Friday, December 09, 2022

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

Quebec to send billions to seniors, workers as growth stalls

A sharp decline in economic growth in Quebec won’t stop the provincial government from handing out billions to residents coping with high inflation.

The economy in Canada’s second-largest province will grow just 0.7 per cent next year, according to projections in Finance Minister Eric Girard’s economic and financial update on Thursday. That’s down from a forecast of 2 per cent in his March budget.

Girard confirmed the government plans to spend more than $13 billion (US$9.6 billion) over five years on a fiscal package it’s calling the “anti-inflation shield”. The biggest item is a $8.1 billion tax credit for seniors over 70 — the amount will rise from $411 to US$2,000.

“The economy is definitely slowing, there are risks,” Girard said at a news conference in Quebec City, citing the rapid rise in interest rates. “The cumulative effect of the Bank of Canada’s 400 basis points has not yet reached the economy.” 

Premier Francois Legault’s government has already announced other measures, including payments of as much as $600 to Quebec residents earning less than $100,000. The price tag is $3.5 billion.

Despite the new spending, Quebec’s deficit will improve for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, because inflation gave a boost to revenue, the government said. The new forecasts see a shortfall of $4.8 billion, compared with a $6.5 billion deficit in the original budget.  

“The government has chosen to give Quebecers back its additional revenue. This money is Quebecers’ money,” Girard said. He rejected the idea the fiscal package is inflationary, saying the measures will only increase consumer prices by 0.1 percentage points.

The minister’s fiscal update also included a recession scenario in which gross domestic product falls by 1 per cent next year. In that case, the budget deficit would jump by C$1.9 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year, bringing the projected shortfall to $4.1 billion.

Trans Mountain fined for 2020 death of pipeline expansion worker

The Canada Energy Regulator has issued financial penalties against Trans Mountain Corp. related to the 2020 death of a worker.

The regulator says the Crown corporation failed to take all reasonable care to ensure the safety and security of workers on the day of the incident.

The incident occurred on Oct. 27, 2020, when a person working near Edmonton, Alta. on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project was fatally injured.

The person was disassembling a trench box at the time.

The regulator has issued total fines of $164,000 against the company.

Alberta Occupational Health and Safety has also laid charges related to this incident.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 8, 2022.



DA drops felony drug charge against Denver’s mushroom rabbi, citing voter legalization of psilocybin

Ben Gorelick, founder of a psilocybin-using religious group called The Sacred Tribe, was arrested in February


Rabbi Ben Gorelick is founder of The Sacred Tribe, a religious group in Denver that used psilocybin ceremoniously. Gorelick was charged with a felony after police raided a warehouse he used to grow psychedelic mushrooms. On Dec. 8, the charge was dismissed was the DA. (Photo by Andy Cross/The Denver Post)

PUBLISHED: December 8, 2022

The Denver District Attorney’s Office on Thursday dismissed a felony drug case against a rabbi charged with manufacturing psilocybin, citing the voter-approved Proposition 122, which legalized psychedelics, including psilocybin, for medicinal use.

At an arraignment hearing, a representative of the Denver District Attorney’s Office said the case was being dismissed against Ben Gorelick “in the interest of justice.” Carolyn Tyler, a spokesperson for the DA’s office, said the dismissal came about “in light of the voters’ decision” on Proposition 122.

RELATED: Mushroom rabbi grows ceremonial psilocybin for Denver congregation — but is that legal?

Gorelick was arrested in February after police raided a warehouse in north Denver where he was growing more than 30 different types of psychedelic mushrooms. He had been charged with possession with intent to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance, a first-degree felony.

The case against a chemist who was arrested during the January raid also was dismissed Thursday, Tyler said.

Gorelick is the founder of The Sacred Tribe, a Denver-based religious group that used psilocybin ceremoniously until the police raid last winter. Several members of the group were in the courtroom Thursday and celebrated when the dismissal was announced.

“I don’t know what everything got dismissed on or for,” Gorelick told The Denver Post. “At this point in time, what I can tell you is I’m very, very, very grateful to the DA’s office for dropping the case. It’s been a long year for the community, it’s been a long year for us, and we look forward to getting back to practicing our religion, which is what the whole point of this is.”
Previous










Andy Cross, The Denver Post
Rabbi Ben Gorelick, measures out a precise amount of sacrament, psilocybin mushrooms, during The Sacred Tribe's ceremony on Nov. 6, 2021.

After the police raid, The Sacred Tribe temporarily suspended gatherings but has since convened for Shabbat dinners and other events — sans psychedelic substances. Elle Logan, who has been a member since 2021, said the case “broke the community in a lot of ways,” but that she wasn’t surprised the charges were dismissed.

“The psychedelic movement, the plant medicine movement, and with Prop 122 passing, there’s amazing momentum going into a brand new future that looks really different for a lot of people in terms of mental health and spiritual wellness,” Logan said. “Ben’s heart has been in that place from the get-go… I’ve known his heart the whole time, that’s never been in question and I’m glad the court saw it too.”

Public enthusiasm around psychedelics has been growing in recent years, as clinical research has yielded promising results in their ability to treat ailments like post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. In November, Colorado voters approved Proposition 122, which legalized psilocybin and psilocin for medicinal use.

Denver became the first city in the U.S. to decriminalize psilocybin in 2019. Last year, Denver District Attorney Beth McCann was on a panel that recommended the city loosen laws further after studying the effects and concluding it “has not since presented any significant public health or safety risk in the city.”

The Criminalisation of Cannabis Costs Australia Massively, Study Finds

In the 2015-16 financial year alone, more than $1.7 billion was spent on enforcement.


By John Buckley
December 8, 2022, 


PHOTO BY LAUREN DECICCA / GETTY IMAGES

Over the last 12 years, more than 90 percent of the 700,000 cannabis-related offences across Australia have been for personal use or possession, a new study has found. Its authors hope the study’s findings can help pave the way for full legalisation.

Earlier this week, the Pennington Institute, a public health non-profit based in Melbourne, released a new technical study that analyses the space occupied by cannabis in the life of Australians across the country. Research looked into how the drug has become a driver of mass arrests, the social economic costs that have come with overloading the criminal justice system and, ultimately, just how far “out-of-step” Australia has drifted from other major economies on regulation.

“The pace of change across the world in the understanding of cannabis and its regulation and management has accelerated dramatically in recent years,” said John Ryan, chief executive of the Pennington Institute.

“Many jurisdictions are providing regulated access rather than simple prohibition with medicinal cannabis now mainstream in many countries. In Australia, a shift to diversion from the criminal justice system more than 20 years ago was led by the Howard government. More recently, significant reform to enable national medicinal cannabis access by the Abbott government.”

The days of former prime minister Tony Abbott have receded far into the rearview mirror for scores of the nation—and so have the conservative attitudes towards cannabis associated with his party’s politics. Ryan suggests this leaves the door open to federal leaders to forge a path towards full legalisation.

JOHN BUCKLEY
07.28.22


In July this year, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released new data that showed attitudes towards cannabis legalisation have shifted exponentially over the last decade.

The results paint a striking portrait of Australia’s changing perceptions of cannabis, as well as other illicit substances. Most striking of all, perhaps, is how those attitudes have started to shift throughout some of the nation’s most conservative regions.

In the Queensland seat of Dickson, for instance, which is currently held by opposition leader Peter Dutton, the survey’s results suggested a community sentiment at odds with the law and order fanfare sold to the nation in parliament.

There, those who think cannabis should be legalised made up 40 percent of those surveyed in the electorate, nearly double the cohort who felt that way in 2010. Cannabis was looked upon with similar favorability in Barnaby Joyce’s electorate, New England, along with the seat of Maranoa, currently occupied by Nationals leader, David Littleproud.

Even still, all states and territories have some sort of ban in place on cannabis. In the Northern Territory and South Australia, low-level cannabis use is decriminalised, and is usually punished by fines instead of criminal penalties. In New South Wales, those caught with the drug get “two strikes” before facing tougher charges.

In the Australian Capital Territory, meanwhile, adults can grow up to two plants and carry small amounts for personal use, but cultivating massive crops with the intention of selling or distributing is still illegal.

As a result, arrests for personal—or “low-level”—cannabis offences plummeted after the ACT’s reforms came into effect at the end of January 2020. Around the country, though, the costs of enforcing widespread prohibition of the substance continue to cost millions.

According to the Pennington Institute, the cost of enforcement is enormous. The average cost for police, the courts, and various other agencies in terms of a cannabis charge is estimated at $1,918 per person. In the 2015-16 financial year alone, more than $1.7 billion was spent on enforcement.

The bulk of that went to prisons—many of them private businesses—which pocketed $1.1 billion, while $475 million was spent on policing weed, $62 million was spent on litigating the matters in court, and another $52 million on legal aid and prosecution.

The social costs, too, are glaringly steep.

Most jurisdictions have “diversion” programs in place for people that get caught with drugs that have a low “risk profile”, like weed, which often sees them escape a charge in place of a fine or treatment of some kind. Invariably, though, these diversion programs rarely benefit marginalised groups, whose futures lay in the hands of police discretion during fleeting, chance encounters.

JOHN BUCKLEY 
05.10.22


The report also found that diversion is less likely for First Nations people and others from “socially disadvantaged groups”, which exceedingly sees them put at greater risk of harm from being criminalised by prohibition.

At the Pennington Institute, the view is that Australia’s broadly adopted prohibition model is at once ineffective and inefficient.

“It fails to control supply, leaves the market in the hands of criminals, and costs billions of dollars in enforcement, all while exposing people to the harms of criminalisation,” the authors said.

The sentiment is shared by a swarm of other leading public health experts and harm reduction advocates. Even still, Australia’s major parties appear immovable on considering reform.

As much was made clear as recently as September, when the Greens said they had received new legal advice from a constitutional law expert who suggested the federal government could legalise cannabis federally, in one clean sweep.

Nobody, it seemed, was interested.

Follow John on Twitter.

Read more from VICE Australia and subscribe to our weekly newsletter, This Week Online.
(WHITE MALE)
Math Teachers in Virtual Classes Tend To View Girls and Black Students as Less Capable

In virtual classrooms, math teachers deem Black students as less capable than white students.


December 9, 2022 
and Joseph Cimpian, New York University

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The big idea

In virtual classrooms, math teachers deem Black students as less capable than white students. They also view girls as less capable than boys. That’s what we found after we conducted an experiment with 1,000 teachers in schools throughout the United States.

For our experiment, we had teachers evaluate student answers to various math problems. Those answers were accompanied by images of different students online. We asked them to tell us how correct the students’ answers were. We also asked them to tell us how capable they thought the student was and how likely they would be to refer the student to be tested for a special education program to get extra help, or a gifted program, which would enable them to do more advanced work. We randomly changed the images of students presenting their solutions in Zoom classes to show Black and white girls and boys. However, the solutions stayed the same.

We found that teachers more often thought the student needed to be tested for special education when they saw a screenshot of a Black student explaining their answer rather than a white student. The teachers more often thought the student was gifted if the screenshot showed a boy rather than a girl.

Furthermore, our study showed that when teachers work in schools that serve higher concentrations of Black students, they often assumed that Black students had less math ability than white students. They also considered them more in need of instructional support. But in schools with virtually no Black students, teachers were more likely to say that white boys should be tested for a gifted and talented program than white girls.

Why it matters

Our experiment suggests teachers are identifying Black students as potentially having disabilities more often than white students who produced the same answers to math problems. Further, girls are not being given equal chances to be placed in gifted programs even when they give answers identical to those given by boys.

As virtual instruction is expected to become more commonplace than before the pandemic, our study warns that virtual classrooms may perpetuate the same biases that exist in traditional school settings.
What other research is being done

Researchers are still trying to understand whether the overrepresentation of minority students in special education is the result of systematic racial bias.

As we found in this study and in our prior work, teachers assumed boys had a higher ability than girls when both gave answers that were not fully correct. Such blind trust in boys’ math ability can boost their confidence and may embolden them to pursue math-intensive fields at a higher rate than girls, who are not seen by teachers as having as high a math ability.


Yasemin Copur-Gencturk, Associate Professor of Education, University of Southern California; I

an Thacker, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at San Antonio,

 and Joseph Cimpian, Professor of Economics and Education Policy, New York University

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

 

Financial Aid or Financial Burden? Harvard Law School Alumni Say the School’s Low Income Protection Plan Falls Short

Launched in 1978, LIPP aims to reduce the burden of student debt by subsidizing loan repayments for graduates pursuing government, public sector, academic, or other low-income jobs.
Launched in 1978, LIPP aims to reduce the burden of student debt by subsidizing loan repayments for graduates pursuing government, public sector, academic, or other low-income jobs. By Julian J. Giordano
By Ryan H. Doan-Nguyen and John N. Peña, Crimson Staff Writers
December 9, 2022

When Katherine J. “Katie” Taylor chose Harvard Law School over a full scholarship to the University of Alabama School of Law, she had her sights set on a public interest legal career.

Though HLS would not match the financial aid Alabama offered, Taylor trusted the school would support her ambitions to work a low-paying public interest job through its Low-Income Protection Plan.

Launched in 1978, LIPP aims to reduce the burden of student debt by subsidizing loan repayments for graduates pursuing government, public sector, academic, or other low-income jobs. Participants earning more than $55,000 per year are asked to contribute a limited percentage of their annual income toward monthly loan repayments and receive subsidies from Harvard to cover the rest.

“Through LIPP, Harvard Law School is committed to preserving freedom of job choice within the legal profession for its graduates,” the school’s website reads.

But Taylor — now an immigration attorney for Kentucky Refugee Ministries, a nonprofit — said she may have to reconsider her decision to work in public service because of the financial burden her expected LIPP contributions pose.

Law School students and alumni have long criticized the program, calling for increases in transparency, the number of accepted participants, and the amount of support offered. In 2017, a group of alumni formed the Coalition to Improve LIPP and wrote an open letter to HLS Dean John F. Manning ’82 claiming LIPP fell short of similar programs offered by peer institutions.

In response to calls for reform throughout the last four decades, the Law School has implemented a series of changes to the program, such as boosting allowances for childcare and upping support for transitions between jobs. In May, LIPP saw the most significant reform since its establishment: a 14.5 percent increase in its contribution scale, boosting participants’ calculated subsidies.

But despite these improvements, students and alumni maintain that LIPP fails to sufficiently support graduates pursuing public interest careers. Critics of the program point to its methodology for incorporating assets other than personal income — such as retirement savings, home value, personal savings, and spousal income — into calculations for participants’ expected contributions.

As they navigate post-graduate life, some participants say they feel caged in by the volatility of their LIPP payments — a fear that has factored into decisions about marriage, promotions, and career changes.

“It just feels like in a lot of ways, it has people balancing on the edge of a cliff,” LIPP participant Andrea F. Forsee said of the program.

‘I’m Living Paycheck to Paycheck’

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. housing market surged, with home prices jumping 45 percent from December 2019 to June 2022. For Taylor, who graduated HLS in 2017, the boom triggered an unexpected drop in LIPP assistance.

In calculating subsidies, LIPP takes into account a participant’s non-income assets, including home equity. After her home value soared from $131,000 to $200,000, Taylor saw her expected monthly contributions rise from zero to nearly $500 despite no change in her income.

“They acted like it was like I had $70,000 of cash, which just was not reality,” she said.

Law School spokesperson Jeff Neal wrote in an email that the program aims to allow participants to report the lowest valuation on their home. LIPP participants are asked to submit the lowest value of their house from one of three major valuation websites during the fall or winter, when the housing market is typically the slowest.

“It would not be equitable to give the same LIPP award to two participants who have vastly different assets, be they liquid or not,” Neal wrote.

But Taylor, a foster parent, says the increase in her monthly payment has pressured her to consider whether to prioritize owning a house or continuing to work in public service.

“Five hundred dollars a month is hard,” she said. “It's hard for me to make work, and I can do it right now, but I don't know how long I can do that for.”

Other LIPP participants similarly voiced concerns about the financial challenges they face as members of the program.

Emmy F. Williams, who graduated from the Law School in 2019, said the promise of post-graduate financial assistance made HLS her “dream law school.” After accepting a clerkship in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit after graduation, however, she “started to realize that LIPP took a lot of [her] salary.”

"I feel that I’m living paycheck to paycheck,” Williams said. “I’m not able to plan for retirement. I’m not able to put savings away.”

Elizabeth S. Feldstein, a 2021 Law School graduate, said her expected monthly contributions to LIPP “doubled or tripled” after she took an entry-level attorney position within the federal government.

“At this point, I think it’s about half of my rent,” she said.

Still, some former LIPP recipients said they were grateful for the program because it allowed them to work in public interest without needing to worry about large law school debt.

Leah A. Plunkett ’01, a former LIPP recipient and the Law School’s Assistant Dean for Learning Experience & Technology, said she paid off roughly three quarters of her law school debt with LIPP.

“I went to HLS in large part because of its LIPP program, and LIPP delivered for me in terms of setting me up for a public service career,” she said.

Mercedes H. Montagnes said LIPP was the only reason she could pay off her loans from HLS as a civil rights attorney.

“There’s no way I would have been able to do the career that I have, with the stability that I’ve had,” she said. “And now my loans are completely paid off.”

Jordi I. Torres, a 2013 graduate of HLS, said he feels “pretty lucky” for the support LIPP offers, but held that the program still has room for improvement.

“Could Harvard do better? Sure, Harvard has a lot of money,” he said. “And so could that go to just better supporting students in public interest? I think that’s always going to be true.”

‘The Crushing Weight’

While graduating from HLS opens the door to public interest legal work, some alumni say LIPP — governed by a web of policies and formulas — presents a barrier to career advancement and personal milestones.

For Forsee, a 2021 graduate of the Law School, LIPP’s policy on spousal income factors into her decision on when to marry her boyfriend, who earns a higher income than she does.

“I'm certainly figuring out marriage and trying to decide when to do that,” Forsee said. “The timing is a lot based on LIPP for me and my boyfriend.”

According to LIPP policies, if a graduate earns more than their spouse, only the graduate’s income is considered in calculating monthly contributions. If a graduate earns less than their spouse, the contributions are based on the pair’s average income after deducting the spouse’s educational loan payments.

Some participants say LIPP’s policies disincentivize marriage and job promotions.

“LIPP gets the benefit when you are married to someone who’s a high earner, but you don't get the benefit if you’re married to someone who’s a low earner or potentially legally unable to work due to immigration,” Laura O. Rockmore, a 2020 HLS graduate, said.

Rockmore participated in LIPP while working as a clerk after law school but subsequently accepted a job “a couple grand” over the income threshold. Asked to pay back the year of assistance she had received, Rockmore said the Law School would not take into account the financial support she provides for her wife, who is unable to work.

“I’m actually having to move out of the city into my parents’ house just because I want to be able to afford a house someday,” she said. “I just don’t really see that happening — just with the crushing weight of the loans and supporting two people and not being able to get any of the assistance.”

“I sometimes wish I’d asked my law firm to give me a lower starting salary because then I could have stayed on LIPP,” Rockmore added.

Neal wrote in an email that loan repayment assistance programs at peer institutions also take spousal income and assets into account, adding that need-based programs like LIPP aim to consider all resources available to a participant.

“It would not be equitable to give the same LIPP award to two participants who have vastly different household incomes,” he wrote.

LIPP’s contribution formulas also struggle to account for unexpected non-discretionary expenses and non-income assets, some participants claim.

Williams said she suffers from a chronic illness that generates “high and unpredictable healthcare costs.” When she approached HLS about the expenses, she said, the school refused her request for adjusted monthly LIPP contributions.

According to the LIPP policies website, the program does not regularly make allowances for out-of-pocket medical expenses, but Neal wrote that HLS considers “extenuating circumstances” when calculating the amount of loan repayment aid offered to a participant each year.

“Not having any savings is very stressful as someone with a disability in case I need to go to the emergency room or in case I need to have a procedure done or things like that,” Williams said.

Some LIPP recipients have also voiced complaints about the program’s restrictions on personal savings. The program allows new participants to maintain up to $10,000 in non-income assets — including personal savings, retirement savings, investment equity, and home equity — that will not factor into expected monthly contribution calculations. For each full year of employment after college, participants receive an additional $10,000 of protected asset allowance.

Molly Prothero, a 2021 HLS graduate, said her year of employment prior to law school was deemed ineligible for additional asset protection. Despite working “well over 40 hours a week,” Prothero did not hold full time employment, only two part-time jobs.

“I had an unpaid internship, and I worked at a restaurant at night,” she said. “But because neither of those are considered full-time jobs, I did not get any asset protection for that year.”

Neal said the Law School offers generous asset protection to LIPP-eligible graduates.

“We are constantly monitoring whether the asset protection allowance is serving eligible graduates, and we make adjustments when needed,” he added.

But Taylor said that since her house equity increased, nearly all of her LIPP contributions result from her non-income assets exceeding the amount protected by the program.

“All the money I have in savings counts 100 percent against me on the asset allowance,” she noted, saying she tries to build up savings for the kids she fosters.

“So you’re saying I make under the income [threshold]? Great,” she added. “Well, then why does it matter whether I spend it or save it?”

‘We’re Not Alone’

Online, more than 600 HLS students and alumni have gathered in a Facebook group called “Living on LIPP” dedicated to sharing information about the program.

Rockmore, a member of the group, said she has seen posts voicing concerns about LIPP “for many, many years,” with some participants struggling to manage child care costs, mortgage payments, or retirement funds.

According to Williams — who is also part of the Facebook group — some Living on LIPP members have done their own calculations to determine “what the sweet spot salary is and how much you can actually take home from a salary increase.”

“People are definitely organizing. They’re coming together,” Williams said. “And I think we’re realizing that we’re not alone in feeling financially stressed.”

Brendan R. Schneiderman, a 2021 HLS graduate, said those advocating for LIPP reform target three main areas for improvement: adjusting the participant contribution scale, changing how assets are accounted for, and decreasing the impact of marriage on LIPP calculations.

“Just imagine what it would be like if Harvard put its money where its mouth was on supporting public interest students,” Schneiderman said. “We would see a radically different school, and we would see a dramatic impact on the legal profession as a whole.”

LIPP recipient Steven A. Palmer added that the program falls short of the Loan Repayment Assistance Program offered by the New York University School of Law, which covers the full debt of graduates who earn salaries below $100,000.

Neal wrote that HLS is one of just two schools in the country to offer exclusively need-based financial aid, adding that the Law School’s spending on financial aid grants has doubled over the past decade. The Law School also recently expanded its Summer Public Interest Fund, a program aimed at allowing students to pursue unpaid or underpaid public interest jobs.

Palmer said he does not recommend HLS for prospective law students who know they want to work in public interest law.

“I would say, for now, you shouldn’t look at Harvard — look at NYU,” he said.

—Staff writer Ryan H. Doan-Nguyen can be reached at ryan.doannguyen@thecrimson.com. Follow him on Twitter @ryandoannguyen.

— Staff writer John N. Peña can be reached at john.pena@thecrimson.com.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

 

Harvard Students March For Palestinian Lives in Harvard Yard

The Harvard College Palestinian Solidarity Committee held a protest in Harvard Yard on Wednesday.
The Harvard College Palestinian Solidarity Committee held a protest in Harvard Yard on Wednesday. By Miles J. Herszenhorn
By Miles J. Herszenhorn, Crimson Staff Writer
December 9, 2022

More than two dozen students held a a vigil and staged a rally in Harvard Yard on Wednesday afternoon to protest the recent killings of several Palestinian citizens.

Attendees gathered in the rain near the John Harvard statue for a moment of silence, reading out the names of 12 Palestinians who were killed by Israeli forces in the last two weeks. The protestors then marched through Harvard Square calling for the liberation of Palestine and Harvard’s divestment from “Israeli Apartheid.”

Sanaa M. Kahloon ’25 — a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Committee, the student group responsible for the event — said she helped organize the protest to “make sure that people on campus are aware of human rights abuses that are going on.”

“Human rights abuses affect our community because we do have Palestinians and Palestinian Americans as part of our Harvard community,” Kahloon said. “These are issues that take up their daily consciousness, and it should take up ours here at Harvard too.”

Tor Wennesland, the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, told the UN Security Council in late October that “2022 is on course to be the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank” since the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs began tracking data in 2005.

The UN OCHA has reported 168 Palestinian fatalities in 2022, according to the most recent data.

Joshua D. “Josh” Willcox ’23, a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Committee, called on Harvard to end its “complicity in the oppression of Palestinians” during the rally.

“We demand that Harvard, one: disclose direct and indirect investments in companies complicit in human rights abuses towards Palestinians, two: divest all direct and indirect holdings in these companies, three: reinvest in Palestinian history, culture and communities,” Willcox said.

Harvard University spokesperson Jason A. Newton declined to comment on the protest.

Shraddha Joshi ’24 told the crowd at the rally that United States residents and Harvard students are both “complicit in the oppression of Palestinians.”

“Let’s ask ourselves how we can continue advocating for Palestine and human rights even when it’s not comfortable,” Joshi said. “In our classes, in our affinity spaces, amongst our friends, in the professional choices we make, let’s call out the ‘progressive except for Palestine’ double standard.”

Charlie K. Benjamin ’26, who spoke at the rally, urged attendees to read a report about Harvard’s investments published by an array of student advocacy groups in November. The student groups staged a protest at the Harvard-Yale football game to raise awareness about the report.

“We want proof in our hands that this university is not exploiting marginalized and oppressed groups around the world,” Benjamin said. “We demand that Harvard start advocating for a free Palestine, liberated from the violent colonial apartheid regime.”

“So thank you all for coming and free, free Palestine,” Benjamin added.

—Staff writer Miles J. Herszenhorn can be reached at miles.herszenhorn@thecrimson.com. Follow him on Twitter @MHerszenhorn.

Airport Workers Protest Unfair Working Conditions And Push For Legislative Action

Baggage handlers, cabin cleaners, janitors, security guards, wheelchair attendants and other workers say they need better protections.



Shruti Rajkumar
Dec 8, 2022, 

Airport workers called on Congress to pass the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act.
JEMAL COUNTESS/GETTY IMAGES FOR SEIU

Thousands of airport workers across the country protested unfair wages and labor practices on Thursday and demanded that Congress take action to protect them.

Airport services workers, including baggage handlers, cabin cleaners, janitors, security guards and wheelchair attendants rallied in 15 cities across the U.S. to demand better working conditions and living wages, according to the Service Employees International Union. Workers in three major hubs ― Chicago, Boston and Newark ― went on strike.

The latest action comes nearly nine months after airport workers staged major protests nationwide over their working conditions.

“We’re calling on Congress to get major airlines to make sure that they invest in frontline workers all across this country,” SEIU president Mary Kay Henry said in a video for the union’s Twitter.


The wages of airport service workers have been near the poverty level for decades, according to SEIU. Verna Montalvo, a cabin cleaner at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, said during a Thursday news conference on Capitol Hill that people work overtime just to make ends meet, but even then, the pay is still “not enough.”

“Airport workers like me and working people all across the economy are fed up. Without us, no one could travel safely to visit their families over the holidays,” Montalvo said in a separate statement shared by SEIU. “Seeing smiles on passengers’ faces gives me a huge sense of pride, but it comes at a huge cost when I can’t support my own family on poverty wages.”

Airport service workers have been asking corporations for living wages, affordable health care, sick days and other protections since the beginning of the pandemic, SEIU said in a statement.

Workers urged Congress to hold corporations accountable through the Good Jobs For Good Airports Act, which would require all major airports that receive federal funding to set minimum wage and benefit standards.

The legislation was introduced in June by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Jesús García (D-Ill.).

“Airport workers risked their own health and the safety of their families to keep America moving during the pandemic. The least we can do is ensure they have good wages, decent benefits, and safe working conditions,” García said in a statement at the time.

Markey and other members of Congress joined workers and allies at their press conference.

“If the federal government is giving $11 billion to the airports of our country, they have to share it with the workers at the airport,” Markey said. “They must get the benefits from the federal money which we put in. That’s what we’re going to fight for and that’s what we’re going to make the law of the United States of America.”

Thursday, December 08, 2022

COP15
FOR WHOSE PROTECTION?


ANALYSIS
25 November 2022
Land

A target to turn 30 per cent of the world’s land into protected areas for nature by 2030 is set to be agreed by world leaders in December. But not everyone is happy about it, as Amy Hall reports.
Around 700 families were evicted from the Amchang Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam, India in November 2017, following an order of the Guwahati High Court.
 ZUMA PRESS /ALAMY

One million species risk becoming extinct ‘within decades’, according to the UN. It’s a sobering thought.

A looming threat that is largely due to human activity, whether through direct habitat destruction or the impacts of climate change and pollution. We need to face up to that.

It’s clear that bold action is needed – so why has a proposal to make 30 per cent of the land on Earth protected areas for nature by 2030 triggered a global campaign against it? Due to be signed-off at the UN biodiversity conference in Canada this December, the 30-per-cent target is part of an action plan known as the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. But it has been dubbed ‘the biggest land grab in history’ by critics who say that if this target is agreed, it could lead to mass evictions and abuses against Indigenous peoples and other communities, plunging millions into landless poverty.

This year, footage of the violent dispossession of thousands of Maasai from Loliondo in Ngorongoro District, Tanzania provoked an international outcry. On 7 June an estimated 700 security officers – including police, park rangers and military – arrived to demarcate land in preparation for evictions to make way for the expansion of a conservation area and a private hunting reserve owned by the UAE-based Otterlo Business Corporation. Dozens of people were wounded as live ammunition and tear gas were reportedly turned on protesters. It’s scenes like this that many Indigenous groups and allies say are likely to be instigated by the push for 30x30.

‘There was a lot of violence,’ explains Yannick Ndoinyo, Maasai leader and Executive Director at Traditional Ecosystems Survival Tanzania, speaking on the phone from Nairobi. ‘Everyone was being arrested and criminalized. Some people ran away and were hiding. Now, nobody is there to protect the land.’

FORTRESS CONSERVATION


Evictions and violence have long been used to establish and expand protected areas across the world. The US was the first to create ‘national’ parks with Yellowstone and Yosemite, which led to Indigenous people, and others, being pushed from the land: that model was exported across the world. The Maasai have faced several waves of often violent expulsion since the British colonial government established the Serengeti National Park in northern Tanzania in 1959.

‘Since the beginning they are established as white places, places where the people who are living there and who have been central in taking care of the land can’t live anymore,’ says Fiore Longo, a campaigner with Survival International. ‘But Europeans, both for science and for tourism, can get access.’

More than 250,000 people in 15 countries are thought to have suffered eviction due to the demarcation and creation of protected areas between 1990 and 2014. ‘The idea is born out of ignorance,’ says Ndoinyo. ‘It discriminates against people who will be impacted by the decision.’

Human rights organization Survival International predicts that, under the 30x30 proposal, 300 million people stand to lose their lands.

It is feared that such a push for more protected areas will just fuel ‘fortress conservation’, a highly militarized approach which, instead of recognizing local expertise, ‘rests on the racist misconception that Indigenous people cannot be trusted to look after their own land and the animals that live there’.

However, there is much evidence that Indigenous people are usually the best protectors of the land and that this contribution should be fully recognized in international discussions. Eighty per cent of the planet’s biodiversity is found on lands that are also home to Indigenous people. Deforestation rates are lower in Indigenous territories, particularly where collective land rights are formally recognized.

Conservation efforts too often ignore the existence or the needs of Indigenous people already living on or using the land. Land held collectively or used by people moving with the seasons can be seen as up for grabs. Or – when people on the land are acknowledged – they can be labelled a threat, to be separated from fenced-off nature.

‘Largely the protection approach has failed to produce sustainable results or outcomes. All these protected areas were taken away from people. They are not empty spaces,’ says Ndoinyo.

ALL IN THE DETAIL

While many argue that 30x30 should be scrapped altogether, there are others who think it could make a positive difference – with some modifications.

Greenpeace has stated the 30x30 target could provide a ‘leverage point’ that helps ensure political commitment to protect nature in many countries but that the target can only be successful ‘if governments adopt a rights-based approach, and failed conservation models are discarded in favour of the recognition of customary land to protect biodiversity, fight inequality and attain climate goals’.5 They warn that adopting the target without a ‘global reckoning’ on the fortress-conservation model would give the green light to implementing protected areas without taking into proper account the rights and knowledge of Indigenous peoples – which would lead to human rights abuses while doing little to stop biodiversity loss.

‘Of course, conserving biodiversity for the world is a very noble and important issue, but the problem is the way it’s being done,’ says Marianne Wiben Jensen, an expert on land rights in Africa at the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. ‘If conservation could be done in a way that continued to conserve these rich lands, while at the same time strengthening the rights and livelihoods of the Indigenous peoples who live on that land, that could be a perfect combination. But that is still an uphill struggle… It’s a big concern that 30x30 would lead to massive land grabbing.’

For Longo, ideas like 30x30 give an ‘illusion’ that action is being taken without tackling the roots of the problem: ‘It’s a model that distracts. It says, “Oh we don’t need to focus on what happens on the other 70 per cent of the planet”.

‘What they should be doing is tackling the real causes of biodiversity loss which are over-consumption and the exploitation of resources for profit – those are the things that we should be talking about.

‘Of course, this is a shift in power – this is really putting multinational companies in danger, it’s about giving the land back to Indigenous peoples and other farmers. It’s a change that is too radical to happen, but it’s a change that should be happening.’

IS THE UK SLIDING FURTHER TOWARDS AUTHORITARIANISM?


ANALYSIS
2 December 2022
United Kingdom

Stronger policing powers, harsher sentences and higher fines. Democratic protest is under threat in the UK, as the sentencing of a Just Stop Oil activist this week shows. Andrea Brock and Nathan Stephens-Griffin write.
A Metropolitan Police officer approaches Just Stop Oil activists as they demonstrate on Highbury Corner in north London on November 30, 2022.
(Photo by DANIEL LEAL/AFP via Getty Images)

Politicians in the UK are usually quick to condemn human rights abuses in other parts of the world – including the imprisonment of non-violent human rights, feminist, and environmental defenders in Qatar, Iran and Egypt most recently. Our political class points to and celebrates the actions of protesters abroad, while ignoring the creeping authoritarianism of new policing legislation – the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (PCSC) and the Public Order Bill, currently in the House of Lords – at home. Despite campaigners and activists long raising alarm bells, the two bills have gone through parliament almost unopposed politically, with devastating consequences.

On 29 November, Just Stop Oil (JSO) protester Jan Goodey was the first to be sentenced for ‘causing a public nuisance’ under a new statutory offence enacted under the PCSC Act. While not causing any physical harm to anyone, he was sentenced to six months in prison for his part in a protest on the M25 motorway in November, where traffic was brought to a standstill to demand an end to new gas and oil licences.
Governments, state friendly media and the police the world over try to sideline the legitimacy of protesters' political motives and conscious objections to injustice, to portray them as nothing more than criminals mindlessly threatening 'ordinary' people's lives

The criminalization of ‘public nuisance’ is particularly dangerous because it can involve anything and everything linked to ‘noise’, causing ‘serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity’. Notably, all these these could apply to disruptions of any kind. Isn’t that the whole point of protest?

Widely criticized by researchers and environmental and human rights defenders, the prosecution of Goodey under the new legislation sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for protest and freedom of expression in the UK.

According to the Network for Police Monitoring:

Governments, state friendly media and the police the world over try to sideline the legitimacy of protesters’ political motives and conscious objections to injustice, to portray them as nothing more than criminals mindlessly threatening ‘ordinary’ people’s lives.
Often, as with pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, the spectre of ‘public nuisance’ is used by an authoritarian state to arrest and prosecute demonstrators. Across the global South, environment defenders are imprisoned for demonstrating in ways that involve neither violence nor the threat of violence. Police powers are strengthened and official statements become more strident and aggressive.
If any of this is starting to sound alarmingly familiar, it’s not surprising. Ministers and media commentators are willing, sometimes, to champion human rights and condemn tactics used against protesters abroad when it suits their interests. When it comes to people demanding their voices are heard here in Britain, however, the same rules never seem to apply.

As the PCSC Act was passing through Parliament, there were widespread ‘Kill The Bill’ protests across the country, including in Bristol where several people were convicted of the elevated charge of ‘riot’. Since the protests there in 2021, 47 people have been charged, and so far 15 protesters have been sentenced to a combined total of 75 years in prison. Media coverage of what happened in Bristol has been dominated by images of burning police vehicles and false headlines about police officers being injured, with little coverage of why the protests took place, and the state’s treatment of activists. This framing suggests that police charges are fair and proportionate, but this is dangerously misleading.

Many protesters were themselves victims of police brutality, and police retracted many of their initial claims about injuries they sustained (but only after they had been reported on widely). They, like Goodey, are being made examples of. These are political prosecutions, motivated by ‘revenge policing’ against those who would dare challenge them.

And let’s not forget the brutalization of women who gathered at Clapham Common to peacefully mourn Sarah Everard, a young woman murdered by a serving Metropolitan Police Officer Wayen Couzens in 2021.

At the same time, we are seeing the ramping up of policing powers through the court system, or what campaigners have criticized as privatization of protest law. In the last few years, judges have been granting ever more expansive corporate injunctions against named individuals as well as ‘persons unknown’ to criminalize otherwise legal protest a-priori – topped by the most recent injunction of the entire High Speed 2 Railway line that turns trespass and protest from a civil into a criminal matter. Designed to protect people from domestic violence and stop stalkers under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, these mechanisms are now a key tool that is used by the state and corporations to defend and enforce ecologically destructive projects. The use of injunctions will be made even easier in the new Public Order Bill which grants Ministers of State the power to impose injunctions on protests that might cause ‘serious disruption’ to key infrastructures – to be defined by the minister of course.

This expansion of the use of injunction has gone hand in hand with the extensive use of bail conditions for protesters, harsher criminalization and policing, longer prison sentences, and higher fines. These political responses are all part and parcel of the clampdown on protest, as people are demanding serious political change.

Jan Goodey’s imprisonment is as communicative as it is punitive. According to the prosecuting magistrate the sentence is intended to ‘deter’ future protests of a similar nature. But non-violent protest is a human right, and short term disruption caused by environmental defenders pales in comparison to the widespread ecological chaos we are already facing.

Harsher policing and criminalization will not mean an end to protest, as people are realizing that the government is not going to enact the changes we need. As law and policing are evolving, so will protest tactics.

Andrea Brock is a lecturer and political ecologist at the University of Sussex. Nathan Stephens Griffin is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK.