Analysis: Facebook confronts human rights dilemma on political speech
By Paresh Dave

© Reuters/LEAH MILLIS FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Trump hosts roundtable discussion on the reopening of U.S. economy at the White House in Washington

(Reuters) - Facebook Inc oversight board's extension of former U.S. President Donald Trump's banishment from the social network failed to settle how it will balance political leaders' freedom of speech and its responsibility to make sure hateful rhetoric does not incite violence.

The 20-person board, which includes legal scholars, activists and a former prime minister, upheld Trump's suspension from Facebook for the time being but said the company needed to do far more to prepare for volatile political situations.

The company's policies on these issues have huge importance not just in the United States but in countries including India, Brazil, Myanmar and the Philippines. Political leaders there have turned to the social network to stoke hate or spread misinformation, both with deadly consequences, according to critical reviews by the United Nations and other bodies.

"Facebook has become a virtually indispensable medium for political discourse," the board said in its Wednesday ruling. "It has a responsibility both to allow political expression and to avoid serious risks to other human rights."

The Oversight Board gave Facebook credit for evaluating Trump's actions during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which prompted his ban from the service, against the Rabat Plan of Action, a globally accepted test for distinguishing incitement of hatred and violence from what should be protected as free speech.

The six-point Rabat plan considers the context and intent of the speech, the speaker, the content itself, its reach and the imminence of harm. Trump, president at the time, told protesters in a Facebook video that they were "very special," even as some were still storming into the Capitol. Trump's account had 35 million followers.

The board concluded that Trump "used the communicative authority of the presidency in support of attackers," and his violation of Facebook's policies against glorifying violence was "severe in terms of its human rights harms." It did not exercise its authority to tell Facebook it must ban Trump permanently.

But the board chastised Facebook for not having a process for re-applying that or some other test to determine when Trump's privileges should be restored. It gave Facebook six months to decide on Trump's status and urged the company to develop a policy to handle crises in which its existing options would not prevent imminent harm.

Facebook said it is reviewing the feedback.

INDIA TURMOIL

Trump's suspension was the first time Facebook blocked a current president, prime minister or head of state. In March, it booted Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro for 30 days for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. His administration called the penalty "digital totalitarianism."

As it has become a major information source, Facebook has mostly given leeway to political leaders because what they say is newsworthy and important to the functioning of governments. Still, its policing of rule-breaking politicians, and political speech more broadly, has prompted backlash from governments and new regulatory threats in India, Hungary and Mexico.

Many civil society advocates say the company is too ready to silence political dissent and has no toolkit for dealing with the many ways authoritarian governments are manipulating its services, which also include Instagram and WhatsApp.

The issue is especially fraught in India, where users since last year have criticized Facebook for being slow to police hate speech and other actions by politicians of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Meanwhile, the government demanded that Facebook remove posts critical of its handling of the pandemic, including some by local lawmakers.

At the heart of the board's order in the Trump case is the view that every Facebook user, including Trump, deserves clarity on actions that will get them banned forever and steps they can take to ensure temporary suspensions are lifted.

United Nations conventions, which establish a widely respected though voluntary framework for international human rights law, hold that freedom of expression is a bedrock right, and thus people should not be subject to arbitrary muzzling by Facebook. The company committed to upholding such human rights in a corporate policy unveiled in March that includes annual follow-up reports.

"If you believe in the international human rights law principles that guide the decision, it is hard to see how a lifetime ban could EVER be permissible for any content violation," Nate Persily, a Stanford University law professor, tweeted on Wednesday.

But human rights law also holds that people must be protected from violence and other forms of harm.

Sarah Morris, director of New America’s Open Technology Institute, said the board's decision indicates Trump's repeated problematic postings in the run-up to Jan. 6 and their impact on the attack "make it a particularly egregious case that warranted deplatforming" him.

The board declined to go down the road recommended by a minority of members that Trump should not be reinstated until the company is satisfied that he has stopped making false claims about widespread fraud in the election he lost last year and disavowed support for those involved in the Capitol attack.

If Facebook adopted that requirement, Trump's return may be far off. He has called Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory "THE BIG LIE!," repeating the claim as recently as Monday.

(Reporting by Helen Coster, Elizabeth Culliford, Paresh Dave, Sheila Dang, Steve Holland and David Morgan. Editing by Joanthan Weber and Cynthia Osterman)

Environmental activists are being killed in Honduras over their opposition to mining

Giada Ferrucci, PhD Student, Faculty of Information and Media Studies, Western University 1 day ago

Two men shot Arnold Joaquín Morazán Erazo to death in his home in Tocoa, Honduras, one night in October 2020. Morazán was an environmental activist and one of 32 people criminalized by the Honduran government for defending the Guapinol River against the environmental impacts of a new iron oxide mine in the Carlos Escaleras National Park.

© (AP Photo/ Elmer Martinez) Activists and supporters of Honduran environmental and Indigenous rights activist Berta Caceres hold signs with her name and likeness during the trial against Roberto David Castillo, an alleged mastermind of her murder, outside of the Supreme Court building in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, on April 6, 2021.

So far, at least eight people who have opposed the mine have been killed, putting its owner, Inversiones Los Pinares, at the centre of a deadly environmental conflict in the mineral-rich Bajo Aguán region. Local communities are concerned about the mine’s potential ecological damage. In their attempts to defend their territories, local leaders have been surveilled, threatened, injured and imprisoned, and some, like Morazán, have been killed.

Honduras is the deadliest place in the world for environmental defenders. Hundreds of them have been killed since 2009, including the Indigenous environmental leader Berta Càceres, who was assassinated in 2016.

The details are murky for some of the killings. In 2019, as a member of a fact-finding delegation, my colleagues and I documented that national police and military forces have patrolled the territory surrounding the mining project. We have recommended a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of the human rights abuses by military police and paramilitary forces against human rights defenders and journalists in Tocoa.
The roots of conflict

Communities in Tocoa have persisted in organizing against the mines since 2011, when the Carlos Escaleras was declared a national park. The next year, congress reduced the park’s no-development zone to accommodate the mine’s development, following a permit process mired by irregularities.

Inversiones Los Pinares is owned by Lenir Pérez, a businessman previously accused of human rights violations, and Ana Facussé, daughter of the late palm oil magnate, Miguel Facussé. Even though the mine hasn’t yet exploited the iron oxide in the 200-hectare concession, community water supplies are polluted, trees have been flattened and landslides and flooding are more frequent.

In 2018, Los Pinares began to build an access road to the mine. In response, community members in Tocoa, including Morazán, established the Municipal Committee for the Defence of Public and Common Goods to campaign against the dispossession of natural resources by extractive industries. They submitted five requests for public consultations and held demonstrations in front of city hall. They also erected a “Camp in Defence of Water and Life” to block access to the mine.

© (ACAFREMIN: Central American Alliance Against Mining) View of the Camp in Defence of Water and Life.

The government response to the protesters was swift and brutal. It violently broke up the protest camp, militarized the entire region and arrested 32 local environmental activists.

In 2019, 12 of the accused environmentalists appeared voluntarily before authorities to face the charges against them: usurpation, arson, robbery, unlawful detention, illicit association and aggravated robbery. Eight of them remain imprisoned, although the prosecution has not presented any solid evidence to justify such prolonged detention.

The state also deployed the police and the army to protect the interests of Inversiones Los Pinares, eschewing the internationally recognized rights of the communities to organize, defend the environment and protest peacefully against the mine.

© (GuapinolResiste) Members of the Municipal Committee in Defence of Common and Public Goods of Tocoa imprisoned for their participation in a peaceful protest against Inversiones Los Pinares.

The international community

International organizations have acknowledged the important democratic roles of the environmental defenders in Tocoa.

The Institute for Policy Studies, Washington’s first progressive multi-issue think tank, awarded the community committee with the international Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights award. In 2020, the committee members were nominated for the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought awarded annually by the European Union.

Yet, in Honduras, these same activists are victims of defamation campaigns, criminalization, social media attacks and constant threats. Several residents have been forced to flee Honduras to escape criminal persecution. Meanwhile, the state uses corruption and police repression to guarantee impunity for those persecuting defenders.

The United States and Canada play a key role in the current crisis. They have geostrategic and economic interests in Honduras, through trade agreements and aid programs implemented after a 2009 coup. Afterwards, President Juan Orlando Hernandez declared Honduras “open for business.”

The country sold its natural resources, fuelling the expansion of extractive industries and causing conflicts with communities. The corporate-friendly General Mining Law lifted a seven-year moratorium on new mining projects — it was developed with technical assistance and funding from the Canadian government.
A call for justice

The conflict in Tocoa has increasingly gained the attention and support of the United Nations, particularly the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Oxfam and the Canadian Peace Brigades.

Under the Geneva Convention rules, the international community should condemn the state’s violence against environmental defenders and accept asylum applications.

It should pressure the Honduran government to enable free, prior and informed consent, and call for free and fair elections. Until then, the international community should suspend non-humanitarian economic aid to Honduras.

© (ACAFREMIN) ‘Let’s safeguard the forests’ is painted on a rock along the Guapinol River.

A UN working group recently ruled that the the detention of the eight defenders is arbitrary. The defenders have since launched legal action, and Blanca Izaguirre, the country’s human rights ombudsperson commissioner, has urged the state of Honduras to release them immediately.

Since it launched its project in Tocoa, Inversiones Los Pinares has reinforced patterns of violence, stigmatization, defamation and criminalization of environmental defenders. At the same time, state authorities have failed to meet human rights obligations.

“We feel vulnerable. While we were always protesting pacifically, here in Honduras you are criminalized for defending nature. But we do believe that water cannot be negotiated, because water is life,” Reynaldo Dominguez, one of the Guapinol defenders, told me in a recent interview.

The persistent corruption, structural violence and impunity suggest that Morazán will not be the last victim assassinated for defending nature for the livelihood of the community.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Giada Ferrucci consults to the Central American Alliance against Mining (ACAFREMIN)

CANADA

Politically sensitive 'Made in Israel' wine-labelling case sent back to food agency

TORONTO — A finding that wine from the West Bank can be labelled as a product of Israel was not reasoned properly and should now be thrashed out again, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

As a result, the appellate court said the politically sensitive case, which at one point threatened to put Middle East politics on trial, should go back to the Complaints and Appeals Office of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

"The administrative decision maker must demonstrate that its interpretation of the relevant provisions is consistent with their text, context and purpose," Chief Justice Marc Noel said. "Here this demonstration is totally lacking."

The case arose in 2017, when Dr. David Kattenburg, of Winnipeg, raised concerns that wines produced by Psagot and Shiloh Winery, located in the West Bank, were from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, not Israel itself. He argued the wines should not, under Canadian law, be branded as Product of Israel.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency initially sided with him. However, the agency reversed course after some Jewish groups protested and Global Affairs Canada said the West Bank could be considered Israeli territory under the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.

In July 2019, a Federal Court judge found the settlements were not part of the State of Israel and the labelling was therefore misleading and deceptive. She sent the case back to the food inspection agency, saying Canadian consumers needed to know exactly what they were buying.

"One peaceful way in which people can express their political views is through their purchasing decisions," then-judge Anne Mactavish wrote, prompting the federal government to appeal.

In its analysis, the Federal Court of Appeal said the food agency was required to interpret and apply Canadian laws to decide whether the wine labels were indeed false or misleading.

The view of Global Affairs that the West Bank falls under the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement played a "determinative role" in the food agency's decision that the labelling was legal, Noel said. However, that was not enough to decide whether the agency's ruling had been reasonable, he said.

"We simply have no idea how the agency construed its legislation in coming to the conclusion that the labels are compliant," Noel said.

Noel said the agency, in taking a fresh look at the case, will want to hear from the affected parties, including Psagot, which had been unaware of the case until it reached Federal Court.

Noel also made it clear the agency is not bound by Mactavish's reasons.

"It will be open to the agency, as the decider of the merits of the labelling issue, to come to whatever outcome it thinks appropriate, provided that its interpretation and application of the relevant provisions to the facts in issue can be seen to be reasonable," Noel said.

Psagot bills itself as an award-winning winery 15 minutes north of Jerusalem. It says its wines are produced by Israelis under auspices of an Israeli company in an Israeli community subject to Israeli law in Israeli territory.

"Put simply, Psagot Winery proudly produces wines that are products of Israel," it says.

The winery said it was pleased the Federal Court of Appeal had now sent the case back to the food agency with direction the lower court's decision was not binding, and that Psagot can make submissions.

Dimitri Lascaris, the lawyer who acted for Kattenburg, said the government had again failed to persuade the court that the food agency had acted reasonably. The agency will not succeed in justifying its decision, he said.

"The reason for this is simple: As Canada’s government has long acknowledged, the West Bank is not part of Israel," Lascaris said. "The settlements in which these wines produced are, in the words of the U.N. Security Council, a 'flagrant violation of international law'."

Some Jewish groups called the ruling a victory, with the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs saying the case was "part of a broader campaign to boycott Israel and Israeli goods."

Michael Bueckert, vice-president of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, said the organization was disappointed.

"There's no question that it is both false and misleading to apply "Product of Israel" labels to goods from illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank," Bueckert said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 6, 2021.

U.S. broadband industry accused in 'fake' net neutrality comments

By David Shepardson

© Reuters/ANDREW KELLY FILE PHOTO: Signage is seen at the headquarters of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The broadband industry in 2017 funded a campaign that generated millions of fake comments to create the impression of grassroots opposition to net neutrality rules while the U.S. Federal Communications Commission considered repealing the policy, New York state's attorney general said on Thursday.

Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said her office reached agreements with three companies involved in the scheme - Fluent Inc, Opt-Intelligence Inc and React2Media Inc - imposing penalties of $4.4 million and requiring them to adopt comprehensive reforms in future advocacy campaigns.

Her office identified the companies as the lead generators responsible for millions of the fake comments submitted in the FCC's net neutrality proceeding. Federal agencies often solicit public comments on key policy issues before taking action.

The New York investigation showed that broadband industry players spent $4.2 million to generate and submit more than 8.5 million fake comments to the FCC "to create the appearance of widespread grassroots opposition to existing net neutrality rules."

The investigation found that nearly 18 million of the more than 22 million public comments that the FCC received both for and against net neutrality were fake.

New York-based Fluent agreed to pay $3.7 million, according to the attorney general's office. It said Fluent provided the broadband industry with more than 5 million digital signatures for net neutrality comments.

Fluent said in a statement that the settlement covers "legacy practices that occurred prior to late 2018."

The company added that the settlement "provides clarity and sets a new standard in the political advocacy space" and said that since it has already made most of the required changes it "will have little impact on how Fluent serves our clients."

Opt-Intelligence and React2Media did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The three companies also worked on more than 100 other unrelated campaigns to influence regulatory agencies and public officials and generated fake comments for other rulemaking proceedings, the investigation found.

James said investigations into others that engaged in fraud are ongoing.

The FCC under Democratic former President Barack Obama adopted landmark net neutrality rules in 2015 that barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic or offering paid fast lanes. The rules, opposed by the broadband industry, were overturned by the FCC under President Donald Trump in December 2017.

Supporters of the net neutrality rules argued that the protections ensured a free and open internet. Broadband and telecoms trade groups argued that the rules would discourage investment.

Acting FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, voted against the repeal and said the report "demonstrates how the record informing the FCC’s net neutrality repeal was flooded with fraud... We have to learn from these lessons and improve because the public deserves an open and fair opportunity to tell Washington what they think about the policies that affect their lives."

New York's investigation also found the FCC received another 9.3 million fake comments supporting net neutrality that used fictitious identities. Most of these comments were submitted by a 19-year-old college student using automated software, it found.

In mid-January 2017, several days before Trump was inaugurated, a document was circulated among a small group of senior broadband industry executives "laying out a plan to overturn the FCC's existing net neutrality regulations," according to James' office.

The document proposed a campaign to provide support for the FCC's expected net neutrality repeal, it said.

The campaign was run through a nonprofit organization funded by the broadband industry called Broadband for America made up of senior broadband company and trade group officials, it said. Documents cited in the investigation said the public comments would give the FCC's Republican chairman at the time, Ajit Pai, "volume and intellectual cover" for the repeal.

Pai declined to comment.

(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Will Dunham, Chizu Nomiyama and Diane Craft)

ORWELL'S AMERIKA

Opinion: GOPer files complaint against Democrat for telling the truth about Big Lie social posts

CNN Opinion by Frida Ghitis 

7/5/2021


The campaign to deceive the American people is entering a new and dangerous phase. Now that most Republican elected officials in Washington have surrendered to the Big Lie -- the thoroughly debunked claim that former President Donald Trump won the November 2020 election -- they are moving to intimidate or punish anyone who provides evidence of their deception, or of their role in the lead-up to the most direct assault on American democracy in memory, the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

© Provided by CNN REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CALIFORNIA)

On Thursday, the House Communication Standards Commission released a formal complaint by Republican Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia against Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California), who in March issued a report compiling the disturbing election-related social media posts of scores of Republicans.


Carter's complaint came after House Republicans all but solicited complaints against Lofgren from their members.

It all fits neatly with the effort to push out the conservative Republican Rep. Liz Cheney from the Republican leadership for her refusal to endorse the Big Lie, and the continuing harassment of Republican critics of Trump, alongside the relentless repetition of Trump's lie.

Reading Lofgren's social media review, a reasonable person would conclude many of the officials' posts helped contribute to inciting the events of January 6. Lofgren does not reach that conclusion explicitly, but she does suggest concluding that in her foreword. She lays out the evidence and recommends we consider the implications.

As she points out in the report, the US Constitution, in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibits anyone who has engaged in "insurrection or rebellion," from serving in Congress. She doesn't say they should be expelled, she simply cites the Constitution, and shows us what they said. The connection between their words -- not to mention Trump's -- and the January 6 rebellion is left for us to ponder.

That, apparently, is far too many facts for today's Republican Party.

The complaint against Lofgren has to be seen to be believed. Signed by Carter, it argues that by showing what members of Congress posted on social media, Lofgren violated rules of "decorum," and "disparage" them, in violation of House communications rules. If the evidence seems like disparagement, it's because the posts are appalling. They show the members incessantly telling their followers they had been robbed, that the election was stolen from them, and often saying they should respond with action.

Carter accuses Lofgren of inappropriately speculating about the motivation behind the posts, but his own quotes of her words show this is a stretch. Lofgren expresses concerns, and questions whether members violated their oath of office. "Like former President Trump," Lofgren wrote in the foreword, "any elected Member of Congress who aided and abetted the insurrection or incited the attack seriously threatened our democratic government. They would have betrayed their oath of office."

In her response to the complaint, Lofgren dismembers the accusations, showing point by point how her report does not violate House communications rules. "To the contrary," she asserts, "this Review is critical to our obligations." Far from intimidated, Lofgren restates her argument that the evidence from her report "could be the basis for a decision to expel members," based on the 14th Amendment's Section 3.

Carter's section takes up only 11 pages in Lofgren's nearly 2,000-page report. But it provides an arc of what happened to the party. On November 9, Carter says Trump and his backers deserve "our day in court." That was absolutely reasonable, but the rhetoric began changing as Trump promoted his lie.

As we know, they had many days in court. Dozens of court cases, recounts and other forms of scrutiny confirmed that Biden won. In fact, the government internet security agency formally concluded that "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history." The 2020 election is the most scrutinized, verified, litigated US election.

Every effort to support Trump's claim that he won (by a landslide, he dares claim) has come up empty. But facts no longer matter. By the time the court cases were dismissed, Trump's acolytes had moved beyond asking for a hearing. Republicans keep fanning the flames. How would you feel if you believed that the man you chose was robbed of victory? Judges have said, on the record, that the rhetoric of politicians can spur violence.

By December, Carter was asking people to "Chip in to stop the steal," literally trying to cash in on Trump's lie, a pattern that has helped fill the coffers of Trumpist politicians. (Ironically, Carter accused Lofgren of politicizing the report by showing the fundraising link he posted!)

On January 2, Rep. Pete Sessions reported he had met with the Stop the Steal group, "I encouraged them to keep fighting ... look forward to doing MY duty on January 6th." Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has backed QAnon, has nearly a hundred pages of social media posts in Lofgren's review. When Trump announced in December that there would be a "wild" gathering in Washington on January 6, she posted, "I'm planning a little something on January 6th as well."

Two days before the assault on the Capitol, Rep. Matt Gaetz warned, "Republicans will not leave democracy undefended on January 6th."

In the end, even after Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol, even after their calls to "Hang Mike Pence," Congress did certify Biden's victory. But dozens of Republican lawmakers voted against the certification. They voted to deny Americans their choice of president. Biden won the Electoral College 306 to 232; he won the popular vote by more than 7 million votes, and he had his victory confirmed in some 60 court cases. Still, 147 Republican lawmakers voted against his presidency. That alone sounds like an assault on US democracy.

Trump lost and Biden is president, but the campaign against his presidency, against American democracy is far from over. Trump has not relented. Just this week he issued another "proclamation," about his phony victory. Republican leaders make the pilgrimage to the former guy's pink retirement base in Florida to bend the knee, surrender their principles, and repeat his lie.

Trump rants about his imaginary victory to handfuls of Mar-a-Lago visitors in the evenings, and plots his revenge against the few remaining truth tellers in his party during the day.

Biden is president and Trump is not. But the contest over the November election, the battle over the truth about what Americans chose in last year's election, is far from over. The events of the past few days -- the push against Cheney, the review of Facebook's ban on Trump, the complaint against Lofgren -- all confirm that this chapter of America's history has not been closed. How the chapter ends will go a long way in determining the future of the country.

It's not a contest between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans; it's one between plain truth and deliberate lies propagated by self-serving politicians at the expense of their country's democracy.

Frida Ghitis

A GUILTY PLEASURE G̤r̤a̤n̤d̤ ̤F̤ṳn̤k̤ Railroad-3̤0̤ ̤Y̤e̤a̤r̤s̤ ̤O̤f̤ ̤F̤ṳn̤k̤:̤ ̤1̤9̤6̤9̤-̤1̤9̤9̤9̤ The Box Set

THE SEVENTIES VERSION OF NICKLEBACK 

A BAND EVERYONE HATED AKA GRAND JUNK RAILROAD

EXCEPT FRACK ZAPPA WHO JAMMED WITH THEM REGULARLY

Another Out Of Touch, Wealthy, White Woman Is Horrified By Unhoused People
Danielle Campoamor 

R29 6/5/2021


Caitlyn Jenner has had a busy couple of weeks. On April 23, Jenner announced she’s running for governor of California, hoping to unseat current Gov. Gavin Newsom. Last Saturday, she said to TMZ that she believes trans girls shouldn’t be allowed to participate in girls’ sports. And just last night, Jenner appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show to do the difficult work that is required of this country’s politicians during this time: lament the horrors that unhoused people impose on the white, rich, and powerful.

 

© Provided by Refinery29

“My friends are leaving California,” Jenner told Hannity while *checks notes* sitting inside her Malibu airplane hangar. “The guy right across, he was packing up his hangar and I said, ‘Where are you going?’ And he says, ‘I’m moving to Sedona, Arizona. I can’t take it anymore. I can’t walk down the streets and see the homeless.'”


Jenner’s comments — coming from an out-of-touch, rich white woman who has never experienced being unhoused in her life — immediately drew outrage. After all, Jenner’s estimated net worth is an egregious $100 million. She lives in a $3.5-million ranch-style home in Malibu, CA. She owns a number of expensive vehicles, including multiple Porsches and an Austin-Healey Bugeye Sprite. So it’s safe to say that her taking offense with Los Angeles’ large population of unhoused people doesn’t exactly bode well for her bid to become governor of California.

But it’s not just Jenner’s ignorance when it comes to unhoused people that is the problem — it’s her lack of understanding that her own community, the trans community, is also plagued by this issue. Recent data shows that a reported 63% of trans adults and 80% of gender non-conforming adults are unhoused, according to data from the National Alliance to End Homelessness. One 2015 survey examining the experiences of over 27,000 trans people across the country found that one in 10 surveyed experienced violence at the hands of a family member once they came out, and 8% were kicked out of their home because they were transgender. The same survey found that 30% of respondents who had a job had been either fired, denied a promotion, or experienced mistreatment or harassment in the workplace as a result of their gender identity. And the unemployment rate among respondents was three times that of the total U.S. population, while nearly one-third were living in poverty.

Shelters that provide clothing, food, and housing to those experiencing housing insecurity often double as another source of potential danger for trans and gender non-conforming people. Of respondents who had experienced being unhoused over the past year, 70% said they were mistreated in a shelter because they’re transgender, and 26% said they avoid shelters altogether for fear they’ll be harassed or assaulted.

But just like Jenner has no clue what it’s like not to have access to housing or shelter, she doesn’t seem to know much about the many other struggles facing transgender people. Shortly after she shared her gubernatorial aspirations with the world, Jenner supported Republican-led efforts to ban trans students from joining school sports teams that align with their gender identity. “This is a question of fairness,” Jenner told a reporter. “That’s why I oppose biological boys who are trans competing in girls’ sports in school. It just isn’t fair. And we have to protect girls’ sports in our schools.”

If Jenner truly cared about the problems of trans people who don’t live in Malibu mansions or fly on private planes, she would know that 43% of trans youth have been bullied on school grounds, and that 60% of trans and non-binary youth have seriously considered suicide. She would also know that studies have shown participation in school sports can lead to greater wellbeing, a reduction in anxiety, increased self-esteem, and improved overall mental health.

Of course, there’s also the possibility that Jenner does know these facts (after all, Google is a thing) and simply doesn’t mind sacrificing children on the altar of partisan politics. It’s clear now, more than ever, that she is making an appeal to conservative Californians — rich, white ones at that — in her effort to gain political power. Unhoused trans kids be damned.



Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Caitlyn Jenner Doesn't Want Trans Girls In Sports

Caitlyn Jenner Is Running For Governor, I Guess

Caitlyn Jenner In Office Would Hurt Trans People

Samantha Bee Tells Republicans To ‘Stop Policing Other People’s Bodies’ After Transphobic Sports Bills

"At the end of the day, Republicans need to stop policing other people's bodies, mind their own f***ing business, and let trans people live their lives."

Getty Images Samantha Bee

Samantha Bee is slamming Republican legislators in the U.S. after more than 30 states introduced transphobic sports-related bills that would ban transgender students from playing against cisgender athletes.

"Conservatives are staging a co-ordinated attack on trans kids by making up a problem that absolutely doesn't exist," the Toronto-born Bee says during an episode of her "Full Frontal". "They falsely claim trans women automatically have more testosterone and therefore more muscle mass than cis women. But studies don't show a consistent relationship between testosterone and athletic performance."

U.S. senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have spearheaded a federal trans sports bill, which Bee says, is just a tactic to earn themselves more votes. "Just like with the bathroom bills, Republicans are trying to scare their base to vote," she says.

"At the end of the day, Republicans need to stop policing other people's bodies, mind their own f***ing business, and let trans people live their lives."

'Polarizing topic': Sides grapple with fairness of trans women competing on female teams

Jim Morris 
GLOBAL NEWS

6/5/2021

9

© Stephen Groves/The Associated Press A woman demonstrates against a proposed ban on transgender girls and women from female sports leagues in South Dakota in March. Republican lawmakers in several U.S. states have introduced legislature related to…

It's an easy question to ask but finding a conclusive answer is proving difficult.

Republican lawmakers in several U.S. states have introduced more than 100 bills related to transgender issues, many of them aimed at preventing transgender women and girls from competing on female sports team.

Those who support the legislation argue transgender athletes have a physical advantage in women's sports.


So, do they?

"It's a very polarizing topic," said Allison Sandmeyer-Graves, chief executive officer for Canadian Women and Sport.

"There is quite a bit of research on the topic, with more being produced all the time. Our understanding of the research is that it's also divided, therefore quite inconclusive. Everybody's kind of got signs on their side. That's part of what makes this really a tricky conversation to navigate."

Veronica Ivy, a Canadian transgender athlete who is a two-time UCI Women's Masters Track World Championship winner, argues there is no advantage.

"The idea that [in] pre-puberty there's any physiological advantage for trans girls is literally nonsense," said Ivy, who was born in Victoria and is an associate professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston in South Carolina. "So, these bills are not scientifically grounded.

"When it comes to post-puberty trans women, there's also no clear advantage, let alone an advantage large enough to justify exclusion. We have to remember that we already allow huge performance advantages within the women's category."

Sandmeyer-Graves' group has joined with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports (CCES) to conduct a review of the research done on whether transgender athletes have an advantage.

"A lot of people assume the answer," Sandmeyer-Graves said. "I think the science tells us that is actually a lot more complex than most people realize."

Caitlyn Jenner recently added fuel to the debate when she said it "just isn't fair" for biological boys who are transgender to compete in girls' sports in school.

Jenner won an Olympic decathlon gold medal as a male at the 1976 Oympics in Montreal.

"It plays into a lot of the fears that people have about how trans women's participation will impact women's sports," Sandmeyer-Graves said. "We don't believe those fears are well founded."

COACHES ARE ABUSIVE

COACHING IS ABUSE
Video: Women abused by ski coach call for protection in sport (Global News)


Ivy said Jenner had previously supported the right for trans girls to participate in girls' sports.

"I suspect her about-face is politically motivated as she seeks the California governor's position as a Republican, tossing red meat to a transphobic voting base," Ivy said. "It's hypocritical to say the least."

'Trans girls are girls'

Six U.S. states have passed bills preventing athletes from competing in categories different than their biological sex at birth. Ivy called the laws "cruel, unfounded and harmful."

"They will do nothing but harm innocent children by taking away their right to play with people of their gender," she said. "Trans girls are girls. They are females.

"When we're talking about children, sports and playing on teams is such an important part of their social and intellectual development. Taking that away from already marginalized kids is nothing but cruel."

In Canada, the CCES has worked to develop policies for transgender athletes.

"That guidance essentially says that a person should have the right to participate in sport in the gender they identify with," said Paul Melia, the CCES's president and chief executive officer. "There should be no requirements for either surgery or hormone therapy imposed upon on individual as a condition of their participation in sports because of the harmful consequence that kind of intervention can cause an individual."

In 2018, U Sports, the governing body of Canadian university sports, released a policy saying transgender athletes can participate on varsity sports team that correspond with their sex assigned at birth or with the gender they now identify with.
Existing concerns

The issue of transgender athletes may not be making headlines in Canada, but concerns do exist. Some high school athletes might fear having a transgender person competing on their team could cost them a chance at a university scholarship.

"We're not receiving complaints from universities or sports organizations directly, but we are hearing some negative feedback," Melia said.

"This is probably more nuanced and complex. Our policy guidance at the community sport level has probably helped a lot of sports organizations. But once the rewards start to be become more significant, that's where the friction comes into the system."

Canada's domestic policies might also face headwinds at higher levels where sports are governed by international federations.

Last year, World Rugby became the first international sports governing body to institute a ban on transgender women competing in global competitions like the Olympics and the women's Rugby World Cup. The ban was introduced because "safety and fairness cannot presently be assured for women competing against trans women in contact rugby."

Rugby Canada has rejected the policy, saying it has a trans inclusion policy and believes everyone deserves "respectful and inclusive environments for participation."

Laurel Hubbard, a transgender weightlifter from New Zealand, has qualified for this summer's Tokyo Olympics. The 43-year-old lived as a male for 35 years and never made it into international weightlifting.

Sandmeyer-Graves said a lack of funding and support for women's sports is a greater threat than transgender athletes.

"I don't think there's going to be a wave of trans women taking over women's sports," she said. "I think the threat might be overstated.

"The real threat to women's' sport is coming back to the idea of there's scarce resources and opportunities. The fact that women's sport isn't supported, funded with equitable opportunities, equitable resources and equitable coverage is a far more significant impediment to women's participation and advancement in sport than trans women's involvement."

WHY DON'T WE EVER HEAR ABOUT TRANS BOYS/TRANS MEN, PLAYING SPORTS OR USING BOYS/MENS BATHROOMS?!

Fossil Fuels, Climate Change and India's COVID-19 Crisis
Justin Worland 

TIME 6/5/2021

©

 Raj K Raj/Hindustan Times—Getty Images Commuters out on a smoggy day at NH-9 near Mayur Vihar on Feb. 8, 2021 in New Delhi, India.

The surge of COVID-19 cases and the humanitarian crisis now unfolding in India has shocked the world and led to a search for an explanation of how the situation got so bad so fast. Scientists are investigating several factors including new variants and public health officials have pointed to underinvestment in the country’s health system.

Undoubtedly, the causes are varied, and as I watched the numbers surge, I began to wonder whether it’s worth considering the role air pollution may be playing. Since the early days of the pandemic, researchers have understood that exposure to polluted air makes people more vulnerable to COVID-19, and India’s megalopolises are among the most polluted in the world. “We understand that the impact of pandemic can be higher in polluted regions where people’s lungs have already been weakened due to long term exposures,” says Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director of research and advocacy at Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi. “That makes Indian cities vulnerable.”

There’s been some research on air pollution and COVID-19 in India specifically, but it’s probably first worth looking at the bigger picture. A slew of studies have shown direct links between exposure to air pollution and vulnerability to COVID-19. One paper published in December in the journal Cardiovascular Research found that chronic exposure to particulate matter—a type of pollution that results from a mix of chemicals that come from sources like smokestacks and fires—is likely linked to some 15% of global COVID-19 deaths. Particulate matter doesn’t just come from fossil fuels, but the study’s authors found that more than 50% of air pollution-linked COVID-19 deaths are specifically connected to fossil-fuel use.

A seemingly endless stack of studies has shown the causal links that explain this: extended exposure to air pollution contributes to a range of ailments—from asthma to diabetes—that are risk factors for COVID-19.

The research in India is still in early stages, but scientists have already begun to evaluate the local connection. A preliminary study out of Malaviya National Institute of Technology in Jaipur, India found a correlation between COVID-19 cases and air pollution and climatic conditions—like wind and humidity—in Delhi. Another preliminary paper from the World Bank relying on data from India found that a “1 percent increase in long-term exposure to [particulate matter] leads to an increase in COVID-19 deaths by 5.7 percentage points.” The study suggested a range of “urgent” interventions from promoting cleaner fuel sources to reducing pollution in the transportation system that would complement more obvious public health measures like vaccination and mask wearing.

“A scientific consensus seems to be emerging that improving air quality may play an important role in overcoming or at least reducing the impacts of the pandemic,” the authors of the World Bank paper wrote. “Research implies that pollution must be limited as much as possible when lockdowns are lifted.”

This dynamic is important to understand not only because it helps explain one factor that has worsened the pandemic, but also because it offers a lens into so-called “climate co-benefits”—a key consideration that helps make the case for urgent action on climate change. That term refers to the positive effects beyond carbon dioxide emissions reduction that result from tackling climate change. Co-benefits range from improved soil health (resulting from agricultural practices that reduce carbon emissions) to improved energy security (as a positive outcome of expanding renewable energy sources and reducing reliance on fossil fuel imports).

But perhaps no co-benefit is more significant—and more urgent—on a global level than the clean air that results from nixing fossil fuels. In India, for example, chronic exposure to air pollution causes the premature death of more than a million people each year. Hundreds of thousands more are similarly affected in China. Even in the U.S., which has relatively strict environmental standards, more than 100,000 people have been estimated to die prematurely due to particulate matter air pollution every year, according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. And, in the U.S. and around the world, the burden falls disproportionately on low-income communities of color.

Policymakers and scientists have had many a thorny debate about the best ways to account for those co-benefits, but on a purely human level it’s another example of how tackling climate change would save lives—not just 30 years in the future but right now.

‘A dirty business’: how one drug is turning Syria into a narco-state

Martin Chulov 

Middle East correspondent

THE GUARDIAN 

In the summer of 2015 a businessman in the Syrian province of Latakia was approached by a powerful security chief, seeking a favour. The official wanted the merchant, an importer of medical supplies, to source large amounts of a drug called fenethylline from abroad. The regime, he said, would readily buy the lot.

© Provided by The Guardian Photograph: 

AP A Saudi customs officer opens imported pomegranates containing Captagon pills in Jeddah.

After an internet search, the merchant made a decision. He left his home that same week, first sending his wife and children to exile, then following after, scrounging what he could from his businesses for a new start. “I know what they were asking me to do,” he said from his new home in Paris. “They wanted the main ingredient for Captagon. And that drug is a dirty business.”


Other businessmen in Syria’s north have not shared his reservations. The manufacture of Captagon in the regime heartland has become one of Syria’s only recent business success stories; a growth industry so big and sophisticated that it is starting to rival the GDP of the flatlining economy itself.

From the ruins of Syria, and the similarly disastrous collapse across the border in Lebanon, where this week a shipment of Captagon hidden in pomegranates and exported from Beirut was found by Saudi officials, a reality is crystallising: both countries are fast becoming narco-states - if they have not met that definition already.

© Provided by The Guardian Captagon is one of several brand names for the drug compound fenethylline hydrochloride. Photograph: NapoliPress/Rex/Shutterstock

Before last Sunday’s seizure of millions of Captagon pills, which led to a ban in Saudi Arabia on all agricultural imports from Lebanon, at least 15 other shipments of the drug had been intercepted in the Middle East and Europe in the past two years. Six police and intelligence officials in the Middle East and Europe have told the Guardian that all were shipped from Syria’s Captagon heartland, or across the frontier in Lebanon, where a network of untouchables – crime families, militia leaders and political figures – have formed cross-border cartels that make and distribute industrial scale quantities of drugs.

“They are very dangerous people,” said one senior official in Beirut. “They are scared of no one. They hide in plain sight.”

Captagon is one of several brand names for the drug compound fenethylline hydrochloride. A stimulant with addictive properties, it is used recreationally across the Middle East and is sometimes called a “poor man’s cocaine”. It is also used by armed groups and regular forces in battle situations, where it is seen as having properties that boost courage and numb fears.

For all intents and purposes, the border between both countries is redundant, a lawless zone where smugglers operate with the complicity of officials on both sides. The smugglers move precursors and finished products, both hashish and Captagon, along a route that takes in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley, the Syrian border town of Qusayr and the roads north through the Alawite heartland of the Assad regime, towards the ports of Latakia and Tartus.

© Provided by The Guardian The port of Latakia is favoured by smugglers. Photograph: Louai Beshara/AFP/Getty Images

Latakia in particular has been under the intense scrutiny of European and American police and intelligence agencies. A cousin of the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, Samer al-Assad is an influential figure at the port. According to the exiled merchant and three other Latakia businessmen, anyone who wants to operate must pay a substantial cut from proceeds in return for access to networks and protection. Despite the scrutiny on the port, few interdictions have been made at the source. Instead the roll call of hauls found since 2019 has rivalled the heyday of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel for scale and efficiency.

They include five tonnes of Captagon tablets found in Greece in July that year, two similar hauls in Dubai in subsequent months, and four tonnes of hashish uncovered in the Egyptian city of Port Said in April 2020, wrapped in the packaging of the Milkman company. At the time the company was owned by the regime tycoon Rami Makhlouf.

There was also a Captagon shipment to Saudi Arabia hidden in tea leaves, as well as seizures in Romania, Jordan, Bahrain and Turkey. In July last year, the biggest ever haul of the drug, with a street value of more than €1bn (£870m), was intercepted in the Italian port of Salerno, which is believed to have been intended as a waypoint en route to Dubai.

© Provided by The Guardian Naples law enforcement officers inspect a huge seizure of Captagon tablets in Salerno in July 2020. Photograph: Ciro Fusco/EPA

The consignment was hidden in paper rolls and machinery sent from a printing plant in Aleppo, and officials in Rome initially blamed the import on the Islamic State terror group. Last December, blame was shifted to the powerful Lebanese militia-cum-political bloc Hezbollah. The party denies involvement and claims it has no hand in a regional and global trade in Captagon that is rapidly becoming associated with both failing states.

The research organisation the Centre for Operational Analysis and Research, which focuses on Syria, this week released a report highlighting the role of Captagon and hashish in the country, where the economy has been crippled by a decade of war, western sanctions, entrenched corruption and the collapse of Lebanon, where billions of dollars have disappeared in the pit of the country’s banking system.

“Syria is a narco-state with two primary drugs of concern: hashish and the amphetamine-type stimulant Captagon,” the report says. “Syria is the global epicentre of Captagon production, which is now more industrialised, adaptive, and technically sophisticated than ever.

“In 2020, Captagon exports from Syria reached a market value of at least $3.46bn [£2.5bn]. Though conjectural, a market ceiling significantly higher than this is distinctly possible. Although Captagon trafficking was once among the funding streams utilised by anti-state armed groups, consolidation of territorial control has enabled the Assad regime and its key regional allies to cement their role as the prime beneficiaries of the Syrian narcotics trade.”

An exiled former regime insider who retains connections with some officials inside the country said: “The war in Syria has not only caused the death of hundreds of thousands, over 6 million refugees, 8 million internally displaced, around 1 million injured, [and] the complete destruction of towns and cities, but [also] a total collapse of the economy following the Lebanese banking crisis, followed by the pandemic and the Caesar Act [of US sanctions] which has turned the country officially into a ‘narco-state’ … with a few regime businessmen and warlords turning into drug lords.

“At the start of the conflict, $1 was equal to 50 Syrian pounds. The exchange rate dropped but managed to stay at 500-600 Syrian pounds throughout eight years of the war until the Lebanese crisis began in 2019. Then we started seeing the total collapse of both currencies simultaneously, which shows how interconnected they are. Lebanon had been acting as Syria’s respirator. And it suddenly lost its oxygen supply.”

Several months after the Latakia merchant fled Syria, a visitor arrived in Lebanon on a private jet from Saudi Arabia. His name was Prince Abdulmohsen bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, a member of the royal family, then in his late 20s. As the prince prepared to fly home, on 26 October 2015, he was arrested, allegedly with two tonnes of Captagon pills in his luggage. For the next four years, he was held in a room above a police station in Beirut’s Hamra district, where he was given more perks than other prisoners as negotiations for his release continued.

“He was set up by Hezbollah,” said a Lebanese intelligence official. “He walked right into a trap, and it took them [Riyadh] a long time to free him, because the people here were looking for the right prize for him. The state was not involved. It was all made to go away. The right people were paid, and he went home in 2019. Captagon can get things done.”

The Electric Vehicle Freedom Act could put billions into a nationwide EV charging network

Kyle Hyatt 

The Biden administration has made no secret that it is interested in pushing US transportation to an electric future, promising to spend vast sums of money on bringing electric vehicles into the US Government fleet as well as increasing the national EV charging infrastructure. It's a big deal.

© Provided by Roadshow Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Andy Levin are looking to jumpstart a massive national EV charging network. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

But maybe it's not big enough -- especially if you're Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Andy Levin, D-Mich. The two members of Congress are pushing a new piece of legislation called the Electric Vehicle Freedom Act, and it goes even farther than President Biden's promises, according to a report published Wednesday by Automotive News.

Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Andy Levin (D-MI) are looking to jumpstart a massive national EV charging network.

The Electric Vehicle Freedom Act seeks to build hundreds of thousands of electric-vehicle-charging stations around the US within five years and also seeks to shift government funding and tax breaks away from internal combustion vehicles and toward EVs. This would take billions beyond the $15 billion that President Biden has already earmarked.

The push toward electric vehicles is also getting a substantial push from states like California, which seeks to ban the sale of new internal combustion vehicles by 2035, and from 11 other states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington, that have signed on to California's program.

Given how much America's electric charging infrastructure has grown in recent years, and how much growing there is left to do, the Electric Vehicle Freedom Act could make for exciting times for EV enthusiasts in years to come if it's able to survive its trip through the halls of Congress.