Tuesday, December 29, 2020

The Union Members Who Voted for Trump Have to Be Organized—Not Ignored

If the Left is to win pro­gres­sive poli­cies (and the next pres­i­den­tial elec­tion), it needs a mil­i­tant labor move­ment.

Published on
by
A union member listens to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden stump in New Alexandria, Pa., on September 30, 2020. (Photo: Roberto Schmidt/Afp via Getty Images)

A union member listens to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden stump

in New Alexandria, Pa., on September 30, 2020. (Photo: Roberto Schmidt/Afp via Getty Images)

Although Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump will be leav­ing the White House, pro­gres­sives must reck­on with the fact that 74 mil­lion peo­ple — almost a third of whom came from house­holds mak­ing under $50,000—vot­ed for him. It is alarm­ing that so many work­ing-class peo­ple would vote against their class inter­ests, but per­haps most alarm­ing of all are the union mem­bers who were drawn in by Trump­ism. Before the 2016 elec­tion, Demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates had long won union house­holds by com­fort­able dou­ble-dig­it mar­gins; but in 2016 and 2020, Trump erod­ed those mar­gins. If the Left is to win pro­gres­sive poli­cies (and the next pres­i­den­tial elec­tion), it needs a mil­i­tant labor move­ment. Unions, after all, are one of the only effec­tive work­ing-class insti­tu­tions in this coun­try that can engage work­ers to build pow­er on the job and in soci­ety at large. We must under­stand who these union Trump vot­ers are, why they vot­ed for Trump, and what can be done to win them back. 

Many on the Left have writ­ten off Trump sup­port­ers as a lost cause or unwor­thy of effort. This response is under­stand­able, par­tic­u­lar­ly for peo­ple of col­or and oth­ers direct­ly harmed by Trump poli­cies. And we should by no means court the vocal sub­set of Trump­ists who are vir­u­lent white supremacists. 

If the goal of reach­ing out to Trump vot­ers is to acti­vate their pro­gres­sive beliefs strong­ly enough to influ­ence their vot­ing behav­ior, then union Trump vot­ers should be a promis­ing place to start.

But most Amer­i­cans hold a con­fus­ing mix of polit­i­cal beliefs that will nev­er fit square­ly with­in the Demo­c­ra­t­ic and Repub­li­can par­ties. When the group Work­ing Amer­i­ca held in-depth con­ver­sa­tions with more than 2,300 work­ing-class vot­ers in so-called bat­tle­ground states in 2016 and 2017, it found that beliefs didn’t map to par­ty lines: Vot­ers believed in both expand­ing the coal indus­try and pro­tect­ing the envi­ron­ment; in both uni­ver­sal health­care and keep­ing out ​“free­load­ing” refugees; in both ban­ning abor­tion and low­er­ing health­care costs. A 2019 poll from the Kaiser Fam­i­ly Foun­da­tion and Cook Polit­i­cal Report found that, in bat­tle­ground states, 70% of respon­dents sup­port­ed a path­way to cit­i­zen­ship for undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants and yet 71% felt it was a bad idea not to detain peo­ple who crossed the bor­der with­out doc­u­men­ta­tion. Not every issue dri­ves vot­ing behav­ior: 70% of Amer­i­cans sup­port Medicare for All, and yet the pres­i­den­tial can­di­date cham­pi­oning the pol­i­cy (Sen. Bernie Sanders) came up short. 

If the goal of reach­ing out to Trump vot­ers is to acti­vate their pro­gres­sive beliefs strong­ly enough to influ­ence their vot­ing behav­ior, then union Trump vot­ers should be a promis­ing place to start. A good union nat­u­ral­ly ties the fate of the work­er to oth­ers, a pow­er­ful counter-nar­ra­tive to the rugged indi­vid­u­al­ism our soci­ety (and Trump) pro­motes. Union mem­bers are also (the­o­ret­i­cal­ly) trained and expe­ri­enced in fight­ing their boss­es. Being part of a strug­gle against a boss means reliance on fel­low work­ers, regard­less of race and gen­der and oth­er social divi­sions. Unions them­selves, of course, need to embark on a far-reach­ing pro­gram for mem­ber­ship to put these strug­gles in con­text — one that doesn’t shy away from tough ques­tions in fear of upset­ting a (ten­u­ous) sense of unity. 

Dis­cus­sions around immi­gra­tion and racism, for exam­ple, are chal­leng­ing in their own right but have become espe­cial­ly charged since Trump took office. Avoid­ing these top­ics may pre­serve a sense of uni­ty in the short term but dam­ages the long-term abil­i­ty of work­ers to forge sol­id bonds of sol­i­dar­i­ty and orga­nize to fight against racism and social pro­grams like Medicare for All. 

To under­stand how unions might reach the union Trump vot­er, we can look at how sim­i­lar efforts have suc­ceed­ed and failed — and get to know union Trump vot­ers themselves. 

The Trump Unionist

Tony Rei­tano, 49, works in main­te­nance at a Bridge­stone plant in Iowa. He is a mem­ber of the Unit­ed Steel­work­ers and vot­ed for Trump in 2016 and 2020. Rei­tano tells In These Times, ​“I liked what [Trump] said about trade deals in 2016; that was a big thing for me … bring­ing jobs back to Amer­i­ca.” He adds, ​“And this time around, [Trump] did, or tried to accom­plish, all of the things he said he was going to do … like back­ing away from the [Trans-Pacif­ic Part­ner­ship].” (The Unit­ed Steel­work­ers, which endorsed Biden in 2020 and Clin­ton in 2016, oppos­es the trade deal, on the grounds that jobs would be lost.)

Trump vot­ers often cite their con­cern with jobs and wages as the rea­son they vot­ed for him. While most vot­ers rank the econ­o­my as one of their most impor­tant issues, 84% of Trump vot­ers rat­ed the econ­o­my as ​“very impor­tant” in 2020, com­pared to Biden sup­port­ers’ 66%.

Lynne (who didn’t want her last name used for fear of social retal­i­a­tion), 62, is a retired teacher and union mem­ber in the sub­urbs of Philadel­phia. A reg­is­tered Inde­pen­dent, Lynne vot­ed for Oba­ma in 2008, moved by his mes­sage of hope and change. Like Rei­tano, she was drawn to Trump in 2016 by his eco­nom­ic promis­es — and vot­ed Trump again in 2020. ​“You can’t care about oth­er poli­cies if you’re wor­ried about los­ing your house or if your chil­dren don’t have food or if your heat may get turned off,” Lynne tells In These Times. ​“Hav­ing shel­ter and food is everyone’s num­ber one con­cern. And with Trump, we had the low­est unem­ploy­ment rate in this coun­try … for every­one, includ­ing Lati­nos and Blacks.”

Trump clear­ly under­stood that a strong eco­nom­ic mes­sage would be the key to vic­to­ry, boast­ing about the unem­ploy­ment rate on the 2020 cam­paign trail. But the Trump unem­ploy­ment rate only decreased slight­ly before the pan­dem­ic, and like­ly because of Oba­ma-era poli­cies. Mean­while, wage growth has stag­nat­ed or declined for the bot­tom 70% of work­ers since the 1970s and the Job Qual­i­ty Index (a proxy for the over­all health of the U.S. jobs mar­ket) fell sig­nif­i­cant­ly after 2006 and nev­er recovered.

"Democ­rats' lack of will­ing­ness to name the ene­my—run­away cor­po­rate pow­er—just left a huge vac­u­um for the Right to use race and immigration."

Amid this uncer­tain­ty, Trump par­layed eco­nom­ic con­cerns into his brand of racism to dri­ve white vot­ers. Of course, many Trump vot­ers do not con­sid­er Trump an ardent racist. For exam­ple, Ernie Jus­tice, 76, a retired coal min­er in Ken­tucky, tells In These Times that ​“there’s not a racist drop of blood in Don­ald Trump.” Like Lynne, Jus­tice also vot­ed for Oba­ma and lat­er Trump. Lynne, too, says she ​“doesn’t real­ly see the racism.” 

But Trump cer­tain­ly asso­ci­at­ed the decline in qual­i­ty of life expe­ri­enced by white work­ers with not only the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, but immi­grants and oth­er peo­ple of col­or. George Goehl, direc­tor of the nation­al grass­roots orga­niz­ing net­work People’s Action, says ​“Democ­rats’ lack of will­ing­ness to name the ene­my — run­away cor­po­rate pow­er — just left a huge vac­u­um for the Right to use race and immigration.”

While Repub­li­cans authored the so-called right-to-work leg­is­la­tion that has under­mined union orga­niz­ing, Democ­rats are the pro­po­nents of the free trade agree­ments that have decreased wages and off-shored jobs. Decades of eco­nom­ic dev­as­ta­tion — includ­ing loss of good union jobs in the Rust Belt, fac­to­ries mov­ing abroad and stag­nant wages— opened a door for Trump to step through. Goehl says peo­ple have ​“clear­ly been punched in the gut tons of times by neolib­er­al­ism” — and Trump’s cam­paign cap­i­tal­ized on that by promis­ing to bring back man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs.

This land­scape is dif­fi­cult for both unions and the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty. While union lead­er­ship has thrown its weight behind Democ­rats in hopes of bet­ter orga­niz­ing ter­rain, estab­lish­ment Democ­rats are caught between unions and their party’s alle­giance to big busi­ness. And the Democ­rats have a his­to­ry of mak­ing labor promis­es they don’t keep. In 2008, Oba­ma ran on pass­ing the Employ­ee Free Choice Act, which would have made the process of union­iza­tion faster and eas­i­er — but didn’t cham­pi­on the bill once elect­ed. And unions, which are no match for lob­by­ing efforts by giant cor­po­ra­tions like Wal­mart or Home Depot, couldn’t win the law alone. Repeat­ed dis­ap­point­ments have led union mem­bers to lose faith in insti­tu­tions they once held dear.

That loss of faith played out in the 2016 and 2020 elec­tions. After unions spent record amounts on cam­paigns to defeat Trump, Hillary Clin­ton won union house­holds by only 8% in 2016 (to Obama’s 18% in 2012), a small enough mar­gin to cost her Penn­syl­va­nia, Michi­gan and Wis­con­sin (and the elec­tion). And after unions broke that 2016 record in 2020, Biden won union house­holds by 16% (and won those three states back), but Trump won union house­holds in Ohio by 12% (which Oba­ma had won by 23%). Unions can spend huge amounts of mon­ey and mobi­lize the votes of a (declin­ing) por­tion of their mem­bers, but to keep those mem­bers from slip­ping away, they’ll need to do much more.

A Bat­tle of Ideas

Each of the three Trump vot­ers who spoke with In These Times for this sto­ry men­tioned jobs and the econ­o­my as big issues, but all inde­pen­dent­ly shared con­cerns about open bor­ders, lat­er abor­tions, and the creep of social­ism and com­mu­nism. These issues are dis­cussed near­ly con­stant­ly on Fox News and by con­ser­v­a­tive radio per­son­al­i­ties like Rush Lim­baugh and Sean Han­ni­ty. And as trust of the media is at an almost all-time low, many Trump sup­port­ers only tune into media that reflects what they already believe — just as cen­trist and lib­er­al Democ­rats watch CNN or MSNBC. Nev­er mind that the U.S.-Mexico bor­der wall was start­ed under Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton, lat­er abor­tions are exceed­ing­ly rare and most social­ist orga­niz­ing is about basic rights, like health­care and a liv­ing wage.

Unions need to cut through the right-wing fog of dis­in­for­ma­tion by offer­ing edu­ca­tion­al pro­grams of their own to explain the sys­temic prob­lems caus­ing the decline in work­ers’ con­di­tions.

The con­stant onslaught of hate­ful mes­sages from rightwing media and the war waged against the work­ing class by the rich has led U.S. work­ers into a fog of con­fu­sion with­out an ide­o­log­i­cal bea­con to help clar­i­fy and fight back. The unions that have sur­vived have become more insu­lar, increas­ing­ly focused on the imme­di­ate issues of their own mem­bers, tak­ing a con­ces­sion­ary approach that treats boss­es like coali­tion part­ners. If the Left and unions hope to make appeals to union Trump vot­ers (and oth­er sec­tions of the work­ing class), this strat­e­gy must change.

Unions need to cut through the right-wing fog of dis­in­for­ma­tion by offer­ing edu­ca­tion­al pro­grams of their own to explain the sys­temic prob­lems caus­ing the decline in work­ers’ con­di­tions. One mod­el, offered by People’s Action, has shown that talk­ing with Trump sup­port­ers about sys­temic issues can effec­tive­ly shift atti­tudes. Begin­ning in 2017, George Goehl and People’s Action embarked on a rur­al and small-town orga­niz­ing project, focused on ​“deep can­vass­ing,” to show white peo­ple how sys­temic racism is real and active­ly harm­ing them and their com­mu­ni­ties. (Some of these peo­ple are union mem­bers, though many are not.) While many (espe­cial­ly non­white) peo­ple on the Left find it dif­fi­cult to have con­ver­sa­tions with Trump sup­port­ers (fear­ing abuse or just afraid of wast­ed ener­gy), Goehl sees the talks as cru­cial. ​“While you are much more like­ly to live in pover­ty if you are Black or Lati­no, the largest group of peo­ple liv­ing in pover­ty are white peo­ple,” Goehl says. ​“And a Left say­ing, ​‘We are not going to be in rela­tion­ship with the largest group of peo­ple liv­ing in pover­ty’ … seems nuts.” 

People’s Action has had near­ly 10,000 con­ver­sa­tions in rur­al areas since the 2016 elec­tion, most­ly with Oba­ma vot­ers who flipped to Trump. While immi­gra­tion is a con­tro­ver­sial issue all over the coun­try (includ­ing inside the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty), objec­tion to a wider immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy is high­er in rur­al areas, pre­sum­ably because of the ease of blam­ing immi­grants for a lack of jobs. Dur­ing their deep can­vass­es, People’s Action orga­niz­ers found that the mos­tused word was ​“lack,” and that eco­nom­ic inse­cu­ri­ty rever­ber­at­ed through all respons­es. ​“When we asked peo­ple who they saw as respon­si­ble for the declin­ing con­di­tions,” Goehl says, ​“peo­ple were able to pick mul­ti­ple answers, and 41% of peo­ple said undoc­u­ment­ed immi­grants, but 81% [said] a gov­ern­ment encap­tured by corporations.”

Onah Ossai, an orga­niz­er with Penn­syl­va­nia Stands Up, which is affil­i­at­ed with People’s Action, tells In These Times, ​“Peo­ple at the top [are] using race and class to divide us so that they can turn around and pick our pock­ets. … Every­one [whose door we knock on] agrees with that.”

Melis­sa Crop­per, pres­i­dent of the Ohio Fed­er­a­tion of Teach­ers and sec­re­tary trea­sur­er of the Ohio AFL-CIO, echoes Goehl, telling In These Times, ​“It’s hard to get out and have these grass­roots-lev­el con­ver­sa­tions, but we need to invest in grass­roots orga­niz­ers from the com­mu­ni­ties who can have these con­ver­sa­tions and can work [on solu­tions] with the community.”

Unions can fol­low People’s Action by hold­ing more polit­i­cal dis­cus­sions with their mem­bers about how the labor move­ment (and the Left) fights for work­ing peo­ple. But they must also show the path for­ward — how work­ers them­selves can join the fight to rein in cor­po­rate power.

Rebuild­ing unions — orga­niz­ing more work­ers — is the first step toward a broad­er work­er coali­tion. But People’s Action and pro­gres­sive union­ists also believe race and class issues are keys to a coher­ent Left — because if we ignore them, the Right will use them to dri­ve a white, reac­tionary, pop­ulist movement.

“[Labor lead­ers] have to … explain the con­struc­tion of race and cap­i­tal­ism,” says Bill Fletch­er Jr., exec­u­tive edi­tor of The Glob­al African Work­er and for­mer AFL-CIO staffer. ​“The absence of that, and the reliance on so-called diver­si­ty pro­grams, at best teach­es tol­er­ance but does not get at the par­tic­u­lar role that race plays as a divi­sion of the work­ing class. They need to embark on mas­sive inter­nal edu­ca­tion­al efforts.”

Unions should place a high­er pre­mi­um on build­ing sol­i­dar­i­ty among the work­ing class as a whole, in all of its diver­si­ty. One exam­ple is the 2020 part­ner­ship between the Unit­ed Elec­tri­cal Work­ers (UE) and the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Social­ists of Amer­i­ca (DSA). The groups formed the Emer­gency Work­place Orga­niz­ing Com­mit­tee to help work­ers orga­nize on the job in the midst of Covid-19. It’s exact­ly the kind of alliance the Left and the labor move­ment should forge, ampli­fy­ing both groups’ impacts by orga­niz­ing new work­ers and engag­ing exist­ing membership.

These types of alliances demon­strate an atti­tude of ​“not me, us” (to quote Sanders’ pres­i­den­tial cam­paign slo­gan)— the key to build­ing work­er trust and tak­ing on the pow­er­ful forces ulti­mate­ly respon­si­ble for the eco­nom­ic inequal­i­ty so many expe­ri­ence. Rei­tano believes strong­ly in his union, but he wor­ries that new hires, who are immi­grants, won’t join the union or won’t fight for high­er wages, because they are used to low­er wage stan­dards. ​“If the union can edu­cate these peo­ple so they under­stand that we have to stand togeth­er, I think it’ll be okay,” he says. In a sit­u­a­tion like this, a union polit­i­cal edu­ca­tion pro­gram could not only engage new mem­bers, as Rei­tano sug­gests, but also forge sol­i­dar­i­ty and trust across the old guard/​new guard divide.

Cur­rent­ly, how­ev­er, many unions focus pri­mar­i­ly on mobi­liz­ing their mem­bers to vote, rather than on a more robust polit­i­cal pro­gram. In many cas­es, mem­bers don’t have a mech­a­nism to even offer input on the polit­i­cal endorse­ments of their locals and inter­na­tion­als. Instead, every union shop should have stew­ards who con­stant­ly engage work­ers in edu­ca­tion­al pro­grams and strug­gles on the shop floor. Unions launched cam­paigns like this in antic­i­pa­tion of the 2018 Janus Supreme Court deci­sion, which allowed pub­lic-sec­tor employ­ees in union shops to get the ben­e­fits of the union with­out pay­ing for them. Many unions around the coun­try began proac­tive cam­paigns to talk one-on-one with their mem­bers about the impor­tance of their union. In the con­ver­sa­tions, they stressed the pow­er of col­lec­tive action and exposed the right-wing forces try­ing to under­mine unions through Janus and oth­er mea­sures. They encour­aged mem­bers to recom­mit to being dues-pay­ing mem­bers even though they would soon have the abil­i­ty to become ​“free riders.”

None of this work will be easy, but unless unions com­mit to this edu­ca­tion­al work, Trump­ism will con­tin­ue to grow and the pos­si­bil­i­ty of achiev­ing pol­i­cy that can actu­al­ly help work­ing peo­ple will dimin­ish. (Left unchecked, Trump­ism also could dri­ve an increas­ing­ly vio­lent alt-Right.) The Left must sup­port unions in this work by engag­ing in part­ner­ships (like the DSA/UE part­ner­ship) and encour­ag­ing work­ers to orga­nize and union­ize.

The Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, for its part, must prove itself wor­thy of the union vote. Right now, tens of mil­lions of work­ers (both union and nonunion) are suf­fer­ing through unem­ploy­ment, hous­ing inse­cu­ri­ty, hunger and a lack of health­care in a dev­as­tat­ing pan­dem­ic. The Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty lead­er­ship has bare­ly lift­ed a fin­ger to put up a real fight to win relief that is des­per­ate­ly need­ed by so many. They could take exam­ple from Sen. Sanders, who has voiced his oppo­si­tion to the most recent pro­posed ​“com­pro­mise” stim­u­lus bill. While mil­lions suf­fer through the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic with woe­ful­ly inad­e­quate fed­er­al sup­port, Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty lead­er­ship has refused to go big, choos­ing to ignore the pro­gres­sive Dems’ ear­ly push for month­ly cash pay­ments and expand­ed Medicare. With­out these steps, the Democ­rats should not expect work­ing peo­ple to vote for them with­out question.

With­out coun­ter­mea­sures from unions and Democ­rats alike, Repub­li­cans will con­tin­ue to turn the union vote. A 2020 Delaware Sen­ate race between Repub­li­can chal­lenger Lau­ren Witzke and Demo­c­ra­t­ic incum­bent Sen. Christo­pher Coons offers a glimpse of what’s to come. Though she lost (with 38% of the vote), Witzke ran on an ​“Amer­i­ca First” plat­form includ­ing sup­port for unions and col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing, oppo­si­tion to immi­gra­tion (on the basis that migrant work­ers wors­en con­di­tions of all work­ers), and an anti-abor­tion stance.

While Trump’s racism like­ly pro­voked many white pro­fes­sion­als to vote against him in 2020, it did not deter a grow­ing group of peo­ple of col­or — and what’s even more alarm­ing than a whites-only right-wing move­ment is a mul­tira­cial one. To counter the appeal of Trump­ism, we need to build a mul­tira­cial, work­ing-class labor move­ment that can arm work­ers with sol­i­dar­i­ty and a renewed com­mit­ment to strug­gle for the world we deserve.

Mindy Isser

Mindy Isser works in the labor movement and lives in Philadelphia.

Amazon Workers in Alabama Clear Hurdle in Fight for Historic Union Vote

The powerful company is now reportedly pushing for an in-person vote on unionizing, despite federal guidelines urging mail-in voting due to the coronavirus pandemic.


Published onThursday, December 24, 2020

People protest working conditions outside of an Amazon warehouse fulfillment center on May 1, 2020 in the Staten Island borough of New York City. After the new year, Amazon warehouse workers in Alabama are expected to vote on whether they will unionize. (Photo: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Workers at an Amazon warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama are making strides in their fight to unionize following three days of hearings this week which resulted in an agreement with the company regarding which workers will be able to vote on joining a union.

Weeks after the workers filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to join the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU)—a move which, if successful, would make the warehouse the first unionized Amazon facility in the U.S.—the agreement reached broadened the employees who would be included in the proposed bargaining unit. 

Amazon representatives had argued that the 1,500 workers included in the original proposal should not be the only employees who vote on unionizing, as a total of 5,000 employees work at the warehouse. Seasonal workers will now be included in the proposed bargaining unit—which could make the threshold needed by the union backers more difficult to reach.

The NLRB has yet to schedule a date, but workers are expected to vote on unionizing early in 2021. 

Meanwhile, the RWDSU is countering misinformation they say Amazon officials are spreading, including a claim that anyone who signs a union card ahead of the vote can be forced to pay dues. 

"These are the tactics that union-busters do to get you not to believe in yourself," RWDSU representative Allan Gregory told workers in a video message this week. "This card says, federal government, we would like the opportunity to organize our workplace."

Amazon is also pushing for an in-person vote on unionizing, despite the coronavirus pandemic, according to The Hill. 

The NLRB has mainly been holding unionization votes by mail since March and is advocating for voting-by-mail in any county that is experiencing a 14-day Covid-19 positivity rate of 5% or higher. Jefferson County, where the Bessemer warehouse is located, has reported a weekly positivity rate of 16% or higher for more than three weeks. 

An Amazon spokesperson told The Hill Wednesday that the company doesn't believe the warehouse workers represent "the majority of our employees' views." 

But last spring, Amazon workers circulated at least two petitions, gathering a total of 6,000 employee signatures, demanding better pay and benefits amid the pandemic. Workers have also held protests this year at facilities in Staten Island; Chicago; Portland, Oregon; and other cities, over unsafe working conditions.  

'She's considered a terrorist': Family of Saudi activist condemns 'outrageous' jail sentence


One of Saudi Arabia’s most prominent women’s rights activists will appeal a nearly six-year jail sentence handed down Monday as her family hailed her courage. 
© Provided by NBC News

The activist, Loujain al-Hathloul, 31, broke down in tears as a Saudi judge sentenced her to five years and eight months in prison, her elder sister told NBC News on Tuesday.

The sister, Alia al-Hathloul, called the sentence "outrageous" and said she feared that the appeal could result in a harsher sentence. But said she was heartened by messages from supporters and well-wishers.

"I understood that no one believes in this verdict or this court, so it makes me feel relieved a bit for my sister," she said, speaking from Belgium where she lives.

“She wants to be considered innocent. This is her main objective,” she said. “She’s very courageous. … If it was my case I wouldn’t do that.”

Loujain Al-Hathloul was convicted of agitating for change in Saudi Arabia while serving a foreign agenda, using the internet to harm public order and cooperating with individuals and institutions that were involved in crimes under anti-terror laws, according to the state-linked Saudi news site Sabq.

NBC News was unable to verify the charges against her.

“She was extremely disappointed. She was crying a lot,” Alia al-Hathloul said. “She’s considered a terrorist.”

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have said the charges leveled against Loujain Al-Hathloul were entirely related to her human rights work and have called for her immediate and unconditional release.

Al-Hathloul made a name for herself as one of the few women to openly call for women’s right to drive in the deeply conservative kingdom, as well for an end to the country’s restrictive male guardianship system that had long limited women’s freedom of movement. She was arrested along with other female activists in May 2018, just weeks before the kingdom ended a decadeslong ban on women driving.

A spokesperson for Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Media told NBC News on Monday that two years and 10 months of Al-Hathloul’s sentence had been suspended and that the sentence was backdated to May 2018. This means she could be released by March, according to members of her family.

VIDEO Saudi Arabia's persecution of imprisoned women's rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul


Alia al-Hathloul said Tuesday that her sister planned to appeal not just the court’s sentence but another ruling that said she was not subjected to torture while in detention. Loujain al-Hathloul’s family say she has been subjected to electric shocks and has been sexually harassed.

Rights groups have said that other detained women’s rights activists have also been subjected to torture and sexual harassment. Saudi Arabia has denied the allegations.

Alia al-Hathloul said that her parents were also strong and optimistic but that recent weeks had been particularly tiring for them, as the Saudi authorities appeared to be rushing through her sister’s case despite it having been informally suspended for more than a year and a half at the regular criminal court. Last month, the case was moved to Saudi Arabia’s notorious Specialized Criminal Court, which specializes in handling terrorism cases.

“It gives me the impression that they want to get rid of her file, they want to save face,” Alia al-Hathloul said. “They don’t want to look like a loser.”

Alaa Al-Siddiq, executive director of London-based group ALQST, which advocates for human rights in Saudi Arabia, suggested that Saudi authorities may have given Loujain al-Hathloul a lesser sentence to appease the incoming administration of President-elect Joe Biden. Before the court’s ruling Monday, Al-Hathloul faced a potential sentence of 20 years in prison, according to Human Rights Watch.

“They want a fresh start with Joe Biden,” said Al-Siddiq.

 Loujain al-Hathloul (Facebook / AFP - Getty Images file)

Saudi Arabia has enjoyed close relations with President Donald Trump's administration but it is expected to have a frostier relationship with Biden’s team. Biden has pledged to "reassess" the U.S. relationship with the oil-rich kingdom and has described Saudi Arabia as a "pariah."

However, Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, a human rights organization founded by slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi shortly before his death, said that the kingdom’s decision to convict Al-Hathloul sent a message to the world that Saudi Arabia is going to do as it pleases.
Conviction of Loujain al-Hathloul in Saudi Arabia Condemned as 'Blatant Attack on the Most Basic Human Rights'


"We stand with the al-Hathloul family and their friends who have not given up, and continue to call on the Saudi government to free Loujain," said Ariel Gold of CodePink.

Published on Monday, December 28, 2020
Common Dreams

Saudi human rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul was sentenced on Monday to nearly six years in prison under the kingdom's counterterrorism laws. (Photo: Lina al-Hathloul/Twitter)

Fellow human rights defenders and family on Monday slammed the conviction of Loujain al-Hathloul by a terrorism court in Saudi Arabia and reiterated demands for the immediate, unconditional release of the 31-year-old leader in the country's movement to allow women to drive.

Al-Hathloul, who has been detained since May 2018, was sentenced to five years and eight months in prison. With credit for time served and the judge's decision to suspend two years and 10 months of her sentence, she could be released in about two months. Her sister, Lina al-Hathloul, said she will also be subjected to a five-year travel ban.


"Loujain cried when she heard the sentence today," Lina al-Hathloul tweeted Monday. "After nearly three years of arbitrary detention, torture, solitary confinement—they now sentence her and label her a terrorist. Loujain will appeal the sentence and ask for another investigation regarding torture #FreeLoujain."

To hear this news of Loujain's tears is beyond heartbreaking. She has fought for so long for so many people and is our duty to never give up on fighting for her.

Loujain deserves Unconditional Freedom Today and Everyday.#FreeLoujain pic.twitter.com/qC6yHInrSf

— Uma Mishra #BlackLivesMatter #FreeSaudiActivists (@umajmishra) December 28, 2020

As the Associated Press reported:

Al-Hathloul was found guilty and sentenced to five years and eight months by the kingdom's anti-terrorism court on charges of agitating for change, pursuing a foreign agenda, using the internet to harm public order, and cooperating with individuals and entities that have committed crimes under anti-terror laws, according to state-linked Saudi news site Sabq. The charges all come under the country's broadly worded counterterrorism law.

...Al-Hathloul rejected an offer to rescind her allegations of torture in exchange for early release, according to her family. A court recently dismissed her allegations, citing a lack of evidence.

In a statement, Lina al-Hathloul said that "Loujain stands for any citizen who speaks out with love for their country and wants the best for their country."

Human rights advocates worldwide on Monday expressed solidarity with the al-Hathloul family, drew attention to the human rights record of the Saudi regime, and took aim at Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also known globally as MBS.

Loujain al-Hathloul, who has a month to appeal the verdict, was arrested shortly before the kingdom gave women the right to drive in 2018. The following year, Saudi Arabia's Council of Ministers approved a royal decree put forth by the crown prince to relax some restrictions on women under the kingdom's "guardianship" system.

"If the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was genuinely concerned with women's rights, Loujain would not have been thrown in jail and subjected to this sort of abuse. It only proves how performative his 'reforms' were," declared Danaka Katovich, the Yemen campaign coordinator for the women-led peace group CodePink.

We are horrified that @LoujainHathloul has been sentenced to 5 years and 8 months in prison for the "crime" of peaceful activism. So much for Saudi Arabia's "reforms" under MbS. #FreeLoujain immediately!

— CODEPINK (@codepink) December 28, 2020

CodePink national co-director Ariel Gold said that "we stand with the al-Hathloul family and their friends who have not given up, and continue to call on the Saudi government to free Loujain."

"Around the same time as Loujain's sentencing, the Trump administration notified Congress of its intent to sell Saudi Arabia $478 million in weapons," Gold added. "The U.S.'s friendly relationship with the brutal misogynistic government of Saudi Arabia is shameful. We hope the Biden administration will block this latest weapons deal and act for justice for Loujain and all Saudi women."

President-elect Joe Biden has promised to reevaluate U.S.-Saudi relations upon taking office next month. President Donald Trump's administration has maintained a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia's leadership, particularly MBS, despite alarm over the kingdom's human rights record, which ramped up in the wake of the brutal 2018 assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

PEN America has demanded both accountability for Khashoggi's murder and al-Hathloul's release. Last year, the group honored al-Hathloul, Nouf Abdulaziz, and Eman Al-Nafjan with the PEN/Barbey Freedom to Write Award—praising "these gutsy women" for challenging "one of the world's most notoriously misogynist governments."


Summer Lopez, senior director of free expression programs at PEN America, said Monday that "the conviction of Loujain Al-Hathloul is a blatant attack on the most basic human rights of all people living in Saudi Arabia, and a special insult against all those who have fought for women's rights in the kingdom."

"While we are relieved, for her and her family's sake, that the sentence was not longer, it does not make her conviction any less horrifying, and the prospect of continued constraints on her freedom after release is completely unacceptable," she continued. "The charges levied against her are bogus, and are clearly a retaliatory attempt to silence one of the kingdom's most influential female voices."

Lopez added:

Al-Hathloul was detained for using her voice to advocate a policy change granting women the right to drive, now legal for more than two years. In fact, the Saudi leadership now takes credit for reforms that al-Hathloul demanded, even as they punish her for the key role that she and other activists have played in spurring social and legal change. Saudi authorities show their cards by equating al-Hathloul's case with a crime of national security; they recognize that freedom of expression is a powerful driver of change and independent thought—and they see that as a threat.

While the Saudi government has reformed the law, they have not released al-Hathloul. Instead, in clear retaliation for her dissent, they have abused al-Hathloul, jailed her in the most dire conditions, denied her contact with the outside world, and doubled down on her detention. Her absurd conviction is further evidence that the Saudi Arabian government continues to be one of the most egregious human rights abusers in the world. We will be watching to ensure Saudi authorities adhere to this timeline for al-Hathloul's release, but we also continue to call for this unjust sentence to be overturned and for al-Hathloul to be unconditionally and immediately released.

Supporters of the activist took to social media to condemn her sentence, using the hashtag #FreeLoujain.

Authorities chose to convict Loujain over the holidays hoping the world won't notice their shameful treatment of a prominent women's rights activist. The case against her reveals the depths to which they will go to root out independent voices. pic.twitter.com/ZZiuPcmwOv
— Hiba Zayadin (@HZayadin) December 28, 2020


#SaudiArabia: Conviction and 5yrs 8 month sentence handed down to prominent women’s rights campaigner #LoujainAlHathloul, already arbitrarily detained for 2 years, is also deeply troubling. We understand early release is possible, and strongly encourage it as matter of urgency.

— UN Human Rights (@UNHumanRights) December 28, 2020


All people deserve access to their basic rights and humanity, regardless of religion or geography. #FreeLoujain and all prisoners of conscience.
— Oslo Women's Rights Initiative (@oslOWRI) December 28, 2020

The sentencing came after al-Hathloul's case was transferred last month to Saudi Arabia's Specialized Criminal Court (SCC). Amnesty International's deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa, Lynn Maalouf, said at the time that "this is yet another sign that Saudi Arabia's claims of reform on human rights are a farce."

"With Saudi Arabia's human rights record back in the spotlight as it hosts the G20 this year, the Saudi authorities could have decided to end the two-year nightmare for brave human rights defender Loujain al-Hathloul," Maalouf added. "Instead, in a disturbing move, they transferred her case to the SCC; an institution used to silence dissent and notorious for issuing lengthy prison sentences following seriously flawed trials."

Ocasio-Cortez rails against both Democrats and Republicans who opposed $2,000 direct payments

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in a series of tweets on Monday called out her colleagues who oppose $2,000 direct coronavirus relief payments to Americans, asking lawmakers to "err on the side of helping people" as the House voted to increase the aid from the $600 approved last week.




"Notice how Republican Congressmen who like to claim they are the party of 'personal responsibility' refuse to take any responsibility themselves for blocking retroactive unemployment benefits, voting against $2k survival checks, stoking doubt about the pandemic to begin with, etc," Ocasio-Cortez wrote in one of several tweets.

Notice how Republican Congressmen who like to claim they are the party of "personal responsibility" refuse to take any responsibility themselves for blocking retroactive unemployment benefits, voting against $2k survival checks, stoking doubt about the pandemic to begin with, etc- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

The House voted 275-134 Monday evening to up the size of coronavirus aid checks to taxpayers, sending the measure, which is supported by President Trump, to the Senate.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced his intention to pass the legislation on Tuesday if no Republican lawmakers try to block the action, which is likely.

Bloomberg congressional reporter Erik Wasson tweeted that Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader (Ore.) is against the payments, reportedly saying, "People who are making six figure incomes and who have not been impact by Covid-19 do not need checks."

Ocasio-Cortez retweeted Wasson, pointing out that aid is set to phase out for people who make more than $75,000.

"Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions," she asked, listing multiple reasons she believed Schrader was wrong for opposing the checks. "If you're going to err, err on the side of helping people."

1st of all, aid starts phasing out at $75k

2. it's already tied to outdated income info, don't make it worse

3. Ppl who made $100k+ also had income disrupted

4. Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions

5. If you're going to err, err on the side of helping people https://t.co/tBSuR99WLN- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

Ocasio-Cortez also called out Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) for reportedly saying people would only use the payments to pay off credit card debt or "new purchases online at Walmart, Best Buy or Amazon."

"I don't support $2k survival checks because it might help people get out of debt that our gov't inaction helped put or keep them in in the first place." - GOP Congressman https://t.co/BpfuvkKg9h- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

Fellow progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Monday said he would oppose the Senate's vote to override Trump's veto of the annual defense bill unless the direct payments measure gets a vote in the upper chamber.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez parodied GOP stance against $2,000 stimulus checks in a sarcastic tweet
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., attends a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Wednesday, July 17, 2019. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez clapped back at a GOP congressman who opposed $2,000 stimulus checks, parodying his reason for opposing them.

The House passed a bill boosting the stimulus check totals on Monday. The vote now moves to the Senate, where passage is unlikely.

GOP Rep. Kevin Brady said he opposed $2,000 stimulus checks because the money would go toward paying off credit card debt and "new purchases online at Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Amazon."

The congresswoman from New York replied to Brady's statement with a parodied rephrasing of his reasoning.

"'I don't support $2k survival checks because it might help people get out of debt that our gov't inaction helped put or keep them in in the first place.' - GOP Congressman," the progressive congresswoman tweeted Monday night.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez clapped back at GOP congressman's reasoning against $2,000 stimulus checks in a tweet Monday night.

President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan coronavirus relief package on Sunday, which included $600 stimulus payments for Americans, $300 weekly federal unemployment benefits into mid-March, $25 billion in rental assistance, as well as aid for small businesses and funding for education and vaccine distribution.

Upon announcing that he signed the bill, the president also reiterated his calls on Congress to raise the stimulus checks to $2,000 - a goal he shares with many Democrats and some Republicans.

On Monday, the House achieved the required two-thirds majority to pass a bill boosting the stimulus check totals.

The bill now moves to the GOP-controlled Senate, where it is unlikely to pass. Though some in the GOP, like Sen. Marco Rubio, have signaled they support $2,000 checks.

Video: Trump urges $2,000 COVID stimulus payments (FOX News
)

Read more: Trump signs bipartisan coronavirus relief bill after calling on Congress to approve $2,000 stimulus checks

Some GOP voices, however, oppose the $2,000 stimulus checks. GOP Rep. Kevin Brady said on the House floor that he did not approve of increasing the stimulus checks, saying that the money would go toward paying off credit card debt and "new purchases online at Wal-Mart, Best Buy or Amazon."

He argued that the money should be spent on helping small and mid-sized businesses. His speech was then paraphrased in a tweet by HuffPost's Matt Fuller.

Ocasio-Cortez, a prominent progressive voice and advocate for increasing the stimulus checks, slammed Brady's reasoning behind his opposition, replying to his statement with a parodied rephrasing.

"'I don't support $2k survival checks because it might help people get out of debt that our gov't inaction helped put or keep them in in the first place.' - GOP Congressman," the progressive congresswoman tweeted Monday night.

In another tweet, Ocasio-Cortez tore into the group of GOP members who opposed lines of the package pushed by House Democrats, including the $2,000 stimulus checks.

"Notice how Republican Congressmen who like to claim they are the party of 'personal responsibility' refuse to take any responsibility themselves for blocking retroactive unemployment benefits, voting against $2k survival checks, stoking doubt about the pandemic to begin with, etc," the New York congresswoman wrote.

Read the original article on Business Insider

'Err on the Side of Helping People': AOC Slams Blue Dog Democrat for Opposing $2,000 Relief Checks

"Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions?" the congresswoman asked, after Rep. Kurt Schrader claimed direct payments would provide too much support to people "making six figure incomes."


by Kenny Stancil, staff writer
Published on Tuesday, December 29, 2020
Common Dreams



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is seen on the House steps of the Capitol on December 4, 2020. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York pilloried Rep. Kurt Schrader after the Oregon Democrat voted against an amendment to increase one-time direct payments to most Americans from $600 to $2,000, which passed the House on Monday when 44 Republicans joined 231 Democrats in supporting the bill now awaiting action in the Senate.

Schrader opposed the Caring for Americans With Supplemental Help (CASH) Act because, according to the lawmaker—whose net worth hovered close to $8 million in 2018—"people who are making six figure incomes and who have not been impact[ed] by Covid-19 do not need checks."

Just over an hour after voicing his disapproval of bigger relief checks for the majority of U.S. households, Schrader voted in favor of overriding President Donald Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), greenlighting more than $740 billion in military spending for fiscal year 2021—and perfectly encapsulating what the ostensibly centrist, national security-minded Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of Democratic lawmakers to which Schrader belongs, means by "fiscal responsibility."

"First of all, aid starts phasing out at $75,000," Ocasio-Cortez began in her rebuttal to Schrader's statement, which was riddled with erroneous assertions. "It's already tied to outdated income information, don't make it worse," she continued, alluding to the fact that eligibility is based on 2019 tax returns.

Although individuals with incomes in the six-figure range are in fact not eligible for a full relief check, contrary to what Schrader suggested, Ocasio-Cortez reminded the Blue Dog Democrat that people who made $100,000 or more "also had income disrupted." Besides, she asked, "Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions?"

1st of all, aid starts phasing out at $75k

2. it’s already tied to outdated income info, don’t make it worse

3. Ppl who made $100k+ also had income disrupted

4. Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions

5. If you’re going to err, err on the side of helping people https://t.co/tBSuR99WLN— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

According to Schrader, the CASH Act "is an ineffective and poorly targeted approach to aiding Americans in distress." He described the measure as "clearly a last-minute political maneuver by the president and extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, who have been largely absent during months of very hard negotiations."

Schrader was one of two House Democrats to vote against the amendment to increase relief checks from $600 to $2,000. He was joined by outgoing Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois and both voted to override Trump's NDAA veto, along with 210 other Democratic representatives.

As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) on Monday night applauded the 20 House Democrats who "had the courage... to vote no on the bloated defense budget," which he said contributes to "changing the culture of endless war and calling for more investment instead in the American people."

Schrader took a misleading jab at left-leaning lawmakers, accusing them of choosing "to tweet their opinions instead of coming to the table to get aid in the hands of Americans and small businesses that need it most," a bizzare claim given that direct payments to struggling people were "not even on the table" prior to the efforts of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus to which Ocasio-Cortez belongs.

In addition to correcting the false information underlying Schrader's stated reasons for opposing the CASH Act, Ocasio-Cortez told the conservative lawmaker: "If you're going to err, err on the side of helping people."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.


AOC Rails Against Democrat for Opposing $2,000 Stimulus Checks

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has spoken out against a fellow Democrat who broke with the party in opposing an amendment to increase COVID-19 relief payments to $2,000, which passed in the House on Monday.
© Pool/Getty Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) appears remotely during a House Financial Services Committee oversight hearing in Washington, D.C. on December 2, 2020.

Ocasio-Cortez offered a list of remarks while responding to a tweet from Bloomberg reporter Erik Wasson, who quoted Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) saying that "people who are making six figure incomes and who have not been impact by Covid-19 do not need checks" during debate over the bill from the House floor.

"1st of all, aid starts phasing out at $75k," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, correctly noting that the legislation does not offer checks for individuals who are making "six figure incomes" as Schrader claimed.

"2. it's already tied to outdated income info, don't make it worse," she added. "3. Ppl who made $100k+ also had income disrupted ... 4. Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions .... 5. If you're going to err, err on the side of helping people."

1st of all, aid starts phasing out at $75k

2. it’s already tied to outdated income info, don’t make it worse

3. Ppl who made $100k+ also had income disrupted

4. Is this really a good reason to block aid for millions

5. If you’re going to err, err on the side of helping people https://t.co/tBSuR99WLN— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 28, 2020

Schrader is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a caucus of moderate Democrats in the House who espouse "fiscal responsibility," along with a host of other centrist policies. The politics of Ocasio-Cortez, one of the chamber's most prominent progressives, fall considerably to the left of Schrader.

The Democratic-controlled House passed the Caring for Americans with Supplemental Help (CASH) Act to amend the previously passed $600 relief checks, increasing them to $2,000, on Monday. The move came after President Donald Trump demanded that the amount in the initial bill, which he later signed, be increased by the same amount. Despite Trump's insistence, it is not clear that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to approve the amendment.

A majority of House Democrats were joined by 44 Republicans who also voted in favor of the CASH Act, while Schrader was one of only two Democrats who opposed the measure. Schrader railed against the bill during debate before the vote, calling it a "political maneuver" by Trump and "extremist" Republicans and Democrats, while also taking aim at lawmakers who "tweet their opinions."

"This is an ineffective and poorly targeted approach to aiding Americans in distress," Schrader said. "It is clearly a last-minute political maneuver by the president and extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, who have been largely absent during months of very hard negotiations."

"They have chosen to tweet their opinions instead of coming to the table to get aid in the hands of Americans and small businesses that need it most," he added. "We've had nine months to fix this program to get it to people who need it most."

Newsweek reached out to Schrader's office for comment.