Showing posts sorted by date for query ROGER WATERS. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query ROGER WATERS. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, October 27, 2024

What is the Electoral College and how does it work?

ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A VESTIGIAL REMNANT OF WHITE SUPREMACY

THE TELEGRAPH
David Millward
Fri 25 October 2024

The Signing of the Constitution of the United States at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 - GraphicaArtis/Archive Photos


In 2016 Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton but became president as a result of his winning a majority in the Electoral College.

It was the fifth time in the history of the United States that a president has won the Oval Office and lost the popular vote.

Regarded as an anachronism by critics, there have been an estimated 700 attempts to scrap the College or reform it.

The first was made by Alexander Hamilton, one of the College’s original architects in 1802 and the most recent was in 1969 when a constitutional amendment was given overwhelming backing by the House of Representatives, but talked out by opponents in the Senate.

When the amendment was finally brought before the Senate in 1979, it was backed by a majority of senators but fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment.
Where did it begin?

The Electoral College dates back to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, which gathered to put together a constitution for the fledgling nation.

At the time no country directly elected its head of state, so handing the choice over to the popular vote would have been entering uncharted territory.

While some delegates felt that allowing the legislature to choose the president could pave the way to behind-the-scenes deals and corruption, the majority feared the consequences of handing the choice over to “the mob” who, it was argued, would know little about the qualities of the candidate.
How does it work?

The Electoral College was, in effect, a compromise, allowing the people to vote for “electors” who would make the choice on their behalf.

There are 538 members of the Electoral College – which means a presidential candidate must secure the backing of 270 electors.

States’ allocation of electors is based on population and, as a result of the 2020 census 13 states saw the size of its delegation change.


Texas gained two seats in the college. Five other states Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon each gained one.

California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia each lost one.
How are members chosen?

Members of the Electoral College are chosen by the nominee for president.

In reality they are chosen by the party campaign in co-operation with local activists.

To reduce the risk of electors going “rogue”, members of the College would be reliable party members with a track record of falling into line.

They meet in State Capitols on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their ballots.

The certified results are then sent to Washington where, on January 6, the votes are tallied in a joint session of Congress, presided over by the sitting vice-president.
How are the votes distributed?

Use our searchable tool to see how many votes each state receives.
What happened on Jan 6?

Until January 6 2021, the meeting of the Electoral College was regarded as a formality, with the vice-president presiding over the meeting where the votes were counted.

Richard Nixon in 1961 and Al Gore in 2001 found themselves in the position of formally ratifying the candidate who had defeated them for the presidency the previous November.

Mike Pence, who was both vice-president and Donald Trump’s running mate, was in the same position when a mob stormed the Capitol.

Had the mob succeeded in preventing Mr Pence from presiding over the count, the choice of president would have fallen to the congressional delegations, with each state getting one vote.

With the Republicans having a majority of state delegations, this would have led to Mr Trump returning to the White House.
Does my vote count?

Yes, with certain qualifications. It is an indirect election and candidates with a minority of the popular vote have won the presidency.

On five occasions the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election:

1800, 1824, 1876, 2000, and, most famously, and recently in 2016, when the Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton claimed 2.1 per cent more of the popular vote than Donald Trump, who, with 304 votes compared to 227, won the Electoral victory, and, therefore, his place in the White House.

These seven states will decide the election. Here’s what we learned reporting on the ground

Lauren Gambino, George Chidi, Chris McGreal, Maanvi Singh, Ed Pilkington, Joan E Greve and Alice Herman
THE GUARDIAN
Sat 26 October 2024

Election workers at the Maricopa county Tabulation and Election Center (MCTEC) in Phoenix, Arizona, on 23 October 2024.Photograph: Olivier Touron/AFP/Getty Images


Spare a thought for beleaguered Pennsylvanians. During the past few weeks, they have been pummeled with $280m worth of election ads blazing on their TV and computer screens, part of an eye-popping $2.1bn spent so far on the US presidential election.

Pennsylvania is one of the seven battleground states that, when it comes to choosing presidents, can seem as revered as the seven wonders of the world. Forget Democratic California, ditch reliably Republican Texas – it is these seven states that, come 5 November, will decide the outcome of one of the most consequential elections in modern times.

Their names are seared into the minds of politically aware Americans: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Under America’s arcane electoral system, the occupant of the Oval Office is elected not through the popular vote but by electoral college votes harvested state by state.


Among them, the seven states control 93 electoral college votes (Pennsylvania has the largest number, 19, which is why its residents are so bombarded). In the final days, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris and their running mates, JD Vance and Tim Walz, will be scrambling all over them in a bid to reach the magic number: 270 electoral college votes to win.

The states are called battlegrounds for a reason – their loyalty cannot be taken for granted by either side. This year, though, their unpredictability has reached dizzying heights. The Guardian’s presidential poll tracker shows five of them essentially tied within a three-point margin of error, with only Arizona (where Trump is up four points) and Wisconsin (where Harris is up five) pulling away. Nate Cohn, the New York Times’ polling expert, has drily noted that the presidential polls are “starting to run out of room to get any closer”.

Guardian reporters are on the ground in each of the seven battlegrounds to test these confounding waters.

– Ed Pilkington

***
Arizona

‘Why isn’t Trump doing a little better here?’

On a stiflingly hot afternoon last month, Lynn and Roger Seeley relaxed into an air-conditioned co-working space in a suburb east of Phoenix. They had come to hear the Democratic candidate for US Senate, Ruben Gallego, make his pitch to a roomful of small-business owners. Lifelong Republicans, they might have felt out of place at a Democratic campaign event in the pre-Trump era. But not now.

“The Arizona Republican party is not the same Republican party,” said Lynn Seeley, who plans to vote for Kamala Harris in November. “It just doesn’t represent me anymore.”

The Seeleys are among a group of disaffected Arizonans known as “McCain Republicans” – moderates and independents who prefer the “maverick” brand of politics of the late Arizona Senator John McCain to Trump’s Maga movement.

The Trumpification of the state GOP, as well as rapid population growth, a large number of young Latino voters and a suburban shift away from the Republican party have created an opening for Democrats in recent election cycles, turning once ruby-red Arizona into a desert battleground.

Polling shows Donald Trump with a narrow edge over Harris in the presidential race. The Senate race, which is critical to the party’s slim hope of maintaining control of the chamber, appears to trend in Gallego’s favor. The state also features two of the most competitive House races in the country, both key to winning the speaker’s gavel. Arizonans are also voting on an initiative to enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution.

Across the sprawling Phoenix region, one of the fastest-growing in America, Trump and Harris signs dot xeriscaped yards. But roughly a third of Arizonans are unaffiliated, and since Trump’s election in 2016 they have broken for Democrats in key statewide races.

In 2020, Trump lost the state by fewer than 11,000 votes, the narrowest of any margin. It was the first time a Democratic presidential candidate had won Arizona since Bill Clinton in 1996, and before then, it was Harry Truman in 1948.

“Arizona is not a blue state,” said Samara Klar, a professor of political science at the University of Arizona. “Arizona has had very high inflation rates, very high increases in the cost of living, and an increase in the cost of gas. It’s a border state during a border crisis. A Republican candidate should be cleaning up in Arizona. So the question is: why isn’t Trump doing a little better here?”

Lauren Gambino | Chandler, Arizona

***
Georgia

Early voting hits records – but offers few clues

Mary Holewinski lives in Carrollton, Georgia, which is home turf for the far-right representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. But Holewinski is a Kamala Harris supporter and has a sign in her yard. It draws nasty looks, she said: “I’ve lost neighbor friends.”

Those tensions are ratcheting up, because the presidential election is already well under way in Georgia. More than 2 million Georgians - a quarter of its electorate - have already gone to the polls, setting early voting records each day.

Both Harris and Trump consider Georgia – no longer a stereotypical “deep south” state but one propelled by the economic and cultural clout of Atlanta - a crucial pickup. In 2020, the state went for Joe Biden by 11,780 votes

– and Trump has since been charged in an election interference case after calling Georgia’s secretary of state and asking him to “find” those 11,780 votes. A Georgia victory would represent belated validation for the former president.

The candidates may as well have leased apartments in Atlanta, for all the time they’re spending here. The difference between a Democrat winning 80% and 90% of their votes could be larger than the overall margin of victory.

But Georgia is no longer a state defined by Black and white voters. Asian and Latino population growth has changed the political landscape in suburban Atlanta, which helped drive the Biden victory here in 2020. And the conflict between conventional conservative Republicans and the Maga insurgency may also be determinative: suburban moderates in the Atlanta region turned against Trump in 2020, and he has done little since to win them back.

Still, while historically Democrats in Georgia have been more likely to vote early than Republicans, Trump has pointedly instructed his supporters to vote early in person in Georgia, and many appear to be doing just that.

“I could care less about whether you like him or not. It’s not a popularity contest,” said Justin Thompson, a retired air force engineer from Macon. “It’s what you got done. And he did get things done before the pandemic hit. And the only reason why he didn’t get re-elected was because the pandemic hit.”

George Chidi | Atlanta, Georgia

***
Michigan

Turnout is key in state where many are angry over Gaza

The trade union official had much to say, but he wasn’t going to say it in public.

The leader of a union branch at a Michigan factory, he was embarrassed to admit that most of its members support Donald Trump – even though he’s also disparaging about what he saw as the Democratic party elite’s failure to put the interests of working people ahead of powerful corporations.

“I don’t want to disagree with the members in public because they have their reasons to do what they think is good for protecting their jobs,” he said. “I’ve tried to explain that they’re wrong but they don’t want to hear it.”

Like many in Michigan, he found himself torn: despairing of Trump yet not greatly enthused by Harris. A Rust belt state that once prospered from making cars, steel and other industrial products, Michigan lost many jobs to Mexico after the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) by Bill Clinton, an enduring source of resentment against the Democrats for some voters that helped Trump to power.

That goes some way to explain why opinion polls continue to have the two candidates neck-and-neck in Michigan, even though the Harris campaign is heavily outspending Trump here and appears to have a better ground game with more volunteers.

Turnout will be key: Trump won here by just 10,704 votes in 2016, then lost narrowly to Biden four years later. High on the list of demographic targets are Black voters in Michigan’s largest city, Detroit, whose low turnout in 2016 was a factor in Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the state. Harris is also targeting white suburban women, many of whom previously supported Trump but have cooled on him over abortion rights, his continued false claims of election fraud and his criminal convictions.

For all of that, the election in Michigan may be decided by events far away.

More than 100,000 Michigan Democrats, many of them from the state’s Arab American community around Detroit, abstained from supporting Biden in the Democratic primaries earlier this year because of his support for Israel’s war in Gaza. So far, Harris has not significantly wavered from Biden on the issue. With polls this close, it could be decisive if Harris loses a fraction of these voters.

Chris McGreal | Saginaw, Michigan

***
Nevada

Is Harris or Trump better for the working class?

Urbin Gonzalez could have been working inside, in the air conditioning, at his regular job as a porter on the Las Vegas Strip. Instead, in the final days before the US election, he had chosen to go door-knocking in the 104F (40C) heat.

“I don’t care because I’m fighting for my situation,” said Gonzalez, dabbing the sweat from his neck. “All Trump wants to do is cut taxes for his buddies, for his rich friends, not for us. Not for workers … This is personal.”

While the US economy broadly bounced back from the pandemic, Nevada has lagged behind. Nearly a quarter of jobs here are in leisure or hospitality, and although the Las Vegas Strip, where Gonzalez works, is back to booming with tourists, unemployment in Nevada remains the highest of any US state, and housing costs have skyrocketed.

Both Trump and Harris have promised to turn things around: both have promised to eliminate federal income taxes on workers’ tips, and both have vowed to expand tax credits for parents – though their plans widely differ when it comes to the finer points.

Although Nevada has leaned Democratic in every presidential election since 2008, winning candidates have scraped by with slim margins. About 40% of voters don’t identify with either Democrats or Republicans, and although a growing number of Latino voters – who now make up 20% of the electorate – have traditionally backed Democrats, the party’s popularity is slipping.

The state, which has just six electoral votes, is notoriously difficult to accurately poll – in large part because the big cities, Reno and Las Vegas, are home to a transient population, many of whom work unpredictable shifts in the state’s 24/7 entertainment and hospitality industries. But many voters remember the days early in the Trump administration when costs were lower. “I think the economy was just better when Trump was president,” said Magaly Rodas, 32, while shopping at her local Latin market. Her husband, an electrician, has struggled to find work since the pandemic, while rent and other expenses have continued to climb. “What have the Democrats done for us in four years?”

Maanvi Singh | Las Vegas, Nevada

***
North Carolina

A hurricane is a wild card that could depress turnout

Kim Blevins, 55, knows what it’s like to survive a disaster. She was locked inside her home without power for eight days when Hurricane Helene struck western North Carolina last month.

So when she uses the experience as a frame through which to view the impending election, she is not being frivolous. “If Trump doesn’t get in, it’s going to be worse than the hurricane,” she said.

“It’ll be world war three. Kamala Harris wants to make us a communist country and we can’t survive that. The illegals coming over the border, the inflation of food and gas prices, we can’t do that.”

Hurricane Helene has raised a critical challenge for Donald Trump.

It affected a rural mountainous region that is Trump’s natural base – some 23 out of the 25 stricken counties are majority-Maga. So any decline in turnout would most likely hurt him.

Trump needs to win North Carolina if he is to have an easy shot at returning to the White House. The state veers Republican, only voting for a Democratic president twice in recent times (Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Barack Obama in 2008). Trump took it in 2020 by just 75,000 votes.

Yet Harris has succeeded since she took over the Democratic mantle from Joe Biden in making this race neck-and-neck.

In the final stretch, Trump is focusing on getting his base of largely white rural voters to the polls, hurricane be damned. His campaign has been heartened by the first week of early voting, which has smashed all records, with Republicans almost matching Democrats in turnout. (In 2020 and 2016, Republicans lagged behind.)

On her side, Harris is waging an intense ground game, with hundreds of staffers fanning out across the state to squeeze out every vote. The thinking is that if Trump can be blocked in North Carolina, he can be stopped from regaining power.

For that to happen, Harris has to mobilize her broad tent of support, with special emphasis on women in the suburbs of Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham. She is also trying to shore up the male African American vote, which has shown some softness.

Not least, she is trying to tie Trump to Mark Robinson, the state’s Republican gubernatorial candidate. Robinson has described himself as a “Black Nazi”, and has been revealed to have made extreme racist remarks.

Ed Pilkington | Creston, North Carolina

***
Pennsylvania

‘If we win Pennsylvania, we win the whole thing’

Pennsylvania provided one of the most enduring images of the fraught US election cycle: Donald Trump raising his fist to a crowd of supporters after a gunman attempted to end his life at a campaign rally in July. As Trump left the stage in Butler, Pennsylvania, with blood dripping from his ear, his supporters chanted: “Fight! Fight!”

Days later, Joe Biden withdrew from the presidential race, clearing the way for Kamala Harris to ascend to the Democratic nomination.

Both Trump and Harris have returned to Pennsylvania dozens of times since, confirming that the Keystone state could play a definitive role in the presidential race. “If we win Pennsylvania, we win the whole thing,” Trump said at a rally in Pennsylvania last month. “It’s very simple.”

As the fifth-most-populous US state, Pennsylvania has the most electoral votes of any of the battlegrounds. Much of the population is clustered around Philadelphia and smaller cities like Pittsburgh and Scranton, where Biden showed strength in 2020, but the more rural regions could play an outsized role in the election. White, blue-collar voters in these rural areas have sharply shifted away from Democrats in recent elections.

Some Democrats expected Harris to choose the popular governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, as her running mate, given his impressive ability to secure consistent victories in such a closely-contested state. Harris instead chose Tim Walz, the Minnesota governor, a decision that could come back to haunt her depending on the results in Pennsylvania.

In her bid to sway undecided voters, Harris has walked back some of her most progressive proposals from her 2020 presidential campaign – such as a ban on fracking, a major industry in Pennsylvania, on which she has now reversed her stance.

It could all come down to Pennsylvania. Tom Morrissey, a 67-year-old voter from Harleysville attending a Democratic campaign event last month, was optimistic . “We love the enthusiasm. It’s so important at this time,” Morrissey said. “We have to save democracy.”

Joan E Greve | Ambler, Pennsylvania

***
Wisconsin

‘Let the anxiety wash over you and then refocus’

Wearing matching hats emblazoned with the words “Sauk County Democrats”, Deb and Rod Merritt, a retired couple from southern Wisconsin, joined the crowd to hear Barack Obama stump for Kamala Harris.

“We’re so apprehensive that the polls say they’re close,” said Rod Merritt.

Sauk county is one of a handful of Wisconsin counties that has flipped from Democrats to Republicans and back. It’s exactly the kind of place – a swing county in a swing state – that the campaigns are fighting over.

A midwestern state in the Great Lakes region known for dairy production, manufacturing and healthcare, Wisconsin is considered to be part of the “blue wall” – the states Democrats consistently won in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Trade unions historically helped drive voter turnout for Democrats, but a series of anti-labor laws passed under the Republican-controlled state government in 2011 dealt them a blow. Rural areas have increasingly turned to Republican candidates, leaving cities like Milwaukee – Wisconsin’s most racially diverse – and the liberal stronghold of Madison as Democratic bastions.

With the economy the top issue, it all comes down to turnout, with Republicans focusing on rural voters and young men, who have increasingly looked to conservative politics.

The Democrats, meanwhile, hope the closeness of the race – in which a half-million people have already voted – will mobilize volunteers. “In some ways, the most important thing is learning some breathing exercises so that you can let the anxiety wash through you – and then refocus on knocking on the next door,” said Ben Wikler, the chair of the Democratic party of Wisconsin.

Alice Herman | Madison, Wisconsin

Far-Right House Leader Calls on North Carolina to Pre-emptively Give Donald Trump Its Electoral Votes

Lizzie Hyman
PEOPLE
Fri, October 25, 2024

Rep. Andy Harris, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, proposed that the swing state's Republican-controlled legislature could hand their 16 Electoral College votes to Trump regardless of the election results




Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty; Emily Elconin/Getty

Maryland Rep. Andy Harris has proposed that North Carolina deviate from the democratic voting process in the 2024 election by preemptively allocating the state’s presidential electors to former President Donald Trump, according to Politico.

At the Talbot County Lincoln Reagan Dinner on Thursday, Oct. 24, the chair of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, 67, asserted that it "makes a lot of sense" for North Carolina's Republican-controlled legislature to directly decide the winner, given the potential barriers to voting that some areas are facing amid the Hurricane Helene recovery efforts.

Related: Donald Trump Tells N.C. He 'Didn't Have to' Come See Hurricane Damage: 'I Could've Been on a Beautiful Beach'

"You statistically can go and say, 'Look, you got disenfranchised in 25 counties. You know what that vote probably would have been,' " the congressman said in conversation with MAGA operative Ivan Raiklin, who has endorsed a similar plan to ensure a Trump victory in North Carolina.

Rep. Harris continued by saying that the devastation from Hurricane Helene "would be — if I were in the legislature — enough to go, 'Yeah, we have to convene the Legislature. We can’t disenfranchise the voters.' "

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty

While Rep. Harris acknowledged that it would appear to be "just a power play" if other states started allocating Electoral College votes before ballots had been counted, he argued that in North Carolina, "it’s legitimate."

"There are a lot of people that aren’t going to get to vote and it may make the difference in that state," he said.

In response to his comments when he was asked to elaborate, Harris issued a statement to Politico, writing, “As I’ve repeatedly said, every legal vote should be counted. I would hope everyone could agree that legal American voters whose lives were devastated by the recent storms should not be disenfranchised in the upcoming voting process.”

Related: Kamala Harris Slams Donald Trump for ‘Playing Games’ with Hurricane Misinformation: ‘I Fear He Lacks Empathy’


Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, the chair of the House Freedom Caucus

Raiklin, 46, posted his exchange with Harris on Thursday night on X, writing, "Breaking! @freedomcaucus chairman @RepAndyHarrisMD at Talbot County Lincoln Reagan Dinner agrees that NC Speaker of the House @NCHouseSpeaker and the State Legislature should convene a joint session to allocate the electors on Nov 5 directly to ensure the franchise of 25 counties is restored."

Raiklin himself has raised concerns by positioning himself as a potential "secretary of retribution" in a future Trump administration. He has reportedly compiled a "Deep State Target List" of 350 individuals he considers enemies, and has promised to appoint "Constitutional sheriffs" to go after those enemies if Trump is elected and offer them "the maximum punishment for treason." (The Department of Justice says that treason can be punishable by death.)

Raiklin was the man who shared a two-page memo on X (then called Twitter) in December 2020 called "Operation Pence Card," which detailed a plan to have Vice President Mike Pence reject the certification of the 2020 election results. Trump retweeted the memo, and after the idea grew in popularity, Pence ultimately refused to participate.

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer.

North Carolinians will play a key role in deciding the next president. The state is one of seven battlegrounds identified in the 2024 election, carrying a large prize of 16 Electoral College votes for the winner. Polls suggest that Kamala Harris has a chance at flipping the state blue, with Trump only an inch ahead in most surveys.

Republican draws criticism for call to bypass election in North Carolina

Moira Warburton
Fri, October 25, 2024 

Members of ReOpen Maryland hold a road rally procession calling for the re-opening for the state of Maryland amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, in Sailsbury, Maryland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican U.S. lawmaker this week suggested the storm-hit state of North Carolina should allocate its votes in the Electoral College to Republican Donald Trump before the Nov. 5 election has taken place, drawing criticism from Democrats.

Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, who chairs the hardline House Freedom Caucus, said in an exchange captured on video on Thursday that given the destruction caused in North Carolina by last month's Hurricane Helene, the state legislature should preemptively declare that Trump won the state's 16 Electoral College votes, to avoid "disenfranchised voters."

His comments were first reported by Politico.

North Carolina is one of seven battleground states expected to play a decisive role in determining whether Trump or Democrat Kamala Harris is the next U.S. president. Polls show Trump with a marginal lead in the state.

Democrats slammed Harris' suggestion.

"Voters decide elections, not far-right politicians," Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

"It's really important to understand the mainstream Republican goal - to make Donald Trump President whether or not he wins the election," Senator Chris Murphy said in a social media post.

Harris' campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.

Twice this century, Democrats have won the majority of the national popular vote without securing the 270 of the 538 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House: in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared Republican George W. Bush the election's winner and in 2016, when Trump was first elected.

(Reporting by Moira Warburton in Washington; Editing by Alistair Bell)

Freedom Caucus chair says he was taken out of context on legislature deciding presidential electors

BRIAN WITTE
Fri, October 25, 2024 



The chairman of the House Freedom Caucus said Friday that news reports quoting him as saying the North Carolina legislature could allocate the state’s presidential electors to Donald Trump before the votes are counted were based on a conversation that was “taken out of context.”

The comments from Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland had been made at a Republican Party dinner in an exchange with a pro-Trump activist who had given the keynote address. The activist suggested that legislatures in several states, including North Carolina, could convene on Election Day and allocate their state’s electors to Trump. The comments from the Thursday dinner in Maryland were first reported by Politico.

Harris, speaking after the speech, referenced the counties in western North Carolina that had sustained major damage from Hurricane Helene. In reaction to the activist's proposal, he said, “for North Carolina, that makes a lot of sense,” according to a video.

“I mean, you statistically can go and say: ’Hey, look, you’ve got disenfranchised in 25 counties. You know what that vote probably would have been, which would be, if I were in the legislature, enough to go: Yeah, we’ve got to convene the legislature, and we can’t disenfranchise the voters. But how do you make the argument in other states? I mean, otherwise, it looks like it’s just a power play,” Harris said.

“With North Carolina, I mean, it’s legitimate. I mean, there are a lot of people who aren’t going to get to vote, and it may make the difference in that state,” he said.

Such a maneuver doesn’t appear to be possible under current North Carolina law.

The state’s law on awarding presidential electors limits the General Assembly’s role to extenuating circumstances after an election if other steps in the process aren’t met. Any attempt by a legislature to subvert the will of the voters and promote an alternate slate of electors also appears to run afoul of the Electoral Count Act, passed by Congress after Trump attempted to stop certification of the 2020 presidential election.


People wait in line at the polling place at Black Mountain Library during the first day of early in-person voting, on Oct. 17, 2024, in Black Mountain, N.C. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)

The offices of North Carolina Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore, both Republicans, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Harris issued a statement Friday after his comments from the dinner drew widespread attention.

“Yesterday’s theoretical conversation has been taken out of context,” he said in a statement. “As I’ve repeatedly said, every legal vote should be counted."

He also said “voting is going well in western North Carolina."

There has been bipartisan agreement on the steps needed to improve voting access in the counties affected by Helene. The North Carolina State Board of Elections — made up of both Democratic and Republican members — unanimously approved a resolution earlier this month expanding opportunities for absentee ballot pickup and giving local boards more flexibility.

The Republican-controlled General Assembly passed legislation to expand those changes to the 25 affected counties. State lawmakers also passed a bill on Thursday that requires 13 mountain counties to have at least one early, in-person voting site for every 30,000 registered voters as soon as possible.

Early voting throughout the state, including in the areas hit hard by the hurricane, has been robust. The state elections board has repeatedly praised the efforts of local election workers to ensure that all voters are able to cast their ballots.

Asked for her reaction to Harris' comments, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, said, "America deserves to have leaders who respect the importance of one of the pillars and foundations of our democracy, which is free and fair elections, and that they are not manipulated by elected leaders for the sake of their own political future or their own political strategy for how they themselves want to succeed.

"This has to be about what’s in the best interest of the American people.”

___

Associated Press writers Gary Robertson and Makiya Seminera in Raleigh, North Carolina, contributed to this report.

"Power play": Freedom Caucus head urges North Carolina to grant Trump electoral college votes

Griffin Eckstein
SALON
Fri, October 25, 2024 

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways


A high-ranking Republican congressman outlined a scheme to preempt the will of voters and award North Carolina’s 16 electoral votes to former president Donald Trump before ballots are tallied in that state.

Maryland Rep. Andy Harris argued on Thursday that the devastation of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, and the potential voting challenges in the deepest-red counties that remain, should push the state's legislature to award Trump their electoral college votes.

The chair of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, said that a plan to deliver Trump the state without an election “makes a lot of sense.”

“You statistically can go and say, ‘Look, you got disenfranchised in 25 counties. You know what that vote probably would have been,’” Harris argued. “Which would be — if I were in the Legislature — enough to go, ‘Yeah, we have to convene the Legislature. We can’t disenfranchise the voters.’”

The move was suggested during a Republican dinner in Talbot County, Maryland. Harris was responding to keynote speaker Ivan Raiklin’s plan to use GOP-controlled legislatures in multiple swing states to award electors to Trump regardless of election outcomes.



“It looks like just a power play,” Harris conceded about Raiklin’s scheme. “In North Carolina, it’s legitimate. There are a lot of people that aren’t going to get to vote and it may make the difference in that state.”

North Carolina Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry told Politico that he hadn’t heard about the plot, but dismissed the idea.
“It makes no sense whatsoever to prejudge the election outcome. And that is a misinformed view of what is happening on the ground in North Carolina, bless his heart,” McHenry said. “I’m confident we’ll have a safe and fair election in North Carolina, and then everyone that wishes to vote will have the opportunity.”

North Carolina has been in the cross-hairs of GOP operators since Hurricane Helene ravaged the area. Trump and his acolytes have spread the conspiracy theory that government officials are slow-walking recovery efforts in the area because of a supposed Republican bent. Officials on both sides of the aisle have debunked these claims repeatedly.

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

Opinion

Is the UK government creating a 'Stasi' police force to silence Israel's critics?



October 23, 2024 

Students and workers with the SOAS Liberated Zone for Gaza shut down a Barclays Bank branch on Tottenham Court Road in London on 29 May 2024 [Giorgia Bianchi/Middle East Monitor]

by Yvonne Ridley
yvonneridley


Police forces in Britain are under fire following several incidents involving pro-Palestine campaigners and activists, as well as journalists, giving rise to fears that the police across the country have become tools of an increasingly repressive state.

Mick Napier, a veteran pro-Palestine campaigner, was banned earlier this month from setting foot in Glasgow after an example of “heavy-handed” policing outside Barclays Bank in the city centre. This drew parallels with the then East Germany’s notorious Stasi, a much-feared security service and secret police force operational from 1950 to 1990.

Emerging victorious this week from Glasgow Sheriff’s Court after the case against him was thrown out, Napier criticised Police Scotland for the force’s “heavy-handed and oppressive” tactics. He insisted that the millions of voices being raised in support of Palestine “will not be silenced”, and went on to express concern for the “jailing of journalists in Britain,” including Julian Assange, who was released in June this year after nearly fourteen years in prison, embassy confinement and house arrest in the UK.

In December 2022, MEMO catalogued what Napier has had to endure at the hands of Police Scotland over the past two decades. “To our mutual astonishment,” I wrote at the time, “the persecution of Napier could make him Britain’s most persecuted individual and a familiar face in Glasgow and Edinburgh courts where has appeared on scores of occasions over the year.”

The first charge against him of “racial aggravation” took more than a year and a half to be resolved, and involved more than 20 court appearances, which Napier described angrily as “beyond preposterous”. The ludicrous charges, more often than not thrown out of court or leading to the collapse of trials, demonstrate the desperation of pro-Israel lobbyists and their lackeys who want to destroy the retired college lecturer and his co-accused.

His first trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in front of Sheriff John Scott came to a grinding halt after the procurator fiscal told a packed courtroom that it was “racist” to say the words “End the siege of Gaza! Genocide in Gaza!” on a public street. The crime, added the Scottish legal official, would be made more serious by repetition.


Sheriff Scott ridiculed the procurator fiscal’s case.

“Our Article 10 free speech protections would be rendered useless and we would have to march in a demonstration carrying placards saying, ‘End war crimes in an unnamed Middle Eastern state’,” Napier pointed out.

Outlawing the word “genocide” in Scotland would more than likely have led to many more spurious arrests if the procurator fiscal had been allowed to proceed with the absurd case against Napier, given that Israel is being investigated for genocide by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

READ: UN urged to declare northern Gaza a disaster zone, stop Gaza genocide

That case against the co-founder of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign was thrown out of court in December 2022. How it even got as far as the courtroom is a mystery, because “genocide” is an apt description of what Israel has been committing against the Palestinians for the past 76 years and counting. It started before the 1948 Nakba, when Israel was created in Palestine, built upon the terrorism of the Irgun and Stern Gang against both the British Mandate authorities and the indigenous Palestinians. These Zionist terror gangs have been turned into heroes by the occupation state of Israel.

The initial charge against Napier was breach of the peace, but it was ramped up to the far more serious “racial aggravation” a couple of weeks after the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed a precursor to the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. Napier went back to court in a process that took a total of three years at Glasgow Sheriff Court because the first presiding sheriff became gravely ill almost two years into the case.

“The Glasgow procurator fiscal’s case was that a placard we carried a few weeks after Israel’s Operation Protective Edge against the Palestinians in Gaza in 2014 was ‘racist’ because it included some ‘blood’ symbolising the 2,200 Palestinians killed in that murderous offensive,” explained Napier at the time. “The procurator fiscal, however, claimed that the blood symbol alluded to a medieval blood libel against Jews that they used the blood of Christian children in religious ceremonies. The sheriff threw out that charge.”

Happily, this robust defender of Palestinian rights has emerged from his years of trials victorious, with most charges dropped or thrown out of court. However, others have not been so fortunate, and have had their careers ruined and futures jeopardised by vindictive Zionists who refuse to accept any criticism of Israel’s brutal military occupation of Palestine.

“As the genocide in Gaza and slaughter in Lebanon continues, we cannot be constrained from protesting against Israel’s war crimes and raising our voices on the streets,” said a spokesman for the Gaza Genocide Emergency Committee on Tuesday. “Mick has been a stalwart figure for Palestinian rights and a valued voice throughout this past, terrible year. We must do all we can to protect our right to free political speech.”

The GGEC is organising a march of the headquarters of the BBC in Glasgow on Saturday to protest against its “suppressed reporting, avoidance of the word genocide and failure to relate the true extent of Palestinian suffering.”

OPINION: Israel’s Biblical wars of ‘self-defence’: The myth of the ‘seven war fronts’

Meanwhile, Mick Napier’s unenviable court record is currently being challenged by the UK-based Palestine Action pressure group, whose members are at the centre of an ongoing legal farce of being arrested, detained and charged, only for their trials to collapse resulting in their release.

Most recently, a jury was discharged after failing to reach a verdict in the trial of four defendants from Palestine Action charged with causing £700,000 worth of damage at the Teledyne weapons factory in Shipley, West Yorkshire. The four occupied the roof of one of the buildings at the site.


They accepted that they had damaged the roof tiles over a period of 17 hours.

During the trial, the defendants argued that they had acted in defence of the lives and property of Palestinians in Gaza, which they honestly believed were at immediate risk, and that they had to act to prevent a crime. They believed that the site was being used to manufacture components for weapons that were to be exported for use by Israel in the commission of war crimes and genocide in Gaza. They believed that this in itself amounted to the aiding and abetting of a war crime and so argued that their actions amounted to a lawful excuse.

The judge heard legal argument on the scope of lawful excuse and ultimately withdrew all the available defences from the defendants. Nevertheless, the jury was unable to reach a verdict and was discharged.

The BBC, which usually keeps its court reporters well away from such cases, covered the trial in full. Lawyers believe that the January ruling by the ICJ on provisional measures in proceedings under the Genocide Convention in the case of South Africa v Israel has made it much more difficult for the mainstream media to ignore cases like this.

Furthermore, last Thursday, British police raided the London home of investigative journalist Asa Winstanley and seized electronic devices using draconian laws which criminalise free speech. The police investigation apparently centres on social media posts and will almost certainly come to nothing. Winstanley’s colleagues at US-based Electronic Intifada say that the laws used against him “would blatantly violate the First Amendment, the constitutional guarantee of free speech and freedom of the press, were they to be applied in the United States.”

READ: EU lawyers slam Israel over attacks on Lebanon, Gaza

In mid-August, British journalist Richard Medhurst was arrested on arrival at London’s Heathrow Airport, and was detained under the Terrorism Act (2000). His phone and recording devices that he used for his work were seized. He is currently out on bail, having been charged over his coverage of the genocide in Gaza.

“Richard Medhurst’s arrest and detention for almost 24 hours using terrorism legislation is deeply concerning and will likely have a chilling effect on journalists in the UK and worldwide, in fear of arrest by UK authorities simply for carrying out their work,” said Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the UK’s National Union of Journalists, and Anthony Bellanger, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, in a joint statement.

Winstanley’s most recent investigative article, “How Israel killed hundreds of its own people on 7 October”, brought together a year of the Electronic Intifada’s reporting, along with new information, detailing Israel’s use of the notorious Hannibal Directive, a secret order that allows Israeli security forces to kill their own citizens rather than allowing them to be taken captive.

Winstanley is the author of Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn, a book based on years of reporting on Britain’s Labour Party while it was in opposition. Since 2019, the Labour Party has launched an investigation and made legal threats in apparent retaliation for his fearless journalism.


Now that Labour is in government, it has the potential to use the full apparatus of the state against those it views as its own – or Israel’s – political enemies.

The lines are indeed becoming increasingly blurred, but it is clear to me that the raid on Winstanley’s home was intended to intimidate and silence him, as well as other journalists and activists.

A month earlier, pro-Palestine activist Sarah Wilkinson was reportedly asked to reveal the location of her contacts in Gaza when she was arrested by British police officers. Like Winstanley, she was forced to endure a morning raid by Counter Terrorism Police. “They said that she was under arrest for ‘content that she has posted online’,” explained her son Jack. She was later released, but is banned from using electronic devices.

On the same day as Wilkinson’s arrest, Palestine Action’s co-founder, Richard Barnard, was charged with three counts of “supporting a proscribed organisation”. Seven of the group’s members appeared in court on 13 August charged with violent disorder, burglary and other offences.

Both Medhurst and Wilkinson could face as much as 14 years in jail, although there are strong suspicions that neither of their respective police investigations has uncovered anything incriminating.

Such draconian action against pro-Palestine campaigners and journalists has provoked anger and disgust online, including from some of the more well-known pro-Palestine and free-speech campaigners. “Nineteen eighty-four has arrived and is alive and well in the United Kingdom,” said former Pink Floyd bassist and active pro-Palestine campaigner Roger Waters.

The Stasi secret police were monstrous, and while we are not there yet, thank goodness, the fact that our Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has banned Nelson Mandela’s grandson from entering the UK for a speaking tour suggests that this Labour government is becoming increasingly authoritarian in order to protect a rogue foreign state which is currently committing “plausible genocide”, in the words of the ICJ.

This should give us all serious cause for concern.

Is it purely coincidence that Prime Minister Keir Starmer and around half of his cabinet ministers have received donations from pro-Israel lobbyists, including Yvette Cooper?

I’ve always felt secure in my profession as a journalist. However, after this latest news about Asa Winstanley and Mick Napier, two people I consider to be friends and colleagues in the fight against the pernicious influence of Zionism on British politics and institutions, I wonder who is going to be next to get an early morning knock on the door.


The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.


Wednesday, September 11, 2024

 

Canada Is Ending Jewish National Fund’s Charitable Status

The Canada Revenue Agency has officially revoked the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund, a committed supporter of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The move marks a significant victory for Palestine solidarity activists.

 Posted on

Reprinted from Jacobin with the author’s permission.

The recent revocation of the Jewish National Fund’s (JNF) charitable status may be the most important Palestine solidarity victory in Canadian history. The grassroots win is a boost to the global Stop the JNF campaign and efforts to disrupt Canadian charity assistance to Israel.

On August 10, the federal government officially revoked the charitable status of an organization that’s has hosted events attended by many prime ministers, ministers, and senators. Just days before the revocation, former prime minister Stephen Harper headlined JNF fundraisers in Windsor and London, Ontario. The organization’s galas, held across the country, draw thousands of well-healed and connected individuals each year. Since 2003, JNF Canada has partnered with provincial governments and raised over a quarter billion CAD.

After fifty-seven years of making all Canadians subsidize its controversial activities, including support for West Bank colonies and the Israeli military, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has finally revoked the JNF’s ability to issue tax receipts to its donors, which often cover half (or more) of all donations received. The organization now has one year to wind up its charitable operations and dispose of its $30 million in assets.

Parkland on Demolished VillagesIn its letter explaining the revocation, the CRA highlights a slew of issues with JNF’s operations. Alongside a multitude of accounting problems, the agency faults JNF Canada for assisting its discriminatory parent organization in Israel. The CRA letter notes:Our review identified that the Organization’s resources appear to have been applied to JNF’s non-charitable projects in the Occupied Territories, and to supporting the Israeli armed forces, and not to activities furthering its charitable purposes. It is our position that the Organization has operated as a conduit for JNF [Israel], a non-qualified donee, in contravention of the Act.

The revocation is the culmination of decades of demonstrations at JNF galas, countless email campaigns, extensive educational efforts, and formal complaints to the CRA about the JNF. The campaign began in earnest in 1978 when Ismail Zayid discovered that Canada Park was built on the village from which he and his family were expelled. JNF Canada raised $15 million (equivalent to $120 million today) to build Canada Park on three West Bank villages — Beit Nuba, Imwas, and Yalu — that were demolished by Israel after the 1967 war. Despite repeated attempts to return home, the five thousand expelled Palestinians were not allowed back. A 1986 UN Special Committee reported to the secretary-general:

[We] consider it a matter of deep concern that these villagers have persistently been denied the right to return to their land on which Canada Park has been built by the JNF Canada and where the Israeli authorities are reportedly planning to plant a forest instead of allowing the reconstruction of the destroyed villages.

JNF Canada, which subsequently raised millions of dollars to refurbish the park, replaced most traces of Palestinian history with signs devoted to Canadian donors such as the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service, City of Ottawa, and former Ontario premier Bill Davis. The Diefenbaker Parkway, dedicated to former prime minister John Diefenbaker, opened in 1975, bisecting Canada Park.

The CRA cites Canada Park, which it labels the “organization’s flagship project,” as a key reason for revoking the JNF’s charitable status. The revocation letter also mentions seven other ventures that the charity funded on land deemed illegally occupied by the Canadian government. Additionally, the CRA details nine JNF Canada initiatives that support a foreign military, which violates the rules for registered charities.

Funding Settlements, One Eviction at a Time

Established in 1910, JNF Canada played a role in an important pre-state land conflict. In the late 1920s, JNF Canada helped raise $1 million (equivalent to $17 million today) to acquire the Wadi al-Hawarith area, a thirty thousand dunam (roughly seventy-five hundred acres) stretch of coastal territory located halfway between Haifa and Tel Aviv. This land was home to a Bedouin community of more than one thousand people. Without consulting the Palestinians living on the land, JNF acquired legal title to Wadi al-Hawarith from an absentee landlord in France.

For four years, the tenants of Wadi al-Hawarith resisted British attempts to evict them. Historian Walid Khalidi explains:

The insistence of the people of Wadi al-Hawarith to remain on their land came from their conviction that the land belonged to them by virtue of their having lived on it for 350 years. For them, ownership of the land was an abstraction that at most signified the landlords’ right to a share of the crop.

The conflict at Wadi al-Hawarith became a lightning rod for the growing Palestinian nationalist movement. In 1933, a general strike was organized in Nablus to support the tenants of Wadi al-Hawarith. Palestinians, especially those without title to their lands, resented the European influx into their homeland.

Founded in 1901 to acquire land in historic Palestine for exclusive Jewish settlement, JNF, along with the World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency, is a key institution of Zionism. By the time of Israel’s creation, JNF had acquired nine hundred thousand dunams of Palestinian land and later “purchased” over two million additional dunams of absentee land from the state after over seven hundred thousand Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1947–48.

Today the JNF owns 13 percent of the country’s land and has significant influence over most of the rest. Due to its systematic exclusion of Palestinian citizens of Israel from leasing its property, a 1998 UN report concluded JNF lands are “chartered to benefit Jews exclusively,” which has led to an “institutionalized form of discrimination.” Similar conclusions were drawn by Israel’s high court in 2005 and a 2012 US State Department report noted “institutional and societal discrimination” in Israel due to JNF’s statutes, which “prohibit sale or lease of land to non-Jews.”

In the early 1980s, JNF Canada helped finance an Israeli government campaign to “Judaize” the Galilee, the largely Arab region in northern Israel. Khateeb Raja, mayor of Deir Hanna, a Palestinian-Israeli town in the Galilee, told the Globe and Mail in 1981 that “the government is building Jewish settlements on our land, surrounding us and turning our villages into ghettos.” A resident of the Galilee, Ishi Mimon, told the paper that he planned to move his family to the newly settled “Galil Canada” area because “the Galilee should have a Jewish majority.”

JNF Canada’s representative in Israel, Akiva Einis, described the political objective of Galil Canada: “The government decided to stop the wholesale plunder (by Israeli Arabs) of state lands [conquered in the 1947/48 war]… The settlements are all on mountain tops and look out over large areas of land. If an Arab squatter takes a plow onto land that is not his, the settlers lodge a complaint with the police.”

JNF Canada spent tens of millions of dollars, aiming to raise $35 million, on fourteen Jewish settlements in Galil Canada. In the contested valley of Lotem, a stone wall and monument was erected, reported the Globe, with “hundreds of small plaques etched with names and home towns of Canadians who have contributed money to the Galilee settlements.” Most of the donors to Galil Canada were Jewish, “but a Pentecostal congregation in Vancouver, the Glad Tidings Temple, has given $1 million.”

Tawfiz Daggash, Deir Hanna’s deputy mayor, denounced Canadian financial support for the settlements to the Globe. “I want to say to the people of Canada that every dollar they contribute [to JNF] is helping the Israeli government in its attempt to destroy the Arab people here.”

Global Revocations Loom

The CRA’s decision to revoke the JNF’s charitable status has already energized the global Stop the JNF campaign. The UK-based legal advocacy group, the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians, cited Canada’s decision in a recent letter urging the UK attorney general to revoke the charitable status of the UK branch of the JNF. With chapters in some fifty countries, the JNF raises around a quarter billion dollars a year in subsidized donations. Losing charitable status in these countries would significantly reduce the parent organization’s resources to further its discriminatory, colonial policies.

While the JNF revocation marks a victory for those opposing Canada’s role in Palestinian dispossession, hundreds of other registered charities raise over a quarter billion dollars annually projects in Israel, with many violating existing CRA rules.

On the same day that JNF’s loss of charitable status was made official, the Canada Gazette also announced the revocation of the Ne’eman Foundation’s charitable status. Raising $7.3 million in 2022, the Ne’eman Foundation assists West Bank colonies and the Israeli military.

Formal complaints have also been submitted to the CRA regarding a dozen other Israel-focused charities, including the Canadian Zionist Cultural Association, Jewish Heritage Foundation of Canada, Mizrachi Canada, and HESEG Foundation.

In recent months, there has been significant activism surrounding Israel-focused charities. In June, public figures such as Gabor Maté, Yann Martel, Linda McQuaig, Roger Waters, Monia Mazigh, Desmond Cole, Libby Davies, and others signed the “Stop Subsidizing Genocide” public letter. The letter points out that “200+ registered Canadian charities funnel a quarter billion dollars a year to projects in Israel. Many of these groups finance projects that support the Israeli military, racist organizations and West Bank settlements in contravention of Canada Revenue Agency rules.”

New Democratic Party revenue critic Niki Ashton has also challenged the government on this issue. She hosted a press conference at the parliamentary press gallery on June 13, calling “on the Liberal government to investigate Canadian charities that allegedly funneled taxpayer money in support of Israeli military operations and illegal settlements in Palestine.” Ashton has also sponsored a parliamentary petition on the subject and sent a letter to Revenue Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, demanding an investigation into these charities’ funding. In a recent post on the matter, Ashton wrote, “Not one cent of Canadian tax-dollars should be funding genocide.”

On the International Day of Charity, September 5, Just Peace Advocates, Canadian Foreign Policy Institute, and others are organizing a day of action at CRA offices across the country, calling on the Canada Revenue Agency to stop subsidizing genocide.

Yves Engler’s latest book is Stand on Guard for Whom? — A People’s History of the Canadian Military.

Sunday, September 01, 2024

UK 


Labour wields anti-terror laws amid pro-Palestine activist arrests


Richard Bernard and Sarah Wilkinson, two prominent pro-Palestine activists

The arrest of prominent pro-Palestine activists and journalists under UK anti-terrorism laws has sparked an online outpouring of concern over alleged state censorship and thought-policing.

On August 29, police raided the home of a well-known pro-Palestine activist, Sarah Wilkinson, reportedly over allegations relating to her online posts discussing the October 7 attack on Israel.

A family member, Jack Wilkinson, explained on X what happened the day she was arrested.

“The police came to her house just before 7.30am. 12 of them in total, some of them in plain clothes from the counter terrorism police. They said she was under arrest for ‘content that she has posted online.’ Her house is being raided & they have seized all her electronic devices.”

Wilkinson, 61, has been highly active in the UK’s pro-Palestine activism scene for many years.

After visiting Palestine some years ago, she dedicated her life to activism and highlighting Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.

She has reported from the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, an international initiative that collected and is attempting to deliver hundreds of tons humanitarian aid directly to Palestinians.

Wilkinson’s arrest caused an outcry across social media, and the hashtag #FreeSarahWilkinsonNOW was picked up across the platform.

Journalist Jonathan Cook said on X: “We now face the terrifying, Orwellian reality that a genocide-complicit PM can repurpose Britain’s ‘counter-terrorism’ laws to jail anyone who opposes Starmer’s complicity in Israel’s genocide, charging them with ‘support’ for terror.”

Also, world-famous musician and Pink Floyd co-founder, Roger Waters, slammed her arrest, saying: “So 12 cops come around to the house and arrest you… for standing up for human rights, campaigning against genocide.”

In a video posted on X, Waters added: “If you allow this to stand, the arrest of Sarah Wilkinson, then you have accepted that Britain is now a fascist state. 1984 has arrived and it is alive and well in the United Kingdom.. Over my dead body.”

Media platform MENA Uncensored, which Wilkinson has worked for as a contributor, has since reported that Wilkinson had been released on bail and “is back to the comfort of her home.”

The UK police have not released any official statements on her arrest and detention.

Palestine Action targeted

On the same day, a co-founder of direct action group Palestine Action, Richard Barnard, was charged with three offences for comments made in two speeches.

He is accused of supporting a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act (2000), and encouraging “criminal activity.”


Credit: Palestine Action









Barnard is to appear at Westminster Magistrates Court on September 18 for a plea hearing.

The announcement was made via Palestine Action’s X account.

“BREAKING: After a targeted campaign by the Zionist lobby, Palestine Action’s co-founder Richard Barnard is facing three charges for two speeches. He is accused of supporting a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act and encouraging ‘criminal activity’.”

Palestine Action is a direct action protest group which has been behind countless “occupations” of companies which are allegedly linked to the Israeli arms trade.

Elbit Systems, a drone manufacturer, has been a regular target for the group.

Palestine Action activists film themselves climbing on company buildings and causing damage to the property and equipment it produces. The damage caused in these protests can sometimes reach millions of pounds.

On August 21, five Palestine Action activists were jailed for at least a year each for taking part in a direct action protest.

The activists had occupied a weapons factory in Glasgow belonging to French arms firm Thales.

The company has a contract with Elbit Systems, which produces 85 per cent of drones used by the Israel Defence Forces.

In June 2022, the activists occupied the roof and unfurled banners to disrupt production. Two of them also damaged weaponry inside the building.

Journalist also arrested 

The arrests of Wilkinson and Barnard are not the only arrests of their kind related to comments about Gaza and October 7.

Richard Medhurst. Credit X | @richimedhurst

On August 15, a Syrian-British journalist Richard Medhurst was arrested by UK police under the provisions of Section 12 of the Terrorism Act of 2000.

Police seized Medhurst at London’s Heathrow Airport as he exited from his airplane.

He was detained and questioned over a 24 hour period. All his electronic devices and journalistic equipment were confiscated.

Medhurst, who became renowned for his staunch support of Julian Assange as well as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, is also a well known anti-Israel commentator on social media.

The UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK. Groups which fall within these definitions become proscribed on the UK’s terrorism list.

Expressing public support or being a member of any proscribed group is also a crime. Both Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah group are on the UK’s terrorism list.

It is important to note that in order to be convicted of a terrorism offence a person doesn’t actually have to commit what could be considered a terrorist attack.

Planning, assisting and even collecting information on how to commit terrorist acts are all crimes under British terrorism legislation.

UK Labour Party Purges Have Mutated Into the Arrest of Palestine Supporters

Britain's authoritarian new prime minister is expanding the scope of already draconian laws to redefine his critics as 'supporters' of terrorism

 Posted on

The arrest yesterday of Palestine solidarity activist Sarah Wilkinson, following the arrest of journalist Richard Medhurst last week – both based on an improbable claim they have violated Section 12 of the Terrorism Act – is definitive proof that Keir Starmer’s authoritarian purges of the Labour left are being rolled out against critics on a nationwide basis.

Now safely ensconced in No 10, Starmer can crush the basic rights of British citizens with as much relish as he earlier pummeled the remnants of democracy inside the Labour party – and for much the same reason.

The British prime minister is determined to terrorize into silence critics highlighting his, and now his government’s, complicity with Israel and its genocide in Gaza.

Starmer would rather dramatically expand the scope of already draconian “counter-terrorism” laws than act against the wishes of the United States, either by stopping arms sales to a fascist Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu or by joining South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

There, judges have already ruled that the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinians over the past 11 months is a “plausible genocide”. The next step is for South Africa and the many states backing it to persuade the World Court that the genocide is proven beyond doubt.

The usual Israel lobby ghouls, such as David Collier, have been salivating over Wilkinson’s arrest. She faces up to 14 years in jail for supposedly “supporting” a proscribed organization – namely, Hamas.

According to reports, she was told she was being arrested over “content that she has posted online”. Police seized all her electronic devices. According to her daughter, she has been released on bail on condition she “never” uses those devices.

Let’s be clear: the police are using the Terrorism Act in this way only because they have received political direction to do so. Wilkinson’s arrest is only possible because the police and Starmer, supposedly a human rights lawyer, are rewriting the meaning of the term “support for terrorism”.

This is political repression in its clearest form.

Traditionally, making it a crime to “support” a terror group was about giving the authorities the power to punish anyone who offered material assistance, such as sending money or weapons, hiding armed fighters, providing information useful in an attack, and so on.

Even standard criminal laws against speech usually require evidence that someone has credibly incited direct violence or put other people’s lives in danger, such as the charges against those involved in recent far-right riots that included attempted pogroms against Muslims and immigrants.

That is entirely different from criminalizing as “support for terror” any positive assertion about something done by a proscribed organization – all the more so if we remember that Hamas has not just a military wing, but also a political section and a welfare arm.

The need for careful distinctions should be obvious. Would praising Hamas leaders, even its military leaders, for agreeing to sit down in peace talks amount to “support” for a terror organization? Should it lead to arrest and jail time?

It was never a crime to “support” Sinn Fein – the political wing of the IRA – in the sense of having complimentary things to say about its long-time leader, Gerry Adams, or backing its political positions.

It wasn’t even illegal to “support” actual IRA “terrorists”. Back in the early 1980s, many people criticized the Ulster authorities and the British government of Margaret Thatcher for their barbaric treatment of IRA prisoners. It was not an arrestable offense, for example, to “support” the hunger strike of the IRA’s Bobby Sands that led to his death in the Maze prison.

The Jewish News sets out the apparent grounds for the raid on Wilkinson’s home by a dozen or so police officers, and the decision to arrest and investigate her on terrorism charges. Those reasons, if they are right, should send a terrifying chill down all our spines. That doubtless was Starmer’s intent.

1. According to the Jewish News, Wilkinson violated Section 12 by describing Hamas’ airborne assault into Israel on October 7 as an “incredible infiltration”. Which it clearly was. By any measure, it was an infiltration. And my dictionary gives as one of the main definitions of “incredible”: “difficult to believe”, or “extraordinary” in the sense of “very far from ordinary”.

Seeing Hamas use hang-gliders to get past one of the most sophisticated military structures ever built to imprison millions of people is the very definition of “incredible”. It was indeed hard to believe Hamas managed technically to do what it did that day.

Even were the police to ignore this established meaning of the word and instead assume that “great” or “wonderful” was intended – as a description of Hamas breaking out from the cage in which the people of Gaza had been imprisoned for decades and deprived of the essentials of life for 17 years – that would hardly constitute a crime, let alone “support” for terrorism.

As is well-established in international law, occupied people such as the Palestinians have a right to resist an army that occupies their territory, including through the use of violence. Just ask Starmer about that right in relation to the people of Ukraine.

Further, as even the Jewish News has to quietly concede, Wilkinson wrote her tweet on October 7 – that is, the very day Hamas’ attack happened. She could have had no idea at the time of writing that civilians were being killed in large numbers.

(The extent of Hamas’ atrocities against civilians on October 7 is far more disputed than the western media cares to admit. It quickly became clear Hamas did not, as claimed, kill babies, let alone behead them. No substantive evidence has been produced so far to show there were rapes that day, let alone the use of rape as a systematic policy, as Israel and its supporters allege. Some Israeli civilians, we now know, were killed by Israel’s own security forces when the so-called Hannibal protocol was invoked. And other Israeli civilians may have been targeted by some of the armed groups and individuals not allied to Hamas that poured out of Gaza through breaches created in the electronic fence around the enclave.)

But even if we assume both that Wilkinson knew civilians had been killed that day, and in large numbers, and that her use of “incredible” was meant to signal her approval of the killings, it should still not constitute a crime to note the extraordinary military feat of breaking out of Gaza.

No one should be locked up for being impressed by violence. If we wanted to make that some sort of principle, we would have to go around arresting large numbers of Zionist Jews and non-Jews in Britain who have been keen to voice their enthusiasm for Israel’s months of slaughter in Gaza.

2. The Jewish News also cites Wilkinson’s praise for Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas’ political bureau, shortly after he was assassinated by Israel in Tehran. She referred to him as a “hero”.

As context, let us note that, before his murder, Haniyeh was widely viewed as a moderate, even in Hamas’ political wing. Living in exile from Gaza, he appears to have had no foreknowledge of the October 7 attack. He was also one of the main players in efforts to end the bloodletting in Gaza and bring about a ceasefire through negotiations with Israel.

Killing Haniyeh was intended by Netanyahu to bolster the hardliners in Hamas’ military and political wings. By sabotaging hopes of a ceasefire, Israel’s government has been able to continue its genocide.

It is no more unreasonable to view Haniyeh as a “hero” for conducting a political struggle to free the people of Gaza from what the World Court has decried as an illegal occupation and a system of brutal Israeli apartheid than it was to view Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams as a hero for his political struggle to free Northern Ireland’s Catholic community from the oppressive rule of Britain and Ulster loyalists.

You may disagree with Haniyeh or Adams’ politics. You may denounce anyone who supports their positions. But you should most certainly not be in a position to lock such supporters away – not if we want to continue believing we live in a free society.

Adams spent many years as an elected member of the British parliament, though he refused to take up his seat in Westminster in protest. No one ever seriously suggested that those who supported him – either by calling him a hero or by voting for him in elections – should be arrested and jailed. Anyone who had done so would rightly have been called out as monstrously authoritarian and deeply anti-democratic.

3. Finally, the Jewish News suggests that Wilkinson made historic online posts – some eight years ago – amounting to Holocaust denial. Wilkinson apparently disputes this and has argued that the allegations were a smear campaign.

Even if we assume the worst – that Wilkinson did actually cast doubt on the Holocaust, rather than being smeared as having done so – that should not be a matter for the “terrorism” police. Having irrational, unfounded, or immoral views are not the equivalent of “support” for terrorism. Not even close.

Let us remember too that, if Britain’s terrorism laws are going to be enforced so expansively, the first person who should be arrested for “supporting” terrorism is Starmer himself. Months ago he insisted numerous times that Israel had a right to block food, water and power to 2.3 million people in Gaza, a policy Israel has indeed pursued and has resulted in a man-made famine that is starving Palestinians to death. The International Criminal Court’s prosecutor is seeking Netanyahu’s arrest for that starvation policy because it is a crime against humanity.

Starmer, the human rights lawyer, knew that the starvation of Gaza was terrorism – or collective punishment, as it is known in international law. And yet he gave that very act of terror his full-throated backing. And his words had much more power to influence events than Wilkinson’s could ever have.

As opposition leader, he was in a position to add tangible pressure on Israel to stop its starvation policy by pointing out it amounted to state terror. As prime minister, he is in a position to advance the arrest of Israeli leaders for their terrorist acts under the principle of universal jurisdiction. He can stop arming the genocide too.

If we had a functioning system of international law, Starmer would undoubtedly be at serious risk of ending up in the dock of The Hague, accused of complicity in war crimes.

We now face the terrifying, Orwellian reality that a genocide-complicit prime minister can repurpose Britain’s “counter-terrorism” laws to jail anyone who opposes Israel’s genocide and Starmer’s complicity in it, charging them with “support” for terror.

Starmer wants to be judge, jury and executioner. We must not let him get away with it.

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net. This originally appeared in the Jonathan Cook’s Substack.