GLOBAL MISOGYNISTIC MINING CULTURE

Sexual harassment at Western Australia mines 'appalling and systemic'

Tiffanie Turnbull - BBC News, Sydney
Thu, June 23, 2022

A report into sexual harassment at Western Australian mines was released on Thursday

Colleagues rifling through your underwear drawer. A boss demanding sex in exchange for promotion. Unsolicited nude photos, innuendo, and assaults.

These are all experiences of women in Western Australia's mining industry, as told to a state parliament inquiry.

Its report was handed down Thursday, revealing sexual harassment is rife at sites run by large mining firms.

The landmark report described the harassment as "appalling" and "generally accepted or overlooked".

Australia's richest mining companies - including BHP and Rio Tinto - run large operations in the state's remote Pilbara region, to unearth iron ore, copper and other minerals.

Thousands of workers are flown in each season and housed in village camp-style accommodation.

Critics have long raised concerns about the hard-drinking, male-dominated culture that has been allowed to flourish at these sites.

The inquiry, which ran for almost a year, was prompted by previous court cases. It received nearly 100 submissions and examined some of the state's biggest miners as well as government regulators.

"To hear the lived reality of the taunts, attacks and targeted violence, the devastation and despair the victims experienced, the threats or loss of their livelihood that resulted, was shattering and it's completely inexcusable," inquiry chair Libby Mettam told the state parliament on Thursday.

The long-lasting effects of workplace sexual harassment

One woman quoted in the report said she was "knocked unconscious in her donga [accommodation] and awoke to find her jeans and underpants around her ankles".

Another said: "I have been to about half a dozen sites, and I can truthfully state that I have been sexually harassed at every single one of them.

"The degree to which has varied, from inappropriate comments and innuendo, to salacious rumours, being touched without my consent, and being cornered in a laundry and being genuinely fearful I was about to be assaulted."

Other women reported "powerplay behaviour" known as "shovelling", where iron ore would be dumped on the cabs of female truck drivers if they didn't comply with sexual requests.

Companies like BHP and Rio Tinto have admitted there is a problem and have previously pledged to make changes.

BHP said it had sacked 48 staff for inappropriate conduct over two years, telling the inquiry it had invested A$300m (£168m; $206m) since 2019 into making sites safer.

Rio Tinto promised to improve camp facilities and make it easier for people to "call out unacceptable behaviours", after an internal review found more than 20 women had reported actual or attempted rape or sexual assault in the past five years.

Thursday's report made 24 recommendations, including overhauling reporting processes and training in the sector.

It said regulators should investigate whether a "register of offenders" could be used to stop serial harassers being "moved on" from site to site instead of facing consequences.

'Appalling' abuse: Australia to push miners to set up register of offenders


Iron ore mining operations, including a rail network, can be seen in

 outback Western Australia near the city of Port Hedland

Wed, June 22, 2022
By Praveen Menon and Byron Kaye

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia will push its mining industry to set up a register of sexual harassment perpetrators to help rein in abuse, a cabinet minister said, after a state government report detailed cases of "horrifying" and "appalling" behaviour against women.

The inquiry by mineral-rich Western Australia, home to the bulk of the country's iron ore industry, also criticised mining giants such as BHP and Rio Tinto for ignoring or overlooking unlawful and criminal behaviour.

The release of the report on Thursday followed a year-long investigation into concerns about a culture of sexism and bullying that fuelled public anger about workplace conditions last year, leading to what has been called Australia's MeToo moment..

Australia accounts for about half of the world's iron ore exports and women have long complained of sexual harassment in so-called "fly in, fly out" mining camps, temporary accommodation set up at remote mines to house workers.

"Any case of sexual harassment is one too many," said Resources Minister Madeleine King in a statement, which added that the federal government would work with Western Australia to support all 24 recommendations in the report.

"The Australian Government stands ready to help the resources sector stamp out sexual harassment, which has no place in the modern workplace," she added.

Examples cited in the report included stalking, texting of lewd material, requests for sexual favours in return for a permanent job and sexual assaults.

One woman told the inquiry how she was knocked unconscious in her accommodation hut and awoke to find her jeans and underpants around her ankles, leaving her feeling "sick, ashamed, violated, dirty and very confused".

Another told of a powerplay behaviour known as "shovelling" where iron ore would be dumped on the cab of trucks operated by women if they didn't comply with sexual requests, according to the report.

Individuals who spoke to the committee said perpetrators of serious harassment simply changed work sites or were employed with a different company, the report said.

Its 24 recommendations included having the industry consider an offender register or other options "which could operate effectively and fairly to prevent habitual sexual harassment offenders continuing to be re-employed."

It also recommended establishing a forum to document victims' historical experiences, and explore opportunities for redress, such as formal apologies and compensation. And it recommended changing laws to put the onus on companies to keep a harassment-free workplace, rather than on individuals to speak up.

Other proposals related to improved reporting of harassment, better training for workers and managers, improved accommodation and security at mine camps as well as restrictions on drinking.

CULTURE OF ABUSE

Major global miners including BHP, Rio Tinto and Fortescue made submissions to the inquiry, most of them acknowledging that sexual harassment is rife at mining camps in Western Australia, and promising reforms.

But bullying and abuse have continued in the sector over the past 18 months.

Rio said in a statement that it would closely study the recommendations contained in the report. BHP acknowledged the report and said it was committed to creating a workplace that is safe, respectful and inclusive at all times.

Fortescue Metals Group Chief Executive Elizabeth Gaines said: "We acknowledge that some inappropriate behaviour still occurs and in line with our zero-tolerance approach to harassment, bullying, discrimination and intimidation, we will continue to encourage our team members to call out inappropriate behaviour..."

Rio published its own report in February which found that nearly 30% of women had experienced sexual harassment at work, with 21 women reporting actual or attempted rape or sexual assault.

Western Australia's mining sector employs about 150,000 people and generated A$208 billion ($143 billion) in export revenue in 2020/21.

"The recommendations are good, they had a good handle on what was happening, and they didn't let the mining industry escape responsibility," said Kerin Collins, a former worker at a "fly in, fly out" camp for BHP who testified at the inquiry.

But Collins warned that an industry register of perpetrators could be open to abuse and could detract from putting responsibility on the companies.

"That would be really devastating if a person was put on that incorrectly," Collins said by phone. "It's the regulation, and failing to regulate, the industry that needs to be looked at."

(Reporting by Praveen Menon and Byron Kaye, with additional reporting by James Redmayne; Editing by Richard Pullin and Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Factbox: Australia's inquiry into sexual harassment in mining


 A stacker unloads iron ore onto a pile at a mine located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia

Thu, June 23, 2022,
By Praveen Menon and Byron Kaye

SYDNEY (Reuters) - An Australian state government inquiry into abuse in the mineral-rich west has found the mining industry perpetuated a culture that led to women being subject to frequent sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Women have long complained of sexual harassment in so-called "fly in, fly out" (FIFO) mining camps, temporary accommodation set up at remote mines to house workers.

Here is a list of the key findings and recommendations after the inquiry by the government of Western Australia:

FINDINGS:

-Women in the mining industry frequently have to deal with sexual harassment and sexual assault

-A broad range of unlawful and criminal behaviour was ignored or overlooked by employers

-FIFO camps had all major risk factors for sexual harassment like poor culture, gender inequality and power disparity in the workplace

-Managers and supervisors were seeking sexual favours from women in exchange for promotions or permanent employment

-When people are found to have behaved unacceptably, there has been a practice of ‘moving them on’ rather than dismissing them, allowing them to continue in the industry

-Women are under-represented in the mining industry, making up 19.1% of the total work force. This figure has remained largely unchanged since 2008.

-All companies that appeared before the committee stated that sexual harassment was unacceptably prevalent in the industry.

-Company statements of regret were sincere but limited, and rarely included accepting responsibility for allowing the situations to arise.

-The failure of companies to understand what was happening in their work places must be seen as a sign of corporate failure

-Industry regulator failed to record widespread cases

RECOMMENDATIONS:

-Government consider establishing a forum to hear and document experiences of victims, and explore opportunities for redress, such as apologies, compensation

-Mining and other resources companies need to ensure serious

repercussions, including dismissal, for any person who has attempted to seek sexual favours for advantage and that all proper legal actions will be taken against them

-Industry must explore setting up an industry-wide workers’ register or other mechanism, taking into account natural justice considerations

-Mining companies must as a minimum implement moderate drinking standards for all FIFO accommodation sites

-Industry should ensure that sexual harassment and assault training is accredited, fit-for-purpose, and delivered by suitable practitioners. Training should be mandatory and

ongoing for all employees.

(Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)

‘Horrific’ sexual abuses uncovered in

 Australia mining probe

23 June 2022 BY JASON SCOTT

Among recommendations were the payment of compensation to the many workers who became victims of bosses and colleagues on remote projects.

Image: Bloomberg

A landmark inquiry into Australia’s mining sector has uncovered dozens of shocking cases of sexual harassment and abuse of women workers at companies including BHP Group and Rio Tinto Group.

The Western Australia government report released Thursday described “horrific” incidents at the workplaces, which it labelled both a failure of the industry and an oversight by government. Among recommendations were the payment of compensation to the many workers who became victims of bosses and colleagues on remote projects.

“I was shocked and appalled well beyond expectation by the size and depth of the problem,” Libby Mettam, chair of the inquiry, said in the report. “To hear the lived reality of the taunts, attacks and targeted violence, the devastation and despair the victims experienced, the threats to or loss of their livelihood that resulted was shattering and completely inexcusable.” 

The probe delves into the dark corners of an industry that’s under mounting pressure from investors, governments and society to address its impacts on local communities and the wider environment. BHP and Rio Tinto issued their own inquiries after allegations from women emerged in Western Australia’s $159-billion a year resources industry, where so-called Fly In-Fly Out (FIFO) workers are transported to remote sites for several weeks at a time.

Among the allegations of abuse revealed in the report were:

• A woman involved in a safety issue was told by a supervisor she could “make the issue go away” if she had sex with him.
• Another was knocked unconscious in her room and woke up undressed with her jeans around her ankles.
• Another described how a man forced his hands down her top several times in front of other workers and “no-one did anything.”
• After complaining about colleagues making sexual jokes about her, a woman said her supervisor’s response was to “force himself on her.”
• Sex dolls and toys placed in women’s sleeping quarters; women were victims of stalking, unsolicited texting, and provocative photo requests.
• “Shovelling,” where iron ore was dumped inside the vehicles of women drivers who didn’t comply with sexual requests.
• 
  

BHP, Rio Tinto

The inquiry revealed that BHP Group recorded 91 reports of alleged sexual harassment or assault in the year through June 30, 2021, of which 79 were substantiated. Rio Tinto, from January 2020 to August 2021, received 51 complaints of sexual harassment or assault in FIFO operations, including one substantiated report of sexual assault and 29 substantiated reports of sexual harassment.

“Rio will closely study the report’s recommendations,” Rio’s iron ore chief Simon Trott said in an emailed statement. “The courage of people coming forward to tell their stories has been critical in terms of shining a light on behaviours that must change within our company and our industry.”

Allegations of abuse were also received at projects operated by Woodside Petroleum, Fortescue Metals Group, and Chevron Corp.

Chevron will also review the findings and the inquiry has “provided a critical opportunity to learn, act and improve,” the company said in a statement. 

Fortescue’s chief, Elizabeth Gaines, said that while the company has implemented safety enhancements at worksites after conducting its own review, “we acknowledge that some inappropriate behaviour still occurs.” 

“In line with our zero-tolerance approach to harassment, bullying, discrimination and intimidation, we will continue to encourage our team members to call out inappropriate behaviour, to speak up and take clear decisive action when they do identify behaviour which does not align with our values,” Gaines said in a statement.

BHP and Woodside didn’t immediately respond to requests to comment on the details of the report.

Male-Dominated Camps

In Western Australia, a resource-rich state four times the size of France that’s the centre of a massive iron ore industry, remote mines that can only be accessed through flights by FIFO workers have been especially risky for women. They remain largely male-dominated, with workers living in camp-style accommodation.

A report commissioned by Rio Tinto and released in February showed more than a quarter of its female workers have experienced sexual harassment and almost half of all staff have been victims of bullying. Larger rival BHP last year said it fired 48 workers at its sites in Western Australia since 2019 after verifying allegations of harassment.

The Western Australian government should “consider establishing a forum to hear, document and acknowledge the experiences of victims of historical workplace sexual harassment,” the report recommended. “Part of this process could include exploring opportunities for redress, such as formal apologies from companies and/or perpetrators and appropriate compensation.”

Other recommendations in the report, which are expected to be accepted by the state government, include:

• Ensuring mining and other resources companies enforce serious repercussions, including dismissal, for any person who has attempted to seek sexual favours for advantage and that all proper legal actions will be taken against them.
• The industry must explore ways to prevent perpetrators of serious sexual harassment finding reemployment on other sites and in other companies.
• The mining and resources industry must establish acceptable standards for accommodation facilities, including security and other safety measures.

“We were told how sexual harassment is generally accepted or overlooked, of the abuse of positions of power, serious breaches of codes of conduct, and a culture of cover-up,” Mettam said. “It is simply shocking this could be taking place in the 21st Century in one of the state’s most lucrative industries.”

New Title IX Rules Would Protect LGBT Students and Sexual Assault Survivors

Biden proposals take aim at Betsy DeVos’ efforts to curb campus gender protections.

MADISON PAULY

Mother Jones

Kristin Murphy/Deseret News/AP

Nearly two years since former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos implemented controversial rules for America’s schools that lessened their responsibility to respond to sexual harassment against students, the Biden administration on Thursday unveiled a new set of proposed rules that would expand protections for student survivors of sexual assault and other kinds of sex-based discrimination under Title IX, the federal law requiring gender equity in education.

The proposed regulations would protect LGBTQ students by clarifying that the Title IX ban on sex-based discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Among other top-line changes, the proposal would roll back a DeVos-era move that narrowed the definition of sexual harassment, and would expand the obligation of schools to investigate reports of sexual assault involving students off-campus. Schools would no longer be required to hold live hearings in which students who say they were sexually assaulted could be cross-examined.

“As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of this landmark law, our proposed changes will allow us to continue that progress and ensure all our nation’s students—no matter where they live, who they are, or whom they love—can learn, grow, and thrive in school,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said on Thursday.

Read 

During President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign, he pledged to scrap and rewrite the DeVos regulations, which were drafted with the help of men’s rights activists. Since Biden took the presidency, advocates who work with student sexual assault survivors have been clamoring for him to deliver on his promise. The release of the proposed rules, timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Title IX, address one unevenness in the DeVos-era regulations that victim advocates have long criticized. Currently, schools can require a higher standard of evidence for sexual assault cases than they use in other types of discrimination cases. Under the new proposal, schools may only continue to use that higher standard—if they use it across the board.

The new rules come at the end of a school year marked by nationwide anti-rape protests as two classes of college students adjusted to their first year of campus life, with its increased risk of sexual assault—anti-rape advocates call it the “double red zone.”

Biden’s proposal for how schools should handle allegations of campus sexual assault and other sex discrimination still has a long road ahead: The proposed regulations now enter a 60-day public comment period, after which the Education Department will respond to comments, revise the rules, and publish a final version.

Backlash and possibly legal challenges are expected from conservative organizations and civil liberties groups.

Backlash and possibly legal challenges are expected from some of the conservative organizations and civil liberties groups who opposed the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX, which galvanized schools to expand protections for sexual assault survivors but also opened the door to lawsuits by students accused of sexual misconduct who said their rights had been violated by school investigations. According to NBC News’ Tyler Kingkade, Congress might also block the proposal if Republicans were to take over both houses in November.

In a statement, ACLU deputy legal director Louise Melling praised parts of the proposal but raised concerns about the move to get rid of mandatory live hearings in Title IX cases. “The proposed regulation laudably corrects the double standard imposed by the Trump administration, which dramatically reduced schools’ obligations to address sexual harassment as compared to other forms of harassment,” Melling said. “But we are concerned that the proposed rules deny those facing serious penalties in college disciplinary proceedings important procedural rights, including live hearings and cross-examination.”

Melling also called the move to enshrine protections against anti-LBGT discrimination a “critical step” amid mounting attacks by lawmakers on the rights of trans youth. Meanwhile, we can expect more proposals to address rights of trans students to participate in school athletics. In a document published today, the Education Department said it will “engage in a separate rulemaking to address Title IX’s application to the context of athletics and, in particular, what criteria recipients may be permitted to use to establish students’ eligibility to participate on a particular male or female athletic team.”

Where did the US go wrong with COVID-19?

Dr Deborah Birx discusses her time in the Trump White House as she tried to lead the US pandemic response team.

In 2020, Dr Deborah Birx was appointed to lead the White House Coronavirus Response team.

At the same time, President Donald Trump was spreading misinformation and trying to convince Americans that he had everything “totally under control”.

Two years later, the United States has more than 1 million deaths attributed to COVID-19.

Birx tells host Steve Clemons that she wrote her new book, Silent Invasion: The Untold Story of the Trump Administration, Covid-19, and Preventing the Next Pandemic Before It’s Too Late, because the US government is still not able to communicate effectively with its people when it comes to the coronavirus.

The Activist Offering: Where Are All of the Period Products?

Pads and tampons have been added to the list of items disrupted by supply chain shortages. Here are some tips for fellow menstruators.


Shelves running out of menstrual hygiene products.


BY STEPH BLACK
JUNE 23, 2022


There has been a recent addition to the list of items disrupted by supply chain shortages that might surprise you: menstrual hygiene products.

Menstrual products can’t be purchased using food stamps, and with the added cost of gas, it might be impossible for someone to find the products they actually need by driving to a different pharmacy or grocery store.

Shoppers have been posting pictures of bare shelves that were once filled with pads, tampons, and other menstrual products in pharmacies across the country. Currently, it’s difficult to pinpoint what exactly is causing the shortage, but it’s safe to say that the supply chain disruptions that have affected other products such as food, baby formula, and gas are contributing to the dearth of menstrual products available.

According to The Washington Post, the average cost of tampons has increased by nearly 10 percent in the past year. Some manufacturers claim that cotton and other materials have been difficult to source.

While some people might be just mildly inconvenienced by not being able to find their preferred brand or type of menstrual product, others struggle to afford the steeper prices or are unable to travel further to find the products they need in stock. Inadequate access to menstrual hygiene supplies is a matter of reproductive justice. This shortage is particularly affecting those who are already struggling to make ends meet, such as young people and people of color.

Menstrual products can’t be purchased using food stamps, and with the added cost of gas, it might be impossible for someone to find the products they actually need by driving to a different pharmacy or grocery store. Coupled with the fact that half of the states in this country impose something called a Pink Tax, which categorizes menstrual products as luxury goods, there is a growing panic among those who need these products.

The organization I Support The Girls is actively calling for donations of any tampons and pads as long as they’re sealed, even going so far as to request open boxes.

But people need menstrual supplies for more than just periods. Medication abortions induce heavy bleeding that requires a person to wear thick pads after their abortions. And, while heavy bleeding typically doesn’t occur after a surgical abortion, most patients will need to wear pads after their procedures. For those experiencing the tragedy of a miscarriage, having pads available is a critical part of healing.

As abortions become more inaccessible and more expensive, the additional burden of spending upward of $60 for one box of pads can be insurmountable. It’s also unclear how this will impact incarcerated menstruators, who already have an extraordinarily difficult time acquiring an adequate amount of menstrual hygiene products.

To me, this harkens back to the days when people were shunned for being on their period, when menstruation forced people to isolate themselves to manage their cycles. For some people, that reality never ended. In the past few years, we have made progress toward gender equity by making free menstrual products readily available in schools, libraries, and other public places. The number of people forced to stay home from school or work due to insufficient menstrual products has decreased tremendously. I can’t help but fear that a nationwide shortage of basic period products will reverse and maybe even worsen this.

It’s critical to remember that, even though there is a shortage of menstrual supplies, keeping tampons in the vagina for longer than recommended to prolong their use is dangerous.

For those who can afford to do so, switching to reusable methods could alleviate the burden from those who are unable to afford to do so. For example, menstrual cups and discs come in a variety of shapes and sizes that can be worn for up to twelve hours and washed after each use—and they can last up to ten years. And while cloth pads might take a bit of elbow grease to clean at the end of your cycle, they can replace the need for a box of pads every month. There are also plenty of online tutorials on how to make your own period products with a cotton t-shirt, needle, and thread.

I personally recently decided to commit to only using reusable menstrual products. I’ve used reusable products in the past but never completely got rid of my disposables. However, given the shortage and knowing that the cost of pads and tampons is at the very edge of my budget, I was able to make the upfront cost of buying reusable period products from a small, woman-owned business called Gladrags. This will save me money in the long run, but I know that solely relying on reusables might not be a reality for others.

For people using contraceptives, finding a form of birth control that will prevent your period entirely might also be an appealing alternative to buying single-use menstrual products.

You can donate sealed menstrual products to your local domestic violence or homeless shelters, and, if there are menstrual products available at your local pharmacy, consider only taking one box at a time—and leave some for the next person who needs them.

Steph Black

Steph Black is an abortion activist and writer based in Washington, D.C. She also writes a column, "The Activist Offering," for The Progressive. Read her work at stephblackstrategies.com

Senate Democrats demand that US investigate shooting death of Palestinian-American journalist in West Bank

BY LAURA KELLY - 06/23/22 

AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed
Yellow tape marks bullet holes on a tree and a portrait and flowers create a makeshift memorial at the site where Palestinian-American Al-Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed in the West Bank city of Jenin, Thursday,, May 19, 2022. Almost two weeks after the death of Abu Akleh, a reconstruction by The Associated Press lends support to assertions from both Palestinian authorities and Abu Akleh’s colleagues that the bullet that cut her down came from an Israeli gun. (AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed)

Two dozen Democratic senators on Thursday called on President Biden to get the U.S. “directly involved” in an investigation into last month’s shooting death of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was killed while reporting on an Israeli military operation in the West Bank city of Jenin.

In a letter sent to the president, the senators call for the State Department and FBI to launch an “independent investigation under U.S auspices to determine the truth” amid accusations that Abu Akleh was killed by the Israeli military.

“It is clear that neither of the parties on the ground trust the other to conduct a credible and independent investigation,” the senators wrote. “Therefore, at this point, we believe the only way to achieve that goal is for the United States to be directly involved in investigating Ms. Abu Akleh’s death.”

The letter, led by Sens. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) and Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and joined by 22 other Senate Democrats, comes ahead of Biden’s planned trip to Israel in July.

Abu Akleh, who worked for Al Jazeera for 25 years, was pronounced dead on May 11 after suffering a gunshot wound to the head, sustained while she and her news crew were operating in Jenin and covering an Israeli military operation.

One of her colleagues was also shot, and both journalists were said to be wearing helmets and bulletproof vests clearly marking them as journalists. Her colleague accused the Israeli military of shooting them.

Palestinian Authority (PA) Attorney General Akram Al-Khatib told reporters on May 26 that their investigation concluded Abu Akleh was shot by an Israeli soldier in a “deliberate murder.”

Israel criticizes the PA for rejecting offers to conduct a joint investigation into Abu Akleh’s death, and Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz rejected Al-Khatib’s statement, tweeting that “Any claim that the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] intentionally harms journalists or uninvolved civilians, is a blatant lie.”

Still, multiple media outlets have conducted investigations into Abu Akleh’s death that have pointed to Israeli military fire fatally hitting the veteran Al Jazeera journalist in the head, including The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Associated Press and the Dutch investigative outlet Bellingcat.

In a statement on Friday, the IDF said their investigation concluded that Abu Akleh “was not intentionally shot by an IDF soldier” but that it was “not possible to determine whether she was killed by a Palestinian gunman shooting indiscriminately in her area or inadvertently by an IDF soldier.”

State Department spokesperson Ned Price told reporters on Tuesday that the U.S. is “in close and constant touch with our Israeli and with our Palestinian partners” about the investigation into Abu Akleh’s death.

“We want to see the parties cooperate,” he said. “We’ve made clear our view, again, both to Israelis and Palestinians, that we seek a thorough, transparent, and impartial investigation into Shireen Abu Akleh’s killing. We expect full accountability for those responsible. And we have urged to that end … that the two sides share their evidence with one another.”

SEE

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for Shireen Abu Akleh 

British Airways workers set to strike at Heathrow

By Lauren Arena / 23 June 2022 

Travellers at Heathrow Airport will face further disruptions this summer after British Airways check-in and ground staff voted on Thursday to take industrial action over an ongoing pay dispute.

The GMB union, which represents BA workers at Heathrow, said a formal strike will be confirmed in the coming days and will likely take place during the peak summer holiday period.

According to a statement by the union, 95 per cent of BA staff who voted said they were prepared to strike, on a turnout of more than 80 per cent.

Unions members are “furious because a 10 per cent pay cut imposed on them during the pandemic has not been reinstated”. The union claims that while other BA workers have been given a 10 per cent bonus, check-in staff have received nothing.

“BA have tried to offer our members crumbs from the table in the form of a 10 per cent one-off bonus payment, but this doesn’t cut the mustard,” said GMB national officer, Nadine Houghton.

“GMB members at Heathrow have suffered untold abuse as they deal with the travel chaos caused by staff shortages and IT failures. At the same time, they’ve had their pay slashed during BA’s callous fire and rehire policy.”

She added: “It’s not too late to save the summer holidays – other BA workers have had their pay cuts reversed; [now] do the same for ground and check in staff and this industrial action can be nipped in the bid.”

In response, British Airways said it is “extremely disappointed” over the course of action chosen by union members, and that the airline will keep customers updated as the situation evolves.

“Despite the extremely challenging environment and losses of more than £4 billion, we made an offer of a 10 per cent payment which was accepted by the majority of other colleagues. We are fully committed to work together to find a solution, because to deliver for our customers and rebuild our business we have to work as a team,” it said in a statement.

The Business Travel Association (BTA) has also hit back at the union.

In a statement, BTA CEO Clive Wratten, urged all stakeholders to work better together and warned their actions will “crush confidence in international travel”.

“British Airways’ workers by voting to strike are toying with the livelihoods of businesspeople, threatening companies across the country and destroying much anticipated holidays,” he said.

ABOLISH SCOTUS

How the 1911 murder of a New York novelist by a mentally ill concert violinist led to the strictest gun law in the country which has now been struck down by SCOTUS

1911 murder of NYC novelist David Graham Phillips, 43, led to the strictest gun restrictions in the nation

Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday striking down century-old New York law

The law demanded proof of 'proper cause' for licenses to carry a concealed gun

Similar laws are on the books in other states including California and New Jersey

By ANDREA CAVALLIER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED23 June 2022

More than a century after a mentally ill concert violinist shot and killed an up-and-coming novelist in New York City, leading to the strictest gun restrictions in the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the law.

The 6-3 ruling on Thursday reversed a lower court's opinion, which had upheld the 111-year-old New York law restricting licenses to carry concealed weapons in public to those demonstrating a specific need or threat.

Following a bizarre murder-suicide in 1911 on a New York City sidewalk outside The Princeton Club - a building that was home to a legendary architect gunned down five years earlier - a local coroner's clerk's research of the city's skyrocketing gun violence led him to focus on how a deranged musician had acquired the murder weapon.

George Petit LeBrun, who wrote in his memoir that he believed that guns were too readily available to 'irresponsible persons,' and if a law restricting who was able to buy firearms was in force, then the 'insane musician could have brought the pistol used to kill the writer.'

LeBrun enlisted support from a state senator and they used the novelist's murder to push through the law that would lead to the strictest gun restrictions in the country.

That is, until today, when the Supreme Court struck down the century-old law.

David Graham Phillips, 43, was gunned down in New York City in 1911, a murder that led to the strictest gun restrictions in the nation

Phillips was walking to the The Princeton Club (depicted here) when he was shot and killed

LeBrun worked the murders of David Graham Phillips in 1911 and legendary architect Stanford White in 1906, according to a report by The Daily Beast.

David Graham Phillips, 43, was a rising literary star in 1911 when he was gunned down on the sidewalk as he walked along East 21st Street around 1:45 p.m. on his way to The Princeton Club.

The gunman, who was identified by police as Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, suddenly approached him, yelled out, 'here you go,' pulled out a .38 caliber pistol and shot Phillips five times, according to local newspaper reports.

Witnesses said the gunman then stepped in the gutter and proclaimed, 'And here I go,' before shooting himself in the head.

The body of the Harvard graduate and a concert violinist remained splayed on the curb, witnesses said, as passersby carried the man he had shot into the lobby of The Princeton Club.

The Princeton Club - which is now the site of the Grammercy Park Hotel - had previously been the home of legendary architect Stanford White. He was shot and killed at a rooftop theater at the old Madison Square Garden location five years earlier.

White had been killed in a jealous rage by Henry Thaw. Thaw's wife testified at trial that she was the mistress of White who often placed her nude on a red velvet swing in his studio.

Headlines focused more on the scandalous details and the murder weapon - a gun - was buried deep within the story. Thaw was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

LeBrun worked on the architect's murder, but it was the novelist's slaying five years later outside the same building where White had lived that compelled Lebrun to take action.

The gunman, who was identified by police as Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, shot Phillips and then shot himself (pictured)

The body of the Harvard graduate and a concert violinist remained splayed on the curb, witnesses said, as passersby carried the man he had shot into the lobby of The Princeton Club

'Although I knew Phillips only slightly, I was deeply shocked by his senseless death,' LeBrun wrote in his memoir, It's Time to Tell. 'He had many years ahead of him and might have reached the greatness and brilliance critics were predicting.'

It was reported that Goldsborough allegedly stalked Phillips without ever meeting him, and police said he falsely imagined that his family had been portrayed in one of Phillips' novels.

An entry in a notebook found on the gunman read: 'I deem Mr. Phillips an enemy to society and personal enemy to myself.'

LeBrun then discovered that Goldsborough had an easy time of getting the gun.

'He simply walked in, selected the weapon he wanted, paid for it and walked out,' he wrote in his book.

LeBrun checked police records and found there had been 170 murders by firearms in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx in 1910.

He also wrote that there had been 917 arrests for carrying a concealed weapon, which was illegal even though there were no restrictions on purchasing a gun. He continued explaining that he figured that the vast majority of gun toters were not caught.

'That means there were many thousands of armed men roaming the streets of the city,' he wrote. 'While there was a law against carrying concealed firearms it wasn't worth the ink used to print it since it did not prevent anybody from buying firearms. And it was only a minor violation, a misdemeanor, if you were caught.'

Headlines focused more on the scandalous details and the murder weapon - a gun - was buried deep within the story. Thaw was found not guilty by reason of insanity

LeBrun decided there should be a law to restrict who could get a gun in the first place.

'To me the law in existence was a perfect example of attacking a problem backwards,' he wrote. 'The law should have prevented the easy purchase of firearms rather than slightly slap a man on the wrist for carrying a pistol around.'

'I reasoned that the time had come to have legislation passed that would prevent the sale of pistols to irresponsible persons,' he wrote. 'In the vernacular of that day, 'There oughta be a law.'

LeBrun enlisted the support of influential New Yorkers and got the attention of Timothy 'Big Tim' Sullivan, a Manhattan state senator, who he found to be 'surprisingly enthusiastic' about the need for greater gun control.'

'I'll do anything to stop those shootings by gangsters,' Sullivan told LeBrun, as recounted in the memoir. 'It's terrible when an innocent person is killed. Everybody runs to me and they want me to have the cops do something, as if they weren't busy with it already. But even when gangsters kill each other, the friends and relatives come knocking on my door for money to get a lawyer and arrange bail. And they're hardly out the door when the relatives of the victim come to me for a contribution to pay for his burial.'

LeBrun enlisted the support of influential New Yorkers and got the attention of Timothy 'Big Tim' Sullivan, a Manhattan state senator, who he found to be 'surprisingly enthusiastic' about the need for greater gun control'

LeBrun explained that the law would require those seeking to buy a gun to first secure a permit issued by the police. The buyer would have to cite 'proper cause,' a particular need for self-protection such as routinely carrying large sums of cash.

'I outlined the bill I had in mind and told them that if such a law had been in force, then the insane musician could not have bought the pistol used to kill the writer,' LeBrun wrote.

Sullivan later spoke on the Senate floor recounting stories of gangs fighting in the streets.

'Last Saturday night, there was a couple of gangs fighting in the street,' Sullivan began. 'A mother with a baby in her arms came along and was shot dead. That alone ought to pass this bill.'

The Supreme Court has struck down a New York law that required applicants seeking a concealed carry license to show 'proper cause' for their request

'This is a bill against murder,' he said. '[If] this bill passes, it will do more to carry out that commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' than all the talk of all the ministers and priests for the next ten years.'

The bill passed five months later with only five senators dissenting. Variations of Sullivan's Law was later instituted in California, New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii, and Massachusetts.

New York's law, which has been in place since 1913, says that to carry a concealed handgun in public, a person applying for a license has to show 'proper cause,' a specific need to carry the weapon.

LeBrun wrote in his book that the law as written had survived numerous challenges in the courts. It continued after LeBrun's death in 1966. He was 104.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down the New York law severely restricting licenses to carry a concealed weapon, in the high court's biggest Second Amendment ruling in a decade.

The 6-3 ruling on Thursday reversed a lower court's opinion, which had upheld the 111-year-old New York law restricting licenses to carry concealed weapons in public to those demonstrating a specific need or threat.

New York is not alone in severely limiting who can get a license to carry concealed in public, and the new ruling will likely make it easier to legally carry a gun in major cities including Los Angeles, Boston and Baltimore.

The 6-3 ruling on Thursday came along ideological lines, with the court's conservative majority all voting in favor of striking down the New York law

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, writing that the New York law prevents law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The court decision comes as the Senate was poised on Thursday for a vote to advance a bipartisan gun-control bill, in what could be the first new federal gun legislation in decades.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, reacted with fury to the court ruling, saying that it flew in the face of efforts to restrict gun rights following several high-profile mass shootings.

'It is outrageous that at a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons,' Hochul wrote in a tweet.

'In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options – including calling a special session of the legislature,' the governor added.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, reacted with fury to the court ruling and said she would consider calling a special session of the legislature to respond

Court ruling will have far-reaching implications in major cities including LA, Boston and Baltimore

The new ruling will have far-reaching implications in a number of states with similar laws.

California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have similar laws.

Thursday's court ruling is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation's largest cities - including Baltimore, Los Angeles and Boston - and elsewhere.

About a quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high court's first major gun decision in more than a decade.

The ruling comes as Congress is actively working on gun legislation following recent mass shootings in Texas, New York and California.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg also slammed the ruling, saying in a statement: 'This decision severely undermines public safety not just in New York City, but around the country.'

Bragg said that his office was analyzing the ruling and would work to craft new legislation within the bounds of the court's decision.

'The Supreme Court may have made our work harder, but we will only redouble our efforts to develop new solutions to end the epidemic of gun violence and ensure lasting public safety,' he said.

The new ruling will have far-reaching implications in a number of states with similar laws.

California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have similar laws. The Biden administration had urged the justices to uphold New York´s law.

Thursday's court ruling is expected to ultimately allow more people to legally carry guns on the streets of the nation´s largest cities - including New York, Los Angeles and Boston - and elsewhere.

About a quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, the high court´s first major gun decision in more than a decade.

The ruling comes as Congress is actively working on gun legislation following recent mass shootings in Texas, New York and California.

Justice Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects 'an individual´s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.'

In their decision, the justices struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public.

The justices said the requirement violates the Second Amendment right to 'keep and bear arms.'

In a dissent joined by his liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer focused on the toll taken by gun violence. 'Since the start of this year alone (2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings-an average of more than one per day,' Breyer wrote.

Backers of New York's law had argued that striking it down would ultimately lead to more guns on the streets and higher rates of violent crime.

The decision comes at a time when gun violence already on the rise during the coronavirus pandemic has spiked anew.

In most of the country, gun owners have little difficulty legally carrying their weapons in public.

But that had been harder to do in New York and the handful of states with similar laws.

New York's law, which has been in place since 1913, says that to carry a concealed handgun in public, a person applying for a license has to show 'proper cause,' a specific need to carry the weapon.

The state issues unrestricted licenses where a person can carry their gun anywhere and restricted licenses that allow a person to carry the weapon but just for specific purposes such as hunting and target shooting or to and from their place of business.

The Supreme Court last issued a major gun decision in 2010. In that decision and a ruling from 2008 the justices established a nationwide right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

The question for the court this time was about carrying one outside the home.

The Average Beat Cop Must Take Great Comfort From This Supreme Court Gun Decision

This Court is going to leave things in ruins.

By Charles P. Pierce

ESQUIRE

Jun 23, 2022

DREW ANGERERGETTY IMAGES


WASHINGTON—By and large, this has been an optimistic week for the United States Senate. That sclerotic institution seemed to be right on the brink of actually passing a bipartisan-gun reform bill. It's a pale shadow of what’s really needed, but it's an actual law that will get passed. Hurrah. Hooray. Uvalde was enough. On Wednesday, Senator Chris Murphy, whose herculean efforts have brought the bill nearly to the finish line, told a gaggle of us, “This is a paradigm-shifting moment,” he said. “We have been able to get together and do something about guns.”

OK, senator. Can I introduce you to the United States Supreme Court? They work right across the street there.

On Thursday, the Court dropped the first of its “major” outstanding opinions, and it was every bit the whopping load of dead fish that we’ve come to expect from the carefully engineered conservative majority. From CNN:

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York gun law enacted more than a century ago that places restrictions on carrying a concealed handgun outside the home – an opinion marking the widest expansion of gun rights in a decade. “Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court’s 6-3 majority. The opinion changes the framework that lower courts will use going forward as they analyze other gun restrictions, which could include the proposals currently before Congress if they eventually become law.

You think? They even let Justice Thomas deliver the Court’s opinion on his birthday. That’s just adorable.

I mean, even Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn spent the last few days taking victory laps because 13 Republicans had signed onto an earlier procedural motion to advance Murphy’s gun-reform bill. Of course, this riled up The Base to the point where Cornyn got booed vigorously at the Texas state GOP convention. If any of these Republicans were looking for a way to bail on Murphy, the Supreme Court just gave them a good one. And, of course, it also has turned New York City into a free-fire zone, which is a vastly more important consequence.

Writing for the majority in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Thomas says, in essence, that the right to carry a personal weapon is as close to absolute as any guaranteed by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution itself. Certainly, it’s more absolute than the 14th Amendment-derived right to privacy that this Court is preparing to shred for 51 percent of the country’s population. States can regulate a woman’s body, but they can’t regulate your right to carry a gun into Wegmans. Federalism is harrrrrrd. Just as it is impossible to craft a campaign-finance law that would survive a challenge under Citizens United, it’s beyond me to come up with a way to write a gun-control law that could possibly survive Thomas’s vast expansion of Second Amendment freedoms. He blew past even the limited restrictions suggested in the Heller decision, the ones that the late Antonin Scalia used as a fig-leaf for his support of an individual right to bear arms. From the decision:

In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. In doing so, we held unconstitutional two laws that prohibited the possession and use of handguns in the home. In the years since, the Courts of Appeals have coalesced around a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny.

Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

As has been obvious to grammarians for almost three centuries, there is nothing plain about the “plain text” of the Second Amendment. But, even so, it’s a considerable leap from “a well-regulated militia” to “don’t leave home unstrapped.” Thomas went even further than that, though. He ruled that any modern gun regulation must have some “analogue” in the gun regulations of the past, and that consideration of the relative damage of modern weaponry cannot be the basis of modern regulation.

The test that the Court set forth in Heller and applies today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Of course, the regulatory challenges posed by firearms today are not always the same as those that preoccupied the Founders in 1791 or the Reconstruction generation in 1868. But the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated, even though its meaning is fixed according to the understandings of those who ratified it. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, 404–405. Indeed, the Court recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.”

Thus, if your triple-great-grandpappy had an individual right to a flintlock musket, you have an individual right to an AR-15. The average beat cop must take great comfort in this, now that every traffic stop is even more of a crapshoot. Ironically, Murphy’s gun law passed the Senate with a dozen Republicans voting in favor. But the only Republicans who matter are the six who work across the street.

In other action, the Court took a serious whack at the Miranda decision. You still have your rights, mind you—for the moment, anyway. But if the cops bust you and refuse to read them to you, you can’t sue them for that anymore. From Reuters:
The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of deputy sheriff Carlos Vega, who had appealed a lower court decision reviving a lawsuit by a hospital employee named Terence Tekoh who accused the officer of violating his rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Tekoh was charged with sexually assaulting a hospital patient after Vega obtained a written confession from him without first informing the suspect of his rights through so-called Miranda warnings. Tekoh was acquitted at trial.

Ominously, the majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, whose respect for the rights of criminal suspects, and ordinary citizens, is not vast. More ominously, Alito seems to be alluding to the possibility that Miranda’s time may be running out, too. The conservative legal ecosystem in which Alito was raised has had the decision in its sights almost from the moment it was handed down.

Miranda itself was clear on this point. Miranda did not hold that a violation of the rules it established necessarily constitute a Fifth Amendment violation, and it is difficult to see how it could have held otherwise. For one thing, it is easy to imagine many situations in which an un-Mirandized suspect in custody may make self-incriminating statements without any hint of compulsion.

Tell me you’ve never been in custody without telling me you’ve never been in custody.
In addition, the warnings that the Court required included components, such as notification of the right to have retained or appointed counsel present during questioning, that do not concern self-incrimination per se but are instead plainly designed to safeguard that right. And the same is true of Miranda’s detailed rules about the waiver of the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

This Court is going to leave things in ruins.

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

BY JEFFREY M. JONES

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• 25% of Americans have confidence in Supreme Court, down from 36% in 2021
• Current reading is five percentage points lower than prior record low
• Confidence is down among Democrats and independents this year

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With the U.S. Supreme Court expected to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision before the end of its 2021-2022 term, Americans' confidence in the court has dropped sharply over the past year and reached a new low in Gallup's nearly 50-year trend. Twenty-five percent of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, down from 36% a year ago and five percentage points lower than the previous low recorded in 2014.

These results are based on a June 1-20 Gallup poll that included Gallup's annual update on confidence in U.S. institutions. The survey was completed before the end of the court's term and before it issued its major rulings for that term. Many institutions have suffered a decline in confidence this year, but the 11-point drop in confidence in the Supreme Court is roughly double what it is for most institutions that experienced a decline. Gallup will release the remainder of the confidence in institutions results in early July.

The Supreme Court is likely to issue a ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case before its summer recess. The decision will determine the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. A leaked draft majority opinion in the case suggests that the high court will not only allow the Mississippi law to stand, but also overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court ruling that prohibits restrictions on abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Americans oppose overturning Roe by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

In September, Gallup found the Supreme Court's job approval rating at a new low and public trust in the judicial branch of the federal government down sharply. These changes occurred after the Supreme Court declined to block a Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, among other controversial decisions at that time. Given these prior results, it is unclear if the drop in confidence in the Supreme Court measured in the current poll is related to the anticipated Dobbs decision or had occurred several months before the leak.

The prior low in Supreme Court confidence was 30% in 2014, which was also the year when confidence in major U.S. institutions in general hit a low point, averaging 31%.

Public confidence in the Supreme Court has been lower over the past 16 years than it was before. Between 1973 and 2006, an average of 47% of U.S. adults were confident in the court. During this 33-year period, no fewer than four in 10 Americans expressed high confidence in the court in any survey, apart from a 39% reading in October 1991 taken during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Since 2006, confidence has averaged 35% and has not exceeded 40% in any survey.

Democrats, Independents Behind Confidence Slide

Confidence in the Supreme Court is down by double digits among both Democrats (30% to 13%) and independents (40% to 25%) this year, but it is essentially unchanged among Republicans (37% to 39%)

The Democratic figure is the lowest Supreme Court confidence rating Gallup has measured for any party group historically, eight points lower than the 21% figure among Democrats in 2019. Independents' 25% confidence rating is the lowest registered for that group historically, with the prior low being 28% in 2015.

Republican confidence has been lower in the past than now, with the 26% measured in 2010 still the lowest for GOP supporters to date. That low point occurred after Barack Obama picked a liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor, in 2009 and nominated another, Elena Kagan, in 2010 before the poll was conducted.

While Republicans' confidence hasn't changed much in the past year, it has come down significantly from 53% in 2020. That measure was taken during Donald Trump's reelection year -- after he had two of his nominees confirmed to the Supreme Court, but before a third Trump justice was confirmed days prior to his being defeated for reelection in November.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court is likely to issue one of its most consequential rulings at a time when public confidence in the institution has never been lower. If, as expected, the conservative-leaning court rules to overturn Roe v. Wade, it is unclear whether that decision would further harm the institution's reputation among Americans or perhaps improve it if Americans agree with the court's reasoning. Invalidating Roe would allow state governments to decide whether abortion is legal or illegal in their state.

The public may have already taken the Supreme Court's stance on the abortion issue into account, with its decision on the Texas law and the leaked draft majority opinion on the Mississippi law. But an actual, rather than hypothetical or expected, decision may have more potency in shifting Americans' views of the court.

Learn more about how the Gallup Poll Social Series works.

View complete question responses and trends (PDF download).