Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Romania's far-right presidential candidate takes first round in shock poll, PM out

In a surprise outcome in the first round of Romania's presidential election, obscure hard-right candidate Calin Georgescu came in first place with 22.9 percent of the vote while pro-EU Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu was knocked out of the race despite having been heavily favoured to win, near-complete results showed Monday.


Issued on: 25/11/2024 -
By: FRANCE 24

01:29
Calin Georgescu, running as an independent candidate for president, speaks to media after registering his bid in the country's presidential elections, in Bucharest, Romania, Tuesday, October 1, 2024. © Alexandre Dobre, AP


A pro-Russia far-right candidate took a surprise lead Monday in Romania’s presidential election, knocking the EU-leaning premier out of the race that will be decided in a December run off.

The result is a political earthquake in the country of 19 million, a NATO member which has so far resisted nationalist appeals, setting itself apart from neighbours Hungary and Slovakia.

Far-right candidate Calin Georgescu was in pole position with 22.94 percent of the ballot, followed by the little-known Elena Lasconi, the centre-right mayor of a small town.

Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu was in third place with 19.15 percent of the ballot in Sunday’s election after 99 percent of the vote was counted, eliminating him from the December 8 run off.


Ciolacu told reporters Monday that his Social Democratic Party (PSD) "won't challenge" the result of Sunday's vote, adding: "The rules of democracy and the importance of the second round are greater than our personal interests."

Exit polls in the race for the largely ceremonial post initially had showed the premier with a comfortable lead and put another far-right candidate, George Simion, in second.

Georgescu surged in recent days with a viral TikTok campaign calling for an end to aid for Ukraine. He has also sounded a sceptical note on Romania’s NATO membership.

“Tonight, the Romanian people cried out for peace. And they shouted very loudly, extremely loudly,” he said late Sunday.
‘Man of integrity’

“The far right is by far the big winner of this election,” political scientist Cristian Pirvulescu told AFP of the result that sent shockwaves across the country.

Maria Chis, 70, said she was surprised by Georgescu’s lead in the first round but had been impressed after watching his TikTok videos.

“He seems a man of integrity, serious and patriotic. He inspires seriousness. I think only someone like him can bring change,” said the pensioner who had shunned the ballot.

Alex Tudose, the owner of a construction company, was gloomy.

“There is sorrow, disappointment that after so many years in Euro-Atlantic structures we voted for a pro-Russian by over 20 percent,” the 42-year-old said.

“There is clearly a strong fragmentation both in society and in the political class and I think we saw that yesterday,” he said.

Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Kremlin did not know much about Georgescu: “I can’t say that we are very familiar with the worldview of this candidate, as far it concerns relations with our country.”

Ciolacu’s Social Democrat party has shaped Romania’s politics for more than three decades.

But with concerns mounting over inflation and the war in neighbouring Ukraine, the far right had appeared to be gaining ground ahead of the vote.

The stakes are high for Romania, which has a 650-kilometre (400-mile) border with Ukraine and has become more important since Russia invaded its neighbour in 2022.

The Black Sea nation now plays a “vital strategic role” for NATO—as it is a base for more than 5,000 soldiers—and the transit of Ukrainian grain, the New Strategy Center think tank said.

The campaign was marked by controversy and personal attacks, with Simion, who came fourth, facing accusations of meeting with Russian spies—a claim he has denied.

Ciolacu has been criticised for his use of private jets.

Pirvulescu, the political scientist, said the far right’s surprise success could have a “contagion effect” in the parliamentary elections slated for December, which could make it difficult to form a coalition.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)


Who is the far-right populist and TikTok star now leading Romania's presidential race?


Calin Georgescu, a previously obscure far-right populist and Tiktok star, unexpectedly came in first place with 22.9 percent of the vote during the first round of Romania's presidential election on Sunday. An independent candidate, he has focused his campaign on criticising NATO and pushing for reduced support for Ukraine.



Issued on: 25/11/2024 
By: NEWS WIRES
This picture taken on November 13, 2024 shows Romanian presidential candidate Calin Georgescu at the TV station "Digi 24" in Bucharest, Romania. © Octav Ganea, AFP

Most polls predicted Calin Georgescu to win less than 10% of the vote in the first round of Romania's presidential election.

However, the 62-year-old obscure far-right populist shook the country's political landscape by clinching the most votes and advancing to the second round to face off against reformist Elena Lasconi of the progressive Save Romania Union party.

He also beat the incumbent Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu of the Social Democratic Party, leaving the ruling party for the first time in Romania’s 35-year post-communist history without a candidate in the runoff, set for Dec. 8.

Read moreRomania's far-right presidential candidate takes first round in shock poll, PM out


The surprising outcome has left many political observers wondering how most local surveys were off, putting Georgescu behind at least five other candidates.

Born in Bucharest in 1962, Georgescu holds a doctorate in pedology, a branch of soil science, and held different positions in Romania’s environment ministry in the 1990s, according to his website. Between 1999 and 2012, he was a representative for Romania on the national committee of the United Nations Environment Program.

Once a member of Romania’s far-right Alliance for the Unity of Romanians, or AUR, Georgescu left the party in 2022 after a period of infighting and being accused by colleagues of being pro-Russian and critical of NATO, the U.S.-led military alliance to which Romania belongs.

He supports the Romanian Orthodox Church and has sparked controversy in the past for describing Romanian fascist and nationalist leaders from the 1930s and 1940s as national heroes.

According to local media, he has praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as “a man who loves his country” and called Ukraine “an invented state,” but he claims not to be pro-Russian. He is married with three sons.

Many observers have attributed Georgescu’s success to his TikTok account, which has 3.7 million likes and 274,000 followers. He gained huge traction and popularity in recent weeks.

According to a report by Expert Forum, a Bucharest-based think tank, Georgescu’s TikTok account has had an explosion which it said “appears sudden and artificial, similar to his polling results.”

On Nov. 18, his TikTok account had garnered 92.8 million views primarily within the last two months, the report states, a figure that grew by 52 million views a week later, just days before the first-round vote.

“The most visible theme pushed by Calin Georgescu on TikTok in the last two months is peace, more precisely the need for Romania to stop supporting Ukraine in order not to involve Romania in war,” the report states.

Another TikTok account, solely featuring Geogescu content, and which had 1.7 million likes late Sunday, appears to have been deleted. It had posts with Georgescu attending church, doing judo, running around an oval track, and speaking on podcasts.

“We need TikTok to shed some light and actually investigate what is happening in Romania,” Madalina Voinea, of Expert Forum, told The Associated Press.

Cristian Andrei, a political consultant based in Bucharest, says that Georgescu’s unexpected poll performance has less to do with his appeal and more due to voters growing tired of an out-of-touch political class.

"He’s just a guy who managed to use the social networks to make himself visible in a void for many Romanians who lost contact with political parties, at least with the elites in Bucharest,” he said. “The mainstream political parties have lost the ability to use these new platforms.”

He added that politicians from Romania’s traditional parties lacked messages of hope and no clear vision for their country ahead of the vote.

“The debates in these campaigns were very low in quality and ideas,” he said.

His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, reducing import dependence, and ramping up local energy and food production. He also wants to establish a “sovereign" distribution model allegedly based on participatory democracy in which “Truth, Freedom and Sovereignty are the axes of values” in Romania’s development.

On foreign policy, NATO and European Union member Romania will respect its obligations, he states on his website, but only “to the extent that they will respect theirs” toward Romania. He also says Romania must play “a more consistent role” in international affairs.

The war in neighboring Ukraine, he said, highlights “the importance of diversifying external relations” and that Romania should strengthen its defense capabilities.

Romania’s presidential role carries significant decision-making powers in areas such as national security, foreign policy and judicial appointments. While it has limited executive power in domestic affairs, a president can veto parliamentary law proposals, and dissolve parliament if a prime minister’s appointment is rejected twice.

(AP)
ICC arrest warrants: Binyamin Netanyahu's world has 'shrunk considerably'


Arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court on Thursday for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas military chief Mohammed Deif mark a "historic moment" in the history of the court, according to international law specialist Johann Soufi.

FRANCE24/AFP
Issued on: 22/11/2024 
By:  Marc DAOU
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu speaks at a press conference in Jerusalem on September 4, 2024. © Abir Sultan, AFP


The International Criminal Court (ICC) earned Israel’s ire with its controversial decision to issue arrest warrants for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant for crimes allegedly committed in the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli offensive in response to the deadly Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023.

The ICC said in its statement there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, notably by “using starvation as a method of warfare” and “intentionally” targeting civilians. Hamas military chief Mohammad Deif, for his part, was accused of committing crimes against humanity including murder, torture and rape.

Netanyahu immediately rejected the ICC decision against him and Gallant as "anti-Semitic".

Israel "rejects with disgust the absurd and false actions and accusations made against it", Netanyahu said, accusing the ICC judges of being "driven by anti-Semitic hatred of Israel" and calling the decision a "modern-day Dreyfus trial" – a reference to the infamous 1894 trial of French Jewish army captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was wrongly convicted of treason and who has now become a symbol of anti-Semitic injustice.

Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Rome Statute that established the ICC and do not recognise the court’s jurisdiction. But the Israeli leader’s movements and those of his former defence minister are now effectively restricted, with each of the court's 124 member states theoretically obliged to arrest the men if they arrive on member territory.

While the ICC has no police force to enforce its warrants and instead relies on the goodwill of its member states to respect its decisions, EU top diplomat Josep Borrell quickly said the arrest warrants must be respected and implemented (all 27 EU states are ICC members).

So far, France, Italy, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands have indicated they would respect the ICC ruling and move to arrest the men if they were to arrive on their soil. Italy's Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said that although he felt it was "wrong" to equate Netanyahu and Gallant with Hamas, "we would have to arrest them" if they were to enter Italy.

According to some international law specialists, the ICC has made a landmark decision with these warrants. For international lawyer Johann Soufi, an ICC specialist and former head of the legal department of the UN Agency for Palestinian Refugees in Gaza (2020 and 2023), these decisions mark a "historic moment" for the court.


FRANCE 24: How important is this ICC move?

Johann Soufi: By issuing these warrants, the ICC has responded to the hopes of victims, but also to all those who believe in international justice. The decision is not a surprise, however, because it conforms to the legal conclusions of most international law specialists, who describe both the Israeli operations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and the Hamas attack of October 7, as violations of international humanitarian law and crimes under the ICC statute. This ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, had come to the same conclusion when he asked the court’s judges to issue these arrest warrants six months ago.

These accusations reflect the gravity of the crimes committed in Gaza, documented daily by residents, humanitarian organisations on the ground and experts responsible for assessing such violations. More and more experts are going even further in their legal conclusions, now qualifying certain acts as genocide – notably Francesca Albanese, the special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, and the UN Special Committee charged with investigating Israeli practices in the occupied territories.

Is it a landmark decision?

Yes, I believe this is a historic moment for the ICC that will ultimately help strengthen its legitimacy. Since its creation, the court has often been accused of being a political instrument, incapable of taking on the powerful. It must be acknowledged that for nearly 20 years all of those prosecuted were African officials, most of them mid-level.

A first turning point came in 2023, when the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, for crimes committed in Ukraine. This was the first time the court had brought charges against the leader of a major power, and one with nuclear weapons. However, the criticisms have continued, including that the court has been used in the service of Western powers and that it is unable to investigate their own crimes or those committed by their allies, like in Afghanistan or Palestine.

These objections have gained in intensity in recent months, in the face of what was seen as the court’s silence regarding alleged crimes committed in Gaza. These prosecutions were eagerly anticipated, notably by countries of the Global South such as Mexico, Chile or South Africa.

The decision is also historic because the court has shown that all individuals – whether powerful or not, whether close to or distant from Western interests – must answer for their actions when they commit crimes that offend our collective conscience.

It demonstrates that all individuals are equal under international law and in international jurisdictions, whether they are the perpetrators of crime or its victims.
Netanyahu reacted fiercely to the arrest warrant, calling the court "anti-Semitic". Are the ICC magistrates politicised?

No, that is not the case. It is common, even systematic, for individuals prosecuted for international crimes to criticise and denigrate the jurisdiction that implicated them. Netanyahu's attacks on the court, and more broadly against any international entity denouncing the criminal nature of what is currently happening in Gaza, are part of this logic.

The ICC has demonstrated, over the years, that it knows how to remain independent and impartial. It is precisely this independence and impartiality that the parties to the Rome Statute – as well as victims and, more generally, the international community – demand of it.
Is it realistic to imagine that one day Netanyahu or Gallant will appear before the ICC, since Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute? Might a member state really take it upon itself to arrest them?

That is a wager on the future. And my professional experience has taught me that the reality of one day is not always that of the next. Today – and this also applies to Vladimir Putin – the probability that these two Israeli officials will be arrested seems low. However, one thing is certain: Binyamin Netanyahu’s world has just shrunk considerably. Now, 124 member states have a legal obligation to arrest him if he sets foot on their territory.

France and the Netherlands, for example, have already affirmed their willingness to cooperate fully with the court and to implement these arrest warrants if the opportunity arises. I am hopeful that other states will adopt a similar position, in line with their international commitments. Signing the Rome Statute means committing to respect it; this is the very foundation of international law.
So is the credibility of international law at stake here?

Yes, because international law is based, above all, on the willingness of states to respect and implement it. It is a constant battle, where every obstacle contributes to weakening it.

For example take Mongolia, which failed to meet its obligations to arrest him when Putin visited last September. This failure undoubtedly weakened the ICC.

But beyond that, it is above all the credibility of the states themselves that is at stake. When a state violates international law, which it has committed to respecting, it inevitably loses political credibility and contributes to global insecurity. The entire question is whether we want to pursue a world that is based on law or one based on force.

This article was translated from the original in French by Khatya Chhor.


Would Netanyahu be arrested in Germany?
11/22/2024  
DW

Germany says it is "examining" its possible response to the ICC arrest warrant against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Germany supports the ICC, but is also committed to its special relationship with Israel.


The German minority government made up of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens would definitely have preferred to avoid the issue, even if officials should have seen it coming a long time ago: The International Criminal Court in The Hague issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The court said it had found sufficient evidence that both were complicit in crimes against humanity and war crimes as part of Israel's ongoing offensive in Gaza. The military campaign began after Gaza-based group Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. An arrest warrant was also issued for Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif with the same charges, even though Israel says it killed Deif in July.

Germany is regarded as one of the biggest supporters of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which began its activities in July 2002 and is supported by 124 states. However, it does not include globally important states such as the US or Russia.

What is important in the current case is that the court has no means of enforcing the arrest warrants itself. Member states — including Germany — are formally obliged to take wanted persons into custody should they cross their borders.

But there is also Germany's historic responsibility towards Israel. This is why Germany's reactions to the decision in The Hague have been mixed. Speaking on ARD television from the climate conference in Baku, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Greens) was the first to react. "We abide by the law at the national, European, and international level," she said. "And that is why we are now examining exactly what this means for us in terms of its international application."

A short time later, the German government followed this up with a press release stating: "The German government has acknowledged the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to request arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant."

As in Baerbock's statement, the word "examination" appears here, too, which is what the government now plans to carry out. And it goes on to say: "Further action will be taken only once Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are expected to visit Germany."

No imminent plans for a Netanyahu visit

Netanyahu was last in Germany around a year and a half ago. And on Friday, other German government politicians stressed, almost with relief, that a visit was not to be expected in the foreseeable future.

The last time Israel's head of government was in Berlin for political talks was in March 2023, a good six months before the murderous attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7. Hamas is a militant Palestinian group. The European Union, as well as the US, Germany and other countries, have listed it as a terrorist organization.

Israel is one of the 10 countries with which Germany holds intergovernmental consultations: Meetings in which all members of each country's cabinet get together. The purpose of this is to emphasize the special bilateral relationship between the countries. The first such meeting took place in Jerusalem in 2008 under then-Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU), and the last was in October 2018.

Government spokesman finds it difficult to imagine an arrest

How does the German government intend to handle the ruling? This is what many journalists wanted to know at a recent press conference.

In response to a question about the conflict between the ruling of the ICC and showing solidarity with Israel, government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said: "On the one hand, there is the importance of the International Criminal Court, which we strongly support, and on the other hand there is the historical responsibility you mentioned. This statement should be considered in the light of these two points. I would be inclined to say that I have difficulty imagining that we would make arrests in Germany on this basis."

While the federal government struggles to find a clear position between its support for Israel and its support for the ICC, other German politicians have had fewer qualms.

For example, Boris Rhein (CDU), who heads the government of the German state of Hesse, called the arrest warrants "absurd" on Friday. Rhein added that Israel has been at war for more than a year, a war that the terrorist organization Hamas unleashed with its attack on innocent citizens. "For me, it is completely out of the question that a democratically elected prime minister from Israel would be arrested on German soil for defending his country against terrorists," Rhein said.

But Rhein also knows that it is currently difficult to imagine Netanyahu visiting Germany.

This article was originally written in German.


Jens Thurau  is a senior political correspondent covering Germany's environment and climate policies.
Cambridge Students Renew Pro-Palestine Protests, Call for Arms Deals Review

This marks the first escalation since the university said over the summer that it would review its ties to arms deals
November 25, 2024
Source: Middle East Eye


Student protesters gather in an encampment at Cambridge University on 6 May 2024 (Mohammad Saleh/MEE)

Pro-Palestine protesters have claimed a “liberated zone” at Cambridge University’s Greenwich House as demonstrations continued over the weekend, with more rallies and protests planned for Monday.

Lebanese and Palestinian flags were raised as students occupied the administrative building, which houses key university functions, including its estates, finance and human resources divisions.

The students said the protests are in response to the university “breaking” its agreements regarding an ongoing review of its arms investments that could lead to divestment from companies involved in Israel’s war on Gaza.

In July, Cambridge University reached an agreement with students following months of protests, prompting Cambridge for Palestine (C4P) to end its encampment on campus.

As part of the agreement, the university committed to funding opportunities for Palestinian academics and students to go to Cambridge and said that “a Palestinian scholar has already been accepted to come to Cambridge”.

The university also pledged to form a working group, including student representatives, to review investments and propose further steps.

However, C4P now says that the university has “stalled” on its commitments, removed Palestine from its review of arms ties and “weaponised bureaucracy to reduce student power”.

Cambridge has acknowledged delays in its defence investments review and even postponed its initial deadline for findings from the end of the term to the end of the academic year.

“After stalling and manipulating negotiations with Cambridge for Palestine, the University Council will be meeting on Monday morning, 25 November, to discuss representation for the divestment working group,” C4P shared on their Instagram page.

“Show up at 10am to pressure the university to satisfy the bare minimum conditions of representation.”

Protesters are demanding that the university publicly condemn the genocide in Gaza and conduct a comprehensive analysis of its investments.

C4P says that Cambridge “invests in weapons manufacturing companies involved in genocide” and “takes part in research collaborations aimed at developing the weapons and AI systems used to oppress and ethnically cleanse Palestine”.

Failure to meet these demands, C4P said, will result in further escalation from the students, according to Varsity, Cambridge’s student newspaper.


Nader Durgham is a Lebanese journalist based in Beirut. He previously reported for The Washington Post in Beirut, covering Lebanon and Syria. He holds a Master’s Degree in Democracy and Comparative Politics from University College London.
Jewish Anti-Zionist Activist Describes His Arrest Under UK’s Anti-Terror Law

Activist Haim Bresheeth, the son of Holocaust survivors and founder of the Jewish Network for Palestine, speaks out.

November 23, 2024

Haim Bresheeth, center, at a national demonstration in London, U.K., in March 2024, with a group of Holocaust survivors and survivor descendants against the Gaza genocide.
Sarah Sheriff

On November 1, author and activist Haim Bresheeth was arrested in London after giving a speech at a pro-Palestine rally outside the home of Tzipi Hotovely, the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom. The 79-year-old Bresheeth, a Jewish Israeli who has lived mostly in London since the 1970s, is an outspoken critic of Zionism and Israel and a supporter of Palestinian rights. He is the son of Holocaust survivors and a founder of the Jewish Network for Palestine.

In his speech, Bresheeth said Israel is unable to win against Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. According to Bresheeth, the police told him he was being arrested under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which forbids expressing support for proscribed organizations stated in the law. Bresheeth denies breaking any law, and, he says, was released the morning after his arrest and subsequently had his case closed without charge.

Bresheeth’s arrest joins a rising wave of persecution against pro-Palestinian protesters and journalists in the U.K. Since October 7, British authorities have used the Terrorism Act 2000 invoked during Bresheeth’s arrest to crack down on critics of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. The law is the cornerstone of British counterterrorism legislation, and has been criticized by Amnesty International as contributing to an “ever-expanding security state in the UK” that “appears to single out Muslims,” with vague and expanding definitions of what constitutes “terrorist activity.”

Bresheeth is a filmmaker, photographer, historian and retired professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). His books include An Army Like No Other: How the Israel Defense Forces Made a Nation and The Holocaust for Beginners. Truthout spoke to Bresheeth to get his account of his arrest, the growing repression of critics of Israel in the U.K., and why, as an Israeli Jewish son of Holocaust survivors, he feels compelled to speak out against Zionism and in support of Palestine.

Derek Seidman: What’s the background behind the protest you were arrested at?

Related Story

Germany and US Are in a Race to the Bottom on Suppressing Pro-Palestine Speech
Both countries are adding to the transnational toolkit used to crack down on activists speaking out against genocide. By Schuyler Mitchell , Truthout November 18, 2024


Haim Bresheeth: In an interview after October 7, the Israeli ambassador to Britain, Tzipi Hotovely, said Israel might have to kill 600,000 civilians in Gaza, like the United States and the U.K. did in Germany at the end of the Second World War.

I am one of the founders of Jewish Network for Palestine, an anti-Zionist organization arguing for one state in Palestine with equal rights for all, and an end of apartheid and Zionism. Together with the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, we have called for the expulsion of Hotovely from the U.K., which is not a big punishment for what she said. She should actually be in the International Criminal Court for advocating genocide.

After her comments, we started weekly protests on the other side of the road outside her residence. We protested every Friday evening for the Shabbat, and the protests gradually grew. The police then moved us to a main road that actually made the protest more visible. This has been going on for just over a year.


I’m an Israeli Jew. It’s well known that both my parents survived Auschwitz. Like Tony Greenstein, I’m a “problem.” We’re both anti-Zionist Jews who are active for Palestinians’ rights.

There are very large national demonstrations for Palestine happening every week. Tory Home Secretary Suella Braverman called them “hate marches” and asked the police to not allow them. But they were never stopped.

I’ve spoken at these demonstrations a number of times. There was no problem until about seven weeks ago, when a dear friend and a colleague from Jewish Network for Palestine, Tony Greenstein, a well-known activist in Britain, was arrested for saying something that the police called hate speech. [Note: Greenstein’s speech compared Israel’s actions in Gaza to the Nazis.]

Tony was released the next day. He is not allowed to come to the demonstration now because the bail conditions specified that. So we knew that they were on to us and that they are going to limit what we can say.

Can you discuss your arrest?

I was arrested on Friday evening, November 1, because I said that it’s clear that, despite the fact that Israel has won wars against large and strong state armies, it seems unable to win against Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. That is the sum total of what I said.

I was stopped by the police at the end of the demonstration and they told me that I was being arrested for hate speech. I told them I didn’t utter hate speech, nor did anyone else at the demonstration.

There were a lot of phone calls and arguments. After about 45 minutes, their story changed from hate speech to that they were moving to charge me under the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 12, which forbids expressing support for proscribed organizations. The policeman that arrested me told me that it all came from on high.

They kept me waiting under duress in a car park for a few hours. In the end, they brought me to the station.

What happened after they took you to the station?

They took my telephone and they put me into a filthy cell. There was a plastic sheet on the floor where you’re supposed to sit or lie down. I’m 79 and I suffer from heart disease and cancer and can’t easily get up from the floor.

I asked for my medications. Somebody went to my home and collected the medications from my wife, but they didn’t give them to me when I needed to take them at 8:00 in the evening. At 1:00 am, I insisted that I needed to get my medication, and after an hour, they allowed me to take them

.
Haim Bresheeth, right, at a national demonstration in London, U.K., in October 2024.Yosefa Loshitky

So it wasn’t fun. In the end, two people from the Terror Squad interviewed me for about an hour and a half. I gave my statement that said, in very great detail, why what I’ve done is totally normal, because I’m reporting facts. You can read it in the New York Times or Haaretz. I said that I have been a peace activist all my life, and claimed that they don’t have a case.

It was clear they had nothing to charge me on. After almost two hours of questioning, I told them I’m not going to say anything anymore.

After all this, they said they were not charging me today, and that they were passing my case to the Crown Prosecution Service. They tried to keep my phone, but I told them they couldn’t. I have daily cancer treatments and the only way I am told when to come is by this telephone. If you take my telephone, I said, you might as well leave me here to die. They gave me the telephone.

At first light, I arrived home. A few days later, my solicitor contacted me and said they got a “No Further Action” decision. In other words, they closed the case without any charge. So they admitted that they didn’t have anything.

Why do you think they targeted you?

Ever since October 7, I have published articles and done dozens of interviews on what’s happening. I have spoken at numerous locations, both in Europe and in Britain.

I’m an Israeli Jew. It’s well known that both my parents survived Auschwitz. Like Tony Greenstein, I’m a “problem.” We’re both anti-Zionist Jews who are active for Palestinians’ rights and against Zionism’s crimes. It’s difficult to criticize us as antisemites, because we’ve written books on antisemitism and written about the Holocaust profusely.


I used to know all the other anti-Zionists Jews in Britain. Now there are tens of thousands, if not more.

This is just a way of frightening, intimidating, silencing and criminalizing us in the pro-Palestine camp. This is happening everywhere in the EU and it’s happening in Britain. Germany and Britain are the worst places.

In Britain, the police broke into the home of journalist Sarah Wilkinson and turned it upside down. Her electronic devices were taken. Another journalist, Richard Medhurst, was stopped in Heathrow Airport and all his stuff was taken. There are others. So this is now becoming a method.

Can you talk about your background more?

My parents survived the train to Auschwitz in which a third of the people died. People who were already starving in the ghettos were put on the train, and many of them died from suffocation, starvation and weakness. My parents survived this trip and survived eight months in Auschwitz.

Both of them were then death marched from Auschwitz. There was a first march of the men to Mauthausen in Austria, and to a specific terrifying subcamp of Mauthausen called Gusen II, which the Nazis themselves called the “hell of hells.”

Gusen II was made of very long tunnels that the Nazis had paneled into the mouth of Mauthausen. They built a production line deep into that mountain for Messerschmidt plane parts. There were narrow tunnels for providing and taking out the parts. These tunnels were too small for horses, and so they instead used humans as animals of burden, pushing and pulling the trolleys the half-kilometer through the tunnels to where the production was.

My father worked in there from January 21 until May 8, 1945, the last day of the war. He was freed by the Americans. He weighed 32 kilos (around 70 pounds) when he was freed. My mother was marched to Bergen-Belsen. She had typhoid, and she was saved by a British doctor after the liberation.

My parents found their way to Italy, where they married, and I was born in a refugee camp in Rome. This is my background. I come from destruction, death, genocide.

My parents were not Zionist. They talked to me and my sister about their history because they never wanted this to happen to anyone else. Not just to Jews, but to anyone. For them, never again meant never again for anyone.

Can you elaborate more about your anti-Zionist commitments?

When I came to Britain in the early 1970s, I joined the Israeli anti-Zionist organization called Matzpen. It had a big branch in London of people who exiled from Israel because they did not want to partake in Zionist activities.

I used to know all the other anti-Zionists Jews in Britain. Now there are tens of thousands, if not more. They were produced by Israel, because Israel is carrying out its crimes in our name, and we don’t agree to that. We are fighting for the rights of the Palestinians, to return the refugees, to have a peaceful society in Palestine for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Zionism replaced the religion, the tradition, the values, the cosmopolitanism, that Jews held for 2,000 years. They were scientists, authors, musicians and workers, but they were not involved in genocide, apart from the genocide enacted against them.

In Britain, we had Islamophobic race riots this year where white working-class people attacked mosques, schools, private homes and community clubs that were Muslim. Muslims are the largest minority in Europe, and like the Jews in the 20th century, they are suffering enormous hatred.

As a Jew, as an Israeli, as a human being, I will not agree to that. I’m doing what I can against it, and Palestine is part of that.

Can you discuss the situation in Britain a bit more?

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said he supports Zionism “without qualification.” He’s been chucking Jews out of the Labour Party. I was a member of the Labour Party, and so were all my friends. They were chucked out because they were supposedly antisemites. In fact, I self-referred myself to the Labour Party’s Compliance Unit for “antisemitism” just to show the absurdity of it all. I resigned in 2021 after I heard that my friend Ken Loach was expelled from the party.

I was an officer in the Israeli army and fought in totally unnecessary wars. Most of my early research is about antisemitism. But now I’m told that I’m an antisemite when I just say what is written in the papers.

What we have now, and what you will probably have under Trump, is an even worse system of Zionist values, which claim that to support genocide is okay, but to speak out against genocide is against the law.

This is unacceptable and immoral. And it’s un-Jewish. It’s against the values of Judaism of 2,000 years. There is nothing in Judaism that justifies what is happening in Gaza. This is a travesty of history.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.




Derek Seidman is a writer, researcher and historian living in Buffalo, New York. He is a regular contributor for Truthout and a contributing writer for LittleSis.
Illinois Students Who Protested Gaza Genocide Are Facing Felony Mob Charges


The state's attorney is prosecuting University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign students over last April's encampments.
November 25, 2024

Chicago police keep activists back as workers remove a pro-Palestine encampment on the campus of DePaul University on May 16, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois.
Scott Olson / Getty Images

Pre-trial hearings for students who participated in a Gaza solidarity encampment in central Illinois last spring are being held on November 20 and December 4, 2024. The outcome of the four students’ trials will determine whether they will risk up to three years of incarceration on felony “mob action” charges for having exercised their free speech rights on campus.

The students from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) — one of the largest public universities in the country — constructed an encampment known as the Popular University for Gaza in April 2024, after months of Israel’s relentless slaughter of Palestinians, mirroring dozens of other student-led sites across the United States.

The UIUC students’ demands were similar to those of their peers: an acknowledgement by the administration of Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians, funded almost exclusively by the United States; a commitment to addressing Palestinian and Muslim affairs on campus; and divestment from all corporations and academic collaborations that support the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Illinois student organizers, led in part by the group UIUC Students for Justice in Palestine, attempted to meet with university officials, such as Chancellor Robert Jones (who announced his decision to resign from the university just last week). The students tried to engage with administration over the course of several months, but meaningful negotiations never materialized. Students held demonstrations on campus and remained steadfast in their commitment to the encampment absent cooperation from the school. Citing violations of its student handbook policies relating to tents and signs on its quad, the university ushered in scores of police officers, spanning five different counties in central Illinois (and requiring over $137,000 in overtime). According to faculty eyewitnesses, students were encircled and threatened with arrest and misdemeanor charges if they failed to cease their demonstrations. The students eventually voluntarily disassembled the encampment. Two individuals were arrested, but neither were students. The issue appeared to be closed.

But it wasn’t closed. Over the summer months, UIUC police and Champaign County State’s Attorney Julia Rietz joined forces to send a clear and heavy-handed message about how they intend to handle pro-Palestinian student speech going forward. Rietz — who has been on the faculty of UIUC’s law school since 2009 — began issuing summonses starting in July 2024, to students who are alleged to have participated in the encampment. A great deal of effort and resources seemingly went into targeting these students: University police utilized surveillance technology, including the use of license plate readers, as well as students’ social media posts and body camera footage. And the resulting summonses were not for misdemeanors — they contained mandates to appear in court for Class Four felony mob action charges, which carry up to three years in prison. Several students were charged, including one Palestinian student.

Related Story

Trump Tells Donors He’ll Deport “Any Student” Who Protests Against Gaza Genocide
Both US-born and foreign students have constitutionally recognized rights to free speech.     By Chris Walker , Truthout  May 28, 2024


On August 16, 2024, Rietz publicly stated during a local radio spot that these charges were pursued at the direct request of the university. However, the decision to prosecute these students for a felony under the mob action statute was ultimately a prosecutorial decision, despite Rietz’s public claims that free “speech is absolutely a protected right.” While Rietz was elected by the community to serve the best interests of Champaign County, her private affiliation with the university raises questions about the lens she is using to review the evidence of these cases. Some UIUC faculty fear that Rietz is advocating on behalf of the university first, instead of the county, and that the university is leveraging its connection with her to legitimize its mistreatment of students in the eyes of the public.

The latter concern is particularly relevant because Rietz and the university have moved forward with prosecuting students despite the fact that numerous alumni, employees and community activists have publicly urged them to stand down and respect constitutional rights. In July of 2024, 37 UIUC faculty sent an open letter to Rietz, calling for her to drop all charges against students. Many of these faculty members were present at the encampment and witnessed the peaceful actions of the students. In their letter, the faculty explained that many of the participating students have lost family members and were directly affected by Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. They noted that the students’ actions exemplified those of global citizens trying to use their voices for a more just and peaceful world — one of the alleged goals of UIUC. Additionally, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees’ public board meetings recently have included speakers during public comment periods who have condemned the school’s actions towards these students.

The outcome of the four students’ trials will determine whether they will risk up to three years of incarceration on felony “mob action” charges for having exercised their free speech rights on campus.

Rietz and UIUC have chosen to take a more criminally aggressive approach to student concerns over genocide as compared to other Illinois universities. The ACLU of Illinois even spoke out against these charges, noting that they opposed creation of the mob action statute, IL720 ILCS 5/25-1, when it was first being considered by the Illinois General Assembly because of their fear that it would be used against protestors in this very way. In their statement, the ACLU explained that lawmakers expressed repeatedly that the mob action statute would not be used to target protesters.

The university’s participation in prosecuting its own students for having the courage to publicly denounce genocide is disturbing, but not surprising. The university has a history of supporting a pro-apartheid position. In 1986, after students bravely protested their campus’s investment in apartheid South Africa, the university ultimately was forced to divest millions. More recently, in 2013, the University hired renowned professor Steven Salaita, only to rescind his employment offer after reading his tweets denouncing the murderous acts of the Israeli apartheid state. In July and August of 2014, Israel murdered over 2,200 Palestinians, an assault to which Salaita rightly took great exception. After the school rescinded his employment offer, Salaita sued UIUC and earned a settlement award of over $800,000. Embarrassingly, UIUC also earned a formal censure from the American Association of University Professors for failure to adhere to principles of academic freedom.

The university also maintains a robust portfolio of pro-apartheid investments running upwards of $27 million for 2023 alone by some estimates. The alphabet soup of university agencies allegedly responsible for managing and directing these funds seems purposefully opaque: Inquiries into one entity about its spending only lead to finger pointing at another. Certain entities are public — subject to FOIA reveal — while others are private and cannot be easily scrutinized.

Protecting these investments seems paramount to the administration, and unfortunately, the university has not been content with criminal charges against these students alone. Apparently hell-bent on destroying this movement even further, UIUC recently decided that Students for Justice in Palestine will no longer be officially recognized as a legitimate, registered student organization on campus. Other universities such as Brown, Columbia, George Washington and Brandeis have similarly engaged in this type of suppression. Further still, according to numerous faculty members monitoring the situation on campus, UIUC is currently pursuing aggressive academic disciplinary measures against several of the criminally charged students, a procedure that prohibits students from speaking publicly about the process, and allows them limited access to guidance or representation. These students now face not only jail time, but the threat of expulsion as well. There continues to be widespread support for the students. In recent weeks, a flood of emails to university administrators has demanded that these disciplinary charges be dropped.

As of the date of this publication, Rietz and UIUC have still refused to state whether they are finished with their quest to charge and punish students from last spring. With an existing three-year statute of limitations for a mob action claim, students who were encampment participants must face another school year with a looming threat over their heads. Of course, the intended impact is clear: to curtail visible pro-Palestinian sentiment on campus. As the current round of Israeli violence in Gaza surpasses the one-year mark, UIUC has staked its position firmly out as one of the most threatening schools in the U.S. for students who are outwardly opposed to ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide.

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and Rietz’s office declined to comment.

Note: Readers who wish to make their voices heard to the UIUC administration on this issue can find contact information for administrators here.



Trump’s AG Pick Pam Bondi Once Called for Deporting Student Protesters



Pam Bondi’s call for deporting students — regardless of their citizenship status — echoes comments Trump made in May.

November 25, 2024
Florida's former Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference meeting on February 23, 2024, in National Harbor, Maryland.
Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images

Arecently unearthed interview featuring Pam Bondi, president-elect Donald Trump’s selection for U.S. Attorney General, showcases her support for deporting college students who protest against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Trump selected Bondi after his initial pick, former Republican congressman Matt Gaetz, withdrew his nomination for Attorney General following allegations of sexual misconduct.

Bondi’s comments, which were rediscovered last week, run counter to the freedoms and protections outlined in the First Amendment, which apply to both citizens and temporary residents in the U.S.

“The thing that’s really the most troubling to me [are] these students in universities in our country, whether they’re here as Americans or if they’re here on student visas, and they’re out there saying ‘I support Hamas,'” Bondi, a staunch supporter of Israel, told Newsmax last year, as students across the country were demanding that universities divest from Israel’s indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza.

Students who dared to exercise their speech and assembly rights to call for an end to the genocide should be punished, Bondi added.

Related Story

Trump’s New AG Pick Lobbied for Corporate Giants and Financial Firms
Trump’s selection of Pam Bondi also prompted renewed scrutiny of her record as Florida’s former attorney general. 


“Frankly they need to be taken out of our country,” Bondi said, “or the FBI needs to be interviewing them right away.”

Although Bondi’s comments contradict the Constitution, Trump will likely defend her statements if they come under scrutiny during her confirmation hearings, as he himself issued a call to deport student protesters during his presidential campaign.

“Any student that protests, I throw them out of the country,” Trump promised a group of donors in May.

Bondi, who previously served as Florida Attorney General, is considered far more qualified to run the Justice Department than Gaetz was. However, like Gaetz, her far right views indicate that she will likely use the department to go after Trump’s perceived political opponents.

In 2014, Bondi opposed marriage equality by using her office to argue against a lawsuit that sought to have Florida recognize same-sex marriages from other states. As state attorney general, Bondi tried to dismantle parts of the Affordable Care Act through lawsuits of her own, seeking to get federal courts to deem the law unconstitutional.

Bondi also took pro-Trump actions well before Trump ran for president: After initially deciding to join an investigation into Trump University in 2013, her office changed course days later, surreptitiously making the decision after a Trump charity donated $25,000 to her reelection campaign. In 2020, meanwhile, Bondi served on Trump’s legal team for his first impeachment trial, which dealt with the former president promising military aid to Ukraine if Ukrainian leaders agreed to find political dirt on Joe Biden. And she has also pushed Trump’s false claims that Biden only won the 2020 race due to widespread election fraud.

Notably, Bondi has repeatedly expressed a desire to go after Trump’s adversaries, advocating for those charging him with crimes to be charged themselves.

“The prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones,” Bondi said in a Fox News interview last year. “The investigators will be investigated.”

Critics have called for the Senate to hold robust hearings on Bondi’s nomination, with many saying her statements should disqualify her from leading the Department of Justice.

“Bondi must be asked at her confirmation hearing if Trump lost the election in 2020,” former federal prosecutor and current University of Alabama law professor Joyce Vance said on Bluesky. “Unless her answer is yes, the Senate must reject her nomination. You can’t be an election denier & the attorney general.”

“It’s not just that Bondi could use her authority to aid Trump or that he thinks she will. It’s that she already has,” Washington Post columnist Philip Bump pointed out.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.



Chris Walker is a news writer at Truthout, and is based out of Madison, Wisconsin. Focusing on both national and local topics since the early 2000s, he has produced thousands of articles analyzing the issues of the day and their impact on the American people. He can be found on most social media platforms under the handle @thatchriswalker.





FEMICIDE IS A WAR CRIME

Israel Has Killed Over 1,000 Doctors and Nurses in Gaza


"These people, they target everyone, but I swear, this will not stop us from continuing our humanitarian work," said a Gaza hospital director injured in an Israeli strike.



Hussam Abu Safiyeh, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital, is treated by colleagues for his injuries following an Israeli strike that hit the medical compound in Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip on November 23, 2024.
(Photo: AFP via Getty Images)


Jessica Corbett
Nov 24, 2024
COMMON DREAMS


More than 1,000 doctors and nurses are among at least 44,211 people killed in Israel's 13-month assault on the Gaza Strip, officials in the Hamas-governed Palestinian enclave said Sunday.

"Over 310 other medical personnel were arrested, tortured, and executed in prisons," Gaza's Government Media Office also said in a statement, according to Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency. "The Israeli army also prevented the entry of medical supplies, health delegations, and hundreds of surgeons into Gaza."

"Hospitals have been a declared target for the Israeli army, which bombed, besieged, and stormed them, killing doctors and nurses, injuring others after directly targeting them," the office said. The statement came after the director of the main partially functioning hospital in northern Gaza was injured in an Israeli strike.

Hussam Abu Safiyeh is the director of Kamal Adwan Hospital—which, according toAl Jazeera, Israeli forces have repeatedly attacked, damaging "the facility's generators, fuel tanks, and main oxygen station."

The wounded director said: "These people, they target everyone, but I swear, this will not stop us from continuing our humanitarian work. We will keep on providing this service no matter what it costs us."

Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, in addition to killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, Israeli forces have injured at least 104,567 others. Along with attacking hospitals, they have destroyed many homes, schools, and religious sites, and displaced most of the enclave's 2.3 million people.

Israel—which has been armed by the Biden administration and bipartisan U.S. Congress—faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice over its conduct in Gaza. Additionally, the International Criminal Court earlier this week issued arrest warrants for Israel's current prime minister and former defense minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, as well as Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.

Last month, 99 U.S. healthcare providers who have volunteered in Gaza since last fall sent U.S. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris a letter detailing "the massive human toll from Israel's attack" and urging them to "end this madness now!"

"It is likely that the death toll from this conflict is already greater than 118,908, an astonishing 5.4% of Gaza's population," the Americans wrote. "With only marginal exceptions, everyone in Gaza is sick, injured, or both. This includes every national aid worker, every international volunteer, and probably every Israeli hostage: every man, woman, and child."

"We quickly learned that our Palestinian healthcare colleagues were among the most traumatized people in Gaza, and perhaps in the entire world," they continued. "All were acutely aware that their work as healthcare providers had marked them as targets for Israel. This makes a mockery of the protected status hospitals and healthcare providers are granted under the oldest and most widely accepted provisions of international humanitarian law."

They added that "we wish to be absolutely clear: Not once did any of us see any type of Palestinian militant activity in any of Gaza's hospitals or other healthcare facilities. We urge you to see that Israel has systematically and deliberately devastated Gaza's entire healthcare system, and that Israel has targeted our colleagues in Gaza for torture, disappearance, and murder."

Despite such appeals and accounts, the outgoing Biden-Harris administration has declined to cut off weapons to the Israeli government and earlier this week most U.S. senators from both major parties rejected a trio of resolutions from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would have blocked some American arms sales to Israel.

Violence Against Women: Deadliest place for women is at home, UN report says
Europe

A UN report released on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women said that "almost 60 percent of all women who were intentionally killed in 2023" died at the hands of partners or family members. The report added that “the home is the most dangerous place for women and girls”.



Issued on: 25/11/2024 -
By: NEWS WIRES
Protestors march during the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women in Paris, France, Saturday, Nov. 23, 2024. © Thibault Camus, AP

The deadliest place for women is at home and 140 women and girls on average were killed by an intimate partner or family member per day last year, two U.N. agencies reported Monday.

Globally, an intimate partner or family member was responsible for the deaths of approximately 51,100 women and girls during 2023, an increase from an estimated 48,800 victims in 2022, UN Women and the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime said.

The report released on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women said the increase was largely the result of more data being available from countries and not more killings.

02:26


But the two agencies stressed that “Women and girls everywhere continue to be affected by this extreme form of gender-based violence and no region is excluded.” And they said, “the home is the most dangerous place for women and girls.”

The highest number of intimate partner and family killings was in Africa – with an estimated 21,700 victims in 2023, the report said. Africa also had the highest number of victims relative to the size of its population — 2.9 victims per 100,000 people.

There were also high rates last year in the Americas with 1.6 female victims per 100,000 and in Oceania with 1.5 per 100,000, it said. Rates were significantly lower in Asia at 0.8 victims per 100,000 and Europe at 0.6 per 100,000.

According to the report, the intentional killing of women in the private sphere in Europe and the Americas is largely by intimate partners.

By contrast, the vast majority of male homicides take place outside homes and families, it said.

“Even though men and boys account for the vast majority of homicide victims, women and girls continue to be disproportionately affected by lethal violence in the private sphere,” the report said.

“An estimated 80% of all homicide victims in 2023 were men while 20% were women, but lethal violence within the family takes a much higher toll on women than men, with almost 60% of all women who were intentionally killed in 2023 being victims of intimate partner/family member homicide,” it said.


The report said that despite efforts to prevent the killing of women and girls by countries, their killings “remain at alarmingly high levels.”

“They are often the culmination of repeated episodes of gender-based violence, which means they are preventable through timely and effective interventions,” the two agencies said.

(AP)


Thousands protest violence against women across France



More than 400 French organisations have called for demonstrations across France on Saturday to protest violence against women. The mass mobilisation comes amid the widespread shock caused by the Pelicot mass rape trial, in which some 50 men are accused of raping Gisèle Pelicot at the behest of her husband while she was unconscious.


Issued on: 23/11/2024 -
08:57
Demonstrators hold a banner reading "feminists in a fight against feminicides and patriarchal violences everywhere and all the time" as they take part in a protest to condemn violence against women, in Paris, on November 23, 2024. 
© Stephane de Sakutin, AFP



Thousands demonstrated in major French cities Saturday against violence targeting women, as campaigners push for the country to learn from a mass rape trial that has shocked the public.

Prosecutors will in the coming week ask the court in the southern city Avignon to sentence 51 men, one who drugged his wife over the course of a decade and dozens of others who accepted his invitations to abuse her at their home.

Out on the street, "the more of us there are, the more visible we are, this is everyone's business, not just women," said Peggy Plou, a local elected official from the Indre-et-Loire region in western France who had made the trip to Paris.

Thousands of people marched in the capital alone, mostly women but including some children and men.


And there were hundreds-strong demonstrations in other major cities including Marseille in the south, Lille in the northeast and Rennes in the northwest.

05:02


Many demonstrators carried signs with variations on the slogan "shame must switch sides", popularised by the plaintiff in the Avignon trial, Gisele Pelicot.

She has been celebrated for accepting public hearings in her case rather than a trial behind closed doors, despite their painful content.

"A law about consent must be put in place very quickly. Just because someone doesn't say something, doesn't mean that they agree" to sexual contact, said Marie-Claire Abiker, 78, a retired nurse also marching in Paris.

France's legal definition of rape calls it "any act of sexual penetration... by violence, constraint, threats or surprise" but includes no language about consent -- a key demand of women's rights groups especially since the MeToo movement launched in the late 2010s.

"In 2018, there were basically only women (demonstrating). Today there are, let's say, 30 percent men. That's really great news," said Amy Bah, a member of the NousToutes (all of us women) feminist group protesting in Lille.

"I feel like this is my business too, we each have our role to play, especially men," said Arnaud Garcette, 38, at the Marseille demonstration in the city's touristy historic port with his two children.

"We're at the source of the problem, and at the source of the solutions too," he added.

The demonstrations called out by more than 400 campaign groups come two days before Monday, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Equality Minister Salima Saa has promised "concrete and effective" measures to coincide with the global day.

  



Germany records rise in violence against women
DW
11/25/2024

A woman is killed by a partner or former partner nearly every two days in Germany. Activists have called on the government to do more to end violence against women.



Almost every other day, a man kills his partner or ex-partner in Germany. This protest banner reads: 'Femicide is no singular incident'
Image: Moritz Frankenberg/dpa/picture alliance


All forms of violence against women are on the rise in Germany.

The Federal Criminal Police Office's (BKA) first-ever report on the situation, "Gender-specific crimes against women in 2023," found that, over the course of the year, 360 women were killed by men, often in incidents of partner violence or in the course of separation.

At the presentation of the report in October, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, a Social Democrat, said: "We see a femicide in Germany almost every day. ... They become victims because they are women. That is intolerable."

In all 155 women were killed by their partners or ex-partners iin 2023, according to the BKA.

Lawyer Corinna Wehran-Itschert remembers the case of a woman with several small children. Despite restraining orders, her husband stalked her for more than two years following their separation. "The man ambushed her in her entryway and killed her. That was awful," she said.

Diana B. (name changed) is one of Wehran-Itschert's clients. She told DW that her husband has repeatedly threatened to kill her, and she wants to do everything to stop him from finding her.

He beat her for years, choking and in the end severely injuring her. Because there were no previous reports against her husband, the courts considered him a first-time offender and imposed only a suspended sentence.

Diana B. has built a new life for herself and her children in a new location. She survived — but hundreds of other women did not.

A telephone helpline caters to immigrant women in 17 languages
Image: ANDREA GRUNAU/DW


Politicians aren't doing enough to address femicide

In Germany, femicide is not categorized as a separate criminal offense — perpetrators are charged with murder or manslaughter.

"Two femicides in Berlin per week — every second day a woman in Germany is murdered by her partner or ex-partner. That concerns and angers me greatly," said Family Minister Lisa Paus in September, after two women were allegedly killed by former partners in the German capital. She said "we not only need security measures against terrorists who attack people with knives, but also for the prevention and protection of women from violence."

In June, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (right) and Family Minister Lisa Paus presented alarming figures about violence against women
Image: Kay Nietfeld/dpa/picture alliance

In an urgent letter, organizations and more than 30,000 individuals reminded the federal government that its 2021 coalition agreement "pledged to make a law to provide better protection to those affected by violence." Paus has drafted an anti-domestic violence law, but it's stuck in negotiations between various ministries.

"Without the anti-violence law, people will continue to die," warned the signatories of the letter. "People's lives will continue to be destroyed because they will be denied the protection they urgently need!"


Not enough space, not enough money for women's shelters

According to the Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, Germany lacks about 14,000 spaces for women and children in refuge shelters. One recent study said far too little is being invested into prevention and protection services: €300 million ($325 million) instead of the recommended up to €1.6 billion per year.

In Germany, funding for women's refuge facilities is decided at the state and local council levels. That's a problem, according to Alexandra Neisius, who runs the women's shelter in Koblenz where Diana B. and her children found help.

The city of 115,000 people should have 11-12 rooms where women can receive protection. There are currently seven, meaning many women must be turned away. When Neisius lists an available space, she said it's filled within a couple of hours.


Neisius (right) tries to help every woman who comes to the women's shelter in Koblenz
Image: ANDREA GRUNAU/DW

The women's shelter in Koblenz has successfully applied for funding to expand and renovate its facilities, planning to build two new family rooms, plus one for emergency cases. But money for extra staff has not been approved, despite being urgently needed for legal and trauma-sensitive advice.

The emergency facility is where police or youth welfare officials can accommodate endangered women at short notice. According to Gabriele Slabenig, the Koblenz police official responsible for domestic violence cases, some women call the police themselves, while others turn up at the shelter with their children and belongings packed. She works on 150-200 cases of violence against women per year and monitors high-risk situations.

"More and more women came saying: I need protection, I cannot go home anymore, I am being beaten, I am threatened with death," she said.

It's rare for places in women's shelters to be available nearby or at short notice. Police in Koblenz sometimes drive women in emergency situations up to 300 kilometers (about 190 miles) away to a safe place. Crime experts examine victims' cell phones to delete tracking and spying software.


For women, safety is often a cost issue


Women's shelter director Neisius criticized the fact that women who do not qualify for social benefits must pay for their stay themselves. Together with a supporters' association, she tries to help the victims using donated funds. According to nationwide statistics from the shelters, it's mostly the women who must pay for their stays themselves who return to violent situations.



A draft of the family violence law, which DW has obtained, mentions an enforceable "right to protection and legal advice" free of charge for all victims. That would oblige Germany to provide enough spaces at women's shelters.

Violence against women affects all parts of society. However, a higher proportion of migrant women are living in the shelters, because they tend to need more support. "Often they have no family here to help them. They cannot speak the language very well and don't know what the laws are," said Neisius.

Slabenig of the Koblenz police said many women are at an elevated risk of being killed after a separation, a death threat or a physical attack such as strangling. She said offenders often share certain characteristics, as "men who are extremely aggressive, impulsive, controlling, dominant, jealous."

"Children who witness violence toward their mothers, that is like violence against the children themselves," said lawyer Wehran-Itschert. There is the risk of the cycle continuing through the generations: "Either the son begins to hit or behaves as macho as the husband — or the daughter becomes a victim."

The children at the women's shelter in Koblenz are taught about nonviolence, and a social worker visits to work with the boys. Neisius urges women who want to stay with a violent man for the sake of their children: "Please leave, for the sake of the children."

Diana B. never wants to see her husband again, and has realized it was wrong to stay with him. "If I'm not doing well, then my children aren't doing well either." She has emphasized to her daughter that if a man disrespects or hits her, she should leave him straightaway.

Hoping that a violent man will change his ways isn't the right approach, said Neisius: "It doesn't stop by itself."

This article was originally written in German. It was first published on November 8 and later updated and republished to include latest figures.