Western literature serves Israeli colonisation, US publishers must cut ties

Books Against Genocide explain how Western publishers play a key role in funding the Zionist project. As workers they are organising to force companies to stop.

Perspectives



Books Against Genocide
19 Nov, 2024
THE NEW ARAB

While well over 40,000 Palestinians have been martyred, publishing has perpetuated a propagandised Zionist narrative, write Books Against Genocide. [GETTY]

“The effort to become a great novelist simply involves attempting to tell as much of the truth as one can bear, and then a little more.” —James Baldwin

The American book industry sees itself as the keeper of this truth, as the arbiter of literature, as the necessary gatekeeper of a sanctified canon. Yet time and again, it doubles down on the status quo and props up the powerful, championing not the voices of the many but the interests of a few.

Never before has the true nature of US publishing been so apparent as during the past year of the Zionist entity’s genocidal bombardment of Gaza. Western literature and publishing are instrumental to the colonisation of Palestine, from their foundational role in the inception of Zionist ideology to present-day investments in “Israeli” technology.

Behind the scenes at most major publishing houses (which, it’s important to note, are subsidiaries of multinational media empires like NewsCorp and Paramount), the climate is hostile to anyone with a conscience. Official company statements following October 7 condemned the Al-Aqsa Flood, relegating Hamas, the armed resistance and elected government of Gaza, to “terrorists,” and offering no acknowledgment of the Zionist entity’s illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

NewsCorp, Paramount (parent companies of HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster respectively at the time), and Penguin Random House pledged significant contributions to the United Jewish Appeal-Federation, an organization that from October 2023 to December 2023, donated $64.2 million to illegal settlers of "Israel" and $0 to the people of Palestine.

Macmillan’s CEO, Jon Yaged, did not even have the decency to name Palestine in his email to the company, instead opting for “the Middle East.” And well before October 7, Holtzbrinck and Bertelsmann (German parent companies of Macmillan and Penguin Random House respectively) were embracing their Nazi roots by investing millions in “Israeli” tech, AI, surveillance, and security technologies.

While well over 40,000 Palestinians have been martyred, publishing has perpetuated a propagandised Zionist narrative, publishing titles trafficking in myths of mass-rape like Black Saturday by Trey Yingst, and defence of settler colonialism like On Settler Colonialism by Adam Kirsch.

In the last year, a junior Big Five employee was laid off less than two weeks after speaking out against a planned Zionist book. Other acts of individual defiance by authors, booksellers, and beyond are also met with retaliation, while publishing industry DEI taskforces facilitate “antisemitism education" trainings, a manipulative deflection under the guise of “equity” with collaborators such as Project Shema, a proxy to the racist Anti-Defamation League whose founder denies the ongoing genocide of Palestinians.

In response to industry complicity, a movement of book workers arose to insist on literature’s power to liberate, including Books Against Genocide (BAG), a collective of Big Five publishing professionals demanding our companies end all relationships with the Zionist project, along with writer-led coalitions like Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG) and KidLit4Ceasefire – the latter two having called on Joe Biden to declare a permanent and unconditional ceasefire and demanded their industry colleagues uphold the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott (PACBI).

WAWOG has since organised sustained boycotts against both PEN America and the New York Times. Just last month, 500 international publishers demanded that the Frankfurt Book Fair cut ties with “Israel.”

Related
Palestinian liberation does not need Western approval
Perspectives
Mjriam Abu Samra

The publishing establishment is no match for this new movement, which has targeted one shamelessly hypocritical group within the vast Zionist ecosystem of mainstream publishing: alleged “free-speech” advocacy organization PEN America. PEN America claims to stand “at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression worldwide” but refused to call for a ceasefire or address the systematic assassinations of writers and journalists in Gaza.

After Israeli Occupation Forces unlawfully arrested Palestinian freedom fighter and author Ahed Tamimi, PEN America released (and then redacted) an egregiously insensitive statement calling on her family to “investigate” the antisemitic post that was fabricated to justify said arrest, and they forcibly removed Palestinian American author Randa Jarrar from protesting a PEN event with Zionist actor Mayim Bialik.

More than 1,300 prominent writers across genres denounced PEN America's performative “humanitarian” charade with an open letter. Twenty-one writers nominated for various PEN awards withdrew from consideration. This sustained pressure led to the cancellation of the PEN World Voices Festival and the PEN Jean Stein award, redirecting the latter’s $75,000 prize money to the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund.

Ultimately, one cannot deny literature’s inextricable link to modern revolutionary movements, which is why the Zionist entity kills Palestinian poets and writers with the same strikes as it does Palestinian resistance fighters. And now, these various efforts in publishing are beginning to coalesce, broadening the monetary and ideological divestment from Israel to not only ensure Zionism’s obsolescence in publishing, but also to project a new vision for the industry’s future: a unified community of authors, literary agents, publishing workers, booksellers, librarians, and readers bound by their commitment to justice and powerful enough to unseat the existing status quo.

Books Against Genocide is a coalition and campaign of book workers pressuring US "Big 5" trade book publishers to end their relationships with the Zionist project called "Israel."

JCB's literature prize sponsors violence from India to Palestine

British construction company JCB's literature prize masks its ongoing role in genocide from India to Palestine and Kashmir, says Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya.

Voices
Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya
21 Nov, 2024
THE NEW ARAB

The JCB prize for literature is an indicator not only of the ever-presence of corporates in India’s cultural world, but also of ongoing British imperialism under Modi’s fascist government, writes Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya [photo credit: Getty Images]

On November 23, the winner of India’s JCB Prize for Literature is set to be announced.

The prize — an award of 2,500,000 rupees (almost $30,000) — is overseen by British construction company JCB and its eponymous literature foundation.

However, JCB has also played a disturbing role in carrying out the Hindu supremacist (or Hindutva) agenda of India’s central government, led by Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Ahead of the announcement, an open letter on the literature prize has been signed by 120 high-profile authors across India, the UK and globally. The letter condemns the ‘hypocrisy’ of the prize in failing to acknowledge the widespread use of JCB equipment in the destruction of Muslim homes and places of worship. The demolitions have also targeted Dalits and other oppressed communities.

This so-called ‘bulldozer justice’ taking place in Modi’s India is a clear step towards ethnic cleansing, in line with the openly stated aim of government ministers to make the country a Hindu state, with some even calling for the genocide of the Muslim population.

Related


Narendra Modi is fashioning India in his own, despotic image
Perspectives
Ashok Swain

As the open letter states, JCB is likewise fuelling Israel’s continued attempts at ethnic cleansing of Palestinians through ongoing settlement expansion in the West Bank, even as the genocidal war on Gaza continues.

Amnesty International found large-scale evidence of the repeated use of JCB bulldozers and backhoe loaders in demolitions of Palestinian homes, due to contracts between JCB’s dealer, Comasco Ltd, and the Israeli Ministry of Defence.

Meanwhile, in Indian-occupied Kashmir - the world’s most heavily militarised region - JCB machines have consistently been used in house demolitions during large scale evictions, despite many residents providing proof of ownership. This is just one aspect of a broader regime of human rights violations of the Kashmiri people by the Indian state, particularly since 2019, when the limited autonomy of the state of Jammu and Kashmir was revoked by the Indian government.

The open letter forms part of the wider campaign "JCB: Stop Bulldozer Genocide", which demands that JCB must end its relationship with the Israeli Ministry of Defence and cease all activities in occupied Palestine.

In terms of India, the campaign demands that JCB commit to ensuring that its products are not used for human rights violations in India and Kashmir through robust monitoring and prevention systems. This includes making compulsory the use of its existing LiveLink technology to trace and locate JCB machines.
JCB's dirty record

JCB is deeply intertwined with corruption amongst the wealthy UK establishment. Its chairman Anthony Bamford has close ties with the UK Conservative Party and particularly with former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, having even hosted Johnson’s wedding in 2022 — making up part of the complex web of connections between the UK and India’s respective far right regimes.

The JCB empire is owned by Bamford and controlled by the Bamford family trusts, which have been involved in offshore tax scandals.

The empire is also a major donor to the Conservative Party, to which it gave £300,000 in 2024 alone. Furthermore, this month the former Conservative Party energy minister, Claire Coutinho, faced claims of conflict of interest after it was found she had accepted donations from Lord Bamford whilst overseeing the awarding of millions to JCB businesses in green grants - a classic example of government and corporate greenwashing.

The website for the literature prize mentions JCB’s desire to "communicate to readers everywhere the full diversity of India’s literature" a sentiment directly contradicted by the company’s role in destroying the homes of marginalised communities on behalf of Hindutva forces.

Mita Kapur, director of the literature prize, told Scroll.in that the books on the longlist for the prize represent "a diverse array of Indian fiction", echoing the prize’s emphasis on diversity. Notably, however, the candidates shortlisted for the prize are nearly all Hindu, and four out of five are men, despite the prize being overseen by a team of women.

The blurb of one book on the longlist, Of Mothers and Other Perishables by Radhika Oberoi, includes an apparently climactic point in the text when "protestors swarm the streets, hollering against a new bill that persecutes the Muslim community".

This is seemingly a reference to the real mass resistance to the Citizenship Amendment Act and accompanying laws, which were first introduced by Modi’s government in late 2019 and attempt to disenfranchise India’s Muslims. Tellingly, Oberoi’s novel has not made it to the JCB prize shortlist.

The letter comes as many writers across the globe have distanced themselves from Israel in recent weeks and signed letters pledging to boycott Israeli cultural institutions.

The JCB prize for literature, however, is particularly insidious, since the company’s role in destruction of lives and livelihoods - and fuelling ethnic cleansing in India, Palestine and Kashmir - remains relatively little known.

Despite the reliance of Indian literature on corporate sponsorship - as a result of a broad lack of arts funding - this is not the first time Indian authors have targeted a literary initiative with unethical corporate connections. For example, the Jaipur literary festival was widely boycotted in 2016 on account of its sponsorship by Vedanta, a mining company responsible for the widespread displacement of indigenous communities.

Indian author Asad Zaidi, a signatory of the open letter, said: "[JCB] machines have come to symbolise displacement and destruction in contemporary India. Unsurprisingly, JCB has been trying to charm and lure the cultural intelligentsia, including writers and translators, into its image-building exercise as a protector and promoter of high cultural values. Its literary and translation prizes are part of this charade."

Another signatory, Dalit poet Cynthia Stephens said:

"Heavy earthmoving equipment is like a knife. It can be used to build infrastructure for human comfort, but in recent years has been more used to destroy the lives of the poor and marginalised. We condemn such hypocrisy on the part of the company and those administering the prize."

Whilst India’s Supreme Court ruled against ‘bulldozer justice’ just over a week ago, declaring that authorities cannot demolish someone’s home merely because they have been accused of a crime, it is unclear whether this will be implemented in practice and popular opposition remains crucial.

Challenging the literature prize is fundamental to the ongoing campaign against bulldozer genocide.

Related
India port workers' anti-colonial solidarity strike for Gaza
Perspectives
Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya

Through the literature prize, JCB is attempting to maintain its image as a source of both cultural and economic prosperity in India.

The website for the prize emphasises the company’s role in creating jobs for Indian workers, citing JCB’s "substantial and longstanding involvement in the country’s social and economic life". This involvement, in fact, includes the destruction of the livelihoods of some of India’s most marginalised people.

The JCB prize for literature is an indicator not only of the ever-presence of corporates — including those complicit in genocide — in India’s cultural world, but also of ongoing British imperialism under Modi’s fascist government.

As author Siddhartha Deb put it: "If the JCB Prize is intended to support Indian writing, that means Indian writing is complicit in British racism, Hindu fundamentalism, and Zionist ethnic cleansing."

Alongside the global boycott of Israeli cultural institutions, it is more urgent than ever to connect the dots and condemn the JCB prize in solidarity with those facing demolition and displacement — both in Palestine under Israeli occupation and in India and Kashmir amidst the steady rise of Hindutva fascism.

Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya is a writer, activist and editor. She is interested in arts and culture and social movements.

Follow her on X: @AnanyaWilson

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff, or the author's employer.

SYRIAN KURDISTAN









Kongra Star: Together, we are writing a new chapter in the history of resistance

Kongra Star released a message of solidarity on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, saluting every woman who stands up against injustice: “Let us make this century the century of women’s freedom and empowerment."


ANF
NEWS DESK
Thursday, 21 November 2024, 15:19

The Democratic Political Alliances and Relations Committee of the Kongra Star, the umbrella organization of women in North-East Syria, sent a message of solidarity to women's movements and feminist movements around the world on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, November 25.

The message released by the Kongra Star Democratic Political Alliances and Relations Committee on Thursday includes the following:

“To all women’s movements and feminist movements around the world,

On this day when women’s voices unite to defend their dignity and their right to a safe and free life, we write to you with a spirit of resilience and struggle.

On November 25, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, we wholeheartedly salute every woman who stands up against injustice – whether in her home, on the streets, behind prison bars or on the front lines of resistance. We salute the women who are defending freedom all over the world: from Palestine, where women are resisting the brutality of occupation, to India, where they are fighting for equality, from war-torn Sudan, where women are bearing the brunt of conflict and injustice, to Iran and Eastern Kurdistan, where women are holding up the flag of resistance despite oppression.

Systematic violence against women stems from the patriarchal mindset, which is at the root of all forms of violence – be it exploitation, forced occupation, enslavement or massacre. Therefore, the fight against this violence must aim to overcome the patriarchal system itself. This system, which is reinforced and perpetuated by the state, continues to reproduce violence against women at all levels.

The patriarchal system wages a special kind of war against women. Targeting their achievements and hard-won rights, it seeks to incorporate women’s movements into its framework, depriving them of leadership and denying them true liberation.

We live in the shadow of an undeclared Third World War in which women are the main targets of a multi-layered struggle that threatens their existence and seeks to silence their voices. The Third World War is not just a military conflict, but a systematic war that is directed against life in all its aspects. It destroys culture, nature and fundamental human values. Faced with this global threat that endangers our existence as individuals and peoples, it is our duty as women to oppose this organized violence that is directed against life, identity and hope.

Under the slogan “With the philosophy of women, life, freedom – protect yourself”, we stand today in Rojava and in North and East Syria and affirm that the present moment calls for unity and increased solidarity among women. It is now more important than ever for women’s movements worldwide to unite and build self-protection mechanisms to counter the attempts of oppressive forces.

The women’s revolution in Rojava/North and East Syria is an evolving process that continues despite numerous challenges. This revolution, in which women are an important and leading force, is under constant attack – especially from the fascist Turkish state, which positions itself as the enemy of women and aims to crush this movement striving for freedom and equality. They want to destroy everything we have built, but we know that a revolution led by women is a revolution that cannot be defeated. It will continue until its goals are achieved.

This call is a renewed commitment to the path of struggle – a pledge to work hand in hand to create networks of support and solidarity that challenge oppression and ensure that women’s voices remain powerful and unyielding. We pledge to stand with every woman who stands up against injustice, every woman who resists oppression, and every woman who demands her rights in a just society and a dignified life.

As Kongra Star, we know that protecting the women’s revolution requires strengthening independent organizations and self-defense mechanisms. We believe that this moment is a historic opportunity to forge a global alliance that resists all attempts at subjugation and highlights the fact that the voice of women is stronger than the forces of darkness.

To all revolutionary women, to all women who cling to their dreams despite oppression, and to all who confront violence in every corner of the world, we assure you that you are not alone. Together, we are writing a new chapter in the history of resistance, striving to build a future where women’s freedom and dignity are inviolable rights.

Let us continue the struggle, strengthen our unity, and make this century the century of women’s freedom and empowerment.”

YPJ Central Headquarters for Women’s Protection inaugurated in Heseke

“As we approach November 25th, women need the knowledge of women’s science and defense more than ever. Without knowledge, struggle, and protection, we cannot safeguard our existence,” said YPJ General Commander, Rûhalat Afrin.


ANF
HESEKÊ
Thursday, 21 November 2024

The Central Headquarters for Women’s Protection was inaugurated with a grand military ceremony attended by the mothers and families of martyrs, leaders of the Syrian Democratic Forces, Asayish forces, representatives of the Autonomous Administration, the Star Congress, Women’s Core Protection Forces, along with our Armenian and Assyrian comrades, as well as fighters and leaders of the Women’s Protection Forces (YPJ).

During the fourth conference of the Women’s Protection Units, one of the most significant decisions made was to rebuild anew. Based on this decision, the Central Headquarters for Women’s Protection was inaugurated in a military ceremony that began with a moment of silence in honor and respect for the martyrs of the freedom revolution. General Commander of the Women’s Protection Units, Rûhalat Afrin, delivered a speech during the ceremony.

In her speech, Rûhalat Afrin congratulated Leader Abdullah Öcalan, the martyrs of the revolution, and all peoples, women, and fighters. She stated: “Important decisions were made at the fourth conference of the Women’s Protection Units. One of these decisions was to centralize the operations of women’s protection. All women urgently need to organize themselves against all forms of occupation, violence, and oppression. They must unite under the banner of defense and, with the philosophy of ‘Women, Life, Freedom,’ strengthen themselves in all areas of defense.”

Rûhalat Afrin also highlighted the efforts of the revolution’s martyrs, saying: “In the 13 years since 2011, we have witnessed hundreds of heroic epics. The struggle and sacrifices of the martyrs have stood firm against occupiers and have established a tremendous legacy for women and martyrs. Women must organize and protect themselves based on this great legacy.

We are currently experiencing a third world war at its highest intensity in the Middle East. In the face of this war, we must adopt a strategic perspective on the tasks of defense and protection. With women leading the way based on self-defense principles, all peoples must organize themselves and fulfill their responsibilities.

As we approach November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, women need the knowledge of women’s science and defense more than ever. Without knowledge, struggle, and protection, we cannot safeguard our existence.”

She further explained the role of the Central Headquarters for Women’s Protection, stating: “The headquarters will undertake the mission of protection for all components of northeastern Syria and all women. On this basis, women will be organized under the umbrella of legitimate defense. In this context, we will share our experiences and knowledge with women in the Middle East and worldwide. We will escalate the struggle to protect the values and gains of the revolution, regardless of the cost.”

In conclusion, Rûhalat Afrin addressed the increasing internal and external attacks, particularly the growing threats from ISIS mercenaries, Al-Nusra, and the occupying Turkish state in recent times. She stated: “We will prepare ourselves at all levels and intensify our legitimate resistance until we achieve certain victory. On this basis, we call on all women and peoples to join the ranks of steadfast resistance.”

After the military ceremonies, celebrations began, where mothers of martyrs, including the mother of martyr Jindar (Hamida Koti) and the mother of martyr Khabat Turkman (Khola Mohammed), spoke. They congratulated all women on the inauguration of the Central Headquarters for Women’s Protection and emphasized that women of all ages would take on the mission of protecting the homeland.

Messages of congratulations were read during the celebration, and the cultural group Hilal Zirîn (Golden Crescent) stirred enthusiasm with their beautiful and heartfelt performances. The celebration concluded with the traditional dances of the brave female fighters.

WE NEED SUCH A MOVEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN AGAINST THE TALIBAN

María Alejandra Díaz (Popular Democratic Front): ‘Institutional avenues for resolving Venezuela’s political crisis are being dangerous closed off’

By María Alejandra Díaz & Federico Fuentes

Published 18 November, 2024

Constitutional lawyer and human rights activist María Alejandra Díaz has become a symbol of why, as she puts it, the rule of law in Venezuela is “in frank deterioration” after the July 28 presidential elections.

Given lingering doubts over who won — the National Electoral Council (CNE) declared President Nicolás Maduro the winner, but the right-wing opposition claims it has evidence indicating otherwise — many want the results published to verify who won and prove beyond doubt the legitimacy of any incoming government.

That is why, on November 4, Díaz filed a legal recourse before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ), requesting that the court ask the CNE to comply with its legal obligation and a TSJ Electoral Chamber ruling issued on August 22 (which ratified Maduro’s victory) by publishing the results. Instead, the TSJ declared the appeal inadmissible and fined Díaz, suspended her from professional duties and threatened her with possible arrest.

The recourse was filed on behalf of the Frente Popular Democrático (Popular Democratic Front, FDP), which includes left-wing parties and organisations such as the Bloque Histórico Popular (Popular Historic Bloc), the Partido Comunista de Venezuela (Communist Party of Venezuela), La Otra Campaña (The Other Campaign), Voces Antiimperialistas (Anti-imperialist Voices), Movimiento Popular Alternativo (Popular Alternative Movement), En Común (In Common), and the Frente Nacional de Lucha de la Clase Trabajadora (National Front for Working Class Struggle), as well as moderate opposition parties such as Centrados en la Gente (Focused on the People), among others.

Speaking about her case with Federico Fuentes for LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, Díaz explained: “This is the first time in Venezuela’s history that a lawyer has been suspended from practising their profession, with no regard for the presumption of innocence, no prior trial and no right to a defence.” Despite this, Díaz continues to demand that the results be published because “it is our right” and the way to defend “the Venezuelan electoral system, which had been transparent and clean, but is now tainted”.

Díaz also spoke about the situation facing what she terms “prisoners for protesting or demanding political or labour rights”, highlighting the fact that while close to 2000 such prisoners continue to be denied their basic rights (a few days after this interview was completed, 225 of these prisoners were released on November 17), there are right-wing parliamentarians “sitting in the National Assembly who have called for an invasion, for sanctions and for Maduro to be killed” but have never faced justice.

All this leaves leftists such as Díaz in the position of “demanding justice while caught between two warring parties, and asking both sides to respect the rule of law and the Constitution.” But the risk of “a head-on collision” between the government and right-wing opposition is only increasing ahead of inauguration day, January 10, something she believes “could end very badly.” Faced with this, Díaz says there is no alternative but to “continue fighting and seeking spaces to advance our struggle” while insisting on “defending transparency, popular sovereignty and the Constitution.”

Below is the full interview.

Could you explain what has happened with your case?

The first thing we tried was filing a Request for a Constitutional Review of the TSJ Electoral Chamber’s Ruling N° 031 on the grounds that it was unconstitutional [because only the CNE, not the TSJ, has the power to act as an electoral arbiter]. On October 11, the Constitutional Chamber responded to us with Ruling N° 211 that declared the Electoral Chamber’s ruling was valid and res judicata [a final judgement no longer subject to appeal].

So, we tried another avenue. Understanding that even if we disagree with the Electoral Chamber's ruling we needed to abide by it, we lodged a legal recourse on the grounds that the CNE had failed to publish disaggregated results. According to the rulings from the TSJ’s Electoral and Constitutional Chambers, the Organic Law on Electoral Processes and jurisprudence set by the Constitutional Chamber, the CNE is duty bound to present a detailed tabulated list of the voting tally sheets and total votes, as the basis of proof for declaring a winner. Publishing disaggregated results allows anyone to access them and, if they choose, to challenge them.

What did the Constitutional Chamber do? It declared itself competent to hear our legal recourse, but declared it inadmissible without even reviewing its merits. On top of that, it accused me of “recklessness”, fined me and ordered the Bar Association to open a disciplinary investigation against me. I was also suspended from practising my profession, which is an unprecedented move never before seen in the country. I believe this is the first time in Venezuela’s history that a lawyer has been suspended from practising their profession with no regard for the presumption of innocence, no prior trial and no right to a defence. This is very serious. Professionals should be held responsible for any malpractice, but to determine whether this has occurred one has to be afforded due process and the right to a defence, which has not happened.

I cannot defend myself because we have not even been handed the full sentence, only the operative part. I have not been able to pay the fine because we do not have a certified copy of the sentence or an official letter stating that we must pay the fine, where we must pay it, and into what account of the National Treasury it must be paid. In other words, I am in a state of complete defencelessness and uncertainty.

On which legal norm or statute did the TSJ base its decision to sanction you?

They claim that the charge of “recklessness” is based on a TSJ law, even though it does not really fit the bill. That is why we have asked for a clarification. The article according to which they apply the sanction does not include the possibility of applying a fine. Moreover, if a fine applied, it should actually be 900 bolivars, yet the fine they issued me was for 100 euros, which at the current exchange rate is more than 5000 bolivars.

On top of this, they have indicated — with what intention, we do not know — that they could potentially arrest me in accordance with the 1988 Law of Appeals. This law directly contradicts rights enshrined in the Constitution [approved by the people in a referendum in 1999] because no one can be placed under arrest — house or otherwise — if it is not proven that they have committed an infringement or crime, and where there must be due process, including a prior trial, the right of defence and the guaranteed principle of a presumption of innocence.

So, of course, there is a lot of fear and uncertainty within the Gremio de Abogados de Venezuela (Venezuelan Lawyers’ Guild). In fact, none of the Bar Associations or Law Schools have spoken out about this. I have had to confront this alone, although supported by comrades in the FDP, groups of lawyers who have spoken out, and ordinary citizens. I have to thank the Venezuelan people because it was citizens who collectively raised the money, which I did not have, to pay the fine. But, so be it. I believe we have to continue fighting and seeking spaces to advance our struggle.

Why do you keep insisting the election results must be published?

Because it is a very serious matter when, in the face of reasonable doubt, you insist on proclaiming a winner. Reasonable doubt damages the legitimacy of any incoming government.

Moreover, the CNE said there was a hacking [of the electronic voting system] and Venezuelans have the right to know to what extent this hacking could have affected the results. The only way to find that out is by counting the paper ballots in the ballot boxes, as occurred on other occasions. In Venezuela, even if the entire electronic system breaks down, every electronic vote has a physical back-up. That physical back-up is in the ballot boxes that the CNE guards and in Envelope Number 1 [which contains all the tally sheets]. The evidence contained in these could allow one — if the CNE authorises it as they did in 2013 — to audit 100% of the ballot boxes.

Furthermore, if you publish the results, whoever believes there was a different outcome [based on tally sheets that party scrutineers are given at each voting centre] can challenge it. But the government has instead closed the door on this possibility by taking the results to the TSJ, where there was no way to control the verification process as interested third parties were not allowed to audit it.

We insist on publishing the results because it is the constitutional path, because it is the political path, because it is our right and because we defend the Venezuelan electoral system, which until now was transparent and clean, but has now been tainted by such actions. We must insist on doing politics and defending transparency, popular sovereignty and the Constitution.

What legal options are left for requesting that the CNE fulfil its legal duty?

Prior to this ruling — which seems to be the final nail in the coffin for pursuing any institutional avenue — the FDP was studying the possibility of attempting a habeas data: that is, a candidate requesting the electoral data from the CNE. We were also studying the possibility of requesting a preliminary hearing against the CNE’s rectors for not having fulfilled their legal obligation. All of this now remains under consideration because we are unclear about the result of the clarification we requested regarding the ruling that imposed sanctions and punishments on me.

There is uncertainty, including legal uncertainty, as to how far we will be able to go in demanding our rights, and not just our electoral rights. What makes this ruling so serious is that it not only prohibits me from being able to practise, it also means any lawyer who lodges an appeal or recourse to demand the government comply with a constitutional right — for example, the right to work or not be subjected to arbitrary arrest — could also be punished. This is a very serious precedent not only because it imposes a punishment without any due process or right to a defence, but because it serves as a warning to the Lawyers’ Guild. That is the most dangerous aspect of it all — it is a warning to anyone thinking about defending the rights of any citizen.

Government spokespersons have again publicly defended the detention of some 2000 people they called “terrorists” for protesting after the elections. You signed an open letter to President Maduro denouncing that these political prisoners have been denied their basic rights. Could you tell us why?

Well, in principle, because we should support any steps to free Venezuelans who have not committed crimes, and whose right to a defence and due process have been violated through arbitrary detentions. Furthermore, out of humanity and empathy, we should accompany the mothers and families of these prisoners.

But I want to make it clear that I am very wary of the category of political prisoner. I prefer to talk about prisoners for protesting, or prisoners for demanding political or labour rights, which is different. The category of political prisoner is a category that is used more generally, but we are defending all those imprisoned for protesting to demand political or labour rights. It is rarely discussed in Venezuela that there are 191 trade union leaders and workers in prison for demanding their labour rights. This must also be denounced and these prisoners should be included in any request to the government to consider extraordinary measures for their freedom.

We are fighting to support their families and ensure that justice is done in cases where people have been detained unfairly. This means ensuring their right to a defence, that they are afforded effective judicial protection, that their human rights are respected and, of course, that the crime they are charged with corresponds with the unlawful act they are alleged to have committed, because innocence must always be presumed until proven otherwise. In Venezuela, the presumption of innocence is a transversal principle across all proceedings. That fundamental human right must be respected.

But it is the case that extreme right-wing sectors have used violence as part of their destabilisation campaigns...

We know that. There are people who, for example in 2014 and 2017, even burned people alive just because they looked like Chavistas [government supporters]. I have not forgotten that. And I am not requesting amnesty or freedom for those who have committed crimes involving human rights violations or corruption. Those who have committed a serious crime, such as killing someone or causing damage to public property, must be punished. But those who have committed no crime, or a less serious crime, those who only went out to protest without causing any damage or harming anyone, cannot be treated the same.

We are not asking for impunity, we are asking for justice, which is different. We are asking that in those cases where no serious crimes have been committed, that those cases be reviewed and the prisoner be given an amnesty or pardon and released. There are children between the ages of 14 and 17, minors, and people with different disabilities, currently in prison. That is our concern.

Now, whoever committed a crime has to face their punishment. Of course, they also have to be guaranteed their rights: you cannot deny them a lawyer of their choosing or access to justice and due process. We are demanding this to ensure that no such cases are rendered null and void [as a result of these rights not being respected].

Given everything we have talked about, what is the situation today in terms of the rule of law in Venezuela?

It has been very badly damaged. The principles and guarantees established in the Constitution are not being respected. The rule of law is in frank deterioration. That is very dangerous not only for the rule of law but for democracy, because if there is no justice and no rule of law, there is no democracy. Today I would say that democracy in Venezuela has been mortally wounded. What is happening is very dangerous. Instead of contributing to a peaceful resolution, a dangerous decision has been taken to close off any institutional avenue for resolving the conflict and crisis in Venezuela.

Many left-wing activists who have stood in solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution are concerned that talking about the situation of these prisoners or questioning the elections could fuel the arguments of US imperialism and the Venezuelan right-wing in favour of sanctions and other violent actions against the Venezuelan people. How do you respond to these concerns?

I completely dissociate myself from those kinds of arguments. We are not defending violence. We are demanding our constitutional right to request that a state institution publish election results because there are reasonable doubts over the outcome. And we cannot turn a blind eye to the human rights violations that have occurred and are occurring because, far from contributing to a peaceful resolution, that would only further deepen the political crisis in the country.

I will never agree with sanctions, because it is always the people who bear the cost. Moreover, sanctions have contributed to internal corruption, because they have been used as a justification to evade controls and the law on the argument that because of persecution, they must use, let’s call it economic subterfuge, to obtain resources. Sanctions have also served as an excuse to open the door to foreign investment and do away with labour rights.

What we are defending is the rule of law and the political model enshrined in the Constitution. We are not defending criminals. Anyone who has committed a crime, even a political one, cannot have impunity — especially those who have called for sanctions, an invasion, or the president’s assassination. We even have deputies sitting in the National Assembly who have called for an invasion, for sanctions and for Maduro to be killed. This is incomprehensible and only undermines the credibility of state institutions and the rule of law.

So, we are in a difficult position because we are demanding justice while caught between two warring parties, and asking both sides to respect the rule of law and the Constitution. But it seems both sectors are intent on continuing head-on towards a collision in the run-up to January 10 [when the new president is set to be inaugurated], which could end very badly. That is precisely what we want to avoid.

KURDISTAN (TURKIYE)

FREE OCALAN!

Bayındır at Batman rally: Let the Kurdish people's leader be free, let this issue be resolved

“The struggle will ensure the freedom of Öcalan and the solution of the Kurdish question,” said DBP Co-Chair Keskin Bayındır, pointing to Abdullah Öcalan as the interlocutor for a solution and peace.


ANF
BATMAN
Sunday, 17 November 2024

Democratic Regions Party (DBP) Co-Chair Keskin Bayındır spoke at the ‘Democracy and Freedom’ organised by the Platform of Democratic Institutions in Batman province. Emphasising that the Kurdish people continue their resistance, Keskin Bayındır said, “We will surely succeed. This struggle, your resistance will surely reach its goal.”

'The Kurdish people are waging a historic struggle for their freedom'

Giving messages of resistance and struggle, Keskin Bayındır said, “Those who usurp the will of our people should take a good look at this square. This square is a place of success and freedom. This state should know well that no power can prevent the Kurdish people's struggle for freedom. No matter how much they advance on us, they cannot stop us. The Kurdish people in Europe sent a warm greeting, a revolutionary greeting yesterday. Let us send them a warm greeting today. The Kurdish people are waging a historic struggle for their freedom in 4 parts of Kurdistan and in the world. This struggle will ensure the freedom of Mr Öcalan and the solution of the Kurdish question.”

'The address is İmralı'

Emphasising that Öcalan is the interlocutor for peace and solution, Keskin Bayındır said that Öcalan’s voice should be heard if there is to be a process of talks. Pointing to the ongoing isolation of Öcalan in İmralı Island Prison, Bayındır said, “If this isolation continues, this process is a lie. Our people should believe in their struggle. If you want to create a solution in this country, the solution is Mr Öcalan, the address is İmralı. On the one hand, they impose aggravated isolation, appoint trustees to the will of the Kurdish people, carry out operations in 4 parts of Kurdistan, while on the other hand they say ‘we are brothers’... We are not brothers of traitors. If there is to be peace and a solution, the address is clear.”

'The Kurdish people did not and will not bow down to your oppression'

Referring to the usurpation of the municipalities of Batman, Mardin and Halfeti, Bayındır said, “They appointed trustees to these 3 cities to tell us that they don’t accept our model that foresees organisation. No matter what you do, the Kurdish people did not and will not bow down to your oppression. The AKP-MHP government is appointing trustees to the will of the Kurdish people. The AKP-MHP is the trustee of Turkey, the trustee of the Kurdish people and the Turkish people. We do not accept the trustees, and we will send them away. The Kurdish people are ready for a solution and a process. This will is seen in this square today. We will spread this will throughout Kurdistan, Turkey and the world. We want honourable peace and a solution.”

The DBP Co-Chair concluded: “Let the Kurdish people's leader be free, let this issue be resolved. Let Kurdistan be free, let the Kurdish people achieve their goals and objectives. We are starting historic resistance. This resistance will be written in history; how the Kurdish people determine their fate with their will, strength and power. The Kurdish people are now a great power in the Middle East and the world. No one should underestimate this power. This century will be the century of the Kurdish people, the century of Kurdistan.”

‘If you are serious, open the doors of İmralı and let Öcalan deliver a message of peace’

Speaking at the rally in Batman, DEM Party Co-Chair Tülay Hatimoğulları appealed to the government, saying, “If you are serious, open the doors of İmralı and let Mr. Öcalan deliver a message of peace.”


ANF
BATMAN
Sunday, 17 November 2024


The Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) Co-Chair Tülay Hatimoğulları spoke at the ‘Democracy and Freedom Rally’ organised by the Platform of Democratic Institutions in Batman. She started her speech by remembering Edip Solmaz (who was assassinated on 12 November 1979 after 28 days as mayor). Hatimoğulları pointed out that those who murdered Edip Solmaz are now appointing trustees to municipalities and called those who appoint trustees ‘coup plotters’.

'We will continue to struggle shoulder to shoulder against fascism'

Hatimoğulları stated that the Kurdish people's right to elect and be elected was taken away from them, and that the current administration cannot be democracy. “The name of this administration can only be fascism. We will continue to struggle shoulder to shoulder against fascism. The trustee of Batman says that Turks and Kurds share the same fate and have the same hopes. This is a lie, the people of Batman are here. You cannot represent their hope and understanding of brotherhood. You are a trustee, you are a thief, you were forced into the municipality under the wing of police shields. Although trustees have been appointed to our municipalities after every election, the people have come to this day by doubling their votes and increasing the number of municipalities. And this was realised through the joint struggle of you; the Kurdish people and other peoples.

‘We are on the side of honourable peace’

Hatimoğulları mentioned the recent discussions on a possible process of talks with Öcalan and said: “All of Turkey is now talking about and discussing this question. There are various developments that started with a handshake and we do not know exactly what they want. As the DEM Party, Kurdish people and the peoples of Turkey, we are, of course, on the side of honourable peace. We have been fighting for peace for more than 40 years. We have fought for justice and democracy to come to this country, for brotherhood and equality between the peoples.”

‘We have expressed our readiness for an honourable peace’

Referring to the attacks against Kurds, Hatimoğulları stated: “They tried to crush the heads of Kurds every time. They tried to crush the heads of the revolutionaries in Turkey who were in solidarity with the Kurdish people. But they failed. You, our valuable people, show them in this square that they have failed. From here we address Ankara; we have expressed our readiness for an honourable peace, for a solution on democratic grounds at every opportunity, everywhere. We have said that if you are not playing games, if you are not mocking the people's hopes, if you are serious, if you are to act with the seriousness of a state, first of all open the doors of Imrali, let Mr. Öcalan come out and give his message to the whole Middle East. If the partner of the government is serious about the messages it is giving to the public, it should first put its ministries into action and open the doors of Imrali wide open. Let Mr Öcalan come out and deliver his messages of peace to the Kurdish people, the people of the Middle East.”

'This is not brotherhood'

The DEM Party Co-Chair continued: “Erdoğan is not speaking. He is the one in the seat of power. It is the AKP government and the president who are the executive authority. If they have solutions to this issue, they should speak and announce a programme. He himself has not spoken until today. Instead, his advisors and spokespersons speak. They say that the trusteeship is a ‘fight against terrorism’ but it is them who are doing the real ‘terror’. Gülistan Sönük was elected by the people of Batman with 65 percent of the vote, the highest in Turkey, but they appointed a trustee in her place and call this ‘fight against terrorism’, while they, on the other hand, say that ‘The Kurds are our brothers’. This is not brotherhood. They say ‘we are brothers with Kurds’, but they list red lines. This red line does not include Kurds, different peoples and beliefs. This red line includes the centuries-old understanding of denial and extermination, monism. They talk about brotherhood, but only on condition that the Kurds should not have a name and an identity, that they should not speak Kurdish and not demand education in the mother tongue. Is such brotherhood possible? The answer is not given by us, but by our valuable people in the fields. Let the palace hear it, let Ankara hear it. Let the partners of the government hear it.

Again, the same spokespersons say that the DEM Party is pushing a peace process away. This is a total lie. Every time we talked, no matter who spoke on behalf of our party, we said ‘We are ready for an honourable peace’. We said we were ready for a solution on democratic grounds together. The government must decide this. The state must decide if it is a hand of peace that is being outstretched. If so, we are ready to hold that hand. If not, we are ready to wage an honourable struggle against that hand together with our peoples as we have done until today. We would then wage the strongest struggle against them.

‘We are ready for both negotiation and struggle’

Those who say ‘Kurds are our brothers’ are working on two laws. More precisely, they are preparing a law with two agendas. One is about parliamentary elections and the other is about municipal elections. They want to ban others from the beginning. This cannot be the hand of peace. Together with our peoples, we once again appeal to the state mind and the government. We want an honorable peace. Kurdish people demand the right to education in their mother tongue. The Kurdish people want a negotiation and dialogue process to develop on democratic grounds. Are you, as the state mind and the government, ready for this? The people of Kurdistan, especially the people of Batman, and the people of Turkey are waiting for the answer. We have given our message at every opportunity; we are ready for both negotiation and struggle.

We are the ones who say ‘Jin, Jiyan, Azadî’

Hatimoğulları continued: “This government persecutes women the most. They do not tolerate the presence of women in politics or in the public sphere. We have personally experienced the effects of Hezbollah on this issue during this election process in Batman. Still, the people of Batman embraced their party with great honour and elected our party's candidate. These anti-democratic practices, especially the appointment of trustees, are a stance against the representation of women everywhere. They did not accept our purple line of co-presidency and equal representation. They do not accept women playing an active role in politics. They say, ‘What are you doing in politics, go home!’. However, we women are the ones who say ‘Jin, Jiyan, Azadî’ (Woman, Life, Freedom).”

Masses start gathering for the 'Democracy and Freedom Rally' in Batman

A central rally for ‘Democracy and Freedom’ will be held in Batman province today. The rally is promoted by the Platform of Democratic Institutions.


ANF
BATMAN
Sunday, 17 November 2024

The Platform of Democratic Institutions is organising a rally for ‘Democracy and Freedom’ in Batman. A banner reading ‘We are expanding our freedom march for a democratic solution to the Kurdish question’ was hung in the rally area where masses have already started to gather. The people are carrying banners reading ‘This is a public warning; evacuate the municipalities’, ‘No passage to the trustee, the trustee is plunder’ and ‘The solution and the interlocutor are clear’.

People coming from neighbouring cities for the rally met at Diyarbakır Street and Hasankeyf Junction. While the team from Sirt entered the area with a banner reading ‘We will win by resisting against the usurpation of will, not trustees but democracy’, a large number of women, including the Peace Mothers, who gathered in the Free Women’s Movement (Tevgera Jinên Azad, TJA) cortège, gathered at Yılmaz Güney Park.

Prevented from passing through the checkpoint, the people coming from Hasankeyf got out of their vehicles and marched towards Batman, chanting the slogan ‘We will win by resisting’.

Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) Co-Chair Tülay Hatimoğulları and Democratic Regions Party (DBP) Co-Chairperson Çiğdem Kılıçgün Uçar also arrived at the rally site.

Those who set out from Mardin and Şırnak were also intercepted by Turkish troops in the district of Gercüş. The people started to march towards Batman, chanting the slogans ‘Bijî berxwedana Batmanê’ and ‘Berxwedan xweş doz e’.

Declaration of the ‘Democracy and Freedom Rally’ to be held in Batman on 17 November announced

Call for everyone in favour of peace, democracy and fraternity in Turkey to increase the common struggle and to participate in the ‘Democracy and Freedom Rally’ in Batman on 17 November to speak out against oppression.


ANF
BATMAN
Monday, 11 November 2024

The Platform of Democratic Institutions announced a declaration regarding the ‘Democracy and Freedom’ rally to be held in Batman on 17 November. DBP co-chairs Çiğdem Kılıçgün Uçar and Keskin Bayındır, DEM Party MPs and TJA (Free Women’s Movement) activists attended the press conference held at Petrol İş Union hall in Batman on Monday. The banner ‘We are expanding our freedom march for a democratic country’ was unfurled at the event.

The declaration, read by TJA activist Havva Can in Kurdish and by DEM Party Assembly Member Sema Koç in Turkish, said the following:

“The crises and chaos created by the system of capitalist modernity have spread all over the world, especially in the Middle East. The system's wheel of violence and exploitation has made life unbearable by reaching the level of social destruction, ecocide and femicide. The system, whose bankruptcy is certain with its institutions and rules, has become incapable of managing even its own internal crises, let alone finding solutions to the problems of humanity, which have reached gigantic dimensions. It has become clear that the structural crises of the system have spread to our region and the world as the 3rd World War. Every move of the forces of capitalist modernity, which respond to the peoples' struggle for freedom, democracy and rights with oppression, violence and massacres, to overcome the crisis only deepens the problems even more. The reflection of these wars on the new energy routes of the capitalist modernity system, which is fundamentally based on further profit and exploitation, on the peoples is nothing but oppression, violence, death, massacre, poverty, hunger and new waves of migration.

The Middle East is the centre of the war of profit and exploitation of the capitalist modernity system with which it is in structural contradiction due to its historical, cultural and social heritage. It is contrary to the nature of things that the system, which has turned our region into a bloodbath with the nation-state mentality for a hundred years, finds solutions to the problems it has caused. The separation of peoples who have lived together for thousands of years and have common cultural and social values with a nation-state mentality did not and will not yield any results other than deepening the problems. The wheel of war and exploitation of the system has once again shown that peoples should solve their own problems through dialogue and negotiation and peaceful means. In this context, the 'Democratic Nation' and 'Democratic Confederalism' concepts developed by Mr Abdullah Öcalan offer a great chance to solve the problems of humanity.

The Third World War, which started with the end of the bipolar world order and the Cold War, has reached a new stage. While the crisis created by the Russia-Ukraine war continues at the global level, the local conflict between Israel and Hamas with the events of 7 October has approached the level of a regional war. The war between Israel, Palestine and Lebanon will inevitably have repercussions on the countries of the region in particular and the world in general. The denialist policies of despotic nation-states that reject the historical, cultural, political and social reality of the peoples have made the region open to all kinds of foreign intervention. Despotic powers that try to maintain their power through oppression, violence and massacre have no legitimacy in the eyes of the peoples. Just as no power that did not ensure internal peace has survived throughout history, no structure that continues its policies of rejection and denial has a chance to survive today.

Turkey is one of the countries that has not shown the prudence to solve its fundamental problems with the policies of rejection and denial it has pursued in the Kurdish question and has not achieved internal peace. Policies that ignore the historical, cultural, social and political reality of our geography are the main cause of a periodic conflict for one hundred and fifty years and an uninterrupted conflict for fifty years. Mr Öcalan has repeatedly expressed his will for the conflict process to evolve into a negotiated solution, but these chances and opportunities have been squandered every time. The policies of solutionlessness based on the politics of denial, which have yielded no results, have not gone beyond confirming the regional nature of the Kurdish issue. At the current stage, it is the only way for peoples to solve their problems with their own hands against the opportunism of hegemonic powers and their satellite nation-states to fortify themselves through new wars.

In this context, the discussions on the Kurdish issue, for whatever reason, are positive and important. Mr Öcalan's remark ‘Isolation continues. I have the theoretical and practical power to move this process from the grounds of violence and conflict to the political and legal grounds if the conditions arise' is of historic importance. Mr. Öcalan's decisive mission in paving the way and managing the developments in the past periods of ceasefire, dialogue and negotiation is known. The Kurdish people and politics trust in the theoretical and practical power of Mr Öcalan today as they did yesterday; they believe that he is the only addressee and interlocutor for a solution. The Kurdish politics, with all its institutions, has declared that it will act in accordance with its historical and social responsibility for a peaceful solution to the problems of Turkey’s peoples through negotiation and dialogue.

The government must firstly show the society that it is sincere in the discussions it has initiated on the Kurdish issue and take concrete steps. With regard to the Kurdish issue, practice is more important than words. As seen in world examples, trust and social support are vital for a solution. However, the government's talk of internal peace and brotherhood on the one hand, and its pursuit of policies contrary to this on the other, calls into question its sincerity. Attacking every area where Kurds are present outside and carrying out trustee policies inside is not a sign of a solution. On the contrary, it is an insistence on the continuation of a hundred years of rejection and denial policies. With these contradictions in discourse and practice, the government can neither convince the Kurdish people nor the society in Turkey, nor can it get the results it desires for its own power. There will be no solution by ignoring the will of the Kurdish people through the usurpation by trustees, and the Kurdish people will not submit to these attacks today as they did yesterday. The government must immediately give up these policies of trustee usurpation and violence.

This policy means the deepening of problems at home and the continuation of compromising policies abroad. This means that the social, political and economic crises that have emerged as a result of the security policies pursued by the government for the last ten years will evolve into a total collapse. For this reason, the peoples, especially the Kurds, women, youth, workers and the oppressed as a whole expect the AKP-MHP government to be sincere and transparent about the discussions it has initiated. The way to achieve this is for the government to immediately lift the aggravated isolation as required by the constitution and universal legal norms to which it is a party, and to secure Mr Öcalan's conditions of health, safety and freedom. In addition, opportunities for him to meet with his organisation, his lawyers and all social segments in favour of a democratic solution should be created.

On this basis, we call on everyone in favour of peace, democracy and fraternity in Turkey to increase the common struggle against the trustee and monist policies. We invite all peoples, women, youth, labourers and the oppressed to participate in the ‘Democracy and Freedom Rally’ in Batman on 17 November and to speak out against this oppression.”

Threats to Free Expression in the Trump Era

Nan Levinson

 November 15, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Image by Curated.

I thought I was done with free speech. For nearly two decades, I reported on it for the international magazine Index on Censorship. I wrote a book, Outspoken: Free Speech Stories, about controversies over it. I even sang “I Like to Be in America” at the top of my lungs at an around-the-clock banned-book event organized by the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression after the musical “West Side Story” was canceled at a local high school because of its demeaning stereotypes of Puerto Ricans. I was ready to move on. I was done.

As it happened, though, free speech — or, more accurately, attacks on it — wasn’t done with me, or with most Americans, as a matter of fact. On the contrary, efforts to stifle expression of all sorts keep popping up like Whac-A-Mole on steroids. Daily, we hear about another book pulled from a school; another protest closed down on a college campus; another university president bowing to alumni pressure; another journalist suspended over a post on social media; another politically outspoken artist denied a spot in an exhibition; another young adult novel canceled for cultural insensitivity; another drag-queen story hour attacked at a library; another parent demanding control over how pronouns are used at school; another panic over the dangers lurking in AI; another op-ed fretting that even a passing acquaintance with the wrong word, picture, implication, or idea will puncture the fragile mental health of young people.

The list ranges from the ditzy to the draconian and it’s very long. Even conduct can get ensnared in censorship battles, as abortion has over what information healthcare providers are allowed to offer or what information crisis pregnancy centers (whose purpose is to dissuade women from seeking abortions) can be required to offer. Looming over it all, we just had an election brimming with repellent utterances financed by gobs of corporate money, which, the Supreme Court ruled in its 2010 Citizens United decision, is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

I suspect that if you live long enough, everything begins to seem like a rerun (as much of this has for me). The actors may change — new groups of concerned moms replace old groups who called themselves concerned mothers; antiracists police academic speech, when once it was anti-porn feminists who did it; AI becomes the new Wild West overtaking that lawless territory of yore, the World Wide Web — but the script is still the same.

It’s hard not to respond to the outrage du jour and I’m finding perspective elusive in the aftermath of the latest disastrous election, but I do know this: the urge to censor will continue in old and new forms, regardless of who controls the White House. I don’t mean to be setting up a false equivalence here. The Trump presidency already looks primed to indulge his authoritarian proclivities and unleash mobs of freelance vigilantes, and that should frighten the hell out of all of us. I do mean to point out that the instinct to cover other people’s mouths, eyes, and ears is ancient and persistent and not necessarily restricted to those we disagree with. But now, of all times, given what’s heading our way, we need a capacious view and robust defense of the First Amendment from all quarters — as we always have.

Make No Law 

In a succinct 45 words, the First Amendment protects citizens from governmental restrictions on religious practices, speech, the press, and public airings of grievances in that order. It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? But if a devil is ever in the details, it’s here, and the courts have been trying to sort those out over the last century or more. Working against such protections are the many often insidious ways to stifle expression, disagreement, and protest — in other words, censorship. Long ago, American abolitionist and social reformer Frederick Douglass said, “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong that will be imposed upon them.” It was a warning that the ensuing 167 years haven’t proven wrong.

Censorship is used against vulnerable people by those who have the power to do so. The role such power plays became apparent in the last days of the recent election campaign when the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, at the insistence of their owners, declined to endorse anyone for president. Commentary by those who still care what the news media does ranged from a twist of the knife into the Post‘s Orwellian slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” to assessments of the purpose or value of endorsements in the first place. These weren’t the only papers not to endorse a presidential candidate, but it’s hard not to read the motivation of their billionaire owners, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, as cowardice and self-interest rather than the principles they claimed they were supporting.

Newspapers, print or digital, have always been gatekeepers of who and what gets covered, even as their influence has declined in the age of social media. Usually, political endorsements are crafted by editorial boards but are ultimately the prerogative of publishers. The obvious conflict of interest in each of those cases, however, speaks volumes about the drawback of news media being in the hands of ultra-rich individuals with competing business concerns.

Journalists already expect to be very vulnerable during Donald Trump’s next term as president. After all, he’s called them an “enemy of the people,” encouraged violence against them, and never made a secret of how he resents them, even as he’s also courted them relentlessly. During his administration, he seized the phone records of reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN; called for revoking the broadcast licenses of national news organizations; and vowed to jail journalists who refuse to identify their confidential sources, later tossing editors and publishers into that threatened mix for good measure.

It can be hard to tell if Trump means what he says or can even say what he means, but you can bet that, with an enemies list that makes President Richard Nixon look like a piker, he intends to try to hobble the press in multiple ways. There are limits to what any president can do in that realm, but while challenges to the First Amendment usually end up in the courts, in the time the cases take to be resolved, Trump can make the lives of journalists and publishers miserable indeed.

Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy

Among the threats keeping free press advocates up at night is abuse of the Espionage Act. That law dates from 1917 during World War I, when it was used to prosecute antidraft and antiwar activists and is now used to prosecute government employees for revealing confidential information.

Before Trump himself was charged under the Espionage Act for illegally retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left office, his Justice Department used it to prosecute six people for disclosing classified information. That included Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on conspiracy charges — the first time the Espionage Act had ever been used against someone for simply publishing such information. The case continued under President Biden until Assange’s plea deal this past summer, when he admitted guilt in conspiring to obtain and disclose confidential U.S. documents, thereby setting an unnerving precedent for our media future.

In his first term, Trump’s was a particularly leaky White House, but fewer leakers (or whistleblowers, depending on your perspective) were indicted under the Espionage Act then than during Barack Obama’s administration, which still holds the record with eight prosecutions, more than all previous presidencies combined. That set the tone for intolerance of leaks, while ensnaring journalists trying to protect their sources. In a notably durable case – it went on from 2008 to 2015 — James Risen, then a New York Times reporter, fought the government’s insistence that he testify about a confidential source he used for a book about the CIA. Although Obama’s Justice Department ultimately withdrew its subpoena, Risen’s protracted legal battle clearly had a chilling effect (as it was undoubtedly meant to).

Governments of all political dispositions keep secrets and seldom look kindly on anyone who spills them. It is, however, the job of journalists to inform the public about what the government is doing and that, almost by definition, can involve delving into secrets. Journalists as a breed are not easily scared into silence, and no American journalist has been found guilty under the Espionage Act so far, but that law still remains a powerful tool of suppression, open to abuse by any president. It has historically made self-censorship on the part of reporters, editors, and publishers an appealing accommodation.

Testing the Limits

Years ago, the legal theorist Thomas Emerson pointed to how consistently expression has indeed been restricted during dark times in American history. He could, in fact, have been writing about the response to protests over the war in Gaza on American campuses, where restrictions came, not from a government hostile to unfettered inquiry, but from institutions whose purpose is supposedly to foster and promote it.

After a fractious spring, colleges and universities around the country were determined to restore order. Going into the fall semester, they changed rules, strengthened punishments, and increased the ways they monitored expressive activities. To be fair, many of them also declared their intention to maintain a climate of open discussion and learning. Left unsaid was their need to mollify their funders, including the federal government.

In a message sent to college and university presidents last April, the ACLU recognized the tough spot administrators were in and acknowledged the need for some restrictions, but also warned that “campus leaders must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions to advance their own notoriety or partisan agendas.”

As if in direct rebuttal, on Halloween, the newly philosemitic House Committee on Education and the Workforce issued its report on campus antisemitism. Harvard (whose previous president Claudine Gay had been forced out, in part, because of her testimony to the committee) played a large role in that report’s claims of rampant on-campus antisemitism and civil rights abuses. It charged that the school’s administration had fumbled its public statements, that its faculty had intervened “to prevent meaningful discipline,” and that Gay had “launched into a personal attack” on Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican committee member and Harvard graduate, at a Board of Overseers meeting. The report included emails and texts revealing school administrators tying themselves in knots over language that tried to appease everyone and ended up pleasing no one. The overarching tone of the report, though, was outrage that Gay and other university presidents didn’t show proper obeisance to the committee or rain sufficient punishment on their students’ heads.

Harvard continues to struggle. In September, a group of students staged a “study-in” at Widener, the school’s main library. Wearing keffiyehs, they worked silently at laptops bearing messages like “Israel bombs, Harvard pays.” The administration responded by barring a dozen protesters from that library (but not from accessing library materials) for two weeks, whereupon 30 professors staged their own “study-in” to protest the punishment and were similarly barred from the library.

The administration backed up its actions by pointing to an official statement from last January clarifying that protests are impermissible in several settings, including libraries, and maintained that the students had been forewarned. Moreover, civil disobedience comes with consequences. No doubt the protesters were testing the administration and, had they gotten no response, probably would have tried another provocation. As Harry Lewis, a former Harvard dean and current professor, told The Boston Globe, “Students will always outsmart you on regulating these things unless they buy into the principles.” Still, administrators had considerable leeway in deciding how to respond and they chose the punitive option.

Getting a buy-in sounds like what Wesleyan University President Michael Roth aimed for in a manifesto of sorts that he wrote last May, as students erected a protest encampment on his campus. Laying out his thinking on the importance of tolerating or even encouraging peaceful student protests over the war in Gaza, he wrote, “Neutrality is complicity,” adding, “I don’t get to choose the protesters’ messages. I do want to pay attention to them… How can I not respect students for paying attention to things that matter so much?” It was heartening to read.

Alas, the tolerance didn’t hold. In this political moment, it probably couldn’t. In September, Roth called in city police when students staged a sit-in at the university’s investment office just before a vote by its board of trustees on divesting from companies that support the Israeli military. Five students were placed on disciplinary probation for a year and, after a pro-divestment rally the next day, eight students received disciplinary charge letters for breaking a slew of rules.

Why Fight It

The right to free expression is the one that other democratic rights we hold dear rely on. Respecting it allows us to find better resolutions to societal tensions and interpersonal dissonance than outlawing words. But the First Amendment comes with inherent contradictions so, bless its confusing little heart, it manages to piss off nearly everyone sooner or later. Self-protection is innate, tolerance an acquired taste.

One of the stumbling blocks is that the First Amendment defends speech we find odious along with speech we like, ideas that frighten us along with ideas we embrace, jack-booted marches along with pink-hatted ones. After all, popular speech doesn’t need protection. It’s the marginal stuff that does. But the marginal might be — today or sometime in the future — what we ourselves want to say, support, or advocate.

And so, I return to those long-ago banned book readings, which culminated with everyone reciting the First Amendment together, a tradition I continued with my journalism students whenever I taught about press freedoms. Speaking words out loud is different from reading them silently. You hear and know them, sometimes for what seems like the first time. Maybe that’s why our communal celebration of the First Amendment seemed to amuse, embarrass, and impress the students in unequal measure. I think they got it, though.

I recognize that this kind of exhortation is many planks short of a strategy, but it’s a place to start, especially in the age of Donald Trump, because, in the end, the best reason to embrace and protect the First Amendment is that we will miss it when it’s gone.

This piece first appeared on TomDispatch.

Trump’s House of Horrors

Melvin Goodman

November 15, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Art by Nick Roney

“The advantage I have now is I know everybody.  I know people.  I know the good, the bad, the stupid, the smart.”

– Donald Trump, Time Magazine, April 2024

One of the most important powers of the presidency is the power of appointment.  There are several hundred federal agencies, and the president has the power to make several thousand appointments to these agencies as well as to his cabinet and various executive branch institutions.

Donald Trump’s first term was marred by several appointees that had to be removed  in the first year.  National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was removed in less than a month for lying to the FBI and Vice President Pence.  Ethics charges led to the removal of several cabinet officials, including the Secretary for Health and Human Services; the head of the Environmental Protection Administration; the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Veterans Administration.  The Secretary of State was fired in his first year, and the Attorney General either resigned or was fired as well.

And there were those who resigned less than two years in, and lambasted Trump soon after.  UN Ambassador Nikki Haley described Trump as “just toxic” and “unhinged,” “lacking moral clarity.”  Chief of Staff John Kelly said that he had never met anyone more unscrupulous than Donald Trump.  Attorney General Bill Barr and national security adviser John Bolton were similarly critical.  Of Trump’s highest level appointments, only four of the top 44 supported his run for a second term.

The appointments for Trump’s second term can’t be attributed to recommendations from outsiders; they are far worse and more dangerous than those made in the first term, when Trump could at least say he appointed people he didn’t really know first hand.  Thus far, Trump’s appointees lack the skills and the experience that their particular assignments requirement.  They truly constitute a house of horrors.

The worst and most dangerous appointment is Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense.  Various experts would tell you that running the Department of Defense is the most challenging management job in the world.  It has nearly 3 million employees, including the uniformed military the world over; civilians, and the National Guard.  The Pentagon’s budget is more than $900 billion a year, and climbing.  It was Hegseth who convinced Trump to pardon war criminals in his first term.  Hegseth, a Fox News anchor on its weekend broadcasts, could not be more unqualified, and his confirmation process will test the mettle and courage of the new Senate Majority Leader, John Thune.

Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence is another cause for concern.  In 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al Assad, and defended his attacks on Syrian civilians.  She even challenged the intelligence that documented Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilian communities.  More recently, Gabbard said that media freedom in Russia is “not so different” from that in the United States.  Gabbard was reportedly placed  on a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) watchlist known as “Quiet Skies” this year, which allows federal air marshals to follow U.S. citizens  and collect information on their behavior.

The appointment of Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) as Attorney General speaks for itself.  Gaetz can be counted on to wield the Justice Department against Trump’s political enemies, and Gaetz will also move swiftly to end the two federal criminal cases against Trump.

Lack of experience appears to be the major qualification for most of the appointments.  Kristi Noem has been named to head the Department of Homeland Security, which has a $60 billion budget and a work force of 234,000.  It is responsible for the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, and Federal Emergency Management Agency.  Elise Stefanik has no background in diplomacy or international relations, but she will be the UN ambassador.  Her greatest qualification appears to be her contempt for the United Nations, which is how Nikki Haley got the job in Trump’s first term.  Of course, the same could be said for UN ambassadors such as John Bolton in George W. Bush’s first term or Jeane Kirkpatrick in Ronald Reagan’s first term.

The list goes on.  John Ratcliff, who politicized intelligence in Trump’s first term as the Director of National Intelligence, will become the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  Lee Zelden, who has no experience with climate or energy issues, will be the administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency.  Mike Huckabee, who says there is no such thing as a Palestinian and that illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank are actually legal Israeli communities, will be ambassador to Israel.  Stephen Miller, on the far right wing of the political spectrum, will be deputy chief of staff in the White House for policy, particularly immigration policy.  Miller favors mass deportation as does the new border czar Tom Homan, who favored family separation policy as a way to deter immigration when he served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

One worrisome feature of the new appointments in the national security field is their hostility to China.  This is true for the new national security adviser, Mike Waltz, who introduced legislation to rename Dulles International Airport as (you guessed it) Trump International.  The expected secretary of state, Mario Rubio, is a China Hawk as well as an Iran-Cuba-Venezuela Hawk.  The Washington Post has already endorsed the appointment of Rubio, believing that a tough policy toward China will get concessions from Xi Jinping.  We’re certain to have a trade war with China in the near term, but perhaps we shouldn’t rule out war itself.

All of these appointments pale next to the naming of Hegseth to the Pentagon.  There have been 30 secretaries of defense since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.  Only a handful of these secretaries truly succeeded: George Marshall in the Truman administration; Harold Brown in the Carter administration; and Bill Perry in the Clinton administration.  Some of the most knowledgeable failed such as Les Aspin, whose health worsened in his short tour as secretary of defense.  The first secretary of defense, James Forrestal, committed suicide soon after leaving the Pentagon post.  Bob Gates and Leon Panetta simply surrendered to the uniformed military and didn’t act as civilian leaders of the Department of Defense.  The fact that Trump has talked of using the Insurrection Act to involve the uniformed military in dealing with domestic violence makes the Hegseth appointment particularly threatening.

Political loyalty is obviously the key to Trump’s selection process.  This is certainly true for Ratcliff and Waltz in the national security field; for Stefanik in the diplomacy arena; and for Miller and Homan in the area of immigration.  And it could get worse before it gets worse because there has been no mention thus far of Jeffrey Clark, Kash Patel, Matthew Whitaker or Richard Grenell, who have been more than loyal to Trump.  Stay tuned to this space.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent books are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the National Security State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.