Russia's high court bans 'international LGBT public movement'

U.N. criticizes move as justices label gay rights as 'extremist'

RUSSIA'S WAR ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Nov. 30 (UPI) -- Russia's highest court has ruled that "the international LGBT public movement," is an extremist organization and is, therefore, prohibited.

Earlier this month, the Russian Justice Ministry filed a suit asking the court to make the declaration.

The Justice Ministry said that what it describes as "the international LGBT movement," incites "social and religious discord."

The court said their ruling was to "sustain the claim by the Justice Ministry to recognize the LGBT movement as extremist."

Volker Turk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, denounced the ruling.

"This decision exposes human rights defenders and anyone standing up for the human rights of LGBT people to being labeled as 'extremist' -- a term that has serious social and criminal ramifications in Russia," Turk said as he demanded the immediate repeal of laws targeting the LGBTQ community.

"I call on Russian authorities to repeal, immediately, laws that place improper restrictions on the work of human rights defenders or that discriminate against LGBT people," Turk said. "The law must uphold and defend the principals of equality and non-discrimination."

Human rights NGOs also denounced the ruling and said its vague language could be used to persecute dissent.

"Russian authorities have long misused Russia's broad and vague anti-extremism legislation to prosecute peaceful critics," Human Rights Watch said in a press release Thursday.

 

Police raid Moscow gay bars after a Supreme Court ruling labeled LGBTQ+ movement ‘extremist’

FILE - A gay rights activist stands with a rainbow flag, in front of journalists, during a protesting picket at Dvortsovaya (Palace) Square in St.Petersburg, Russia, Sunday, Aug. 2, 2015. Russia’s Supreme Court on Thursday, Nov. 30, 2023, effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism, in the most drastic step against advocates of gay, lesbian and transgender rights in the increasingly conservative country. (AP Photo, File)

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
 December 2, 2023

Russian security forces raided gay clubs and bars across Moscow Friday night, less than 48 hours after the country’s top court banned what it called the “global LGBTQ+ movement” as an extremist organization.

Police searched venues across the Russian capital, including a nightclub, a male sauna, and a bar that hosted LGBTQ+ parties, under the pretext of a drug raid, local media reported.

Eyewitnesses told journalists that clubgoers’ documents were checked and photographed by the security services. They also said that managers had been able to warn patrons before police arrived.
ADVERTISEMENT


The raids follow a decision by Russia’s Supreme Court to label the country’s LGBTQ+ “movement” as an extremist organization.

The ruling, which was made in response to a lawsuit filed by the Justice Ministry, is the latest step in a decadelong crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights under President Vladimir Putin, who has emphasized “traditional family values” during his 24 years in power.

Activists have noted the lawsuit was lodged against a movement that is not an official entity, and that under its broad and vague definition authorities could crack down on any individuals or groups deemed to be part of it.

Several LGBTQ+ venues have already closed following the decision, including St. Petersburg’s gay club Central Station. It wrote on social media Friday that the owner would no longer allow the bar to operate with the law in effect.

Max Olenichev, a human rights lawyer who works with the Russian LGBTQ+ community, told The Associated Press before the ruling that it effectively bans organized activity to defend the rights of LGBTQ+ people.

“In practice, it could happen that the Russian authorities, with this court ruling in hand, will enforce (the ruling) against LGBTQ+ initiatives that work in Russia, considering them a part of this civic movement,” Olenichev said.

Before the ruling, leading Russian human rights groups had filed a document with the Supreme Court that called the Justice Ministry lawsuit discriminatory and a violation of Russia’s constitution. Some LGBTQ+ activists tried to become a party in the case but were rebuffed by the court.

In 2013, the Kremlin adopted the first legislation restricting LGBTQ+ rights, known as the “gay propaganda” law, banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors. In 2020, constitutional reforms pushed through by Putin to extend his rule by two more terms also included a provision to outlaw same-sex marriage.

After sending troops into Ukraine in 2022, the Kremlin ramped up a campaign against what it called the West’s “degrading” influence. Rights advocates saw it as an attempt to legitimize the war. That same year, a law was passed banning propaganda of “nontraditional sexual relations” among adults, also, effectively outlawing any public endorsement of LGBTQ+ people.

Another law passed this year prohibited gender transitioning procedures and gender-affirming care for transgender people. The legislation prohibited any “medical interventions aimed at changing the sex of a person,” as well as changing one’s gender in official documents and public records.

Russian authorities reject accusations of LGBTQ+ discrimination. Earlier this month, Russian media quoted Deputy Justice Minister Andrei Loginov as saying that “the rights of LGBT people in Russia are protected” legally. He was presenting a report on human rights in Russia to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, arguing that “restraining public demonstration of nontraditional sexual relationships or preferences is not a form of censure for them.”

The Supreme Court case is classified and it remains unclear how LGBTQ+ activists and symbols will be restricted.

Many people will consider leaving Russia before they become targeted, said Olga Baranova, director of the Moscow Community Center for LGBTQ+ Initiatives.

“It is clear for us that they’re once again making us out as a domestic enemy to shift the focus from all the other problems that are in abundance in Russia,” Baranova told the AP.

Study: Meditation offers real benefits to seniors' psychological well-being


A woman meditates in a park in China where people have long incorporated mediation into their daily lives to balance the pressures of making a living and raising a family. Now, a major randomized, controlled European trial has shown the benefits to psychological well-being that meditation provides are real. 

File photo by Stephen Shaver/UPI | License Photo

Dec. 1 (UPI) -- Meditating for 20 minutes daily for 18 months naturally boosted the psychological well-being of seniors, results from a new randomized controlled trial out Friday show.

The trial involving 130 otherwise healthy French speakers aged 65-84 in Caen, France, improved participants' awareness, connection to others and insight, according to the research conducted by a University College London-led consortium of European Universities and research centers and published in the journal PLOS ONE.

"As the global population ages, it is increasingly crucial to understand how we can support older adults in maintaining and deepening their psychological well-being. In our study, we tested whether long-term meditation training can enhance important dimensions of wellbeing," Marco Schlosser, a University College London psychiatry research fellow and University of Geneva doctoral candidate, said in a news release.

"Our findings suggest that meditation is a promising non-pharmacological approach to support human flourishing in late life."

The trial compared the test group, which followed an 18-month mediation program, 9 months' mindfulness training, a 9-month loving kindness and compassion module via weekly group sessions and a retreat day, with a group that received English lessons and a control group, which did neither.

The study found meditation training did no better than language classes in improving subjects' quality of life or one of the most commonly used measures of psychological well-being -- but the researchers suggest this may be due to limitations of existing tools for monitoring well-being.

The two conventional benchmarks, the researchers said, fail to encompass the qualities and depth of human flourishing that can be by fostered through longer-term meditation training, with the result that awareness, connection and insight benefits go unnoticed.

However, the longest randomized meditation training trial ever conducted did find meditation significantly boosted a global score of well-being dimensions of awareness, connection and insight, with awareness defined as "an undistracted and intimate attentiveness to one's thoughts, feelings and surroundings, which can support a sense of calm and deep satisfaction."

"Connection" relates to emotions including respect, gratitude and kinship that can help improve relationships with others. Insight refers to a self-knowledge and understanding of how thoughts and feelings participate in shaping our perception and how to switch-up negative thoughts about ourselves and the world around

The worse a person's psychological state is, the greater the benefit the therapy confers. Positive outcomes were most significant among test participants reporting the lowest levels of mental well-being at the start of the trial who made the most progress, compared with those who entered the trial with high well-being scores.

The researchers say more research is needed to identify groups that might gain the greatest benefit from mediation training and to refine programs so that they deliver the maximum gains.

"By showing the potential of meditation programs, our findings pave the way for more targeted and effective programs that can help older adults flourish, as we seek to go beyond simply preventing disease or ill-health, and instead take a holistic approach to helping people across the full spectrum of human wellbeing, said senior author Antoine Lutz of the Lyon Neuroscience Research Center at Inserm.

The study was led by the European Union's Horizon 2020-funded Medit-Ageing research group which comprises UCL, Inserm, University of Geneva, Université de Caen Normandy, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, University of Liege, Technische Universitat Dresden and Friedrich Schiller University Jena.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

U.S. fines three Chinese accounting firms $7.9M for violating securities laws


The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Thursday fined three Chinese accounting firms $7.9 million for allegedly violating U,S, securities laws. 

File Photo by Stephen Shaver/UPI | License Photo


Dec. 1 (UPI) -- The U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board fined three Chinese firms and four people affiliated with them $7.9 million Thursday for allegedly violating U.S. securities laws and other misconduct.

PwC

 PRICE COOPERS WATERHOUSE ACCOUNTANTS

Public accounting companies PwC China and PwC Hong Kong, were fined $7 million for allowing more than 1,000 people from PwC Hong Kong and hundreds more from PwC China to share answers to tests for mandatory internal training.

Two unauthorized software applications were used to share answers to the tests.

PCAOB said they violated quality control standards related to integrity and personnel management.

PwC China and PwC Hong Kong agreed to pay the fines without admitting or denying the board's findings.

Accounting firm Shandong Haoxin was fined $750,000 and four people associated with it were fined $190,000 for violating securities laws.

Haoxin was also censured and cannot accept new PCAOB accounting clients. An independent monitor was also assigned to improve practices at the company and to ensure future compliance.

PCAOB said the company made false statements on an audit report and violated "independence requirements and/or PCAOB auditing, ethics, and/or quality control rules and standards."

Haoxin and the individuals sanctioned agreed to the penalties without admitting or denying the board's findings.

The sanctioned individuals were Liu Kun. Ma Yao, Sun Penghuan and Zhu Dawei. They are also barred from being "associated persons of a registered public accounting firm."

According to PCAOB, these are the first enforcement settlements with Chinese and Hong Kong companies since the oversight board gained powers to inspect and investigate Chinese firms.

It said they are also the largest civil financial penalties the board has levied against a China-based company.

"The days of China-based firms evading accountability are over. The PCAOB will take action to protect investors on U.S. markets and impose tough sanctions against anyone who violates PCAOB rules and standards, no matter where they are located," said PCAOB Chair Erica Y. Williams in a statement.

AUSTRALIA

PwC should be ‘investigated by AFP’ for tax leak

A recent piece in the Australian Financial Review cites new CLARS Affiliate, Honorary Professor Brent Fisse.

Anyone who thought Australia's organisational culture problems might have come to an end with the 2019 Banking Royal Commission will be sadly disappointed by the escalating PwC international tax scandal.

The excellent recent piece by Tom Burton in the Australian Financial Review (see extract below), cites new CLARS Affiliate, Honorary Professor Brent Fisse, describing the scandal as PwC's 'Enron moment'.

In the full article, Professor Fisse dissects the possible legal offences and penalties (both in Australia and the United States) that could be relevant further down the line. A must read for anyone interested in accountability for flawed organisational culture!

PwC should be ‘investigated by AFP’ for tax leak
17 May 2023

Federal authorities should investigate PwC for possible criminal breaches over its alleged breaches of confidentiality and look at imposing a US-style deferred prosecution agreement on the accounting and consulting giant, according to corporate law expert Brent Fisse. A former partner with Gilbert+Tobin, Mr Fisse has lectured and written extensively about corporate law, responsibility and accountability and warned PwC to take seriously its situation.

PwC has been warned it faces an “Enron” moment, similar to that faced by US accounting giant Arthur Anderson after an accounting scandal engulfed the energy giant.

“PwC wouldn’t want to underestimate what they’re up against,” Mr Fisse said. “We’re all familiar with the Enron moment that sent Arthur Andersen out of business, and this is starting to look a lot like that.”

This article was published on the Monash Lens. Read the original article (Paywall).

Review of PwC tax leaks scandal will not stop conflicts of interest engulfing consulting firms

By business reporter Nassim Khadem
Posted Tue 26 Sep 2023 

The big four accounting firms are facing scrutiny at a Senate inquiry. 

(ABC News: John Gunn; Reuters: Wolfgang Rattay)

Former Telstra CEO Ziggy Switkowski's internal review into PwC following the tax leaks scandal is unlikely to stop further scrutiny of the big four accounting giant and other consulting firms.

The embattled firm had tapped Switkowski to lead an "independent" internal inquiry, but its limited terms of reference mean that important details about the tax leaks scandal aren't the focus of the review.

Switkowski was not specifically asked to investigate the tax leaks or past conduct at the firm, but to instead focus on how PwC could reform its governance structure, the culture of the firm and how leaders were held to account.

PwC knows this is an important PR exercise – and it's one that it's been closely managing.
Ziggy Switkowski has led the internal review into PwC. (Mark Nolan: Getty Images)

The firm was hoping that its review would draw a line in the sand over the damaging revelations that some of its senior partners misused confidential Australian government information to help big multinational companies avoid paying more tax.

Since the scandal erupted, the company's Australian CEO has quit, nine senior partners have been stood down, and the man at the centre of the scandal, Peter Collins, is being investigated by the Australian Federal Police.

In a recent call with former partners, PwC chief executive Kevin Burrowes — who was brought in by PwC's global leadership after the scandal to run the Australian arm — said the international investigation was likely to find a "reasonably clean bill of health". He had also said there were "one or two small instances" where international partners were involved.

PwC Australia's senior management was handed a draft of a report weeks ago but decided to wait for another round of parliamentary hearings into the use of consultants before publicly releasing the review.

But it's unlikely this is the end of an intense probe into PwC and the way other firms manage conflicts of interest

.
Former PwC partner Peter Collins appears before Senate estimates in Canberra.(ABC News)

The review is unlikely to satisfy those calling for much bigger changes, including federal politicians who want to see PwC partners implicated in the scandal jailed.

The PwC controversy has also reignited a global debate about whether accounting firms need to split their lucrative consulting services from their audit functions.

For decades, the big four — Deloitte, PwC, KPMG and EY — have had an inherent conflict of interest whereby they get paid to both advise the nation's largest corporations as well as audit them.

It's no secret that the big four firms help companies minimise tax, and their ability to push the boundaries has been the subject of a previous Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance.

Operating in almost every country, the big four collectively employ more than 1 million people, and most of their revenue growth is from their consulting side.

In 2021, the global consulting services market was valued at between $US700 billion ($1.09 trillion) and $US900 billion (1.4 trillion).
The review is unlikely to satisfy those calling for much bigger changes, including federal politicians who want to see PwC partners implicated in the tax leaks scandal jailed.(AAP: Joel Carrett)

Regulators further probe PwC, questions rise over ATO settlement

The release of the review into PwC comes after an array of investigations and inquiries, including a probe by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), as well as a new round of investigations by the Tax Practitioners Board (TPB), which is the agency that regulates tax agents.

On Tuesday the TPB told a Senate inquiry into consulting services that it was conducting preliminary investigations into several former partners at PwC — beyond the nine who have already left because of the tax scandal.

TPB chairman Peter de Cure told the inquiry his organisation had "started a formal investigation focused on one person" who used to be a partner at PwC.

And the body's chief executive, Michael O'Neill, said the TPB was continuing with preliminary inquiries into other current and former PwC partners and into PwC itself.

The ATO was later probed about how much knowledge former PwC chief executive Luke Sayers knew about the tax leak scandal before leaving the firm.

ATO second commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn said he had personally asked Sayers at two meetings in 2019 and 2020 to investigate the PwC emails obtained by the ATO.
Jeremy Hirschhorn has defended the ATO's use of settlements with big companies, arguing it does not do "sweetheart deals". (AAP Image: Mick Tsikas)

Senator Barbara Pocock, questioning Hirschhorn during the committee hearing, said it was "absolutely implausible" that Sayers had no knowledge of confidentiality breaches.

The ATO was also criticised by Pocock at the inquiry for reaching a settlement with a 50 per cent reduction in penalty for PwC in March 2023.

The settlement came after what the ATO claims were false claims for legal professional privilege over 150 documents that related to tax advice PwC gave to a multinational client.

It also came after the TPB in November made findings that the firm used information provided by Peter Collins in breach of the confidentiality agreement signed with the Treasury to market tax avoidance schemes to PwC clients in 2016 and 2017.

The ATO then concealed the deal with PwC from the TPB, only disclosing it to the Senate Committee on Finance and Public Administration References Committee in late July.

The inquiry heard how Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan tried to prevent the TPB from accessing information on that settlement.
The inquiry heard how Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan tried to prevent the TPB from accessing information on a settlement with a PwC client.(ABC News: Mark Moore)

Evidence was given that Jordan wrote to the TPB saying that its release would damage the trust and confidence that taxpayers had in dealing with the ATO and would threaten tax administration.

"What damage is made to tax administration by revealing the level of discount or payment by a large multinational in its tax avoidance strategies? Where's the damage?" Pocock asked.

Hirschhorn defended the ATO's settlement saying, "Large businesses do not get sweetheart deals," and: "We put rigorous controls around the settlements."

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and McKinsey Australia fronted the inquiry after initially declining to appear.

McKinsey and BCG, which have entered contracts worth more than $120 million in fees from the federal government in the past two years, were questioned over the level of executive pay for individual government contracts as well as their relationship with senior bureaucrats in winning lucrative contracts.

Pocock said McKinsey was paid $660,000 for one week's worth of work — consulting on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

But at the inquiry, the firm refused to give details on executive salaries, and questions were raised about whether taxpayers were getting good value for money.

On Wednesday the Senate will continue its probe, calling the Department of Finance and KPMG to give evidence.

Greens senator Barbara Pocock has been questioning regulators involved in the PwC tax leaks.(ABC news: Ian Cutmore)

Should big four accounting firms' functions be split?

As more firms front the inquiry, global regulators have already made clear they don't think big four firms can manage conflicts of interest with dual roles of audit and advisory.

Following a string of high-profile accounting scandals, several countries have already slapped restrictions around firms doing consulting work for companies they audit.

In addition, the UK's auditing and accounting regulator, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), in 2020 established a June 2024 deadline for the big four firms to split their audit and consulting businesses to improve corporate reporting.

The FRC noted at the time that between 2012 and 2018 combined consulting and advisory revenue for the big four grew 44 per cent, compared to just 3 per cent growth in their auditing businesses.

It said the move to split the functions would help ensure that audit practices were focused on the "delivery of high-quality audits in the public interest".

Ernst & Young in the UK had toyed with breaking up its audit and consulting functions, but in April the firm called off its plan code-named "Project Everest" after facing resistance from some its partners.

The company said its US executive committee decided not to move forward with the split.

Had it gone through, it would have been the biggest overhaul in the accounting sector since the 2002 collapse of Arthur Andersen, the auditor that was embroiled in the Enron scandal and whose downfall reduced the big five to the big four.
Arthur Andersen was the auditor that was embroiled in the Enron scandal and whose downfall reduced the big five to the big four.(Getty Images)

There are also worries that in Australia, billions of dollars of taxpayers' money continues to be spent annually on consulting services, with little or no accountability.

Former ACCC chairman Allan Fels is among those who are worried and who think the audit and advisory functions of big four firms should be split.

Jason Ward, principal analyst at CICTAR, also thinks that should happen.

He points to one example of where audit and advisory functions could potentially create a conflict of interest, noting that big four firm KPMG does both the audit and consulting work for the head Australian entity DP World — one of the largest port operators in Australia and globally.

According to filing lodged with the corporate regulator, KPMG Australia was paid $455,862 for audit services and additionally paid $394,525 for "income tax compliance/advice" in 2022 by DP World Australia.

"In many countries, it would be against the law to have the same firm providing both audit services and tax advice to corporate clients. This is a clear conflict of interest," Ward says.

"Australia needs to end this practice and catch up to global standards."

It's a message that no doubt will be considered in the months to come as regulators and politicians further probe the big consulting firms.
Posted 26 Sep 2023

South Korea to develop stealth submarines
By Jeong Hyeon-hwan & Kim Tae-gyu, UPI News Korea


A model of a prototype for a stealth submarine developed by South Korean shipbuilder Hanwha Ocean is displayed. 

Photo courtesy of Hanwha Ocean

NO APPARENT FORWARD TORPEDO TUBES, THIS IS A NUKE ICBM 

CRUISE MISSLE SUB

SEOUL, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- South Korea, which is still technically at war with North Korea, is planning to develop stealth submarines.

Hanwha Ocean announced Wednesday the shipbuilding giant has signed a contract with the government agency Korea Research Institute for Defense Technology Planning and Advancement toward fulfilling such a goal.

Under the agreement, the company will concentrate on developing stealth technology, aiming to begin production of a prototype submarine by May 2028.

The focus will be on new degaussing devices designed to cut down on the magnetic field generated by submarines so they can better avoid detection

To enhance stealth capabilities, Hanwha Ocean plans to develop customized technologies for component coils, power supplies, control units and magnetic sensor designs.

Hanwha Ocean is the only South Korean company to boast a full range of submarines, with its midsize vessels in commission under Korea's and Indonesia's navies.

"With the submarines being hidden under water, there has been less of an interest in their stealth technology than, for say, fighter jets. We feel, hence, that there is actually a big room for growth," a Hanwha Ocean official told UPI News Korea.

"Our aim is to develop submarines equipped with the world's best stealth technology, an effort that will help us improve our leadership in the global maritime defense market, including the United States and Europe," he said.

In October, the Agency for Defense Development designated the company as the preferred negotiator for developing energy source systems for unmanned submarines, with its mission being the development of multipurpose modular submarines that can be powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

Far Right Win in Dutch Elections Shows How Quickly the Right Is Rising in Europe

Geert Wilders’s election is an ominous harbinger. The hour has come for Europe to stymie the spread of the far right.

By C.J. Polychroniou , 

TRUTHOUT

December 2, 2023

Leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders speaks to press after a conversation with scout Ronald Plasterk as he invites all the party chairmen for an interview in The Hague, Netherlands on November 29, 2023

The dramatic victory of the far right provocateur Geert Wilders in the recent Dutch elections is yet another extremely worrisome sign that Europe is shredding the veil of tolerance and becoming more brazenly exclusionary. Indeed, the spread of far right radicalization across the continent signals that Europe is engulfed in a profound political, social and moral crisis.

Wilders’s Party for Freedom, or PVV, which has been on a long ascent, took 37 of the 150 seats in the Second Chamber. This was 20 more seats than it won in the 2021 elections, while the other parties lost seats, making the extreme right the largest party in the national parliament. The radical left was hit the hardest, losing nearly half of its elected representatives.

Wilders’s political career has been built around anti-Islam and anti-immigration rhetoric. In fact, in 2016 he was charged with inciting hatred and discrimination against Dutch Moroccans. He always had a solid base of voter support, though it was never previously strong enough to allow him to become a power broker in Dutch politics. Obviously, the political dynamic has now changed, and Wilders is in the process of seeking possible governing coalitions. Eager to become prime minister, Wilders said he is willing to moderate his positions, but that’s only because he is having a hard time luring partners to form a coalition government with his far right party.

As undoubtedly one of Europe’s most blatantly racist politicians, Wilders’s campaign called for an end to asylum for all refugees, the “de-Islamization” of the Netherlands and a Brexit-style referendum on the European Union (EU). He was seen as a political outsider, but pollsters got it wrong. Nonetheless, that more Dutch voters turned to Wilders’s message at this point in time should not come as a surprise to anyone. Across Europe — north, south, east and west — far right parties have broken into mainstream political consciousness as many voters are fed up with establishment parties. Italians were hardly surprised when Giorgia Meloni’s radical right Brothers of Italy won a clear majority in Italy’s 2022 snap general election.

Once considered fringe organizations destined to political invisibility, Europe’s far right movements and parties have gained ground with frustrated working-class and disappointed middle-class citizens, including youth voters. Moreover, they are having an impact as both right and center-left mainstream parties have adopted an anti-immigration stance while they push the neoliberal agenda even harder, catering to the needs and interests of the rich and the business class. The result of all this is that more voters turn to the far right as anti-immigration policies gain increased support and neoliberalism shreds the social safety net and widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Europe’s War Against Refugees Is Fueling the Far Right’s Ascension

The international guaranteed rights of refugees are eroding on both sides of the Atlantic. By David Goeßmann , TRUTHOUT May 29, 2023

The Netherlands endured 13 years of neoliberal rule led by the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, or VVD, a center-right party which promoted the interests of private enterprise and big business and paid little attention to the needs of the average citizen. A scandal over government efforts to reduce child welfare payments by subjecting thousands of low- and middle-income families to scrutiny and falsely accusing them of obtaining benefits illegally alienated a sizable segment of voters, as did the Groningen gas affair, in which the authorities put gas profits before the safety of surrounding communities. Such scandals, along with rising concerns about the cost of living and housing shortages, played a major role in the growing mistrust of the government and fueled the perception that a wind of change was needed in Dutch politics. Moreover, the VVD had decided to make immigration a key campaign issue, so one should not be surprised, as Dutch author and editor Auke van der Berg told me over email, that many voters ultimately opted to select “the original (PVV–Wilders) and not the copy.”

Naturally, Wilders’s victory stiffened other far right leaders’ resolve to carry on with their campaign against a cosmopolitan and multicultural Europe. Congratulations poured in from Hungary’s Viktor Orbán; the Italian deputy minister and leader of the extreme-right party, Matteo Salvini; and France’s Marine Le Pen. But as French Minister Bruno Le Maire said of Wilders’s election win, this was a consequence of “all the fears that are emerging in Europe” over immigration and the economy.

Indeed, while fearmongering around immigration is surely a factor behind the rise of the far right in Europe, economic issues such as declining standards of living and economic inequality may in fact be the key driver behind the spread of anti-immigration sentiments. The European Union integration project has long been seen by large segments of the continent’s citizenry as undermining national sovereignty and strengthening neoliberal economic policies harmful to the working class. Still, we can’t ignore the role racism and Islamophobia have played, as it is specifically migration flows from non-European countries that have been touted as a threat, and none more so than Muslim migration. The unjustified fear among those who are calling for tougher immigration laws, as many Dutch citizens have been doing over the years, is of Islam. The problem, for them, is that the immigrants are Muslim, not that they are immigrants. Europe welcomed Ukrainian refugees. But as political scientist Lamis Abdelaaty said, “Europeans see Ukrainians as White and Christian, similar to the way that many in European countries see themselves.”

At this point, the question is not whether the far right is surging in Europe, but rather how national governments and the EU alike intend to counter fascism and far right extremism. Fear of the “Other” and the consequences of neoliberalism (economic insecurity, poverty, inequality and deteriorating living standards) are among the main causes behind the increasing public support for far right parties. Left unaddressed, and especially amid organizing conducted via the internet and social media, hard right politics will only grow, and far right violence will likely increase. What took place recently in Dublin, where hundreds of radical right rioters went on a rampage over unconfirmed reports on social media that three children had been stabbed by an “illegal immigrant,” may be a prelude to what the future holds for Western societies unwilling to address the factors that contribute to the spread of far right ideologies.

The rising tide of the far right is terrifying and monstrous, but it’s still possible for effective resistance to interrupt this nightmare. Europe’s far right ideologues mix nationalistic and social stances, just like their predecessors did in the 1920s and 1930s. The answer to the threat they pose in the 21st century is clear: tackling the root causes of economic inequality and ensuring that no one is left behind. The return of the social state and the expansion of democracy are the best tools available for fighting fascism and far right extremism. They worked in the past and can still work today.

The far right is a menace to decent society. The hour has come for Europe to face the monsters.

Copyright © Truthout.

C.J. POLYCHRONIOU is a political scientist/political economist, author, and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout’s Public Intellectual Project. He has published scores of books and over 1,000 articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into a multitude of different languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. His latest books are Optimism Over Despair: Noam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change (2017); Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); and Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (2021).

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for GEERT WILDERS 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for EUROPEAN RIGHT 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for EUROPEAN FAR RIGHT 

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for EUROPEAN FASCISM 

UN Report Details Rampant US Human Rights Violations at Home and Abroad

Two-thirds of U.S. breaches of the civil and political rights covenant involve racial discrimination.

By Marjorie Cohn , 

TRUTHOUT

November 9, 2023

The flag of the United Nations is pictured in front of the UN building  in New York City.

A United Nations body has issued a damning report blasting the United States for its rampant violations of a major human rights treaty that it ratified in 1992.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) enshrines the rights to life, to vote, and to freedom of expression and assembly; and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It forbids discrimination in the enjoyment of civil and political rights based on race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (which includes sexual orientation).

In its blistering November 3 report, the UN Human Rights Committee — a group of 18 independent experts that monitors the implementation of the ICCPR — documented how little the U.S. has done to challenge the systemic, wide-ranging racism that continues to infuse every aspect of our society. Racial discrimination permeated two-thirds of the documented U.S. violations of the human rights treaty.

Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program, called the UN report “scathing.”

“The United States touts itself as a beacon of democracy and human rights, yet the Committee’s findings prove that this could not be further from the truth, underscoring the critical need to prioritize and strengthen human rights at home and establish a National Human Rights Institution to ensure that our most basic rights are protected,” Dakwar said in a statement.

RELATED STOR

Y

Human Rights Groups Urge UN to Call for Abolition of “Death by Incarceration”

An activist coalition is urging UN experts to call for the abolition of “life without parole” sentences in the U.S. By Marjorie Cohn ,  TRUTHOUT  September 15, 2022

Here are some of the committee’s “Concluding Observations,” which are the culmination of its periodic review in Geneva last month:

The committee expressed concern about violence — including mass shootings and hate speech — against Black people, Indigenous peoples, Latinos, Asians, Muslims and Jews, as well as migrants, asylum seekers and people targeted on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

An increase in gun-related deaths and injuries disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, as well as women and children, the committee noted. It recommended strengthening legislation requiring background checks and banning assault weapons.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity concerned the committee, which condemned the increase of severely restrictive state legislation, including criminalizing gender-affirming health care for transgender persons, and limiting discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity issues in school. The committee urged that discriminatory state laws be repealed and that the U.S. intensify its efforts to combat violence and discrimination in access to housing, health, employment and in detention facilities.

Criminalization of homelessness and violence against unhoused persons disproportionately impact people based on their race, real or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity, and disability. The committee, which cited “violence against homeless persons” who are at “higher risk of premature death” due to homelessness, recommended the abolition of laws criminalizing homelessness.

The report zeroed in on racial profiling, citing violations by law enforcement officials, including Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as the targeting of ethnic and racial minorities, particularly Black people, Indigenous peoples, Latinos and Muslims.

Police brutality and the excessive and deadly use of force by law enforcement officials have a disparate impact on Black, Latino and Indigenous peoples, as well as migrants and asylum seekers, the committee concluded. It urged bringing federal and state laws and policies into conformity with international principles on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement and UN guidelines on less lethal weapons in law enforcement.

The report noted the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in the criminal legal system. They are disproportionately held in pretrial detention and placed on probation and parole, and are more often subject to prison labor and harsher sentences. The committee recommended reducing unnecessary criminal justice interventions, increased use of alternatives to incarceration, reasonable bail requirements, and parole and probation sentences that are necessary and proportionate to the offense.

Racial disparities in the imposition of the death penalty were also of concern to the committee, which recommended a moratorium at the federal level and concrete steps toward the abolition of capital punishment. U.S. officials were urged to strengthen safeguards against racist and wrongful sentencing and execution. Life imprisonment without possibility of parole (LWOP) similarly disproportionately affects Black people. The report also urged the U.S. to prohibit and abolish LWOP for juveniles and consider imposing a moratorium on the imposition of LWOP sentences.

The Committee was also concerned about discrimination on the basis of nationality, including residual effects from Donald Trump’s now-revoked “Muslim ban.” Prolonged delays in family reunification and a backlog of visa applications persist. The committee suggested an accessible, fair and effective reconsideration process for all visa applicants who continue to be affected by the ban, and additional measures to prevent future discriminatory bans.

Of grave concern were recent U.S. policies that “excessively restrict” effective protection of the right to seek asylum. The committee was concerned that they may breach the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning someone to a country where there is a substantial risk they will face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The report also points to mandatory and prolonged detention, lack of access to counsel and poor detention conditions, leading to the deaths of many detained people.

More than 5,000 children were forcibly separated from their parents at the southern U.S. border, and hundreds still remain separated. The committee urged the U.S. to redouble its efforts to reunite all separated children with their families and prohibit future family separations.

Children belonging to racial and ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the child welfare system, and police presence in schools — part of the “school-to-prison pipeline” — disproportionately affects children of color. The committee advocated eliminating discriminatory bias in student discipline.

The committee was concerned about human trafficking, including children, as well as the criminalization of victims of trafficking and limited access to effective protection, particularly for noncitizens who are at risk of becoming victims of forced labor. The committee recommended on-site inspections, especially in the agricultural sector, as well as measures to prevent the criminalization of sex trafficking victims.

The committee also highlighted violence against women, including domestic and sexual violence. Victims disproportionately include low-income women; Black, Latina and Indigenous women; incarcerated women; and women with disabilities. The committee recommended effective implementation of the Violence Against Women Act and encouraged states to pass legislation prohibiting and criminalizing female genital mutilation. The report added that the U.S. should redouble its efforts to protect against sex- and gender-based discrimination through the Equal Rights Amendment and should consider ratifying the Convention on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and the lack of comprehensive data and resources, which hinders effective and culturally appropriate investigations, were also cited.

The report noted that the U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations, which particularly affects women of color. It cited the “immediate and devastating impact” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on access to safe and legal abortion, including racial and ethnic disparities in reproductive health. The committee was alarmed at the criminalization of health care providers and people, including family members, who assist women in obtaining abortions, and was deeply concerned about restrictions on interstate travel for abortions, bans on medication abortion and surveillance of those seeking abortion care.

Another focus was the lack of protection of Indigenous lands and sacred sites from extractive industries, toxic and nuclear waste, and military infrastructure. The committee exhorted the U.S. to ensure meaningful and good faith consultations with Indigenous peoples and ensure their active participation to obtain free, prior and informed consent before taking any measures that can substantially affect their rights, way of life and culture.

The committee was concerned that climate change could threaten the right to life. It said it regretted that the U.S. failed to provide specific information about what measures have been taken to protect the most vulnerable people from the negative impacts of climate change and natural disasters. The committee cited concerns about “various water crises” in the U.S., such as the leaking of high levels of lead into water systems and outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease in Flint, Michigan, disproportionately impacting Black and Indigenous peoples. The committee called on the U.S. to intensify its efforts to prevent and mitigate the effects of climate change and environmental degradation.

Voter suppression was also a major focus of the report, which cited partisan gerrymandering, voting restrictions and burdensome voter ID requirements. These policies have a disproportionate impact on low-income voters, persons with disabilities, and racial and ethnic minorities. The committee also criticized disenfranchisement laws targeting those with felony convictions and the role of dark money in elections.

The committee noted that freedom of assembly was in peril, citing the use of anti-terrorism laws to prosecute peaceful protesters, including anti-racism demonstrators, environmental activists and Indigenous protesters. The committee was also critical of excessive force by law enforcement officers, surveillance, arbitrary arrests and mass detention of peaceful demonstrators.

The report also mentioned the threat of anti-boycott laws that sanction those who boycott foreign countries and corporations for their human rights violations, likely referring to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement to pressure Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territory. The committee recommended that officials refrain from attacking journalists and review anti-boycott laws that may restrict freedom of expression.

The committee condemned the continuing U.S. practice of killing in extraterritorial counterterrorism operations with armed drones, and the lack of transparency and accountability for the serious harm it causes, especially to civilians. It pushed for compliance with the principles of precaution, distinction and proportionality in armed conflict, and reminded the U.S. of its obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law.

The committee was concerned about the extensive use of solitary confinement, including prolonged and indefinite confinement. It recommended prohibition of solitary confinement for juveniles and people with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities in prison.

Some of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay have been held there without charges or trial for more than 20 years. The committee recommends that the U.S. expedite the transfer of detainees and close the prison at Guantánamo. It also urged the U.S. to end its system of administrative detention without charge or trial and ensure that detainees are afforded fair trial rights and specialized health care.

The United States must thoroughly investigate, prosecute and punish violations of the ICCPR and provide effective remedies for victims and their families, the committee said, condemning the impunity of violators, including perpetrators and people in positions of command, as well as lawyers who “provided legal pretexts for manifestly illegal behavior.” The committee was likely referring to John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and other lawyers who wrote memos telling the George W. Bush administration how to torture detainees and get away with it. The committee deplored the widespread U.S. impunity for past human rights violations, including torture and “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

The committee also recommended that evidence and confessions obtained by torture be inadmissible in legal proceedings without exception.

In addition, the committee emphasized that the U.S. must incorporate its obligations under the ICCPR into its domestic laws at the federal, state, local and territorial levels, and once again called for the establishment of a national human rights institution.

“It is critical that the U.S. government take this opportunity to heed the United Nations’ recommendations and deliver on behalf of the American people — including immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, women and girls, LGBTQ+ people, incarcerated people, Indigenous people, and other marginalized communities that are disproportionately impacted by the government’s continued violations,” ACLU’s Dakwar said.

The breadth of the U.S. violations of the ICCPR is overwhelming. The committee found breaches of the treaty in nearly every aspect of life in the United States. We should heed the committee’s recommendations and demand that our federal, state and local governments in the U.S. comply with our human rights obligations.

Copyright © Truthout. 

MARJORIE COHN is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. She is founding dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” Radio.

Texas must remove floating barrier from Rio Grande, appellate court orders

The federal appellate court upheld an earlier ruling by an Austin federal judge to remove the 1,000-foot-long barrier the state deployed near Eagle Pass.

Anti-immigration buoys that were placed in the Rio Grande River by the state of Texas must be removed, a federal appellate court panel has ruled. File Photo by Adam Davis/EPA-EFE

Dec. 2 (UPI) -- A federal appellate court panel has ordered Texas to remove the floating barrier it deployed in the Rio Grande at Eagle Pass this summer, affirming a lower court's ruling.

In a 2-1 decision issued Friday, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the river is navigable where the barrier was placed and that it is "an obstruction," meaning that Texas needed to receive permission from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- which regulates activities in waterways and wetlands under federal law -- before deploying it.

Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, was the dissenting vote in the ruling, arguing that the Rio Grande cannot accommodate commercial boat traffic and is therefore not navigable.

Texas argued that the barrier was also meant to save lives and force migrants to cross the border at ports of entry, but Willet said Texas hasn't proved that's the case.

Related

Texas on the verge of making illegal border crossings a state crime
Biden administration waives 26 federal laws to build more border wall
Texas plans appeal as federal judge orders floating barrier moved in Rio Grande

"At this stage, however, Texas has not offered concrete evidence that the barrier has saved lives or reduced illegal crossings and drug trafficking," Willet wrote.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott posted a statement on X calling Friday's ruling "clearly wrong" and said he and Attorney General Ken Paxton will seek an immediate rehearing by the entire Fifth Circuit. "We'll go to SCOTUS if needed to protect Texas from Biden's open borders," he said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The barriers sparked protests from the Mexican government and migrant advocates. In July, the U.S. Justice Department sued Texas in an Austin federal court, arguing that the barrier was installed without required federal authorization. Texas argued that the barrier was designed to direct migrants to appropriate entry points and deter unlawful crossings and drug smuggling.

San Antonio-based Federal District Judge David A. Ezra ruled in September that Texas must remove the barrier. The state appealed to the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit, halting Ezra's order while the Fifth Circuit considered the case.

Swing state Muslims outraged by president’s war stance vow to ditch Biden in 2024

BY CLAIRE SAVAGE
 December 2, 2023

CHICAGO (AP) — Muslim community leaders from several swing states pledged to withdraw support for U.S. President Joe Biden on Saturday at a conference in suburban Detroit, citing his refusal to call for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Democrats in Michigan have warned the White House that Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war could cost him enough support within the Arab American community to sway the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.

Leaders from Michigan, Minnesota, Arizona, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania gathered behind a lectern that read “Abandon Biden, ceasefire now” in Dearborn, Michigan, the city with the largest concentration of Arab Americans in the United States.

More than 13,300 Palestinians — roughly two-thirds of them women and minors, according to the Health Ministry in Hamas-ruled Gaza — have been killed in the Israel-Hamas war. Some 1,200 Israelis have been killed, mostly during Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel that triggered the war.


Breaches by Iran-affiliated hackers spanned multiple U.S. states, federal agencies say

Biden’s unwillingness to call for a ceasefire has damaged his relationship with the American Muslim community beyond repair, according to Minneapolis-based Jaylani Hussein, who helped organize the conference.

“Families and children are being wiped out with our tax dollars,” Hussein said. “What we are witnessing today is the tragedy upon tragedy.”

Hussein, who is Muslim, told The Associated Press: “The anger in our community is beyond belief. One of the things that made us even more angry is the fact that most of us actually voted for President Biden. I even had one incident where a religious leader asked me, ‘How do I get my 2020 ballot so I can destroy it?” he said.

Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were critical components of the “blue wall” of states that Biden returned to the Democratic column, helping him win the White House in 2020. About 3.45 million Americans identify as Muslim, or 1.1% of the country’s population, and the demographic tends to lean Democratic, according to Pew Research Center.

But leaders said Saturday that the community’s support for Biden has vanished as more Palestinian men, women and children are killed in Gaza.

“We are not powerless as American Muslims. We are powerful. We don’t only have the money, but we have the actual votes. And we will use that vote to save this nation from itself,” Hussein said at the conference.

The Muslim community leaders’ condemnation of Biden does not indicate support for former President Donald Trump, the clear front-runner in the Republican primary, Hussein clarified.

“We don’t have two options. We have many options. And we’re going to exercise that,” he said.
___

Savage is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Gallup Poll shows half of U.S. approves of Israel's war in Gaza as 45% oppose it

Survey also indicates 4 in 10 think United States sending too little humanitarian aid to Palestinians

Displaced Palestinians who fled Israeli attacks in northern Gaza, try to continue their daily lives In tents, at Alqds School in Rafah southern Gaza strip, Thursday, amid a truce in fighting between Israel and Hamas. Half of Americans support Israel's war in Gaza while 45% oppose it, according to a Gallup poll published Thursday

 Photo by Ismael Mohamad/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 30 (UPI) -- Half of Americans back Israel's Gaza war while 45% are against it, according to a Gallup Poll published Thursday. Four in 10 said the United States is sending too little humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

Gallup asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of the military action Israel has taken in Gaza?" The poll was conducted Nov. 1-21.

The poll showed Israel's war in Gaza divides Americans along gender, age, race and political party affiliation.

The poll showed 32% support President Joe Biden's handling of the Israel-Gaza war, compared to Biden's general job approval rating of 37%.

A solid 72% of Americans polled say they are paying close attention to the Israel-Gaza war.

The biggest margins of support for Israel's Gaza war actions were among Republicans (71%), adults 55 and older (63%) and white adults (61%).

But 63% of Democrats disapprove. Among adults under 35, 67% oppose Israel's military actions in Gaza and 64% of people of color disapprove.

Men favor Israel's war in Gaza 59%-37% while women oppose it 52%-44%.

"With no meaningful differences by education in these attitudes, college graduates' and college non-graduates' reactions mirror the national average. Political independents are evenly split in their views," Gallup said in a statement.

In a separate question, Gallup asked about opinions on U.S. aid to both Israel and Gaza.

"The largest segment of Americans, 42%, say the U.S. is providing about the right amount of military aid to Israel, and another 25% say the U.S. is not doing enough, totaling 67% who endorse at least the current level of military aid to Israel," Gallup's statement said. "In contrast to the balance of views on military aid to Israel, the percentage saying too little humanitarian aid is going to the Palestinians well exceeds the 22% saying the U.S. is doing too much."

Overall, Gallup said, Republicans, white adults and adults without college degrees are the groups most supportive of U,S, aid to Israel. They also are less likely to support increasing aid to Palestinians.

Democrats, people of color, women and young adults are most opposed to Israel's military actions in Gaza.

  Sarandon, Margulies apologize for Isarael-Hamas War remarks after backlash

By Karen Butler

Susan Sarandon has apologized for controversial remarks she made about the Israel-Hamas war.

 File Photo by Christine Chew/UPI | License Photo

Dec. 2 (UPI) -- Oscar-winning actress Susan Sarandon and Emmy-winning actress Julianna Margulies have issued statements apologizing for public remarks they made regarding the Israel-Hamas War.

"There are a lot of people that are afraid, that are afraid of being Jewish at this time, and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country, so often subjected to violence," Sarandon said at a pro-Palestine demonstration in New York last month.

The Thelma & Louise icon was widely criticized in the media and dropped as a client from her talent agency UTA in response to her impromptu speech.

"This phrasing was a terrible mistake, as it implies that until recently Jews have been strangers to persecution, when the opposite is true. As we all know, from centuries of oppression and genocide in Europe, to the Tree of Life shooting in Pittsburgh, PA, Jews have long been familiar with discrimination and religious violence which continues to this day. I deeply regret diminishing this reality and hurting people with this comment," Sarandon wrote on Instagram Friday.

"I will continue my commitment to peace, truth, justice, and compassion for all people. I hope that we can meet with love and willingness to engage in dialogue, especially with those with whom we disagree."

The Morning Show actress Margulies, who is Jewish, issued an exclusive statement to Deadline Friday, expressing her regret for remarks she made on a recent episode of The Back Room with Andy Ostroy podcast.

In condemning antisemitism, Margulies questioned why many people in the Black and LGBTQIA+ communities are supporting Palestine and not Israel in the ongoing conflict because, she said, Jews are more tolerant of marginalized communities than Muslims are.

"I wanna say to them: 'You [expletive] idiots. You don't exist. You're even lower than the Jews. A. You're Black, and B. You're gay and you're turning your back against the people who support you?' Because Jews, they rally around everybody," she said on the podcast.

"The fact that the entire Black community isn't standing with us to me says either they just don't know, or they've been brainwashed to hate Jews."

In her apology statement, Margulies said she was "horrified" to have offended the Black and LGBTQIA+ communities, which she said are people "I truly love and respect."

"I want to be 100% clear: Racism, homophobia, sexism, or any prejudice against anyone's personal beliefs or identity are abhorrent to me, full stop," she said.

"Throughout my career I have worked tirelessly to combat hate of all kind, end antisemitism, speak out against terrorist groups like Hamas, and forge a united front against discrimination. I did not intend for my words to sow further division, for which I am sincerely apologetic."

Statement to the Paris Peace Conference (WWI) re Zionism

by Dissident Voice Communications / December 1st, 2023

A Statement to the Peace Conference¹

“As a future form of government for Palestine will undoubtedly be considered by the approaching Peace Conference, we, the undersigned citizens of the United States, unite in this statement, setting forth our objections to the organization of a Jewish State in Palestine as proposed by the Zionist Societies in this country and Europe and to the segregation of the Jews as a nationalistic unit in any country.

“We feel that in so doing we are voicing the opinion of the majority of American Jews born in this country and of those foreign born who have lived here long enough to thoroughly assimilate American political and social conditions. The American Zionists represent, according to the most recent statistics available, only a small proportion of the Jews living in this country, about 150,000 out of 3,500,000. (American Jewish Yearbook 1918, Philadelphia.)

“At the outset we wish to indicate our entire sympathy with the efforts of Zionists which aim to secure for Jews at present living in lands of oppression a refuge in Palestine or elsewhere, where they may freely develop their capabilities and carry on their activities as free citizens.

“But we raise our voices in warning and protest against the demand of the Zionists for the reorganization of the Jews as a national unit, to whom, now or in the future, territorial sovereignty in Palestine shall be committed. This demand not only misinterprets the trend of the history of the Jews, who ceased to be a nation 2000 years ago, but involves the limitation and possible annulment of the larger claims of Jews for full citizenship and human rights in all lands in which those rights are not yet secure. For the very reason that the new era upon which the world is entering aims to establish government everywhere on principles of true democracy, we reject the Zionistic project of a ‘national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.’

“Zionism arose as a result of the intolerable conditions under which Jews have been forced to live in Russia and Roumania. But it is evident that for the Jewish population of these countries, variously estimated at from six to ten millions, Palestine can become no homeland. Even with the improvement of the neglected condition of this country, its limited area can offer no solution. The Jewish question in Russia and Roumania can be settled only within those countries by the grant of full rights of citizenship to Jews.

“We are all the more opposed to the Zionists, because they, themselves, distinctly repudiate the solely ameliorative program. They demand and hail with delight the ‘Balfour Declaration’ to establish ‘a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine,’ i.e., a home not merely for Jews living in countries in which they are oppressed, but for Jews universally. No Jew, wherever he may live, can consider himself free from the implications of such a grant.

“The willingness of Jews interested in the welfare of their brethren to aid in redeeming Palestine from the blight of centuries of Turkish misrule, is no acceptance of the Zionist project to segregate Jews as a political unit and to re-institute a section of such a political unit in Palestine or elsewhere.

“At the present juncture in the world’s affairs when lands that have hitherto been subjected to foreign domination are to be recognized as free and independent states, we rejoice in the avowed proposal of the Peace Congress to put into practical application the fundamental principles of democracy. That principle, which asserts equal rights for all citizens of a state, irrespective of creed or ethnic descent, should be applied in such a manner as to exclude segregation of any kind, be it nationalistic or other. Such segregation must inevitably create differences among the sections of the population of a country. Any such plan of segregation is necessarily reactionary in its tendency, undemocratic in spirit and totally contrary to the practices of free government, especially as these are exemplified by our own country. We therefore strongly urge the abandonment of such a basis for the reorganization of any state.”

Objections to Segregation of Jews as a Political Unit

“Against such a political segregation of the Jews in Palestine or elsewhere we object:

1. “Because the Jews are dedicated heart and soul to the welfare of the countries in which they dwell under free conditions. All Jews repudiate every suspicion of a double allegiance, but to our minds it is necessarily implied in and cannot by any logic be eliminated from the establishment of a sovereign State for the Jews in Palestine.

“By the large part taken by them in the great war (WWI), the Jews have once and for all shattered the base aspersions of the Anti-Semites which charged them with being aliens in every land, incapable of true patriotism and prompted only by sinister and self-seeking motives. Moreover, it is safe to assume that the overwhelming bulk of the Jews of America, England, France, Italy, Holland, Switzerland and the other lands of freedom, have no thought whatever of surrendering their citizenship in these lands in order to resort to a ‘Jewish homeland in Palestine.’ As a rule those who favor such a restoration advocate it not for themselves but for others. Those who act thus, and yet insist on their patriotic attachment to the countries of which they are citizens, are self-deceived in their profession of Zionism and under the spell of an emotional romanticism or of a religious sentiment fostered through centuries of gloom.

2. “We also object to political segregation of Jews for those who take their Zionistic professions seriously as referring not to ‘others’ but to themselves. Granted that the establishment of a sovereign Jewish State in Palestine would lead many to emigrate to that land, the political conditions of the millions who would be unable to migrate for generations to come, if ever, would be made far more precarious. Roumania – despite the pledges of the Berlin Treaty – has legally branded her Jews as aliens, though many are descended from families settled in that country longer than the present Roumanian government has existed. The establishment of a Jewish State will manifestly serve the malevolent rulers of that and other lands as a new justification for additional repressive legislation. The multitudes who remain would be subject to worse perils, if possible, even though the few who escape might prosper in Palestine.

3. “We object to the political segregation also of those who might succeed in establishing themselves in Palestine. The proposition involves dangers, which, it is manifest, have not had the serious consideration of those who are so zealous in its advocacy. These dangers are adverted to in a most kindly spirit of warning by Sir George Adam Smith, who is generally acknowledged to be the greatest authority in the world on everything connected to Palestine, either past or present. In a recent publication, Syria and the Holy Land, he points out that there is absolutely no fixity to the boundaries of Palestine. These have varied greatly in the course of the centuries. The claims to various sections of this undefined territory would unquestionably evoke bitter controversies. ‘It is not true,’ says Sir George, ‘that Palestine is the national home of the Jewish people and of no other people.’ ‘It is not correct to call its non-Jewish inhabitants “Arabs,” or to say that they have left no image of their spirit and made no history except in the Great Mosque.’ ‘Nor can we evade the fact that Christian communities have been as long in possession of their portion of this land as ever the Jews were.’ ‘These are legitimate questions,’ he says, ‘stirred up by the claims of Zionism, but the Zionists have not yet fully faced them.’

“To subject the Jews to the possible recurrence of such bitter and sanguinary conflicts which would be inevitable, would be a crime against the triumphs of their whole past history and against the lofty and world-embracing visions of their great prophets and leaders.

4. “Though these grave difficulties be met, still we protest against the political segregation of the Jews and the re-establishment in Palestine of a distinctively Jewish State as utterly opposed to the principles of democracy which it is the avowed purpose of the World’s Peace Conference to establish.

“Whether the Jews be regarded as a ‘race’ or as a ‘religion,’ it is contrary to the democratic principles for which the world war was waged to found a nation on either or both of these bases. America, England, France, Italy, Switzerland and all the most advanced nations of the world are composed of representatives of many races and religions. Their glory lies in the freedom of conscience and worship, in the liberty of thought and custom which binds the followers of many faiths and varied civilizations in the common bonds of political union. A Jewish State involves fundamental limitations as to race and religion, else the term ‘Jewish’ means nothing. To unite Church and State, in any form, as under the old Jewish hierarchy, would be a leap backward of two thousand years.

“‘The rights of other creeds and races will be respected under Jewish dominance,’ is the assurance of Zionism. But the keynotes of democracy are neither condescension nor tolerance, but justice and equality. All this applies with special force to a country like Palestine. That land is filled with associations sacred to the followers of three great religions, and as a result of migration movements of many centuries contains an extraordinary number of different ethnic groups, far out of proportion to the small extent of the country itself. Such a condition points clearly to a reorganization of Palestine on the broadest possible basis.

5. “We object to the political segregation of the Jews because it is an error to assume that the bond uniting them is of a national character. They are bound by two factors: First, the bond of common religious beliefs and aspirations and, secondly, the bond of common traditions customs, and experiences, largely, alas, of common trials and sufferings. Nothing in their present status suggests that they form in any real sense a separate nationalist unit.

“The reorganization of Palestine as far as it affects the Jews is but part of a far larger issue, namely, the constructive endeavor, to secure the emancipation of the Jews in all the lands in which they dwell. This movement, inaugurated in the eighteenth century and advancing with steady progress through the western lands, was checked by such reactionary tendencies as caused the expulsion of the Poles from Eastern Prussia and the massacre of Armenians in Turkey. As directed against Jews these tendencies crystallized into a political movement called Anti-Semitism, which had its rise in Germany. Its virulence spread (especially) throughout eastern Europe and led to cruel outbreaks in Roumania and elsewhere, and to the pogroms of Russia with their dire consequences.

“To guard against such evils in the future, we urge that the great constructive movement, so sadly interrupted, be reinstituted and that efficient measures be taken to insure the protection of the law and the full rights of citizenship to Jews in every land. If the basis of the reorganization of governments is henceforth to be democratic, it cannot be contemplated to exclude any group of people from the enjoyment of full rights.

“As to the future of Palestine, it is our fervent hope that what was once a ‘promised land’ for the Jews may become a ‘land of promise’ for all races and creeds, safeguarded by the League of Nations which, it is expected, will be one of the fruits of the Peace Conference to whose deliberations the world now looks forward so anxiously and so full of hope. We ask that Palestine be constituted as a free and independent state, to be governed under a democratic form of government recognizing no distinctions of creed or race or ethnic descent, and with adequate power to protect the country against oppression of any kind. We do not wish to see Palestine, either now or at any time in the future, organized as a Jewish State.”

Source: Anti-Zionism – Analytical Reflections, Amana Books, 1988, p. 341-349. Submitted by Michael K. Smith.

ENDNOTE:

1. The statement was prepared conjointly by the Rev. Dr. Henry Berkowitz, of Philadelphia, Mr. Max Senior, of Cincinnati, and Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr., of the University of Pennsylvania.