Gorsuch wrote.


Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined Gorsuch's decision. Justices Brett Kavanaugh — Trump's other appointee to the court — Samuel Alito Jr., and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The Justice Department under Trump had argued against interpreting Title VII to apply to workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, reversing course from the Obama administration. Trump has touted the confirmation of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as a political win and means of advancing the broader conservative agenda — which has included rolling back legal protections for LGBTQ people — but Monday's decision highlights the fact that once judges and justices are confirmed to the federal bench, they enjoy lifetime tenure and are not beholden to the positions of the president who appointed them.

The decision comes less than a week after the Trump administration announced it was adopting a rule that would allow health providers to deny services to transgender people.

Gorsuch rejected arguments by the employers that as long as they treated all LGBTQ employees the same, it couldn't be "sex"-based discrimination — the employers had argued, for instance, that they could have a blanket policy of discriminating against LGBTQ people as long as they treated men and women the same. But Gorsuch wrote that discrimination based on sexual orientation was ultimately about penalizing a man for being attracted to men and a woman for being attracted to women, and that gender identity discrimination was about punishing based on the sex they were identified with at birth.

"Any way you slice it, the employer intentionally refuses to hire applicants in part because of the affected individuals’ sex, even if it never learns any applicant’s sex," Gorsuch wrote.


Alito wrote in his dissent that Gorsuch had tried to present the majority's decision as being in line with an approach to conservative legal decisionmkaing known as textualism — rooting decisions in the text of the law and not other factors like legislative history or policy preferences — "but no one should be fooled."

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday stems from three cases that debate Title VII’s meaning — turning on the question of whether whether anti-LGBTQ discrimination is based in a person’s “sex.”


The first involves a woman fired from a Michigan funeral home for coming out as transgender. Aimee Stephens — who died May 12 — had presented as a man when she started her job in 2007 at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan. Six years later, after Stephens announced plans to wear women’s clothes, the owner, Thomas Rost, fired her.

In siding with Stephens, a 49-page opinion led by Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found she raised a valid Title VII complaint: “The unrefuted facts show that the Funeral Home fired Stephens because she refused to abide by her employer’s stereotypical conception of her sex.”

One of the two gay rights case before the Supreme Court is Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in which Gerald Bostock claims he was fired by the county for being gay. His Title VII claim had been dismissed by lower courts.

Bostock’s case was consolidated with a lawsuit filed by Donald Zarda, who sued his employer, Altitude Express, alleging the skydiving company terminated him for his sexual orientation in violation of Title VII. With support from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency that handles civil rights disputes, Zarda prevailed at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The court found that a gay man wouldn't be targeted if he were instead a woman dating a man; thus he faced discrimination because of his sex.


"A woman who is subject to an adverse employment action because she is attracted to women would have been treated differently if she had been a man who was attracted to women," the majority wrote in an opinion led by Judge Robert Katzmann. "We can therefore conclude that sexual orientation is a function of sex and, by extension, sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination.”

Like other courts in Title VII cases, judges based pro-LGBTQ decisions in part on the landmark Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins — a 1989 dispute in which a cisgender female employee claimed she wasn’t promoted because she didn’t appear feminine enough; the Supreme Court found that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination also bans sex stereotyping in the workplace. Another key Supreme Court case cited by lower courts is Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., a 1998 case in which the Supreme Court found that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination also prohibited workplace harassment in the case of a man who was perceived to be gay.

But in arguments last year, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court those older cases did not apply and sex discrimination cannot be construed broadly to include LGBTQ workers because, as a general matter, it is legal for sex-segregated rules to exist, such as restrooms and dress codes.

The issue of restrooms has been particularly thorny. During oral arguments in October 2018, several justices wondered what consequences ruling for Stephens would have on using bathrooms — such as transgender women using bathrooms that match their gender identity — as well as implications for women’s sports. ACLU national legal director David Cole, who argued on behalf of transgender workers, said a bathroom or sports policy was not an immediate issue before the court. But he said forcing transgender people to use facilities that clash with their gender identity would "impose a discriminatory injury."


The Trump administration disagreed, arguing that sex discrimination occurs only when “similarly situated” individuals are treated differently — not comparing a gay or transgender person to a straight or cisgender person.

Gorsuch dismissed the bathroom issue entirely, writing that the fight over Title VII was about workplace discrimination and not those other issues — "we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind."

For gay workers, the Justice Department said, “An employer who discriminates against employees in same-sex relationships thus does not violate Title VII as long as it treats men in same-sex relationships the same as women in same-sex relationships.”

Lawyers for Clayton County in the Bostock case added that Congress had not intended to protect LGBTQ people under Title VII, saying that “the original public meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time Congress adopted Title VII in 1964 was the trait of being male or female, not sexual orientation or homosexuality.”

The case for Stephens was brought in the name of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a largely autonomous federal agency that championed her cause. But once the case reached the Supreme Court, per typical procedure, the solicitor general at the Justice Department took over to represent the government. In Stephens’ case, this meant government lawyers now argued it was legal to fire her — taking the opposite position as the EEOC even though it is representing the agency. LGBTQ advocacy lawyers stepped in to make her case.

SCOTUS RULING PDF SCROLLABLE 

VIEW AT SITE FOR ORIGINAL 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/lgbtq-workplaces-supreme-court-ruling-discrimination?ref=bfnsplash&utm_term=4ldqpho








«
Page 1 of 172»


MORE ON THIS

The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court To Legalize Firing Workers Simply For Being Gay

Dominic Holden · Aug. 23, 2019

The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court To Legalize Firing Workers Just For Being Transgender

Dominic Holden · Aug. 16, 2019

Brett Kavanaugh Asked Just One Question During His First Big LGBTQ Case On The Supreme Court

Zoe Tillman · Oct. 8, 2019

With Trump In Charge, Federal Lawyers Are Now Fighting Each Other Over Gay Rights

Dominic Holden · Sept. 26, 2017

PRIDE MONTH VICTORY

SCOTUS Justices rule LGBTQ2 people protected from job discrimination

UNDER TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1964 

THE ONE THE REPUBLICANS OPPOSED UNDER 

GOLDWATER AND STILL OPPOSE

By MARK SHERMAN

The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, early Monday, June 15, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court.

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.

JUSTICES ROBERTS AND GORSUCH JOINED THE CLASSICAL LIBERALS

Full Coverage: U.S. Supreme Court

“The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity,’” Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Thomas.

The outcome is expected to have a big impact for the estimated 8.1 million LGBT workers across the country because most states don’t protect them from workplace discrimination. An estimated 11.3 million LGBT people live in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA law school.

The cases were the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement and replacement by Kavanaugh. Kennedy was a voice for gay rights and the author of the landmark ruling in 2015 that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States. Kavanaugh generally is regarded as more conservative.

The Trump administration had changed course from the Obama administration, which supported LGBT workers in their discrimination claims under Title VII.

During the Obama years, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had changed its longstanding interpretation of civil rights law to include discrimination against LGBT people. The law prohibits discrimination because of sex, but has no specific protection for sexual orientation or gender identity.



In recent years, some lower courts have held that discrimination against LGBT people is a subset of sex discrimination, and thus prohibited by the federal law.

Efforts by Congress to change the law have so far failed.

The Supreme Court cases involved two gay men and a transgender woman who sued for employment discrimination after they lost their jobs.

The federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of a gay skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired because of his sexual orientation. The full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-3 that it was abandoning its earlier holding that Title VII didn’t cover sexual orientation because “legal doctrine evolves.” The court held that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

That ruling was a victory for the relatives of Donald Zarda, who was fired in 2010 from a skydiving job in Central Islip, New York, that required him to strap himself tightly to clients so they could jump in tandem from an airplane. He tried to put a woman with whom he was jumping at ease by explaining that he was gay. The school fired Zarda after the woman’s boyfriend called to complain.

Zarda died in a wingsuit accident in Switzerland in 2014.

In a case from Georgia, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled against Gerald Bostock, a gay employee of Clayton County, in the Atlanta suburbs. Bostock claimed he was fired in 2013 because he is gay. The county argues that Bostock was let go because of the results of an audit of funds he managed.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Bostock’s claim in a three-page opinion that noted the court was bound by a 1979 decision that held “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”]

Aimee Stephens lost her job as a funeral director in the Detroit area after she revealed to her boss that she had struggled with gender most of her life and had, at long last, “decided to become the person that my mind already is.” Stephens told funeral home owner Thomas Rost that following a vacation, she would report to work wearing a conservative skirt suit or dress that Rost required for women who worked at his three funeral homes. Rost fired Stephens.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled that the firing constituted sex discrimination under federal law.

Stephens died last month.



LGBT workers protected under civil rights law, rules US top court

LGBT workers are protected against discrimination at work, the US Supreme Court has ruled. Two conservative judges, including Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch, sided with the four liberal justices for a 6-3 verdict.


The US Supreme Court decided in a historic decision on Monday that a key provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects workers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) against job discrimination.

The court ruled in a 6-3 vote that federal protections against workplace discrimination against employees because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.

The ruling was authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017.

Chief Justice John Roberts, another conservative, along with the court's four liberal justices, joined Gorsuch's opinion.

US Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch (52) became the youngest Supreme Court appointee since Clarence Thomas in 1991, who is still on the bench

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court.

"Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the ruling.

The cases were the court's first on LGBT rights since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement and replacement by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Kennedy was a voice for gay rights and the author of the landmark ruling in 2015 that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States.

kw/msh (AFP, AP, Reuters)

Date 15.06.2020
Related Subjects Discrimination, LGBT+ rights, LGBT+
Keywords LGBT, LGBT rights, discrimination, sexual discrimination, Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court

Permalink https://p.dw.com/p/3do9k

Bill C-16: Canada’s New Federal Human Rights Legislation
Published on 2017 · 07 · 11 by Julian

On Thursday, June 15th, 2017, after over a year, Bill C-16 passed its final reading. This legislation – sponsored by Liberal Party MP Jody Wilson-Raybould who currently serves   was Canada’s Minister of Justice – is now in effect. It added gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act along with related protections in the Criminal Code of Canada. Put simply, it is now illegal in areas of federal jurisdiction to discriminate against someone because of their gender identity or expression.

Not only has legislation protecting gender identity and gender expression now passed at the federal level, most provinces and territories in Canada now also include protections in their own human rights legislation. The Northwest Territories’ government was the first in the Canada to include gender identity protections in its Human Rights Code though gender expression still remains unprotected there. British Columbia’s Human Rights Code was amended in July 2016 to include gender identity or expression as protected grounds.

https://www.ambitgenderdiversity.com/2017/07/bill-c-16-canadas-new-federal-human-rights-legislation/