UN expert calls for Israel to end practice of administrative detention

By agency reporter

OCTOBER 25, 2020

Israel should release a Palestinian detainee who has been on hunger strike for close to 90 days and end its practice of administrative detention, under which people can be held indefinitely without trial, sometimes for years, says a UN special rapporteur.

Maher Al-Akhras began a hunger strike in late July after he was arrested. Israeli security forces accuse him of being a member of Islamic Jihad, a charge he denies. The Israeli Supreme Court has rejected his petitions for release three times.

“Mr. Al-Akhras is now in very frail condition, having gone without food for 89 days,” said Michael Lynk, special rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967. “Recent visits by doctors to his hospital bed in Israel indicate that he is on the verge of suffering major organ failure, and some damage might be permanent.”

Al-Akhras was arrested on 27 July in his hometown of Selit El Dahir in the West Bank. An administrative detention order was issued against him on 7 August to run until 26 November 2020. In 2009 he was administratively detained for 16 months, and again in 2018 for 11 months.

“Administrative detention is an anathema in any democratic society that follows the rule of law”, Lynk said. “When the democratic state arrests and detains someone, it is required to charge the person, present its evidence in an open trial, allow for a full defence and try to persuade an impartial judiciary of its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Administrative detention, in contrast, allows a state to arrest and detain a person without charges, without a trial, without knowing the evidence against her or him, and without a fair judicial review,” he said. “It is a penal system that is ripe for abuse and maltreatment.”

International law allows a state to use administrative detention only in emergencies, and only if a fair hearing can be provided where the detainee can challenge the allegations against her or him. In an occupation, Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention only permits an occupying power to employ administrative detention “for imperative reasons of security.”

Israel has been regularly criticised by international human rights organisations for its promiscuous use of administrative detention. According to Israeli Prison Services data obtained by B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, there were 355 Palestinians being held in administrative detention by Israel as of 31 August 2020.

While Israeli courts allow for a form of judicial review for administrative detainees, the Israeli Supreme Court (sitting as the High Court) has regularly approved the practice and refused Mr. Al-Akhras’s request for release in a ruling in mid-October. Two previous petitions for his release had been rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court.

Israel also regularly incarcerates its Palestinian administrative detainees in Israeli prisons, a violation of Article 76 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which says protected people under occupation should be detained in the occupied territory

“The Israeli security forces who arrested and detained Mr. Al-Akhras have not provided any persuasive evidence in an open hearing to justify its allegations that he is a genuine security threat”, Lynk said. He called upon Israel to release Al-Akhras immediately if it could not provide persuasive evidence on a high standard that he has broken laws that would be acceptable in any democratic state.

“I also call upon Israel to abolish its practice of administrative detention, release those detainees it presently holds, and strictly follow international law in the application of its security operations”, Lynk said.

Michael Lynk was designated by the UN Human Rights Council in 2016 as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967. Professor Lynk is Associate Professor of Law at Western University in London, Ontario, where he teaches labour law, constitutional law and human rights law. Before becoming an academic, he practiced labour law and refugee law for a decade in Ottawa and Toronto. He also worked for the United Nations on human rights and refugee issues in Jerusalem. 

* Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/Home.aspx

[Ekk/6]

In two weeks, UN records 19 incidents of attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinian olive harvesters

An Israeli settler attacking Palestinian olive harvesters in the West Bank. (File photo)


JERUSALEM, Saturday, October 24, 2020 (WAFA) - The olive harvest season, which started on 7 October, was disrupted by Israeli settlers in 19 incidents in the period between 6 and 19 October leaving 23 Palestinian farmers injured, over 1,000 olive trees burnt, or otherwise damaged, and large amounts of produce stolen, according to the biweekly Protection of Civilians Report by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the occupied Palestinian territory.

In the outskirts of Burqa village in the Ramallah area, settlers stoned and physically assaulted Palestinian olive pickers on three occasions, triggering clashes. Israeli forces intervened in one of the clashes, injuring 14 Palestinians and leaving 30 trees burnt by tear gas canisters. The remaining injuries were recorded in farming areas near the town of Huwwara in the Nablus district, and the villages of Ni’lin and Beitillu in the Ramallah area.

Next to the Israeli settlement of Mevo Dotan near Jenin, about 450 olive trees were set on fire and destroyed shortly after Palestinian farmers from Yabad village were attacked there by settlers and forced out by Israeli soldiers. A few hundred olive trees belonging to Palestinians from Saffa village near Ramallah, in the closed area behind the separation barrier, were also set on fire and damaged.

In another 10 locations adjacent to settlements, farmers found when they were able to reach their lands that their olive trees had either been vandalized or harvested, and the produce stolen.

Several of the incidents took place in access-restricted areas, where the Israeli authorities allow Palestinians to enter only two to four days during the entire harvest season when the harvesting often takes as long as one month.

Another four attacks by settlers were recorded during the same period, said the OCHA report.

A one-year-old Palestinian was injured when the car he was traveling in was hit by stones in the Bethlehem governorate. In nearby al-Khader, 40 beehives were set on fire and burnt. In the Farsiya area of the northern Jordan Valley, Palestinian shepherds were physically assaulted by a group of settlers, and one of their sheep was killed. In Jaloud village near Nablus, electricity poles and cables providing power to agricultural rooms were cut and damaged.

In three incidents in Area C of the occupied West Bank, the Israeli authorities demolished or seized eight Palestinian-owned structures for the lack of Israeli-issued building permits, displacing 12 people, said OCHA.

Five of the structures were in two communities in the Massafer Yatta area of Hebron, which had been designated a ‘firing zone’ for Israeli military training. The remaining three were demolished in the community of Al Farisiya-Khallet Khader of the Jordan Valley on the basis of Military Order 1797, which allows for demolitions within 96 hours of the issuance of a ‘removal order.’

M.K.

Palestinian teenager dies after being acutely beaten by Israeli soldiers
Israeli occupation forces assault and beat up a Palestinian teenager near the city of Ramallah in 2015 (File photo)

NABLUS, Sunday, October 25, 2020 (WAFA) – A Palestinian teenager was killed early today morning after he was severely beaten by Israeli occupation soldiers near the village of Turmus-Ayya, to the northeast of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, according to Palestinian security and medical sources.

Israeli occupation forces reportedly chased Amer Abdul-Rahim Snobar, 18, while he was driving near Turmus-Ayya, caught him and beat him up until he died. The teenager comes from the village of Yatma, near the city of Nablus in the West Bank.

No further details regarding the deadly incident were available until the moment.

M.N

Ashrawi: Murder of Amer Snoubar is a monstrous act of brutality motivated by hate

Dr. Hanan Ashrawi

RAMALLAH, Sunday, October 25, 2020 (WAFA) – Hanan Ashrawi, Member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), said today that the murder of Amer Snoubar by Israeli occupation forces early today morning was a monstrous act of brutality motivated by hate and encouraged by impunity.

Following is the full statement of Dr. Ashrawi:

"The vicious murder of 18-year-old Amer Snoubar at the hands of Israeli occupation forces is a monstrous act of brutality against a defenseless young man whose only crime was being Palestinian. Israeli occupation soldiers bludgeoned Amer this dawn, and medical authorities have confirmed that he was beaten repeatedly on the back of the neck then left for dead.

Such crimes are perpetrated and perpetuated by Israeli occupation soldiers because they are part of a regime that awards criminality and ensures impunity for crimes, domestically and internationally. The daily structural violence against Palestinians, which is the lifeline of this illegal occupation, entrenches a culture of racism, hate, and dehumanization against the Palestinian people, allowing for such crimes to happen without shame, fear, regret, or accountability.

This hostile and hateful environment also allows for other forms of inhumane disregard for Palestinian lives, as demonstrated in the continued imprisonment of Maher al-Akhras, who is now on day 91 of his hunger strike to protest his detention without charge or trial under so-called "administrative detention." This cruelty is what drives Israeli occupation authorities from preventing Maher's elderly mother, wife and children from seeing him while he battles to stay alive. It explains the steep rise in demolition of Palestinian homes in the middle of a raging pandemic and provides context for Israel's targeting of schools, medical facilities, and other basic services.

The only way for these crimes to end is for the illegal Israeli regime of occupation to end. International concern and outrage will not save Palestinian lives or property. They will not protect Palestinian rights or dignity. The only responsible and moral response to these senseless crimes is accountability."

M.N

RIP
In Honor of the Man Who Created “Mr. Bojangles,” Jerry Jeff Walker

Paul Zollo
October 24, 2020

Jerry Jeff Walker, “Mr. Bojangles”

The man who gave us “Mr. Bojangles” is gone. Jerry Jeff Walker died yesterday, October 23, 2020, in AUstin, a town he loved and made his home. He was 78.

To write a true standard in this day and age – one song recorded by many artists – is rare. But “Mr. Bojangles” is a real rarity even among standards. It quickly expanded beyond its pop/country roots to become a cultural artifact, recorded by the biggest stars in both music and show-biz.

Music icons including Bob Dylan, Nina Simone, Harry Belafonte and Willie Nelson covered it, but so did show biz icons such as George Burns, Perry Como and, most famously, Sammy Davis, Jr.

Sammy, of course, was a beloved entertainer, member of Sinatra’s Rat Pack, and a traditional song & dance man. He transformed this mythic country ballad into a poignant performance piece, and it became his signature song.

Jerry Jeff was born in Oneonta, New York in 1942, named Ronald Clyde Crosby. He lived in New Orleans in the 60s, and it’s there that he became Jerry Jeff Walker. It’s also there that “Mr. Bojangles” was born, based on the drunk tank testimony of man he met there in 1965.

He recorded it in 1968. The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band had a hit with it, and a chain of great versions emerged, such as that by David Bromberg, who owned it as only he could.

So in honor on the man who brought us “Mr. Bojangles,” here are a choice collection of recordings of his classic song. Though the songwriter is gone, officially, from this world, the song is everywhere at once, and as alive as ever.

Facebook Facing a Possible Lawsuit by FTC

25 Oct, 2020
 Olivia Miller

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is apparently on the brink of filing an antitrust lawsuit against Facebook for its monopolistic practices, according to two people with knowledge.

The FTC members recently met to discuss Facebook’s practice of swallowing up smaller rivals to maintain a monopoly, the people said. The commission has prepared three documents — one addresses the company’s potential antitrust violations, another analyzes its economics, and a third assesses the risks of litigation.

The commissioners must vote before any case is pursued.



Washington is aggressively pursuing technology companies for their antitrust practices. Google was sued by the Justice Department, this week for its monopoly power in search and search advertising.

Action against Google is the first such step against any technology company in the last 20 years.

Two weeks ago, the House Judiciary Committee, said that big tech platforms, including Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google should be broken up in smaller entities.

The major tech companies. Including Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon are together valued at $5 trillion. Such capital power is bound to attract scrutiny.

Joseph Simons, the chairman of the F.T.C. opened an investigation into Facebook in June 2019. Around the same time, four dozen state attorneys general began a parallel investigation into the social network.

Facebook has faced legal issues with FTC mainly regarding privacy issues and reached a privacy settlement in 2011 with the agency. In 2018, Facebook was caught in the Cambridge Analytica scandal where the company was accused of harvesting personal information provided by Facebook to interfere in the 2016 election. Facebook last year was forced to cough up $5 billion in a settlement on data privacy violations to the FTC.

F.T.C. has collected thousands of internal documents from Facebook’s leaders and rivals. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO was also summoned by the government agency and Congress to answer queries about the company’s business practices.

The company has denied violations of antitrust laws. Facebook has 3 billion users across all its apps and market value of $792 billion, which more than substantiates its leadership status in the social media marketing space.

Facebook has a known practice of gobbling up any new rival that comes up in the space. It bought off both WhatsApp and Instagram, which gained in popularity after their launches. Facebook bought the photo-sharing app Instagram for $1 billion in 2012. It paid $19 billion for WhatsApp in 2014. Both mergers were approved by the F.T.C.

The House Judiciary Committee in a note about Facebook’s power writes that the company “has tipped the market toward monopoly such that Facebook competes more vigorously among its own products — Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger — than with actual competitors.”

The agency could file a suit by year-end, the report said.

Facebook in Showdown With Journalists, Academics Over Political Ad Research
October 24, 2020 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Academics, journalists and First Amendment lawyers are rallying behind New York University researchers in a showdown with Facebook over its demand that they halt the collection of data showing who is being micro-targeted by political ads on the world’s dominant social media platform.

The researchers say the disputed tool is vital to understanding how Facebook has been used as a conduit for disinformation and manipulation.

In an Oct. 16 letter to the researchers, a Facebook executive demanded they disable a special plug-in for Chrome and Firefox browsers used by 6,500 volunteers across the United States and delete the data obtained. The plug-in lets researchers see which ads are shown to each volunteer; Facebook lets advertisers tailor ads based on specific demographics that go far beyond race, age, gender and political preference.

The executive, Allison Hendrix, said the tool violates Facebook rules prohibiting automated bulk collection of data from the site. Her letter threatened “additional enforcement action” if the takedown was not effected by Nov. 30.

Company spokesman Joe Osborne said in an emailed statement Saturday that Facebook “informed NYU months ago that moving forward with a project to scrape people’s Facebook information would violate our terms.” The company has long claimed protecting user privacy is its main concern, though NYU researchers say their tool is programmed so the data collected from participating volunteers is anonymous.

The outcry over Facebook’s threat was immediate after The Wall Street Journal first reported the news Friday considering the valuable insights the “Ad Observer” tool provides. It has been used since its September launch by local reporters from Wisconsin to Utah to Florida to write about the Nov. 3 presidential election.

“That Facebook is trying to shut down a tool crucial to exposing disinformation in the run up to one of the most consequential elections in U.S. history is alarming,” said Ramya Krishnan, an attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which is representing the researchers. “The public has a right to know what political ads are being run and how they are being targeted. Facebook shouldn’t be allowed to be the gatekeeper to information necessary to safeguard our democracy. “

“The NYU Ad Observatory is the only window researchers have to see microtargeting information about political ads on Facebook,” Julia Angwin, editor of the data-centric investigative tech news website The Markup, tweet in disappointment.

The tool lets researchers see how some Facebook advertisers use data gathered by the company to profile citizens “and send them misinformation about candidates and policies that are designed to influence or even suppress their vote,” Damon McCoy, an NYU professor involved in the project, said in a statement.

After an uproar over its lack of transparency on political ads Facebook ran ahead of the 2016 election, a sharp contrast to how ads are regulated on traditional media, the company created an ad archive that includes details such as who paid for an ad and when it ran. But Facebook does not share information about who gets served the ad.

The company has resisted allowing researchers access to the platform, where right-wing content has consistently been trending in recent weeks. Last year, more than 200 researchers signed a letter to Facebook calling on it to lift restrictions on public-interest research and journalism that would permit automated digital collection of data from the platform.

© Copyright 2020 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

BITCH FIGHT ON THE RIGHT 

Lou Dobbs lashes out at Lindsey Graham — and says South Carolina shouldn’t re elect him

October 23, 2020 By Sarah Toce

Lindsey Graham speaks to Fox News (screen grab)


Conservative host Lou Dobbs did not hide his disdain for Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Friday night.

“Just to be clear, I don’t know why anyone in the great state of South Carolina would ever vote for Lindsey Graham,” Dobbs said on Lou Dobbs Tonight. “It’s just outrageous. This is the guy who keeps saying, ‘Stay tuned.’ He said he was gonna get to the bottom of Obamagate with the Judiciary Committee, which has been a year-and-a-half – actually, longer – of absolute inert, inert response to these pressing issues of our day.”

Watch the video below.

Lou Dobbs is telling South Carolina residents not to vote for Lindsey Graham pic.twitter.com/vQ67BZZN6P
— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) October 23, 2020

Trump appears to have pocketed $123,000 from Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi: NYT bombshell

October 23, 2020 Bob Brigham

Composite image of Donald Trump (screengrab) and Muammar al-Gaddafi (Robert Stuckert).

“The information contained within President Donald Trump’s tax returns continues to result in blockbuster stories by The New York Times.”

On Friday, the newspaper focused on Trump’s claims of philanthropy — which don’t always add up.

“In 2009, for example, he agreed to rent his Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, N.Y., to the Libyan dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, who hoped to stay in a tent on the grounds during a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly,” the newspaper reported.


“Though the plans fell apart when local residents objected, Colonel Qaddafi made a payment of $150,000, which Mr. Trump told CNN in 2011 that he had given to charity. His 2009 tax returns, however, reported only $22,796 in business and personal cash gifts,” the newspaper explained.

New Tax Story: Donald Trump’s taxes show he didn’t reach for his wallet for most of his charitable giving. The bulk of it came from donating land. His taxes also cast doubt on a number of charitable commitments he has boasted about. https://t.co/J6pWBIKZEE
— Susanne Craig (@susannecraig) October 23, 2020

THE LEADERS OF THE NOT-SO-FREE WORLD: HOW THE US IS THREATENING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACROSS THE WORLD

"My Body My Choice" Abortion rights protest, Palm Springs City Hall, May 21, 2019

ABORTION AND THE US

The USA is becoming more polarised as the Trump presidency rages on. Racism, sexism and homophobia are regular features of his administration and the president is exceptional at egging on and encouraging disgusting behaviour often from a racist, sexist or homophobic perspective. Trump, his team and his supporters are largely anti-abortion, which puts reproductive rights in grave danger. Abortion was legalised in the US 47 years ago with the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling, yet the struggle to protect this right is far from over. With Trump in power, the state of abortion rights and access to this procedure is desperate. This is a dangerous time for the right to choose across the world.

[pulloutbox]Even if we would not choose abortion for ourselves, we have to recognise it as a fundamental human right[/pulloutbox]

Trump, many of his supporters and close colleagues are anti-abortion/pro-life, but yet they are mainly middle-aged white men. It’s hard to understand why think that they get to have a say over what people can and cannot do with their body and their health? After all, they are not the ones who have to go through the pregnancy and whose body is in question. As allies, we need to stand up and support the right to choose, even in another continent. Even if we would not choose abortion for ourselves, we have to recognise it as a fundamental human right and as a human right, we should fight to protect it across the world.



Across the world and in the US, in particular, things appear to be deteriorating. Many US states have strict abortion laws, or are trying to pass legislation to limit the right to an abortion. Underpinned by sexism and misogyny, there’s a clear desire on the part of many US lawmakers to control what people can and can’t do with their bodies, preventing them from determining their own future path.

Of course, recently, the Supreme Court has lost Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a liberal judge who believed in the right to abortion and was a notorious feminist and defender of women’s rights. President Trump has already announced his nominee, pro-life Amy Coney-Barett and is seeking to fill the court seat before the election – in direct opposition to Bader Ginsberg’s dying wish for a new judge to be nominated only after the election. This would tip the ideological balance of the court, the most significant judicial institution in the US, decidedly in favour of the conservatives, further threatening the Roe vs. Wade ruling.

PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE FOR ALL

It is not just cis-women who are affected by the endangerment of reproductive rights, but trans and non-binary people as well. In June, as the US continued to weather the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration reversed non-discrimination healthcare protections in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The protections had ensured that clinics and facilities receiving federal funding could not refuse to provide certain services on discriminatory

grounds. The Trump administration however stated that the word “sex” in the initial legislation referred to biological sex and therefore could no longer protect those who did not identify as the sex they were assigned at birth. Clinics can now refuse to provide a variety of services on these discriminatory grounds, from abortion and reproductive services to gender-affirming care, allowing these care providers to deny treatment to women and transgender people. Planned Parenthood described the rule as “cruel and discriminatory”, explaining that it would only make it harder for “people seeking sexual and reproductive services to get care.” LGBTQI+ advocacy group, Lambda Legal added: “despicable doesn’t begin to describe it”.

[pulloutbox]The President is able to exploit US economic power and foreign power, with Trump using such abilities to enforce his pro-life viewpoints globally[/pulloutbox]

Reproductive imperialism

However, Trump and his pro-life administration are not just threatening the rights of those affected in the US, but cast doubt over the security of those rights in other parts of the world. The President is able to exploit US economic power and foreign power, with Trump using such abilities to enforce his pro-life viewpoints globally.

In what can be described as ‘reproductive imperialism’, the US has played a key role in restricting abortion rights beyond its borders in countries, which receive economic aid and assistance. The global gag rule, an example of these imperialist policies, was enacted in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan. It prevented foreign non-government organisations (NGOs) that receive US aid, from providing particular services or restricting the circumstances in which they can. In many cases, services limited or even restricted include reproductive and sexual health and abortions.

[pulloutbox]The Trump administration has also deployed the gag rule to target the rights of women, trans people, non-binary people and other minority groups[/pulloutbox]

The Trump administration is now trying to expand this policy to cover a wider range of organisations and to limit their work to an even greater extent. An extension of these imperialist powers would mean that all organisations receiving US aid for health work – even if they also received funding from other sources – would not be able to provide,

 

promote or even give referrals for abortions. Safe and legal abortions would become even more difficult for these US-backed organisations to provide, especially in countries with high levels of poverty. The global gag rule goes further and even prohibits organisations in receipt of US aid from advocating for changes to abortion laws– even if they use non-US funds for these purposes. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, US-funded organisations make up about 40% of global health aid,placing a significant amount of global health and aid organisations under the jurisdiction of this ‘gag’ rule.

The Trump administration has also deployed the gag rule to target the rights of women, trans people, non-binary people and other minority groups. In addition to restricting abortion services, HIV and AIDS treatment and services have also been cut. Already this has led to a decrease in testing and a decline in the quality of HIV and AIDS care and treatment in some countries. The Trump administration is responsible for putting some of the most marginalised groups in the world in even greater danger. It has an immeasurably dangerous and limitless desire to control bodies and destinies across the world.

RESISTANCE TO REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

The many anti-abortion groups active in the US vindicate and support President Trump’s cruel attempts to restrict rights in the US and across the world. The so-called March for Life is a public display of the anti-women, anti-choice attitudes that underpin opposition to abortion. It draws activists from a range of pro-life groups, with tens of thousands attending the 2020 march held in Washington DC. Anti-abortion protests in the US have even gone so far as to include murder, arson and assault. One shooting at a Colorado abortion clinic by a pro-life gunman left three dead; a shocking case that demonstrates how deeply embedded anti-abortion values are in some sections of US society and culture.

[pulloutbox]At a national level, screaming at and abusing those accessing these clinics, for making their own choices, remains legal[/pulloutbox]

Pro-life campaigning groups in the US are matched by anti-abortion organisations and campaigns here in the UK, where the right to choose also attracts criticism and protest. Sadly, in the UK being harassed outside an abortion clinic is a reality for so many, making an already difficult personal experience even more traumatic. Groups like Back Off have campaigned to introduce a national law to create a ‘buffer zone’, which would prohibit campaigning against abortion within a certain distance of a clinic. Despite these widespread campaigns the proposal has been widely rejected under the guise of ‘free speech’. Some local authorities have already introduced such zones and made progress towards truly protecting abortion rights, but at a national level, screaming at and abusing those accessing these clinics, for making their own choices, remains legal.

Sister Supporter is one of the most active groups campaigning against harassment near 

abortion clinics in the UK. Volunteers wear pink jackets and offer to walk women into the clinics, to provide them some support and respite from protesters. Though an incredible act of support and solidarity, it’s alarming and deeply disturbing that this has to be done on our doorstep. Abortion was legalised decades ago, but here in the UK, there also seems to be a state of non-acceptance over our right to choose.

ABORTION RIGHTS IN THE UK

Of course, when discussing abortion rights in the context of the UK, we should remember that Northern Ireland only legalised the procedure in October 2019, with a new framework for abortion services only coming into effect on 31 March, 2020. It is quite shocking to consider that the Abortion Act passed in 1967, but this legislation has only taken force this year, leaving the people of Northern Ireland without the fundamental right to choose. Indeed, before the legalisation of abortion in Northern Ireland, there were many heart-breaking stories of women from Northern Ireland having to travel to other parts of the UK in order to get an abortion. In 2018, over 1,000 women travelled from Northern Ireland to England, Wales or Scotland for an abortion. Behind this figure, there lies stories of individual women; deprived of choice in their homeland and forced to make a difficult journey, in many cases alone. It’s unsettling to consider and alarming how slow progress has been made.

The law in Northern Ireland is by no means perfect though. Similarly to how different US states have different laws for abortion, varying in their harshness and severity, different component parts of the UK also have different laws, creating an incomplete and unjust system. In Northern Ireland, people can only obtain abortions for up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, compared to 24 weeks in the rest of the UK. When addressing the distressing state of abortion rights in countries like the US, we have to remember that there is still so much work to be done at home.

[pulloutbox]There is so much work to be done here, at home[/pulloutbox]

The Abortion Act of 1967, where the right to abortions in the rest of the UK is derived from, is in itself inadequate and in need of serious reform. Today, for an abortion to be carried out, the signatures of two healthcare professionals is needed, to ensure the requirements of the Abortion Act are met. It is the only medical procedure in which an adult, capable of independently giving consent, must get permission, creating practical and bureaucratic barriers in accessing this treatment and this basic right. This clause of the Act also suggests a continued reluctance around the right to choose, here in the UK .

THE PRO-LIFE PUZZLE

Across the world, the campaign to control people’s bodies, identities and lives rages on, including debates over the right to an abortion. For me it’s simple: if you don’t agree with abortions yourself, don’t make the choice to have one. But many pro-life supporters think that their opinions are grounded in fact and theology, giving them the right to dictate what someone – often a stranger – does with their body.

[pulloutbox]It seems to me that pro-lifers can only be described as misogynistic and sexist[/pulloutbox]

In this hateful and often dangerous struggle, the meaning of ‘pro-choice’ has become distorted and twisted by those who organise against reproductive rights. So many have forgotten that pro-choice doesn’t necessarily mean you support people getting abortions, it just means you agree that they have the right to choose one if they want to. Pro-lifers, meanwhile, often give little regard to what an individual is going through and even less regard to the kind of life a child may have after it is born. Here there is an inherent contradiction in the term ‘pro-life’: surely someone pro-life would care about the quality of life of both parent and child?



It seems to me that pro-lifers can only be described as misogynistic and sexist, and yes, this also includes women. Many say they are pro-life, claiming to care about and respect the value of life, but often once the child is born they no longer care what happens to it. It’s like trying to prove a point and using human lives as pawns to do so. This whole ‘debate’ seems, at the heart of it, to be about having control over other people and their choices. It is our duty to resist this, reasserting that the right to choose is one of the most fundamental rights a human has.

WE MUST NOT GROW COMPLACENT

Though this struggle has been long and very bitter, there have been glimmers of hope and good news. In the US, a recent Supreme Court ruling struck down a proposed Louisiana law to limit abortions in the state. Here in the UK, there have been incredible campaigns to protect the Abortion Act and to carry on striving for change in Northern Ireland. Right across the world, hatred and harassment have been met by moving acts of solidarity and incredible resistance to those who would seek to remove a woman’s right to choose.

If someone has the legal right to abort a pregnancy this can allow them to take an informed, considered decision about their own body. Protecting reproductive rights in the UK, the US and around the world is one of the most important ways to ensure that we all have control over our own lives and futures. Whether it’s campaigning for buffer zones in our local authority areas, or protecting the Roe v Wade ruling in the US, it is important that we step up in our duty to protect a fundamental human right. We must not grow complacent.



EMILY BARTLETT· POLITICS·16 OCTOBER 2020

The featured image shows a black flag. On it, in white lettering reads: ‘My body my choice’.
Photograph by Don Barett, used under the Creative Commons License

The first image shows President Trump at a campaign rally. He wears a suit and stands behind a podium, with a blue sign reading ‘Trump’ in white letters on it. He talks to the crowd, gesticulating with his hands.
Photograph by Gage Skidmore, used under the Creative Commons License

The next photograph shows Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She wears a green and black top and smiles as she looks off to the side.
Photograph by the Ruth Bader Ginsberg Institute, used under the Creative Commons License

The photograph shows a man at a pro-abortion rally. He has dark hair and wears glasses and holds a sign that reads: ‘Planned Parenthood Saves Lives’
Photography by Molly Adams, used under the Creative Commons License

The next photograph shows a blue sign, with ‘Keep Abortion Legal’ on it in white lettering.
Photograph by Tony Wu, used under the Creative Commons License

The final image shows a woman, holding a pink megaphone. The text on the megaphone reads ‘We must not go back’.
Photograph by A. Ricci, used under the Creative Commons License

SHOULDN’T WE ALL BE GRETA?

Greta Thunberg. In the course of the past two years, this has become a name familiar to everyone. Appearing seemingly like a comet in a (highly-polluted) sky, the Swedish sixteen-year-old activist seemed to go from protesting alone on the steps of the Swedish parliament to sailing on a heroic boat voyage to the United Nation summit in almost the blink of an eye.

What we’ve heard and seen of Greta Thunberg has been filtered, as media outlets were quick to call her a messiah and just as quic

But the newly-released Nathan Grossman’s documk to dismiss her, in the best case scenarios, as a “complicated adolescent who self-describes as autistic”. In the worst cases, well, it’s obviously death and rape threats.entary I am Greta offers a peek behind that filtered curtain. Grossman spent two years by Thunberg’s side and structures the film as a daily chronicle of the evolution of the phenomena. The first ten minutes, showing Thunberg’s initial protests outside of the Swedish parliament, feel almost like watching a superhero origin story. Perhaps it’s because of the braids, but I’m immediately reminded of the resilience of fictional heroes like Katniss Everdeen.

It was never Grossman’s intention for the film to be entirely about Greta Thunberg. He meant to include those first snippets in a larger documentary about child activists. But the result is a raw and bittersweet coming of age tale in a world on the brink of extinction.

What the documentary puts across more clearly are Thunberg’s focus and earnestness. She always addresses everyone very directly and she doesn’t shy away from uncomfortable remarks and confrontations. Early in the film, during her first appearance at a climate change conference, she complains to her dad, “I can’t believe they serve meat at an event like this.” Every time someone approaches her for a selfie, it’s almost like she’s trying to slither away and be done with it as quickly as possible. Grossman remains cautiously on the side, observing the more inconspicuous details. For example, after Thunberg’s urgent speech at the Civil Society for rEUnaissance, the floor is given to the European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, who immediately offers excuses as to why certain radical actions in regards to climate change require time to be put into action. Thunberg quietly takes off her translating headphones. She doesn’t care about excuses.

“Mass extinction is a bit harsh, it could be cut,” her dad suggests as she writes a speech. “Mass extinction is super important,” she reiterates. She writes in English and French, neither of which is her mother-tongue, and at every instance she has to make sure the spelling is correct, even if it’s for a speech she’s reading out loud. At one point, this triggers a panic attack. The camera stands just behind the door frame, looking at Thunberg alone, up in bed. It’s unclear for how long this lasts, but eventually, Thunberg takes a sip from her reusable bottle, picks her laptop back up and continues writing.

“Everyone says it’s so lovely to have me here,” she ponders as we watch her in the House of Commons. “Whenever I’m in these fancy environments, palaces, castles, I feel very uncomfortable. It feels like everyone is playing a game, like it’s all just pretend. It feels fake.”

This is the core of Greta Thunberg’s inability to fit in. She doesn’t play by the rules. The bureaucracy, the debates for the sake of debating, the fame. It all feels irrelevant. “The house is on fire” is not just a metaphor. It’s an absolute priority. The panic is clear in the way she speaks and she behaves, even when out of the spotlight. This is how she feels, everyday. We forget that this panic is justified. Why does David Attenborough’s Extinction: The Facts leave “fans terrified” while Greta Thunberg’s warnings get dismissed? Not only that, but while she creates such divisive opinions, Attenborough is Britain’s most beloved public figure, according to a YouGov poll. Is it because she’s young, or because she’s a woman who won’t compromise, or maybe a bit of both? Nobody likes being told we’re all going to die, but the way the message is conveyed, as well as who speaks it, matters. Thunberg is, after all, the very-Western tip of the iceberg. Native American and other marginalised activists, such as Xiye Bastida and Jamie Margolin, have been speaking on the subject for years without ever getting the same spotlight. It is the same old matter of privilege, which also allows critics to dismiss Thunberg’s achievements because of the support of her middle-class family, while failing, however, to research less-privileged narrations.

But since we’re on the matter of privilege, there is an aspect that the documentary examines in much-needed refreshing light. Grossman celebrates Thunberg’s Aspergers syndrome as her driving force. Her experience and competence in the matter of climate change are not that of a classic sixteen-year-old who might have heard about it in class once every semester. Thunberg spent a significant portion of her adolescence reading and studying the subject. Her neurodiversity is a power that she proudly reclaims. In one of the interviews shown in the documentary, she corrects a journalist who asks her if she suffers from Aspergers. “I wouldn’t say suffer,” she points out. “But I have it.” This is an essential shift in the use of ableist terminology. “I wish more people had Aspergers when it comes to climate change,” is actually Thunberg’s last statement in the documentary.

It’s never comfortable to be judged or made to question whether we are doing enough. But I am Greta’s greatest achievement is to remind us, through simple scenes of raw, familiar, everyday intimacy, that Greta Thunberg is not a God-like figure of judgment. She’s a real, complex young person with scientifically-proven concerns about her future. She’s sarcastic, stubborn, focused, she misses being in school, she gets seasick and, ultimately, she does the best she can with the resources and platforms available to her, even when this shouldn’t be her responsibility.

I Am Greta comes out in UK cinemas on October 16th.

The film’s revenue will be distributed among organizations and projects fighting for a sustainable world.

ALESSIA GALATINI·

FILM & TV

·16 OCTOBER 2020