Philadelphia Free Library workers pushing for leadership change
Posted on July 1, 2020 By Jack Tomczuk

Getty Images

Andrea Lemoins said she has witnessed racial bias within the Free Library of Philadelphia since she was hired nearly two years ago.

Not long after she took the job, a white colleague called police on a Black mother and her child, Lemoins said. To her, it was clearly an overreaction and an example of what’s been called “living while Black.”

The librarian, Lemoins said, was shuffled to a different branch, and the overarching issue was not addressed.

Last year, during a company meeting, Lemoins said Free Library President and Director Siobhan Reardon dismissed concerns brought to her by Black workers.

“Siobhan Reardon makes it very clear that she does not care about Black people,” Lemoins told Metro. “Siobhan is like the epitome of white supremacy in institutions.”

“I don’t think people understand how bad it is,” she added.

“That is simply not true,” Reardon, who has led the Free Library since 2008, said in an emailed response. “However, I recognize that there are fair criticisms about how the Free Library needs to improve on issues of race and equity, and that some of our staff are very frustrated.”

“I have offered and will continue to offer an open door to this staff member and any others who want to discuss these issues in more depth,” she added.

Lemoins was part of a group of Black library employees who recently penned an open letter demanding an end to unfair treatment within the system.

Some library workers returned to their branches Monday, and the letter questioned safety protocols for those returning during the pandemic.

A petition distributed earlier this week and backed by a union representing librarians supported the letter and called on Reardon to be removed. It also raised concerns about the Free Library’s reopening plans.

Nearly 1,500 people, including 230 Free Library workers, have signed the document.

The recent actions are the result of years of tension between employees and the library system’s leadership team, organizers of both efforts say.

“The problems start at the top,” said Sunita Balija, a South Philadelphia librarian who helped craft the petition. “At this point, we’ve voiced our concerns and offered suggestions, and none of them are really being taken seriously.”

In a statement, the Free Library said it is committed to protecting its Black employees, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. African Americans in Philadelphia and elsewhere have had higher mortality rates related to the virus.

“We have reached out to the Concerned Black Workers of the Free Library in order to work together on issues of equity and matters that impact their health and safety,” the statement said.

Reardon wrote a letter that was posted on the Free Library’s website last month that expressed support for Black Lives Matter protests.

It appeared online June 3, the same day the city allegedly allowed members of the U.S. National Guard to take shelter at the Wadsworth Library in Northwest Philadelphia, a move that angered many library workers.

The CBWFLP letter also stated that Black library staff are largely relegated to lower-paying positions, and that Black employees earn $7,533 less than the system’s median salary. White workers make $12,012 more than the median, according to the letter.

“It also extends to how there’s no room for growth in the positions that many of our Black colleagues are in,” Balija said. “There’s really not much room for advancement.”

A big worry among both groups of employees is returning to work. There’s also question marks about how the process will unfold.

“I have heard nothing” about reopening, said Lemoins, who mainly works out of the Paschalville Library in Southwest Philadelphia.

Balija said curbside book pick-up was supposed to begin Monday, but it was postponed because they are “nowhere near ready.”

Library spokesperson Kaitlyn Foti said services will begin to increase in July, allowing for book drop-off and pick-up. No date has been set.

Philadelphia’s modified Green Phase rules, set to go into effect Friday, allow libraries and museums to open under limited capacity.

Balija returned to her library Monday and said she was disappointed to find about 25 cloth masks, two containers of wipes and a box of brown paper towels.

“Pretty much across the board no one was properly prepared with the amount of supplies that we needed and a lot of stuff was expired, like hand sanitizer,” she said.

Foti said guidance from the city’s Department of Public Health was provided to all employees on June 22.

It indicates that Plexiglas shields should be installed at counters; high-touch surfaces be disinfected every two to four hours; books be kept out of circulation for three days after being returned; and that all employees and patrons wear masks, among other measures.

“We are taking the concerns shared by Free Library team members into consideration,” Free Library Board of Trustees Chair Pamela Dembe said in a statement. “Leadership has stated that libraries will not open to the public until necessary precautions are put into place to protect our staff and our customers.”

CBWFLP is calling on the Free Library to redeploy qualified employees who work in management and executive positions to make up for recent city layoffs and any illness-related shortages.

Some employees feel the system is too top heavy, with highly-paid staff clustered at the Free Library’s Parkway Central headquarters and not enough public-facing employees.

“The leadership of the library is very much stuck in their ivory tower at Parkway Central,” Lemoins said. “They care about Parkway Central looking good.”

More than anything, Lemoins said, she wants the library to advocate for Black city workers and for Reardon to show leadership.

“COVID-19 has just been a spark for so many issues that have been going on,” she said. “Racial issues at the library have been going on for years.”

Anti-terror bill sparks fears of Philippines descending into Duterte dictatorship
Reuters

FILE PHOTO: Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, wearing a military uniform, reviews scout ranger troops upon his arrival during the 67th founding anniversary of the First Scout Ranger regiment in San Miguel town, Bulacan province, north of Manila, Philippines November 24, 2017. REUTERS/Romeo Ranoco

BY KAREN LEMA AND MARTIN PETTY

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte approved tough anti-terrorism legislation on Friday that rights groups condemned as a weapon to target opponents and stifle free speech.

The law grants security forces sweeping powers to act to fight militants, while legal experts say broad articles could allow discriminatory enforcement, privacy infringements and suppression of peaceful dissent, including on social media.

Duterte’s approval comes after a United Nations report on the Philippines that singled him out for publicly inciting violence and encouraging rights abuses, mostly during a war on drugs in which he promised to kill 100,000 people and pardon police who shoot suspects dead.

His opponents fear a crackdown on challengers to his popular autocracy before he leaves office in 2022, among them journalists, lawmakers, priests and activists seeking his international indictment over thousands of drug war killings.

The law creates an anti-terrorism council appointed by the president, which can designate individuals and groups as terrorists and detain them without charge for up to 24 days. It allows for 90 days of surveillance and wiretaps, and punishments that include life imprisonment without parole.

U.N. rights chief Michelle Bachelet had urged Duterte not to sign it. Human Rights Watch called the law a “green light to the systematic targeting of political critics and opponents” and said Duterte had “pushed Philippine democracy into an abyss”.

Amnesty International called it “a new weapon to brand and hound any perceived enemies of the state”, which would “worsen attacks against human rights defenders.”

Philippine rights group Karapatan said Duterte was seeking to emulate the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos: “This monstrous piece of legislation is, without any doubt, the final puzzle piece in Duterte’s Marcosian delusions,” it said.
Elevated threat

Duterte, 75, had fast-tracked the anti-terrorism act through both houses of Congress during the coronavirus outbreak. His spokesman Harry Roque said Duterte had taken time to study it, “weighing the concerns of different stakeholders.”

The president made no mention of the law in a speech to soldiers on Friday.

The government says the law is based on legislation in countries that have successfully dealt with extremism.

Defense chiefs say it will enable a better response to domestic threats, such as piracy, kidnappings and extremism by groups influenced by Islamic State, who occupied a southern city in 2017 and are now increasingly carrying out suicide bombings.

The law’s approval comes as series of legal and regulatory cases move forward against journalists and media organizations.

Those include top media group ABS-CBN, ordered to cease broadcasts on free-to-air and cable channels, and news website Rappler, embroiled in tax evasion and illegal ownership cases. Rappler’s award winning chief Maria Ressa was convicted of libel last month in a ruling that prompted international dismay.

Hong Kong activist flees the city after testifying before US Congress about China's new draconian laws, as Beijing appoints anti-protest hardliner as head of state's security agency

Nathan Law, a prominent pro-democracy activist in Hong Kong, has left the city 

He announced his departure on Facebook, hours after testifying to US Congress about a draconian new security law imposed by China on the territory 

Beijing has also announced the man who will lead its security forces in the city
Zheng Yanxiong is known as a hardliner with a history of stamping out protests

By CHRIS PLEASANCE FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 3 July 2020 

A prominent pro-democracy activist revealed he has fled Hong Kong for a secret overseas location after Beijing imposed draconian new security laws on the territory.

Nathan Law, a founder of the pro-democracy Demosisto party and a figurehead of the 2014 Umbrella Movement, announced the move on Facebook late Thursday.

It came just hours after he testified online to US Congress about the new security law, which criminalises acts of 'succession, subversion and collaboration with foreign powers' with a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Law's departure also came just hours before Beijing named the man who will lead its security forces in the region, which are now allowed to operate independently of the Hong Kong police with the power to arrest and prosecute people.


Zheng Yanxiong, a 56-year-old politician from Guangdong province which borders Hong Kong, is known as a party hardliner with a history of putting down protests.

+5

+5


Nathan Law, a prominent pro-democracy activist, has left Hong Kong amid fear of reprisals under China's new security law. Meanwhile Beijing has appointed Zheng Yanxiong (right), a party hardliner with a history of putting down protests, to lead its security forces in the city

China's new security bill outlaws acts of succession, subversion and collaborating with foreign powers, with a maximum penalty of life in jail (pictured, police suppress pro-democracy protests in the city this week)

Former UK consulate worker warns China will send spies to quash protests overseas

Simon Cheng, a former employee at the British consulate in Hong Kong, has expressed his concerns over Beijing's next crackdown move on pro-democracy activities overseas.

Mr Cheng, who has received asylum from the UK, worries that Beijing 'will take my family members as hostage and send more agents to crush down the pro-democracy cause and activities outside of Hong Kong.'

The pro-democracy supporter, who alleges that he was detained and tortured in China last year, has been granted political asylum in what he believes is the first successful case from the former British colony. 

Simon Cheng, a former employee at the British consulate in Hong Kong, has expressed his concerns over Beijing's next crackdown move on pro-democracy activities overseas
Mr Cheng, 29, told The Associated Press that he hopes his successful application encourages other democracy activists from the semi-autonomous Chinese territory to seek protection in the UK as Beijing clamps down on the city´s protest movement.

'My case is about political persecution intrinsically,' Mr Cheng said Thursday in London.

'I hope my case could be a precedent for other Hong Kongers who are not protected by the British National Overseas lifeboat scheme. They can quote my case to apply for asylum and seek protection.'

Several other asylum cases involving people from Hong Kong are pending, he said.

In 2011 he led Beijing's security forces in stamping out anti-corruption protests in Wukan, a village in his home province.

On Friday Hong Kong police announced the first charges against a man under the new security law, after he was arrested at a pro-independence rally earlier this week.

The 24-year-old, who was not named, was charged with one count of inciting succession in others and one count of terrorist activity.

The man is accused of driving his motorbike into a group of Hong Kong officers during the demonstration.

Video footage captured by local television showed a man on an orange motorbike with a flag on the back reading 'Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of our Times' - a popular protest slogan that has been ruled illegal under the new laws.

He turned down a side street and drove into a group of riot police.

Bystander footage shot on a mobile phone captured a scene moments later, where the man was swiftly detained after he fell to the ground.

Police at the time said their officers were wounded.

Announcing his departure from Hong Konga day earlier, Law wrote: 'The choices I have are stark: to stay silent from now on, or to keep engaging in private diplomacy so I can warn the world of the threat of Chinese authoritarian expansion.

'I made the decision when I agreed to testify before the U.S. Congress.'

Law caught a flight out of the city but refused to reveal where he has gone or who he is staying with for fear of reprisals.

He acknowledged that his decision is bound to attract criticism, but said he was left with few choices if he wanted to keep advocating for Hong Kong's independence.

Joshua Wong, another prominent activist who co-founded Demosisto with Law, remains in the city.

The party itself has been dissolved, amid fears it would be targeted by officials in the wake of the law passing.

Critics say the law effectively ends the 'one country, two systems' framework under which the city was promised a high degree of autonomy when it reverted from British to Chinese rule in 1997.

Hong Kong government on Tuesday night released a statement stating that popular protest slogan 'Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times' is now banned under the security law.

On Wednesday, thousands took to the streets to protest the new legislation.

A 23-year-old man riding a motorcycle with a flag of “Hong Kong independence” slogans rammed his vehicle into a group of police officers in Wan Chai on Wed. Three Police officers were injured and the man was arrested for “Furious Driving” and violating the National Security Law. pic.twitter.com/5mBV4IJ2KZ— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) July 1, 2020

Police arrested some 370 people, 10 of whom were detained on suspicion of violating the new law.

In some cases, suspects were found to be carrying paraphernalia advocating Hong Kong's independence, police said.

As China moves to assert its new jurisdiction over Hong Kong, Beijing appointed Luo Huining - currently director of Beijing's Liaison Office in the semi-autonomous city - as the national security adviser to the newly-formed national security commission.

The commission is chaired by Chief Executive Carrie Lam, who was hand-picked for the role by Beijing.

The State Council on Thursday also appointed veteran Hong Kong official Eric Chan Kwok-ki as the commission's secretary general.

The commission - also created by the new law - will oversee policy formulation relating to the national security law in Hong Kong.

Chan previously served as the director of Hong Kong's Chief Executive's Office, before which he was the territory's head of immigration.

Pro-democracy protesters make a hand gesture referencing five demands to guarantee independence from China during a march this week

Chinese media says Boris is ruining UK's economy by inviting three million Hong Kongers to relocate

Beijing's state media has claimed that the Prime Minister's offer to relocate three million Hong Kongers is ruining the country's economy and risking job opportunities for the locals.

Global Times, a major Chinese propaganda newspaper, said that the British government current priority 'should be to revive economic activity and protect local jobs' in an article published Thursday.

The news outlet continued: 'Allowing 3 million Hong Kong residents to influx into UK would only undermine such economic efforts.'

The state media also claimed that the UK government had an 'obsession with the former British colony'.

+5

Beijing's state media has claimed that the Prime Minister's offer to relocate three million Hong Kongers is ruining the country's economy and risking job opportunities for the locals. Boris Johnson is pictured speaking in the House of Commons on July 1

Global Times wrote: 'Hong Kong may evoke memories of UK's past "glory" for a few Britons, the European country can hardly revisit its colonial dream by continuing to meddle in other countries' internal affairs.

'The country may assume it has some responsibility for Hong Kong, but that's just an illusion,' the article said.

'Its colonial days were forever gone, and it would be a breach of its own position as well as international law if the UK government continues to interfere in the city's administration.'

The newspaper also warned: 'If the British government indulges in its colonial-era fantasy, it will only arouse public concern among Chinese people and harm UK-China relations.'

Hong Kong Says Common Protest Slogan Calling for ‘Revolution’ Is Now Illegal Under National Security Law

COMMUNIST PARTY BANS SLOGAN CALLING FOR REVOLUTION

WAIT, WHAT?!

Protesters hold a flag "Liberate Hong Kong. Revolution of our times" while covering their face due to the now introduced National Security Law in Hong Kong, China, on July 1, 2020.
Simon Jankowski–NurPhoto/Getty Images

BY IAIN MARLOW AND NATALIE LUNG / BLOOMBERG
JULY 3, 2020

Hong Kong declared illegal a key slogan chanted by hundreds of thousands of pro-democracy protesters over months of rallies, the latest sign that authorities plan to use a new Beijing-drafted national security law to enforce limits on free speech.

In what it called a “solemn statement” late Thursday, the Hong Kong government said the rallying cry “Liberate Hong Kong! Revolution of our time!” was now illegal under the legislation barring secession, terrorism, subversion of state power and collusion with foreign forces. The sweeping law imposed by China, which carries prison sentences as long as life in prison, was made public only as it took effect late Tuesday.

The slogan was just one of several, including also “Hong Kongers, build a nation,” deemed as a threat to national security in guidelines issued to police, according to a person who has seen the document. The rules also barred the waving of flags that advocate independence of Tibet, Taiwan, Shanghai and East Turkestan as similar offenses under the law.

The national security law has already had a chilling effect on speech in Hong Kong, which was guaranteed “freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration” before the former British colony’s return to Chinese rule in 1997. Several high-profile pro-democracy activists have dissolved groups or attempted to leave the city in recent days, and the U.S. and U.K. have accused Beijing of violating its promise to maintain the city’s “high degree of autonomy” for 50 years.

Authorities had said earlier Thursday that banners and chants calling for “Hong Kong independence” were illegal, without specifying that that prohibition also applied to the more widely used “Liberate Hong Kong!” slogan. Independence was never included among the five main demands sought by the city’s historic protest movement last year, only meaningful elections.


“The slogan ‘Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times’ nowadays connotes ‘Hong Kong independence,’ or separating the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from the People’s Republic of China, altering the legal status of the HKSAR, or subverting the State power,” the government said.

Unsure of what counts as secession and subversion — offenses that lawyers have described as “deliberately vague” — some people in Hong Kong scrubbed their mobile phone chat histories and deleted social media accounts ahead of the law’s promulgation. The move is also exacerbating concerns about self-censorship by Hong Kong’s economists and business analysts.

“Until the offenders are charged and tried, it is unclear to both police and the public whether their behavior does in fact violate the new law — and if so, how steep the penalties will be,” Eurasia Group political risk analysts Andrew Coflan and Allison Sherlock wrote in a note to clients. “In the meantime, officers seem to be targeting demonstrators making direct calls for independence, while others continue to be arrested for violating public order.”

RELATED STORIES

Hong Kong Democracy Activist Says He Left City


U.K. Offers 3 Million Hong Kong Residents Path to Citizenship


Hong Kong police arrested 370 people at protests against the legislation Wednesday, the 23rd anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule. Ten were detained under provisions of the new national security law. Another protester was also arrested for stabbing a police officer.

The Communist Party’s Global Times newspaper published a graphic Friday explaining how the law was already changing the behavior of well-known activists. Those identified as “Hong Kong secessionists” — a crime that potentially carries a life sentence — named former student leader Joshua Wong, media tycoon Jimmy Lai, former Hong Kong Chief Secretary Anson Chan and former lawmaker Martin Lee, who helped draft the city’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law.

The new police guidelines banned people from waving “nine independence flags,” which Hong Kong protesters had used to demonstrate solidarity. The Hong Kong Police Force declined to discuss the legal advice guiding their arrests under the new law.

“Details will not be disclosed due to operational considerations,” the police said in a statement. “However the objective of enforcement action is not to target any flags or slogans, whilst to interdict people’s behavior on inciting and/or abetting others for the commission of secession or subversion.”

The first man arrested under the new security law was accused of possessing a “Hong Kong Independence” banner in his possession, while another was alleged to have waved a similar banner. A third had an independence flag billowing from his motorcycle as he drove into officers, injuring several, police said.

Two other women were arrested for possessing pro-independence stickers that said “Resist Beijing, Liberate Hong Kong,” “One Nation, One Hong Kong.” A sticker featuring a satirical cartoon of Chinese President Xi Jinping with a coronavirus-like head was among those featured in a Facebook post by police.
Rights Restrained

Hong Kong officials have defended the new law, saying it didn’t threaten the city’s cherished freedoms and would only target a small minority of criminals who sought to undermine the government.

“Hong Kong should be able to continue to enjoy the freedom of speech, freedom of press, of publications, protest, assembly and so on,” Chief Executive Carrie Lam told reporters after it took effect, adding international agreements on civil rights allowed restrictions to ensure national security. “Where it is for the protection of national security, then sometimes some of these rights could be restrained in accordance with the law.”


The Hong Kong Bar Association said this week it was “gravely concerned” about the law and its broadly defined criminal offenses.

“These are widely drawn and absent a clear and comprehensive array of publicly accessible guidelines and basic safeguards as to legal certainty and fair treatment, are capable of being applied in a manner that is arbitrary, and that disproportionately interferes with fundamental rights,” the group said in a statement. “Lawyers, judges, police and Hong Kong residents were given no opportunity to familiarize themselves with the contents of the new law, including the serious criminal offenses it creates before it came into force.”

–With assistance from Jing Li, Lucille Liu and Daniel Ten Kate.

BANNED IN HONG KONG 

China’s new national security law and what it means for Hong Kong’s future, explained
“It’s really the first time that I had a genuine feeling that I would be arrested just because of speaking aloud a slogan or holding a poster on the street.”

By Jen Kirbyjen.kirby@vox.com Jul 2, 2020,

Riot police secure an area in front of a burning roadblock during a demonstration against the new national security law on July 1, 2020, in Hong Kong. Anthony Kwan/Getty ImagesJuly 1 in Hong Kong has always been a day of protest. It marks the anniversary of the territory’s handover from Britain to China in 1997. This year, 23 years later, Hongkongers protested again — but this time, there was far more at stake than at perhaps any other time since.

That’s because July 1, 2020, was the first full day that China’s new national security law, which gives Beijing broad powers to crack down on political dissent against the Chinese Communist Party, was in full effect in Hong Kong.

The full details of the legislation weren’t known until it went into effect. The law specifically criminalizes “secession, subversion, organization and perpetration of terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security.”

What falls under those categories is vague, according to experts. That’s a recipe for broad application of the law, one that also carries steep penalties, including up to life imprisonment for the most serious of offenses.

When Britain handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, it was with the promise that Beijing would honor Hong Kong’s quasi-independence until at least 2047, under the rule known as “one country, two systems.” The Chinese government has slowly eroded Hong Kong’s autonomy in the years since, while still rhetorically committing to the principle.

The imposition of the national security law rips away that facade completely, directly threatening Hong Kong’s civil society, independent press, and, most obviously, the territory’s sustained pro-democracy movement.

The law means the “complete and total control of Hong Kong and total destruction of Hong Kong’s system,” Victoria Tin-bor Hui, a political science professor at Notre Dame University, told me.

Pro-democracy protesters I spoke with expressed similar sentiments.

“I guess we have all seen this coming, but it just feels very surreal to everyone that Hong Kong is truly under ‘one country, one system,’” Fung, a 27-year-old protester who asked to be identified by only her surname name out of concern for her safety, told me.

Fung said that she and many of her friends awakened, bit by bit, to the totalitarianism of the Communist Party. Yet she still held on to a little hope, a kind of dream, that the Chinese Communist Party could become more liberal, more free. Until now.

“Today, with this law passed, me and my friends think that we can never go back to what things were. Now we’re just another city, like Guangzhou or Shanghai or Beijing, one of the cities under mainland China’s control,” Fung said.

But the new threat of being arrested or prosecuted for speaking out didn’t stop Fung and thousands of others from protesting on July 1 (nor did the city’s ongoing ban on public gatherings due to the coronavirus). According to the Hong Kong Free Press, some protesters scattered joss papers — a custom at Chinese funerals — on the streets to represent the death of “one country, two systems.”

“It’s really the first time that I had a genuine feeling that I would be arrested just because of speaking aloud a slogan or holding a poster on the street,” a 22-year-old protester, who asked to remain anonymous for their safety, said via WhatsApp.

But the protester said that some friends decided not to join the demonstrations, considering it much more dangerous to speak out or take to the streets now because the power of the Chinese Communist Party “is too strong to confront or even revolt against.”

And Hong Kong’s authorities wasted no time with enforcement. At least 10 people were arrested Wednesday under the national security legislation. That included a man arrested for having a Hong Kong independence flag, a woman arrested for holding a sign calling for Hong Kong’s independence (which also featured British and American flags), and a 15-year-old girl arrested for waving a Hong Kong independence flag, according to the Hong Kong Free Press.



#NationalSecurityLaw in effect. #HKPolice further arrested a female for showing a material with #HKIndependence slogan in #CausewayBay, Hong Kong. #HKPolice will take resolute enforcement action in accordance with #NSL. pic.twitter.com/mTmJWt8Z8m— Hong Kong Police Force (@hkpoliceforce) July 1, 2020

An additional 370 people were also detained, according to Hong Kong police, who used tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons to try to break up the demonstrations, relying on the same heavy-handed tactics that galvanized Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters last year. But one 24-year-old protester, who also wished to remain anonymous, said they believe the new law gives police even more “justification” to carry out police brutality.

So while demonstrators have for years taken to the streets on July 1 to protest China’s interference, this July 1 felt like a turning point for the territory.

“This time is different,” Nathan Law, a pro-democracy activist, told US lawmakers during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday. “So much is now lost in the city I love: the freedom to tell the truth.”
China has long dreamed of asserting more direct control over Hong Kong

Last spring, Hong Kong’s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers. That ignited massive protests, leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent. The bill was withdrawn in September, but the demonstrations continued as the fight transformed into a larger battle to protect Hong Kong’s democratic institutions.

The coronavirus pandemic and social distancing measures put some of that public activism on hold. But Beijing has used the pandemic to further crack down on the pro-democracy movement, including by arresting pro-democracy lawmakers in April.

Then, in May, China announced its plan to impose a new national security law intended to curtail foreign interference or activities that undermine the state. The specific details of the law weren’t known, but there was little doubt about its purpose.

That’s because such a law has long been a dream of the Chinese government. In 2003, the Hong Kong legislature attempted to pass a national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law (the closest thing Hong Kong has to a constitution). This would have established rules against subverting the state and foreign interference, but the law got shelved after mass protests.

The difference then was that Hong Kong’s quasi-democratically elected legislature was taking up the proposed law, giving it the veneer of legitimacy. Now China has decided to just go ahead and impose the law on its own, direct from Beijing, without bothering to even pretend to involve the local institutions.

“The way this was done — not through the local authorities, but rather from Beijing — and with China having asserted authority that it had not previously asserted in that way, suggests that it’s very much the mainland basically saying, ‘We have the bottom line on things we consider national security, and that includes political security for the [Chinese Communist Party] and the regime,” Jacob Stokes, a senior policy analyst on China at the US Institute of Peace, told me.

Even Chief Executive Carrie Lam, the nominal leader of Hong Kong whose close ties with Beijing have led critics to portray her as little more than a puppet of the Chinese government, reportedly didn’t know the full details of the new national security law until it was unveiled to the public this week.

And the law is extensive. It contains 66 articles, some of which are very detailed and specific and others that are much more vague — which almost certainly means they’ll be subject to interpretation.
What the new law says — and what it purposely doesn’t say

The law prohibits four broad activities: secessionism, subversion, terrorism, and colluding with foreign forces. (Read the full text of the official English translation of the law here.)

Under each of these activities are some specific offenses. For example, damaging government buildings could qualify as “subversion,” a serious-enough offense that could result in life imprisonment. On July 1, 2019, Hongkongers stormed and defaced the Hong Kong Legislative Council to protest the extradition bill, making this provision look very much like a response to previous protest tactics.

Another example: Under the “colluding with foreign forces” provision, the law says Hongkongers could be arrested and prosecuted if they lobby or work with foreign entities against the Chinese government, including “enacting laws and policies that cause serious obstruction or serious consequences to Hong Kong or China,” according to the Hong Kong Free Press.

This could implicate human rights groups, or even individuals who have called for sanctions or increased pressure on China to stop its intervention on Hong Kong. The Chinese government has blamed outsiders, specifically those in the West, for fomenting opposition against its rule in Hong Kong, and this looks to be a way to silence its critics.

Of course, these expansive definitions are kind of the point.

“If mainland practice to date is any guide — and it is — then the definitions don’t matter that much. Anything can be stretched as necessary to cover something done by the person being targeted,” Donald Clarke, an expert on Chinese law and professor at the University of Washington School of Law, writes in an analysis of the legislation. “As the old cliché goes, 欲加之罪何患无辞.” (That translates roughly to, “If you are determined to convict, you needn’t worry about the lack of grounds.”)

Another remarkable feature of this law is its reach: Not only does it apply to Hongkongers, it could potentially also apply to foreigners who speak out for Hong Kong or oppose China’s interventions there, regardless of where in the world they do so, should they ever set foot in Hong Kong.

This is beyond even the laws in mainland China, and as Clarke puts it, this asserts “extraterritorial jurisdiction over every person on the planet.” This is basically saying that speaking out against China or supporting pro-democracy protests — maybe in a column, or a video, or a tweet — could put that individual at risk in the future, no matter their location at the time of the “offense.”

Finally, the law also gives China more power to interfere directly in Hong Kong’s legal system, fully undermining its rule of law. As NPR notes, “The law empowers China to set up a ‘National Security Committee’ to oversee the investigation and prosecution of any violations. This committee is subject neither to judicial review nor Hong Kong law — meaning it operates without any local checks or balances.”

The law also allows for Chinese judges in mainland China to try the most serious or complicated national security cases, or an extradition bill by different means.

“It’s the end ... a very formal, total end of Hong Kong’s system,” Notre Dame’s Hui told me.
What happens to Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement?

Those massive pro-democracy marches, where millions of Hongkongers demonstrated — those may never happen again, Fung told me. There isn’t much space for freedom of speech in the city anymore, and she doesn’t feel that will change. The options left to her and her fellow citizens, she said, are limited.

“We can continue to live in the city [and] choose to forget about the freedom and values and demands that we believe in,” she said. “Or maybe we will have to just leave the city to continue this kind of spirit somewhere else.”

That is the dilemma facing many young Hongkongers I spoke to, who see themselves as democracy’s last gasp in the territory. They aren’t sure if there’s still a place for them there.

As the generation born right around the time of the territory’s handover from Britain to China, they’ve grown up enjoying Hong Kong’s freedoms, even as they watched them slowly begin to slip away. This generation fueled Hong Kong’s resistance to the extradition bill, demanded democracy, and did it powerfully enough that Beijing fought back.

“In the long term, I anticipate the law would turn HK [Hong Kong] into China — no democracy, no freedom, and, HK people would live under fear,” a 24-year-old protester who asked to remain anonymous, said via WhatsApp. “Our next generation might receive brainwashing education stating China [is] the best.”

Some Hongkongers are already deleting their old social media posts or changing their names online, just in case. Betty Lau, the editor of InMedia HK, which posts pro-democracy articles, told the New York Times that writers had asked her to delete old posts. The site has since removed more than 100.

A prominent pro-democracy group, Demosisto, also disbanded in the wake of the law. One of its leaders, Joshua Wong, said on Twitter that he was leaving the group. “If my voice will not be heard soon, I hope that the international community will continue to speak up for Hong Kong and step up concrete efforts to defend our last bit of freedom,” he wrote.

Soon other prominent leaders of the group, including Nathan Law (who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday) and Agnes Chow, another prominent pro-democracy activist, said they were stepping down. The group then dissolved. Activists like Wong and Chow have been targeted before by Hong Kong authorities; for example, they were arrested last year for allegedly participating in an “unauthorized” assembly during the summer protests. Given their prominence, are likely are risk under this new law.

The chilling effect is the point.

Dean Cheng, a senior research fellow on China at the Heritage Foundation, told me that China’s most useful approach is “to impose a condition of self-censorship, where you learn not what to say.” Activists disbanding their groups or taking down their pro-democracy social media posts because they fear repercussions — with good reason — is exactly what Beijing wants.

“The [Chinese Communist Party] is very, very practiced at political control. They have very developed theories of how to do that,” Stokes, from the US Institute of Peace, said. “And they believe it works in the mainland.” The way China’s leaders see it, he added, the problem with Hong Kong is simply that the government there hasn’t implemented Beijing’s “successful” system.

Protesters did come out into the streets in defiance of the new law on Wednesday. But the ones I spoke to all expressed nervousness, fear, and confusion about whether they will keep doing so if it becomes dangerous. Fung said she thinks she will continue to post online, and maybe support other protesters who do go out in the streets by serving as a driver, offering to help people flee if police crack down. But that is dangerous, too.

The pro-democracy movement goes beyond just protesters and activists, though. The citizenry of Hong Kong has largely been divided in two factions: the “yellow” camp — those who sympathize with the pro-democracy movement, and the “blue” camp — those seen as supporting the police and the Hong Kong government.

Many in the “yellow” camp, though they supported the protesters’ aims, didn’t participate in the protests themselves. So while the hardcore protesters may continue to take to the streets and speak out publicly despite the risks, the fear is that many others — young professionals, those with families, people who feel they have a lot to lose — may begin to rethink about whether they will continue to do so publicly.

Peter, a 28-year-old Hongkonger, never considered himself a hardcore protester. He sympathized with the movement and attended some demonstrations, but he wouldn’t consider himself part of the frontlines. He, and others like him, are at that crossroads.

“A lot of moderate protesters like myself are going to step back, because a lot of us still have a job here, we have families,” he said. “One thing that’s really scary,” he said, is that “if you’re accused under this new law, they have all the authority to send you back to China.”

“Be like water” became a slogan and a strategy of the Hong Kong protests, a way to move fluidly and adapt to police tactics and to the government’s response. When the Hong Kong government denied a permit for the annual vigil honoring the Tiananmen Square massacre in June, for instance, organizers instructed people to instead light a candle, wherever they were, to show their support.

Hui told me she sees the protests taking on an even more decentralized form and finding new methods for Hongkongers to signal their solidarity. An independence flag may be banned, but officials can’t outlaw a candle. Maybe people just take a walk — all together, at the same time. Taking even small acts of resistance, whatever they are, and making them part of daily life.

“One country, two systems” might be dead, but whether that means the end of Hong Kong is a different question, Hui said. “Hong Kong is not dead unless the people let it.”
Hongkongers are looking to the rest of the world. But will help come?

“I know the whole world is watching us,” Fung told me. “And one of the key objectives today is to let the whole world see that Hong Kong people are still willing to go out and protest even under this kind of threat.”

China’s national security law has been broadly condemned internationally — including by the United States. The Trump administration had already declared last month that because of the new national security law (which was expected to pass soon), Hong Kong was no longer considered autonomous from China. Shortly after, the United States also announced that it would be removing Hong Kong’s special trade status, which gives it slightly different treatment from the rest of mainland China.

“The United States will not stand idly by while China swallows Hong Kong into its authoritarian maw,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement Tuesday.

The US, he said, had taken other steps to pull back Hong Kong’s special status, including imposing visa restrictions on Chinese Communist Party officials involved in “undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy” and ending defense and some technology exports to the territory. Pompeo added that “per President Trump’s instruction,” the US would be eliminating most of the “policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment, with few exceptions.”

How much further the Trump administration will go is an open question. Trump has taken an aggressive stance toward China on a number of issues, particularly on trade, and, more recently, for failing to stop the coronavirus from spreading into a pandemic.

But when it comes to China’s human rights abuses, Trump has been far less critical.

The US Congress has backed Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement with strong bipartisan support, though. Last year, Trump signed into law the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Act, which, in addition to evaluating Hong Kong’s autonomous status, calls on the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights in Hong Kong.

That support remains strong. On Wednesday, the House unanimously passed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which would impose mandatory sanctions on entities that violate either the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the treaty between the UK and China that allowed for the handover and laid out the “one country, two systems” principle until 2047, or Hong Kong’s Basic Law (its de facto constitution.) On Thursday, so did the Senate, sending the bill to Trump’s desk. The White House has not said whether he will sign it.

A bipartisan group of senators has also introduced a bill that would grant refugee status to Hong Kong residents who face persecution under the new national security law, including those who might have participated in the pro-democracy and anti-extradition bill protests.

If passed and signed into law, it would be a powerful statement on human rights and democracy from the United States. But it would also show a disconnect in the federal government, as the Trump administration has drastically cut the number of refugees coming from just about everywhere else.

Other countries are taking steps to help Hong Kong as well. The United Kingdom will grant additional rights to Hongkongers who are are British Nationals Overseas passport holders. Previously, they could stay in the UK for six months, but the UK government extended to the five years, after which the possibility for residency and later citizenship is available.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said it would allow the UK to “uphold our profound ties of history and friendship with the people of Hong Kong.” It could apply to as many as 3 million people.

Taiwan — which has a particular stake in standing up to China — just on Wednesday unveiled a new office explicitly created to help Hong Kong asylum seekers.

Offering an escape route from Hong Kong will protect many, and leaving is an option that many Hongkongers said they would consider if life in the territory becomes untenable.

At the same time, though, it is still a fraught decision. Hong Kong is home, and leaving feels a bit like a surrender, giving up on preserving Hong Kong’s democracy and letting China win.

And some worry that a failure to taking action against China to stop or punish it for its power grab in Hong Kong would encourage China to become even more aggressive, both in Hong Kong and elsewhere. Or, as one protester put it: “Today Hong Kong, tomorrow the w

UPDATED 

HONG KONG DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST SAYS HE LEFT CITY AFTER PASSAGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY LAW 

Hong Kong Democracy Activist Says He Left City After Passage of National Security Law

Pro-democracy activist Nathan Law looks on during a press conference on June 19, 2020 in Hong Kong, China. Law announced his plans to run in the opposition camp's primaries in the lead-up to Hong Kong’s Legislative Council elections.
Anthony Kwan–Getty Images

BY ZEN SOO / AP 

JULY 3, 2020

(HONG KONG) — Prominent Hong Kong democracy activist Nathan Law has left the city for an undisclosed location, he revealed on his Facebook page after testifying to a U.S. congressional hearing about a tough national security law China had imposed on the semi-autonomous territory.

In a post late Thursday, he said that he had decided to advocate for Hong Kong internationally and had left the city.

“As a global-facing activist, the choices I have are stark: to stay silent from now on, or to keep engaging in private diplomacy so I can warn the world of the threat of Chinese authoritarian expansion,” he said. “I made the decision when I agreed to testify before the U.S. Congress.”

Law told reporters in a WhatsApp message that he would not reveal his whereabouts and situation based on a “risk assessment.”

His departure comes two days after the national security law took effect, targeting secessionist, subversive and terrorist acts, as well as any collusion with foreign forces intervening in city affairs.

The Hong Kong government said in a statement Thursday night that popular protest slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times” connotes a call for Hong Kong’s independence or its separation from China, meaning those using it or displaying it on flags or signs could be in violation of the new law.

Police arrested some 370 people Wednesday, 10 of whom were detained on suspicion of violating the national security law, when thousands took to the streets to protest it.

In some cases, suspects were found to be carrying paraphernalia advocating Hong Kong’s independence, police said.


“Under this legislation Beijing just passed about 24 hours ago, anyone who would dare to speak up would likely face imprisonment once Beijing targeted you,” Law told a congressional hearing via video link Wednesday. “So much is now lost in the city I love: the freedom to tell the truth.”

Law, 26, rose to prominence in Hong Kong as one of the student leaders of the pro-democracy Umbrella Revolution in 2014. In 2016, he became the youngest lawmaker elected to the city’s legislature but was later disqualified after he raised his tone while swearing allegiance to China during the oath, making it sound like a question.

He was a leader of pro-democracy group Demosisto, with fellow activists Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow. All three resigned Tuesday ahead of the national security law coming into effect. With the loss of its top members, Demosisto dissolved.

Critics say the law effectively ends the “one country, two systems” framework under which the city was promised a high degree of autonomy when it reverted from British to Chinese rule in 1997.

The maximum punishment for serious offenses is life imprisonment, and suspects in certain cases may be sent to trial on the mainland if Beijing deems it has jurisdiction.

A 24-year-old man who was arrested for allegedly stabbing a police officer during protests on Wednesday has been charged with wounding with intent, police said Friday. He was arrested on board a plane to London, apparently trying to flee the territory. Police wouldn’t say if the man would face additional charges under the national security law.

UPDATED 

Washington Redskins in internal talks to change the team name: report

July 3, 2020 By Matthew Chapman


On Friday, the Washington Redskins football team released a statement announcing that they are undertaking an internal review of the team name.

“This process allows the team to take into account not only the proud tradition and history of the franchise but also input from our alumni, the organization, sponsors, the National Football League and the local community it is proud to represent on and off the field,” said team owner Dan Snyder

Potentially big news: The #Redskins have been having internal discussions about their team name and now will conduct a formal, thorough review. Full statement, including quotes from owner Dan Snyder, on a possible name change: pic.twitter.com/49mpesZGs9
— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) July 3, 2020

For years, Snyder has vehemently resisted any and all calls to change the team name, which is broadly considered to be an offensive slur of Native Americans and has a long history of derogatory use. Snyder has insisted that the team’s name is meant to honor Native heritage.

The announcement comes as a number of groups and organizations reconsider terminology and iconography with racially and culturally insensitive origins, from Aunt Jemima syrup to musical groups like Lady Antebellum and the Dixie Chicks.


Nike Pulls Redskins Online Merchandise, Hours After FedEx Demands a Name Change

BY SCOTT MCDONALD ON 7/2/2020

The Washington Redskins have avoided changing the team's nickname for more than 50 years of political pressure. Politicians and human rights advocacy groups could not find a way to make it happen. But in a span of a few hours on Thursday, two major corporate sponsors may have sacked the team's ability to keep moving forward with its name.
First, FedEx demanded the team change its name from Redskins. Why is that significant? FedEx holds the naming rights to the team's stadium, and the company could pull it sponsorship worth many millions of dollars if the team doesn't comply.

What Have the Redskins' Major Sponsors Said About NFL Team Name Change?
READ MORE

And on Thursday night, Nike no longer carries any Washington Redskins merchandise on its website—although all other 31 teams in the NFL are represented.

The move comes after the top three Redskins sponsors—Nike, FedEx and PepsiCo—each received a letter Wednesday signed by 87 different investors and shareholders whose total net worth is $620 billion. They all urged the companies to pull their sponsorships unless the Redskins change their nickname.

"This is a broader movement now that's happening that Indigenous peoples are part of," said Carla Fredericks, who is director of First Peoples Worldwide and director of the University of Colorado Law School's American Indian Law Clinic. "Indigenous peoples were sort of left out of the civil rights movement in the late 1960s in many respects, because our conditions were so dire on reservations and our ability to engage publicly was very limited because of that. With social media now, obviously everything is very different."

FedEx made its move on Thursday afternoon, insisting the team change its name. The Memphis-based company made it clear with just one sentence.

"We have communicated to the team in Washington our request that they change the team name," FedEx said in a statement .

Then, in a particularly-quiet move, Nike removed all Washington Redskins merchandise from its website. The Redskins are not listed among the other NFL teams, nor are they listed after a search on the site.

A Washington Redskins Nike cleat and helmet is seen on the field before the game against the Philadelphia Eagles at Lincoln Financial Field on September 21, 2014 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.PHOTO BY ROB CARR/GETTY IMAGES

Native American groups in the late 1960s began efforts to end any harmful stereotypes or images of Native American life, especially in the sports world. By the early 1970s, there became a growing plea from activists for the Redskins to drop their name, or change its mascot altogether.

Although requests for sports teams to change their mascots from Indians and similar names somewhat dissipated throughout the 1980s, it began picking up steam again following the 1991 season, when the Redskins advanced to the Super Bowl XXVI in Minneapolis.

About 3,000 demonstrators showed up at the game to protest the Redskins name—the largest such protest at the time. Later that year, a Native American group filed a petition to have the team's nickname removed from trademark.

A federal appeals board sided with the petitioners, but the Redskins appealed the ruling. The board ruled that the team's name was belittling to Native Americans.


In 2004, a poll of 768 self-identified Indians showed that only nine percent of them were offended by Washington's nickname, and it's a survey that owner Daniel Snyder has used to this day as a way to defend the Redskins organization and brand.

READ MORE
Washington Redskins Urged to Lose Name, or Millions in Sponsorships
AOC Slams Redskins, Says 'Change Your Name' if Team Wants 'Racial Justice'
Ron Rivera Dismisses Redskins Name Change as 'Discussion for Another Time'

Since then, and even before then, many colleges and universities have dropped or changed nicknames. Miami University in Ohio changed its named from Redskins to Redhawks.

Lawsuits have continuously been filed against the Washington Redskins, but the organization has never wavered. Snyder even said in 2013 that he would never change the team's name.

After the death of George Floyd on May 25 while in custody of police, protests against his death—and police brutality against Blacks, in general—swept the nation. There have also been protests for equality of all races, including Native Americans.

In the letter from the investors to Nike, it stated, "the use of the R-word as the name and mascot of the Washington National Football League team is offensive and hurtful to American Indian and Alaska Native people and causes direct, harmful effects on the physical and mental health and academic achievement of the American Indian and Alaska Native populations, particularly youth; and ... despite the team's arguments to the contrary, the R-word is not a term of honor or respect, but rather, a term that still connotes racism and genocide for Native peoples and for all others who know of this history and recognize that it is wrong to characterize people by the color of their skin."

Sponsor FedEx asks Redskins to change their name

In this Dec. 9, 2018, file photo, FedEx Field is less than full during the second half of an NFL football game between the Washington Redskins and the New York Giants in Landover, Md. The title sponsor of the Redskins’ stadium wants them to change their name. FedEx said in a statement Thursday, July 2, 2020, “We have communicated to the team in Washington our request that they change the team name.“ (AP Photo/Mark Tenally, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The title sponsor of the Washington Redskins’ stadium wants the NFL team to change its name.

“We have communicated to the team in Washington our request that they change the team name,“ FedEx said in a statement Thursday.

The company paid the team $205 million in 1999 for the naming rights to FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland.

In addition to the stadium name and sponsorship agreement, FedEx CEO Frederik Smith is a minority owner. Majority owner Daniel Snyder has shown no indications he’ll change the name since buying the team in 1999.

Amid the national debate over race, pressure has been mounting on the organization to abandon the name called a “dictionary-defined racial slur” by experts and advocates.

Investors this week wrote to FedEx, PepsiCo and other sponsors asking them to request a change. FedEx is believed to be the first to take action.

Asked about Snyder changing the name, a spokesman said recently the team had no comment. The team last week removed the name of racist founder George Preston Marshall from its Ring of Fame at FedEx Field, and a monument to him was removed from the site of the old RFK Stadium.

Washington, D.C., mayor Muriel Bowser also said the name was an “obstacle” to the team returning to the District. The team’s lease at FedEx Field expires in 2027, and it is still talking to Washington, Virginia and Maryland about building a new stadium.
___

More AP NFL: https://apnews.com/NFL and https://twitter.com/AP_NFL

Fireworks leave toxic metals lingering in the air, study finds
By Nick Lavars
July 02, 2020

A new study has found pollution from fireworks may damage the health of humans and animals deymosd/Depositphotos
Fireworks are a surefire way to create a spectacle of color and light, but research has revealed these dazzling displays could pose a health risk. A study that is said to be the first to look at the impacts of firework exposure on human cells and animals, has found a range of harmful toxins can linger in the air once the lights go out.

The research was carried out by scientists NYU Langone Health, who looked at air quality samples collected from dozens of sites across the US, spanning a timeframe of 14 years. Through this analysis, the team found particularly high concentrations of toxic metals around Independence Day and New Year’s Eve.

Fireworks give off their striking array of colors when metals contained within them are subjected to high temperatures. These commonly include lead, titanium, strontium and copper. With the knowledge that these remain in the air following a fireworks display, the team drew up some experiments to explore the potential effects on humans and animals.

“Although people are only exposed to these substances for a short time each year, they are much more toxic than the pollutants we breathe every day,” says study senior author Terry Gordon.

In the lab, the scientists detonated a handful of fireworks commonly sold in the US, including Black Cuckoo, the Color-Changing Wheel and the Blue Storm firecracker. They captured the particles these explosions emitted and then exposed human lung cells and several dozen mice to them, at doses estimated to be similar to the pollutants a New Yorker would inhale during a day in Manhattan.

In doing so, the team observed a significant increase in oxidation, a normally healthy process in the human body but one that can cause damage to cells and DNA when its activity is heightened. This was linked with lung inflammation in the mice, while the Back Cuckoo firework was found to be the most harmful, causing 10 times more damage to the human cells than a nontoxic saline solution used as a control.

“While many are careful to protect themselves from injury from explosions, our results suggest that inhaling firework smoke may cause longer-term damage – a risk that has been largely ignored,” says Gordon.

The scientists see this as early days for their research, with plans to explore the effects of repeated exposure to fireworks as opposed to a single instance. They plan to share the results of the work with public health officials to raise awareness about the risks.

The research was published in the journal Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

Source: NYU Langone Health

Nick Lavars
Nick has been writing and editing at New Atlas for over six years, where he has covered everything from distant space probes to self-driving cars to oddball animal science. He previously spent time at The Conversation, Mashable and The Santiago Times, earning a Masters degree in communications from Melbourne’s RMIT University along the way.

The violent end of the Capitol Hill Organized Protest, explained

Seattle’s police-free neighborhood started experiencing violence, but locals still don’t trust the police.

By Katelyn Burns Jul 2, 2020

City crews dismantle the Capitol Hill Organized Protest area outside of the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct on July 1, in Seattle, Washington. David Ryder/Getty Images

Seattle protesters’ experiment with a police-free community and protest space has ended.

On Wednesday, dozens of officers from the Seattle Police Department arrested more than 30 people and cleared out the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), formerly known as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), at Mayor Jenny Durkan’s order. The mayor’s executive order came in response to a wave of nighttime violence in the four-block area, including four shootings and several alleged sexual assaults.

Police have cleared #CHOP to Pike @KING5Seattle pic.twitter.com/0GUSkZkFA0— Michael Crowe (@MichaelReports) July 1, 2020

Katie, a local who protested in the neighborhood before and after CHOP was established, said they sobbed when they saw police clearing it out Wednesday morning. “I’m glad that people were able to see what a space like that could be,” they told Vox. “I had some complaints about it but it was beautiful to see.”

Durkan praised the mostly peaceful protest in a statement Monday, yet signaled that it was time for protesters to leave CHOP because of the late-night violence.

“[O]ver the last month thousands of people, including families, have visited the area and shown their support for the messages of equity and change,” read the statement. “Unfortunately, that message has been undermined by the violence in the area. The area has increasingly attracted more individuals bent on division and violence, and it is risking the lives of individuals.”

Drone footage of the Police clearing Cal Anderson Park this morning.#SeattleProtests #CHOP pic.twitter.com/vFfHA1P71W— Converge Media (@WWConverge) July 1, 2020

The violence at CHOP shows the difficulty in trying to create a police-free neighborhood, especially without investments in community anti-poverty efforts, out of what was primarily a protest space. It also highlights the pervasiveness of certain forms of violence — like violence against women, which some residents told Vox was a problem in the neighborhood (a nightlife hot spot in the city) even before CHOP was established. Those previous incidents were not subject to a national media microscope.

While Durkan and the Seattle Police Department used the recent violence as justification to move in and retake the area from protesters, some people who live in the area worried about the SPD’s return. “I feel marginally more dread than the early parts of the protests,” local Capitol Hill resident John McCartney told Vox. “People here seem angrier, but there also seem to be fewer protesters.”
What we know about the violence during — and before — CHOP’s existence

The “autonomous zone” idea for the protest area began as a meme after SPD vacated the nearby East Precinct building on June 8 following eight straight days of police clashes with protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s killing. But protesters very quickly seized on the idea of creating a sustained occupation-style protest in the area, working with city personnel to block off street traffic in a six-block radius around the precinct.

In the first week of CHOP’s existence, people who were spending a lot of time at the protest told Vox they felt safe there. “Talking with my friends and talking with a couple of people on the ground, I keep hearing people say, ‘I never felt this safe walking in the city,’” Carla, who had been regularly hanging out in the area, told Vox in mid-June. “The knowledge that the police aren’t there [has created] this feeling that this is a space that belongs to everybody.”

The blocked-off entrance to the Seattle Police Department’s East Precinct, abandoned by police in the protests, on June 12. Jason Redmond/AFP via Getty Images

One of the entrances to the Capitol Hill protest area on June 14. Noah Riffe/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

But what initially started as a local curiosity, drawing residents and families from the surrounding area, eventually took a turn for the worse. Over the past nine days, the area saw four shootings, two deaths, arson, and several alleged sexual assaults. According to FBI data, there were 34 homicides reported in 2018 in all of Seattle.

“It’s been a terrible week for the area,” said Justin, the publisher of CapitolHillSeattle.com who has been covering the goings-on within CHOP since its inception. “But these kinds of violent spikes do come in waves. And we’ve seen this before in other parts of the city.”

Vox spoke with 13 local residents and protesters on background — most of whom have taken part in the protests against racism and police violence that preceded CHOP, and also spent time in and around CHOP — about what’s been happening in the neighborhood over the past week and a half.

Locals paint a muddled picture of an area where confusion — and fear of far-right counterprotesters — often reigns. One person who works a block away from CHOP and asked to remain anonymous to protect her privacy, said her car was vandalized while she was at work last week, which she attributed to her left-wing political bumper stickers. Since then, management from her employer have escorted her to her car every night after her shift is over.

In speaking with locals, a tale of two CHOPs emerges: daytime CHOP and nighttime CHOP. During the day, there’s more of a community feel, with neighbors out and about inside CHOP while protests are ongoing. But most of the people who spoke with Vox didn’t feel safe walking at night in the area, especially in the past week and a half.

But that’s not necessarily a unique feeling in the area, which is a popular bar and entertainment district within the city. The type of violence has changed since CHOP was established, one local explained: In their accounting, it went from drunk white bar patrons (often men) causing havoc on Friday and Saturday nights, along with the occasional police response to a homeless person in the area, to the violence that has taken place inside CHOP recently.

“Like a lot of nightlife districts, it is not a comfortable place for female-presenting folks to be out at night,” said McCartney, who was the only local willing to be quoted by full name for this story. Several women and trans people speaking on background confirmed his statement to Vox. In August 2017, for example, a trans woman was allegedly assaulted by a group of male patrons at a bar in the neighborhood.

At the same time, McCartney said, there’s a rift between people who have lived in the area for a while and the tech workers who have moved in recently. “I feel a lot of the current ‘it’s not safe’ stuff comes from either people who aren’t living in the neighborhood itself or from affluent new arrivals, or from business owners.”

CHOP featured a seemingly unstructured organizing format, similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement of the early 2010s. Protest organizers declined to speak with Vox, as they also did for a previous story from mid-June. It’s also been difficult for journalists and the public to pin down exactly who is in charge at CHOP, and there was no central group issuing public statements. But organizers from Washington Youth for Climate Justice, who have been active on CHOP’s front lines since its establishment denounced the police clearing Wednesday morning. “We feel that the handling of CHOP’s dispersal, such as calling in officers wearing riot gear and using pepper spray on demonstrators, was completely unethical and unnecessary,” a spokesperson for the group said in a statement to Vox.

Seattle Police and Washington National Guard personnel take control of an intersection near the East Precinct on June 8. David Ryder/Getty Images

Of particular concern for locals has been the recent spate of gun violence in the area. There have been four shootings in CHOP since its inception, and a shooting Sunday evening left one person dead and another hospitalized.

“It’s clear that there is gun violence associated with CHOP,” said Justin. “There are young people with weapons. There are very well-trained volunteers with weapons. There’s just a lot of guns in the area.”
But local residents won’t necessarily feel safer with police back in control of the neighborhood

Most of the people who spoke with Vox took part in the eight days of intense — and often violent — protests that preceded the abandonment of the East Precinct building and the establishment of CHOP. They largely don’t view the police as protectors of the area and worry about potential retaliation now that police are seemingly back.

One local woman who spoke to Vox on condition of anonymity had become frustrated with CHOP violence over the past 10 days, especially the latest shooting. But she also said the police likely aren’t the answer to the neighborhood’s violence problem.

“The police aren’t what make me feel safe or unsafe; I certainly didn’t feel safe when they were tear-gassing the neighborhood and shooting rubber bullets at us as we marched,” she said. “But if the police presence can disperse the people that have gathered and made camp here who are perpetuating violence, then yes, I’ll feel safer. But that’s not a guarantee.”

Another pointed out that the Seattle Police Department has been under federal oversight since 2012 following several incidences of violence against the community. One example cited in the case was the death of John T. Williams in 2011 when an SPD officer was overheard shouting a racial slur about a Latino man. Mayor Durkan, who was a US attorney at the time, led the investigation.

CHOP wasn’t the first organized protest against SPD violence either. In 1965, community leaders in the city’s central district, which borders Capitol Hill, began following police patrols around the neighborhood to observe and record their handling of the local Black population. Called “freedom patrols,” they drew both praise and criticism, though police mistreatment of the city’s Black population extended back decades. In 1938, three Seattle police officers beat a Black man, Barry Lawson, to death. They were subsequently convicted of second-degree manslaughter before being pardoned by the governor in 1939.
What can future organizers learn from CHOP?

CHOP was not the first organized protest space to experience violence. While the Occupy movement a decade ago didn’t see any killings like CHOP, both saw several allegations of sexual assault associated with the protests. According to the Seattle alt-weekly the Stranger, a CHOP medic intervened to stop a sexual assault in progress inside a tent at Cal Anderson Park, where many protesters had been camping.

That all raises questions about how such dedicated protest spaces can maintain safety — without replicating the abusive powers of the police system.

“The ‘community center block party’ vibe ended after the first week,” said one local woman. “This reminds me of NYC during Occupy Wall Street almost to a ‘T.’ Except here people are getting killed.”

The issue, she said, is that she felt the protests shifted away from police violence and Black Lives Matter into more of an anarchist message. “The people with the loudest voices are all sharing the same ‘fuck capitalism/establishment/burn it all down’ rhetoric. The camp and the early infrastructure is similar,” she said, saying that the lack of clear leadership hurt efforts to make the area safe. “Sure, burn it all down, but have a plan. The lack of a central voice, the lack of a plan, and the elevation of people who don’t even live here are very similar.”

A centralized power structure isn’t necessarily needed — Occupy protesters in New York created a de facto security team of volunteers that would deescalate conflicts. In CHOP, there were armed and organized security volunteers, according to several people who spoke with Vox.

Tents in the Capitol Hill Organized Protest on June 28. Karla Ann Cote/NurPhoto via Getty Images

City crews and Seattle police officers clear tents and booths. David Ryder/Getty Images

But Justin pointed out that many businesses in the area ended up hiring armed security guards to patrol property in the area anyway. “When you look at that and you start thinking, maybe in a year from now, we’re going to really wish that we didn’t defund” the police, he said. “But [instead] we did reform and that we kept these assets and resources within the city instead of having guns for hire communities to guard buildings.”

What CHOP (or Occupy) didn’t have was the type of long-term investment in anti-poverty and community-building programs that activists say is the counterbalance to defunding the police.

Part of the issue, according to Justin, is that, despite coverage to the contrary, including from Vox, CHOP was never set up to be a true police-free neighborhood. It was, above all, a protest.

“I don’t think it’s fair as a laboratory for” a police-free neighborhood, said Justin. CHOP “also lacks so many other investments and so many other resources that you’d have to have to make that world work that it’s just not fair to measure it that way.”