• Au Mexique, de nombreux migrants enlevés, détenus et rackettés sur la route des Etats-Unis
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/12/29/au-mexique-de-nombreux-migrants-enleves-detenus-et-rackettes-sur-la-route-de

    Au Mexique, de nombreux migrants enlevés, détenus et rackettés sur la route des Etats-Unis
    Par Anne Vigna (Mexico, correspondante)
    Devant la gare routière du nord de Mexico, des groupes de migrants attendent le départ des bus qui rejoignent les villes mexicaines situées à la frontière avec les Etats-Unis. Ce 12 décembre, l’humeur est plutôt bonne et tout le monde se dit heureux de quitter au plus vite le Mexique après la traversée, en près de vingt-deux heures, du centre et du nord du pays. « Les billets nous coûtent cher bien sûr, mais, avec des enfants, on ne peut pas voyager sur le toit du train, c’est trop risqué », explique Mario Gomez, un Hondurien de 27 ans qui a voyagé jusqu’ici avec son épouse et ses deux enfants de 10 et 12 ans. Ce père de famille a dépensé 150 euros par adulte et 50 euros par enfant pour éviter la « Bestia », le train de marchandises qui traverse le Mexique et qui permet aux migrants les plus pauvres de rejoindre la frontière nord. Mario avait entendu parler des accidents arrivés à ceux qui s’endorment sur son toit, des heures d’attente en plein désert sans une goutte d’eau, mais aussi du racket auquel se livrerait la police mexicaine quand le train fait une pause dans les villes. Il a donc préféré travailler quelques semaines dans la ville de Mexico pour pouvoir offrir à sa famille un voyage en bus jusqu’à la frontière américaine, en sécurité. Du moins le croit-il. Car ce moyen de transport n’est pas non plus une garantie de tranquillité.Ces derniers mois, des migrants ont raconté à des ONG et des journalistes avoir été victimes d’enlèvement et de racket alors qu’ils voyageaient dans ces autobus qui font la navette entre la ville de Mexico et la frontière américaine. Les lignes Chihuahuenses et Futura, appartenant au groupe de transport Estrella Blanca et ralliant la ville de Ciudad Juarez depuis Mexico, sont plus particulièrement citées par les migrants. Ni cette entreprise, ni l’Institut national de migration, ni le ministère des transports n’ont accepté de répondre aux questions du Monde. En revanche, quatre familles aujourd’hui en sécurité aux Etats-Unis nous ont raconté leur calvaire après qu’elles furent montées dans un bus de ces lignes. La similitude de leurs témoignages, alors qu’elles ont voyagé à des dates différentes, montre qu’elles ont été très certainement victimes du même réseau criminel opérant à grande échelle et avec la complicité des chauffeurs. Les quatre familles qui ont témoigné ont eu droit aux mêmes mises en demeure des criminels : pour obtenir leur liberté, ils devaient trouver 3 200 dollars par personne (soit près de 2 900 euros) pour rejoindre le mur élevé à la frontière ou bien 2 800 dollars pour la gare routière de Ciudad Juarez. (...)
    Dans un rapport intitulé « Inhumane and Counterproductive, Asylum Ban Inflicts Mounting Harm » (« Inhumaine et contre-productive, l’entrave à l’asile cause des dommages croissants »), publié en octobre, l’organisation américaine Human Rights First alerte sur ces kidnappings après avoir récolté des dizaines de témoignages de migrants ayant connu ce sort : « Les enlèvements ciblés de migrants en vue d’obtenir une rançon se sont généralisés. Les migrants – parfois des bus entiers – sont interceptés en plein jour », décrit le texte. July Rodriguez et Lizbeth Guerrero sont directrices de l’ONG Apoyo a migrantes venezolanos à Mexico. Elles ont déjà aidé des familles désespérées alors que leurs proches venaient de disparaître en chemin. « On tente de les épauler puis de les convaincre de porter plainte une fois que leur famille est libérée, mais beaucoup sont terrifiés. Ce serait pourtant la seule manière de demander des comptes aux autorités mexicaines », racontent les deux avocates. Avec d’autres organisations, elles ont déposé plusieurs plaintes devant la Commission nationale des droits humains contre ces kidnappings. « Nous n’avons rien obtenu. Selon les témoignages que nous avons réunis, la police est forcément complice de ces enlèvements qui se produisent avec une facilité déconcertante », considère July Rodriguez.
    Le 18 décembre, la police des frontières américaine a une nouvelle fois suspendu pendant cinq jours les entrées des trains de marchandises sur son territoire. Officiellement, elle n’aurait pas assez d’agents pour gérer les flux de marchandises et les entrées des migrants. En conséquence, l’entreprise de fret Ferromex a renforcé la sécurité privée sur ses wagons pour empêcher les migrants d’y voyager. Comme le Mexique exige désormais un visa pour pénétrer sur son territoire et emprunter l’avion, les migrants n’ont d’autres choix que de prendre encore plus souvent les bus pour rejoindre la frontière. Anne Vigna (Mexico, correspondante)

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#etatsunis#mexique#ameriquelatine#migrationirreguliere#trafic#violence#frontiere#droit#visas

  • ‘Our country has lost its moral compass’ : #Arundhati_Roy

    From Arundhati Roy’s acceptance speech at the P. Govinda Pillai award function held in Thiruvananthapuram on December 13.

    Thank you for bestowing this honour on me in the name of P. Govinda Pillai, one of Kerala’s most outstanding scholars of Marxist theory. And thank you for asking N. Ram to be the person who graces this occasion. I know he won this prize last year, but he also in many ways shares the honour of this one with me. In 1998 he, as the editor of Frontline—along with Vinod Mehta, the editor of Outlook—published my first political essay, “The End of Imagination”, about India’s nuclear tests. For years after that he published my work, and the fact that there was an editor like him—precise, incisive, but fearless—gave me the confidence to become the writer that I am.

    I am not going to speak about the demise of the free press in India. All of us gathered here know all about that. Nor am I going to speak of what has happened to all the institutions that are meant to act as checks and balances in the functioning of our democracy. I have been doing that for 20 years and I am sure all of you gathered here are familiar with my views.

    Coming from north India to Kerala, or to almost any of the southern States, I feel by turns reassured and anxious about the fact that the dread that many of us up north live with every day seems far away when I am here. It is not as far away as we imagine. If the current regime returns to power next year, in 2026 the exercise of delimitation is likely to disempower all of South India by reducing the number of MPs we send to Parliament. Delimitation is not the only threat we face. Federalism, the lifeblood of our diverse country is under the hammer too. As the central government gives itself sweeping powers, we are witnessing the sorry sight of proudly elected chief ministers of opposition-ruled States having to literally beg for their States’ share of public funds. The latest blow to federalism is the recent Supreme Court judgment upholding the striking down of Section 370 which gave the State of Jammu and Kashmir semi-autonomous status. It isn’t the only State in India to have special status. It is a serious error to imagine that this judgment concerns Kashmir alone. It affects the fundamental structure of our polity.

    But today I want to speak of something more urgent. Our country has lost its moral compass. The most heinous crimes, the most horrible declarations calling for genocide and ethnic cleansing are greeted with applause and political reward. While wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, throwing crumbs to the poor manages to garner support to the very powers that are further impoverishing them.

    The most bewildering conundrum of our times is that all over the world people seem to be voting to disempower themselves. They do this based on the information they receive. What that information is and who controls it—that is the modern world’s poisoned chalice. Who controls the technology controls the world. But eventually, I believe that people cannot and will not be controlled. I believe that a new generation will rise in revolt. There will be a revolution. Sorry, let me rephrase that. There will be revolutions. Plural.

    I said we, as a country, have lost our moral compass. Across the world millions of people—Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Communist, Atheist, Agnostic—are marching, calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. But the streets of our country, which once was a true friend of colonised people, a true friend of Palestine, which once would have seen millions marching, too, are silent today. Most of our writers and public intellectuals, all but a few, are also silent. What a terrible shame. And what a sad display of a lack of foresight. As we watch the structures of our democracy being systematically dismantled, and our land of incredible diversity being shoe-horned into a spurious, narrow idea of one-size-fits-all nationalism, at least those who call themselves intellectuals should know that our country too, could explode.

    If we say nothing about Israel’s brazen slaughter of Palestinians, even as it is livestreamed into the most private recesses of our personal lives, we are complicit in it. Something in our moral selves will be altered forever. Are we going to simply stand by and watch while homes, hospitals, refugee camps, schools, universities, archives are bombed, a million people displaced, and dead children pulled out from under the rubble? The borders of Gaza are sealed. People have nowhere to go. They have no shelter, no food, no water. The United Nations says more than half the population is starving. And still they are being bombed relentlessly. Are we going to once again watch a whole people being dehumanised to the point where their annihilation does not matter?

    The project of dehumanising Palestinians did not begin with #Benyamin_Netanyahu and his crew—it began decades ago.

    In 2002, on the first anniversary of September 11 2001, I delivered a lecture called “Come September” in the United States in which I spoke about other anniversaries of September 11—the 1973 CIA-backed coup against President Salvador Allende in Chile on that auspicious date, and then the speech on September 11, 1990, of George W. Bush, Sr., then US President, to a joint session of Congress, announcing his government’s decision to go to war against Iraq. And then I spoke about Palestine. I will read this section out and you will see that if I hadn’t told you it was written 21 years ago, you’d think it was about today.

    —> September 11th has a tragic resonance in the Middle East, too. On the 11th of September 1922, ignoring Arab outrage, the British government proclaimed a mandate in Palestine, a follow-up to the 1917 Balfour Declaration which imperial Britain issued, with its army massed outside the gates of Gaza. The Balfour Declaration promised European Zionists a national home for Jewish people. (At the time, the Empire on which the Sun Never Set was free to snatch and bequeath national homelands like a school bully distributes marbles.) How carelessly imperial power vivisected ancient civilisations. Palestine and Kashmir are imperial Britain’s festering, blood-drenched gifts to the modern world. Both are fault lines in the raging international conflicts of today.
    –-> In 1937, Winston Churchill said of the Palestinians, I quote, “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” That set the trend for the Israeli State’s attitude towards the Palestinians. In 1969, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said, “Palestinians do not exist.” Her successor, Prime Minister Levi Eschol said, “What are Palestinians? When I came here (to Palestine), there were 250,000 non-Jews, mainly Arabs and Bedouins. It was a desert, more than underdeveloped. Nothing.” Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians “two-legged beasts”. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir called them “grasshoppers” who could be crushed. This is the language of Heads of State, not the words of ordinary people.

    Thus began that terrible myth about the Land without a People for a People without a Land.

    –-> In 1947, the U.N. formally partitioned Palestine and allotted 55 per cent of Palestine’s land to the Zionists. Within a year, they had captured 76 per cent. On the 14th of May 1948 the State of Israel was declared. Minutes after the declaration, the United States recognized Israel. The West Bank was annexed by Jordan. The Gaza Strip came under Egyptian military control, and Palestine formally ceased to exist except in the minds and hearts of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people who became refugees. In 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Over the decades there have been uprisings, wars, intifadas. Tens of thousands have lost their lives. Accords and treaties have been signed. Cease-fires declared and violated. But the bloodshed doesn’t end. Palestine still remains illegally occupied. Its people live in inhuman conditions, in virtual Bantustans, where they are subjected to collective punishments, 24-hour curfews, where they are humiliated and brutalized on a daily basis. They never know when their homes will be demolished, when their children will be shot, when their precious trees will be cut, when their roads will be closed, when they will be allowed to walk down to the market to buy food and medicine. And when they will not. They live with no semblance of dignity. With not much hope in sight. They have no control over their lands, their security, their movement, their communication, their water supply. So when accords are signed, and words like “autonomy” and even “statehood” bandied about, it’s always worth asking: What sort of autonomy? What sort of State? What sort of rights will its citizens have? Young Palestinians who cannot control their anger turn themselves into human bombs and haunt Israel’s streets and public places, blowing themselves up, killing ordinary people, injecting terror into daily life, and eventually hardening both societies’ suspicion and mutual hatred of each other. Each bombing invites merciless reprisal and even more hardship on Palestinian people. But then suicide bombing is an act of individual despair, not a revolutionary tactic. Although Palestinian attacks strike terror into Israeli citizens, they provide the perfect cover for the Israeli government’s daily incursions into Palestinian territory, the perfect excuse for old-fashioned, nineteenth-century colonialism, dressed up as a new-fashioned, 21st century “war”. Israel’s staunchest political and military ally is and always has been the US.
    –-> The US government has blocked, along with Israel, almost every UN resolution that sought a peaceful, equitable solution to the conflict. It has supported almost every war that Israel has fought. When Israel attacks Palestine, it is American missiles that smash through Palestinian homes. And every year Israel receives several billion dollars from the United States—taxpayers’ money.

    Today every bomb that is dropped by Israel on the civilian population, every tank, and every bullet has the United States’ name on it. None of this would happen if the US wasn’t backing it wholeheartedly. All of us saw what happened at the meeting of the UN Security Council on December 8 when 13 member states voted for a ceasefire and the US voted against it. The disturbing video of the US Deputy Ambassador, a Black American, raising his hand to veto the resolution is burned into our brains. Some bitter commentators on the social media have called it Intersectional Imperialism.

    Reading through the bureaucratese, what the US seemed to be saying is: Finish the Job. But Do it Kindly.

    —> What lessons should we draw from this tragic conflict? Is it really impossible for Jewish people who suffered so cruelly themselves—more cruelly perhaps than any other people in history—to understand the vulnerability and the yearning of those whom they have displaced? Does extreme suffering always kindle cruelty? What hope does this leave the human race with? What will happen to the Palestinian people in the event of a victory? When a nation without a state eventually proclaims a state, what kind of state will it be? What horrors will be perpetrated under its flag? Is it a separate state that we should be fighting for or, the rights to a life of liberty and dignity for everyone regardless of their ethnicity or religion? Palestine was once a secular bulwark in the Middle East. But now the weak, undemocratic, by all accounts corrupt but avowedly nonsectarian PLO, is losing ground to Hamas, which espouses an overtly sectarian ideology and fights in the name of Islam. To quote from their manifesto: “we will be its soldiers and the firewood of its fire, which will burn the enemies”. The world is called upon to condemn suicide bombers. But can we ignore the long road they have journeyed on before they have arrived at this destination? September 11, 1922 to September 11, 2002—80 years is a long time to have been waging war. Is there some advice the world can give the people of Palestine? Should they just take Golda Meir’s suggestion and make a real effort not to exist?”

    The idea of the erasure, the annihilation, of Palestinians is being clearly articulated by Israeli political and military officials. A US lawyer who has brought a case against the Biden administration for its “failure to prevent genocide”—which is a crime, too—spoke of how rare it is for genocidal intent to be so clearly and publicly articulated. Once they have achieved that goal, perhaps the plan is to have museums showcasing Palestinian culture and handicrafts, restaurants serving ethnic Palestinian food, maybe a Sound and Light show of how lively Old Gaza used to be—in the new Gaza Harbour at the head of the Ben Gurion canal project, which is supposedly being planned to rival the Suez Canal. Allegedly contracts for offshore drilling are already being signed.

    Twenty-one years ago, when I delivered “Come September” in New Mexico, there was a kind of omertà in the US around Palestine. Those who spoke about it paid a huge price for doing so. Today the young are on the streets, led from the front by Jews as well as Palestinians, raging about what their government, the US government, is doing. Universities, including the most elite campuses, are on the boil. Capitalism is moving fast to shut them down. Donors are threatening to withhold funds, thereby deciding what American students may or may not say, and how they may or may not think. A shot to the heart of the foundational principles of a so-called liberal education. Gone is any pretense of post-colonialism, multiculturalism, international law, the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Gone is any pretence of Free Speech or public morality. A “war” that lawyers and scholars of international law say meets all the legal criterion of a genocide is taking place in which the perpetrators have cast themselves as victims, the colonisers who run an apartheid state have cast themselves as the oppressed. In the US, to question this is to be charged with anti-Semitism, even if those questioning it are Jewish themselves. It’s mind-bending. Even Israel—where dissident Israeli citizens like Gideon Levy are the most knowledgeable and incisive critics of Israeli actions—does not police speech in the way the US does (although that is rapidly changing, too). In the US, to speak of Intifada—uprising, resistance—in this case against genocide, against your own erasure—is considered to be a call for the genocide of Jews. The only moral thing Palestinian civilians can do apparently is to die. The only legal thing the rest of us can do is to watch them die. And be silent. If not, we risk our scholarships, grants, lecture fees and livelihoods.

    Post 9/11, the US War on Terror gave cover to regimes across the world to dismantle civil rights and to construct an elaborate, invasive surveillance apparatus in which our governments know everything about us and we know nothing about them. Similarly, under the umbrella of the US’ new McCarthyism, monstrous things will grow and flourish in countries all over the world. In our country, of course, it began years ago. But unless we speak out, it will gather momentum and sweep us all away. Yesterday’s news is that Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, once among India’s top universities, has issued new rules of conduct for students. A fine of Rs.20,000 for any student who stages a dharna or hunger strike. And Rs 10,000 for “anti-national slogans”. There is no list yet about what those slogans are—but we can be reasonably sure that calling for the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Muslims will not be on it. So, the battle in Palestine is ours, too.

    What remains to be said must be said—repeated—clearly.

    The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza are crimes against humanity. The United States and other countries that bankroll the occupation are parties to the crime. The horror we are witnessing right now, the unconscionable slaughter of civilians by Hamas as well as by Israel, are a consequence of the siege and occupation.

    No amount of commentary about the cruelty, no amount of condemnation of the excesses committed by either side—and no amount of false equivalence about the scale of these atrocities—will lead to a solution.

    It is the occupation that is breeding this monstrosity. It is doing violence to both perpetrators and victims. The victims are dead. The perpetrators will have to live with what they have done. So will their children. For generations.

    The solution cannot be a militaristic one. It can only be a political one in which both Israelis and Palestinians live together or side by side in dignity, with equal rights. The world must intervene. The occupation must end. Palestinians must have a viable homeland. And Palestinian refugees must have the right to return.

    If not, then the moral architecture of Western liberalism will cease to exist. It was always hypocritical, we know. But even this provided some sort of shelter. That shelter is disappearing before our eyes.

    So please—for the sake of Palestine and Israel, for the sake of the living and in the name of the dead, for the sake of the hostages being held by Hamas and the Palestinians in Israel’s prisons—for the sake of all of humanity—stop this slaughter.

    Thank you once more for choosing me for this honour. Thank you too for the Rs 3 lakhs which comes with this prize. It will not remain with me. It will go towards helping activists and journalists who continue to stand up at huge cost to themselves.

    https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/india-has-lost-its-moral-compass-arundhati-roy-on-israel-palestian-gaza-war/article67639421.ece

    #Gaza #à_lire #Palestine #Israel #boussole_morale #déshumanisation #11_septembre_1922 #responsabilité #occupation #Cisjordanie #USA #Etats-Unis #effacement #anéantissement #génocide #crime_contre_l'humanité #abattage

  • Jeter le Gégé avec l’eau du bain, Louise Chennevière
    https://lundi.am/Jeter-le-Gege-avec-l-eau-du-bain

    Il faut que je creuse loin pour avoir quelques images de lui à la télé, on n’était pas chez moi féru de cinéma français. En grandissant je n’ai jamais senti quelque attirance que ce soit envers lui, et étonnamment rattrapant ma culture cinématographique, j’ai comme toujours évité les films dans lesquels il jouait. Ce ne fût pas exactement conscient, plus comme s’il y avait instinctivement quelque chose qui me rebutait dans cette figure. J’avais dû subir, un soir d’hiver le visionnage avec quelques amis exaltés d’un best-of de l’émission A pleines dents dans laquelle on suit le type parcourir l’Europe pour, bouffer. Il est vrai que je ne suis pas non plus obsédée par la bouffe, et que je n’ai pu me résoudre à rire devant ces images de ce type d’une vulgarité sans égale dévorant bruyamment tout ce qui passait devant lui. Voilà ce que je savais moi de Depardieu, bien peu je l’admets, mais cela me suffisait. Ah, il y avait aussi cette publicité pour une marque de montre russe dans laquelle on le voit fièrement tenir un fusil avec lequel il se vante d’avoir été à l’heure pour buter un cerf, cerf dont la pauvre carcasse gît au premier plan de l’écran, Gégé nonchalamment accoudé dessus.

    Je dois bien avouer aussi que je n’ai pas été surprise lorsque les premiers témoignages d’agressions sexuelles ont commencé à émerger. Si je n’ai pas été surprise c’est parce que ces agressions sexuelles sont permises et justifiées par une certaine culture dont, pour le peu que j’en avais vu, Gérard Depardieu me semblait être l’un des hérauts et des plus fiers représentants. Je veux dire que je n’avais jamais eu besoin de creuser très loin pour sentir que le type était l’incarnation de tout ce que l’on nomme aujourd’hui la masculinité toxique – je n’aime pas particulièrement l’expression mais ça a le mérite d’être clair et concis. On pourrait dire aussi : la masculinité qui s’est construite avec la certitude que tout, absolument, lui était dû et permis. Il faut voir ce passage de l’émission où ce bon vieux Gégé énumère fièrement tous les animaux qu’il a bouffé, et un steak de lion, et du crocodile, une baleine bourguignonne – on le sait de toute façon, les animaux si exotiques soient-ils, et quelle que soit leur voie de disparition, c’est fait pour être bouffé par des Gégé, tout comme les femmes. Croquer la vie à pleines dents donc et qu’importe si, sur son passage on détruit celles de dizaines de femmes. On m’accusera sûrement d’être rabat-joie. Mais il n’y a rien, absolument rien dans ce qu’incarne Gérard Depardieu qui ne me semble confiner à la joie. Tout ce que j’en vois me dégoûte, m’attriste et me met en colère.

    • Louise Chennevière invitée du podcast Je tiens absolument à cette virgule (36 min.)

      https://podcast.ausha.co/je-tiens-absolument-a-cette-virgule/je-tiens-absolument-a-cette-virgule-avec-louise-chenneviere

      Dans ce quatrième épisode, vous entendrez Louise Chennevière, romancière et musicienne, qui a publié deux romans chez POL, Comme la chienne en 2019 et Mausolée en 2021.

      Émission résolument féministe, se réclamant autant d’Annie Ernaux que de Marguerite Duras, Louise Chennevière défend l’importance en littérature d’entendre la voix des femmes et d’en écrire le corps réel, émancipé de ses représentations sociales. Lors de notre entretien, elle revient aussi sur la question de l’équilibre entre travail du style et première intuition, la prévalence de l’écriture sur l’intrigue ou encore la difficulté de demander des conseils lors de l’élaboration d’un roman.

      Dans cette émission, vous entendrez aussi plusieurs extraits de ses deux romans, lus par Marina Torre.

    • Lettre ouverte à Gérard Depardieu : “Tu crées la terreur par le rire, tu te fais passer pour un bouffon, alors que tu es un roi tout puissant”

      https://seenthis.net/messages/1034125

      Ah Gégé ! Ce tournage de Turf … Toi, tu ne t’en souviens plus. C’est réglo, c’est ta ligne, mais moi, j’y étais. J’ai dû être payé une fortune pour l’époque, quelque chose comme 100 balles la journée : je faisais partie du ballet de figurant·es. C’est intéressant comme rôle, c’est quasiment intraçable, ça ne fait pas de bruit, ça se pose là où on lui dit et surtout, ça FERME BIEN SA GUEULE.

      [...]

      Je ne te raconte pas une fiction Gégé, j’étais là, dans l’ombre parmi les intraçables, les témoins muets de tes agissements qui nous ont atterrés. La fille se sauve, toi, tu fixes l’horizon d’un air pénétrant (sûrement pour réviser ta réplique) et c’est branle-bas de combat de l’équipe technique, des assistant·es qui tentent de mettre de la poudre aux yeux à tout le monde pour que ton geste paraisse aussi anodin que tes rots ou tes pets.

      [...]

      Je te le dis pour ta gouverne, c’est pas du womansplaining, mais un peu quand même : une nana encerclée par un groupe de mecs à l’œil allumé n’est pas sereine, elle rit bêtement et reste un peu paralysée sur place. Pas parce que ça lui plaît, mais parce que les petits animaux face aux prédateurs ont tendance à se pétrifier avant de fuir. Heureusement pour moi, les turfistes avaient d’autres juments à monter et je suis restée face à toi, indécise. Non pas parce que j’hésitais encore à savoir si j’aurais aimé te sucer la bite, mais parce qu’à l’école de théâtre, on m’avait dit que face au monstre sacré, il fallait BIEN FERMER SA GUEULE. Et puis l’éducation des filles aussi : en société, il faut sourire, être dans une forme d’écoute et d’empathie face à ton interlocuteur. C’est hyper chiant et ça te rend vachement moins libre de tes mouvements.

    • « Choix pragmatique » –
      En Suisse, Gérard Depardieu n’a plus droit de cité à la télévision publique

      https://www.liberation.fr/economie/medias/en-suisse-gerard-depardieu-na-plus-droit-de-cite-a-la-television-publique

      La décision de suspendre la diffusion sur la RTS des films dans lesquels l’acteur français tient un des rôles principaux est « un choix pragmatique, que nous réexaminerons en fonction des évolutions de la situation, sans calendrier fixé d’avance et dans le respect de la procédure en Justice », a indiqué Marco Ferrara.

      « En tant que média de service public, nous devons veiller à rester en marge des parties impliquées et ne pas porter de jugement : nous nous limitons à agir au service de l’intérêt du public, ce qui inclut aussi son appétence ou, au contraire, son rejet envers une œuvre », avance-t-il prudemment.

      « Au-delà de cette évaluation qualitative », a ajouté le porte-parole de la RTS, « nous avons récemment organisé un vote du public pour le film de Noël et, parmi les options figurait une œuvre avec Gérard Depardieu, que le public lui-même a décidé de ne pas retenir, alors que le contexte d’actualité concernant l’acteur était connu ».

    • Coupable, Jacques Weber
      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/jacques-weber/blog/010124/coupable

      Je mesure chaque jour mon aveuglement. J’ai par réflexe d’amitié signé à la hâte, sans me renseigner, oui j’ai signé en oubliant les victimes et le sort de milliers de femmes dans le monde qui souffrent d’un état de fait trop longtemps admis. L’écartèlement entre les devoirs de l’amitié et ceux de l’homme, du père et du citoyen aurait pu encore m’aveugler si je n’avais vu de mes propres yeux, vu et entendu ces derniers jours une femme exprimer une violence, une émotion, un déchirement, un désespoir que je ne mesurais pas. J’ai saisi ce que pouvait signifier la douleur qui ne se refermera jamais. Dans le livre collectif Moi aussi je lisais que les survivantes sont les seules à pouvoir comprendre les autres survivantes. Je le sais à présent.
      Ma signature était un autre viol.

    • Depardieu : notre responsabilité de société - Stephane Lavignotte

      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/stephanelavignotteorg/blog/281223/depardieu-notre-responsabilite-de-societe

      Etablir les faits, une responsabilité de la société

      Pour dire des faits, il n’y a pas que la justice. La société et certaines de ses institutions ont aussi cette responsabilité, les journalistes et les historiens, par exemple. Pour savoir que les attentats du 11 septembre ont bien eu lieu et qu’Al Qaida en était à l’origine, on n’attend pas une décision judiciaire, le travail de presse fait foi. Pour savoir que Dreyfus était innocent, il vaut mieux s’en remettre aux historiens et aux journalistes de son temps qu’à l’institution judiciaire. Le propre de la justice ne consiste d’ailleurs pas tant à dire les faits qu’à prononcer des sanctions mises en oeuvre grâce au monopole de la violence légitime de l’État, prison ou amende. La justice reconnaît volontiers que – par exemple sur les faits de pédophilie ou de viol – elle ne peut souvent pas prononcer les faits car ses critères sont restrictifs pour retenir des preuves et que par exemple elle s’applique une prescription des faits. Des institutions de la société civile disent mieux le factuel que la justice et c’est leur responsabilité d’aller chercher et de divulguer les faits.

      [...]

      Faire société ou pas ?

      Maintenant que ces fait sont connus par delà le petit milieu du cinéma, cette responsabilité de ne plus fermer les yeux et de ne plus laisser faire est collective : elle s’élargit à l’ensemble de la société. Collectivement, disons-nous « stop » ou « encore » ? Il y a des tribunes, ou des déclarations de président de la République, qui en défendant Depardieu participent du déni de la gravité des faits d’hier mais aussi se déchargent de toute responsabilité des comportements inacceptables de demain, de Depardieu ou d’autres. Qui, paradoxalement, font société – « bonne société » en l’occurrence – pour nous dire de ne pas faire société, qu’il y a uniquement des individus et l’État. Des individus dans des rapports inter-individuels (en ignorant les déséquilibres de pouvoir) et l’État quand il y a désaccord. Rien entre les deux.

    • violence légitime de l’état

      mais quand est-ce que les journalistes vont arrêter de mettre ces mots en contre vérité total de leur contexte à toutes les sauces ?

    • Notion fourretout

      monopole de la violence légitime de l’État

      La « violence légitime de l’État » de Max Weber
      https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/la-violence-legitime-de-l-etat-de-max-weber-8101512

      Et il insiste sur la dimension violence, c’est souvent ce qu’on retient de ce texte. Il y a d’autres versions dans des textes de Weber qui sont plus scientifiques, dirais-je, et où il utilise à la place du terme “violence, le terme “contrainte”. C’est-à-dire, les moyens de garantir le droit.

      Ambiguïté du terme "légitime"

      C’est une définition des pouvoirs de l’État pas une justification de la violence envers le peuple. Max Weber explique que l’État se substitue aux autres instances de pouvoir, contrairement aux multiples autorités de l’époque féodale : Église, roi, villes libres. En somme, c’est une définition de la souveraineté moderne.

    • Quand Max Weber parle de “violence légitime” il en fait une description sociologique, il décrit ce qui est et non pas ce qui doit être. Max Weber théorise comment se sont constitués les États en tant qu’entités politiques.

      "Cette définition intervient après qu’il (Weber) a écarté les définitions plus courantes, par les objectifs, les buts de l’État. Il se replie sur la définition par son moyen. Il a un moyen spécifique que n’ont pas les autre groupements politiques. Et ce moyen spécifique ce n’est pas la violence physique mais c’est le monopole de la violence physique. "

      La force précède et accompagne le droit. Refuser la « violence contre le peuple », c’est refuser l’État.

  • L’Etat de droit, nouvelle frontière de la bataille de l’extrême droite contre l’immigration
    https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2023/12/28/l-etat-de-droit-nouvelle-frontiere-de-la-bataille-de-l-extreme-droite-contre

    L’Etat de droit, nouvelle frontière de la bataille de l’extrême droite contre l’immigration
    Le Rassemblement national se tient prêt à exploiter une censure partielle de la « loi immigration » par le Conseil constitutionnel, dont l’extrême droite cherche à réduire les prérogatives.
    Par Clément Guillou
    Il ne déplairait pas à la première ministre, Elisabeth Borne, et à son ministre de l’intérieur, Gérald Darmanin, que le Conseil constitutionnel censure une partie des dispositions contenues dans la loi sur l’immigration, adoptée par le Parlement, le 19 décembre. Un autre camp n’y verrait pas d’inconvénient : l’extrême droite.
    « Cela nous intéresse que ce débat-là soit sur la place publique, avance Philippe Olivier, conseiller spécial de la cheffe de file du Rassemblement national (RN), Marine Le Pen. Si la loi n’est pas validée, voilà ce que se dira l’électeur : “Comment cela ? Les sondages indiquent que les gens sont contents de la loi et [le président du Conseil constitutionnel] Laurent Fabius, dans son bureau, la remet en question ?” Ça va être très mal pris. Bien sûr qu’on le dénoncera. » Et l’ancien mégrétiste de reprendre la vulgate lepéniste en voyant dans une éventuelle censure, non pas le respect du texte suprême par neuf juges, mais « le bricolage du système ».
    Le second volet du discours lepéniste est résumé ainsi par le député RN de la Somme Jean-Philippe Tanguy, un autre proche de Marine Le Pen, le 21 décembre sur Franceinfo : « Si, malheureusement, le Conseil constitutionnel prend des dispositions de censure, cela prouvera que nous avions raison et qu’il faut une réforme de la Constitution [soumise à référendum] pour assurer que les dispositions passent. »
    Depuis des décennies, l’extrême droite mène deux guerres idéologiques sur le terrain de l’immigration : l’une concerne la préférence nationale, dont le principe a été inscrit par le parti Les Républicains (LR) dans cette loi avec l’aval de la majorité ; l’autre concerne la lutte contre l’Etat de droit, qu’elle juge incompatible avec ses idées sur la question. Une censure partielle permettrait au Rassemblement national d’avancer ses pions sur deux thèmes : la nécessité de rogner les pouvoirs du juge constitutionnel et de modifier la Constitution en inversant la hiérarchie des normes. Le programme de Marine Le Pen prévoit de faire primer la Constitution sur l’ensemble des traités internationaux signés par la France, dont les traités européens. Un choix fait en 2021 par les nationalistes polonais, qui a mis Varsovie au ban de l’Union européenne jusqu’à la victoire électorale de Donald Tusk, en 2023. Une censure partielle du Conseil, d’autant plus s’il la justifiait par le respect du droit communautaire, viendrait nourrir le discours eurosceptique du RN à cinq mois des élections européennes de 2024.
    S’enclenche ainsi, à quelques semaines de l’avis de la juridiction suprême, le processus annoncé au lendemain du vote, dans Le Monde, par le constitutionnaliste Jean-Philippe Derosier, proche du Parti socialiste : « La censure permettrait au Rassemblement national de dire : “Vous voyez bien que notre Constitution ne nous permet pas d’assurer la sécurité de nos concitoyens”. » Le RN n’est plus seul à tenir ce discours. Chez LR, des voix s’expriment aussi pour mettre en garde contre une décision défavorable des neuf juges constitutionnels, laissant entendre qu’il s’agirait alors d’une décision politique, sous la pression d’Emmanuel Macron. Depuis la candidature présidentielle de François Fillon en 2017, LR s’est rallié à l’hypothèse d’une révision constitutionnelle sur l’immigration – même l’ancien négociateur du Brexit Michel Barnier, pourtant l’un des plus europhiles de son camp, avait proposé de mettre un terme à la primauté du droit européen en matière migratoire.
    Le 7 décembre, le président du parti, Eric Ciotti, avait défendu lors de sa niche parlementaire un tel « bouclier constitutionnel », appuyé par le RN. Si Gérald Darmanin avait étrillé la proposition sur la forme, la comparant à un « Frexit » déguisé, il se montrait moins hostile sur le fond, la jugeant « complémentaire » de sa loi « immigration ». « Combien de fois ai-je entendu les parlementaires dénoncer le fait que la menace de la censure constitutionnelle (…) rétrécisse les horizons des possibles ? Nous en sommes d’accord », avait-il déclaré. Durant les débats, il avait souligné l’intérêt d’un travail diplomatique pour réviser les traités européens et renégocier la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, à laquelle se conforme la Constitution. Ces dernières semaines, le ministre de l’intérieur a multiplié les déclarations et décisions montrant la nécessité, selon lui, de modifier les traités internationaux ou d’aller contre l’Etat de droit. Il s’est félicité de déroger à une décision de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), puis du Conseil d’Etat, dans un dossier d’expulsion d’un ressortissant ouzbek. Soupçonné de liens avec la mouvance islamiste, selon la Place Beauvau, l’homme, renvoyé en Ouzbekistan, y est menacé de torture selon ses défenseurs et la CEDH. Le penseur identitaire Jean-Yves Le Gallou, qui a mené les combats culturels de l’extrême droite depuis quarante ans, se rengorge d’avancées majeures dans sa bataille contre l’Etat de droit : « Il y a quinze ans, c’est avec beaucoup de prudence que je remettais en cause le diktat judiciaire sur la législation sur l’immigration. Or, c’est dit aujourd’hui avec beaucoup de force par la droite républicaine. »Ces dernières semaines, cette dénonciation d’un « gouvernement des juges » français et européens a été largement relayée par les têtes d’affiche des médias du groupe Bolloré, notamment les animateurs Cyril Hanouna et Pascal Praud, ou le chroniqueur Mathieu Bock-Côté. Dans Le Figaro, le 23 décembre, ce dernier se délecte de l’inquiétude de « la gauche » à l’idée que les Français découvrent « que l’Etat de droit contraint la souveraineté populaire » et en concluent « qu’il faudra ajuster les institutions politiques en conséquence ».

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#france#loiimmigration#CEDH#droit#conseilconstitutionnel#UE#politiquemigratoire#etatdedroit

  • A la frontière entre les Etats-Unis et le Mexique, des arrivées de migrants en forte hausse
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/12/29/a-la-frontiere-entre-les-etats-unis-et-le-mexique-des-arrivees-de-migrants-e

    A la frontière entre les Etats-Unis et le Mexique, des arrivées de migrants en forte hausse
    Par Anne Vigna (Mexico, correspondante)
    Lors de leur venue à Mexico pour une réunion consacrée à la question migratoire, mercredi 27 décembre, les membres de la délégation américaine – composée du chef de la diplomatie, Antony Blinken, et du secrétaire à la sécurité nationale, Alejandro Mayorkas – arboraient un grand sourire. C’est du moins ce que montrent les photos de leur rencontre avec le président mexicain, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (dit « AMLO »). Mais aucun communiqué n’a été diffusé à l’issue de la discussion qui a duré plus de deux heures. « AMLO » comme la ministre des affaires étrangères mexicaine, Alicia Barcen, ont répété que la rencontre avait été « très positive » et qu’elle allait désormais se reproduire mensuellement, en invitant d’autres pays d’Amérique centrale, eux aussi concernés par le phénomène migratoire.
    Le président mexicain a précisé, lors de sa « matinale », son intervention télévisée quotidienne, jeudi 28 décembre que « les Etats-Unis ont accepté de rouvrir leurs ponts frontaliers », qui avaient été fermés à la mi-décembre devant l’afflux de migrants. « La relation avec nos voisins est fondamentale : nous devons en prendre soin et nous devons également prendre soin des migrants. Nous devons veiller à ce qu’il n’y ait pas d’abus, d’enlèvements ou d’accidents en cours de route. » Cette communication cache mal une situation de plus en plus dramatique à la frontière entre les deux pays : selon les chiffres communiqués par la police aux frontières américaine, près de 10 000 personnes sont arrivées chaque jour à la frontière sud des Etats-Unis en décembre. D’octobre 2022 à septembre 2023, 3,2 millions de migrants se sont rendus aux autorités américaines contre 2,7 millions lors de la précédente période, selon le département des douanes américain.
    D’autre part, une nouvelle caravane de près de 10 000 migrants est partie à pied du Chiapas, dans le sud du Mexique, le 25 décembre, et devrait arriver dans trois semaines à Mexico. L’image de cette colonne d’hommes et de femmes, reproduite dans de nombreux médias américains, a sonné l’alarme dans les Etats du sud des Etats-Unis. Le Texas a renforcé la protection de sa frontière et a affrété des bus pour emmener les migrants vers d’autres Etats du pays, en particulier ceux dirigés par les démocrates, comme New York et la Californie.« Ces gens fuient des situations extrêmement violentes, et cela va continuer. On ne voit toujours aucune stratégie américaine se dessiner, si ce n’est une réponse à l’urgence. Le Mexique, au contraire, a mis au point plusieurs programmes en Amérique centrale. Même si ce n’est pas parfait, c’est un début », estime la coordinatrice de l’organisation Agenda Migrante, Eunice Rendon. Face aux pressions américaines, le Mexique risque de renforcer encore les contrôles et d’augmenter les expulsions, obligeant les migrants à prendre toujours plus de risques pour parvenir à destination.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#etatsunis#mexique#texas#californie#newyork#frontiere#migrationirreguliere#ameriquecentrale#sante#expulsion#politiquemigratoire

  • Usa- Envahis par les migrants : Le maire de New York alerte !
    https://www.dakaractu.com/Usa-Envahis-par-les-migrants-Le-maire-de-New-York-alerte-_a242306.html

    Usa- Envahis par les migrants : Le maire de New York alerte !
    Usa- Envahis par les migrants : Le maire de New York alerte !
    Ils sont plus de 150.000 migrants à arriver à New York depuis le début de l’année voire plus. La ville de New York absorbée par le flux de migrants, a atteint les limites de ses capacités. Ainsi, le maire de la ville américaine tire la sonnette d’alarme. " Je n’ai jamais eu dans ma vie un problème dont je ne voyais pas la fin, mais là, je ne vois pas la fin. (...) « Cette affaire va détruite New York », a déclaré Eric Adams. Ce dernier fait allusion au manque de logements et de ressources financières de New York pour s’occuper des nouveaux arrivants. Ainsi le maire de New York et la gouverneure de l’État, Kathy Hochul accusent le Président Joe Biden de n’avoir pas apporté un soutien suffisant. « Il n’ y a pas d’aide en vue », a informé Eric Adams.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#etatsunis#newyork#fluxmigratoire#immigrants#logement

  • A Times Investigation Tracked Israel’s Use of One of Its Most Destructive Bombs in South #Gaza - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html

    Israel says it must destroy Hamas above and below ground to prevent terrorist attacks like Oct. 7 — [shouting] — and claims it’s taking extraordinary measures to protect civilians. But a Times investigation using aerial imagery and artificial intelligence found visual evidence suggesting Israel used these munitions in the area it designated safe for civilians at least 200 times.

    #génocide

  • L’aide économique américaine à la #France, 1940-1953. Relecture du plan Marshall, par Jacques Sapir
    https://www.les-crises.fr/l-aide-economique-americaine-a-la-france-1940-1953-relecture-du-plan-mars

    La question de « l’aide » américaine à la France et généralement aux puissances européennes dans les années 1940-1950 est un sujet passionnant mais aussi d’une brûlante actualité au regard de la politique américaine vis-à-vis des pays européens depuis maintenant plusieurs années, et en particulier dans le cadre des opérations militaires en Ukraine. Cette question […]

    #Articles #États-Unis #Europe #Russeurope_en_Exil #Union_européenne #Articles,_États-Unis,_Europe,_France,_Russeurope_en_Exil,_Union_européenne

  • Etats-Unis : le gouverneur du Texas signe une loi criminalisant l’entrée illégale de migrants
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/12/19/etats-unis-le-gouverneur-du-texas-signe-une-loi-criminalisant-l-entree-illeg

    Etats-Unis : le gouverneur du Texas signe une loi criminalisant l’entrée illégale de migrants
    Le Monde avec AFP
    Le gouverneur du Texas, le républicain Greg Abbott, a signé lundi 19 décembre une loi controversée criminalisant l’entrée illégale dans cet Etat américain du Sud, frontalier du Mexique, une prérogative en principe réservée aux autorités fédérales. Ce partisan déclaré de Donald Trump, qui accuse l’administration du président démocrate Joe Biden d’« inaction délibérée » face à l’immigration clandestine, a symboliquement signé cette loi à Brownswille, devant un pan du mur à la frontière avec le Mexique, projet phare de l’ex-président républicain. La loi « crée une infraction pénale d’entrée illégale au Texas à partir d’un pays étranger », et prévoit jusqu’à vingt ans de prison en cas de récidive, a précisé le gouverneur.
    Lire aussi : Article réservé à nos abonnés A Ciudad Juarez, malgré le mur et les barbelés, les migrants passent toujours aux Etats-Unis
    Le texte, censé entrer en vigueur en mars, donne aussi aux autorités de l’Etat le pouvoir d’arrêter les migrants et de les expulser vers le Mexique, une compétence d’ordre fédéral, ce qui augure de recours en justice sur sa constitutionnalité. Le gouvernement mexicain avait réagi au vote de cette loi, le 15 novembre, en « rejetant catégoriquement toute mesure qui habilite les autorités locales ou d’un Etat à arrêter et renvoyer des citoyens mexicains ou étrangers au Mexique », selon un communiqué de son ministère des affaires étrangères. M. Trump, en campagne pour reprendre la Maison Blanche, et M. Abbott accusent le président américain, Joe Biden, de fermer les yeux sur l’immigration illégale à la frontière sud, principalement composée de ressortissants de pays d’Amérique latine qui disent fuir la pauvreté et la violence.
    Le Monde avec AFP

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#etatsunis#mexique#frontiere#immigrationillegale#ameriquelatine#pauvrete#violence#sante

  • « Toni Negri aura été un lecteur et continuateur de Karl Marx, dans une étonnante combinaison de littéralité et de liberté », Etienne Balibar
    https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2023/12/19/l-hommage-d-etienne-balibar-a-toni-negri-il-aura-ete-un-lecteur-et-continuat

    Ce qui d’abord frappait chez lui, en plus de sa silhouette incroyablement juvénile à tout âge, c’était un sourire unique, tantôt carnassier, tantôt ironique ou plein d’affection. Il m’avait saisi dès notre première rencontre, à la sortie d’un séminaire du Collège international de philosophie. Lui, échappé d’Italie à la faveur d’une élection qui le tirait momentanément de prison. Nous, abattus par l’essor du reaganisme et du thatchérisme, qui fracassait les illusions nées de la victoire socialiste de 1981. Que faire dans cette débâcle ? Mais la révolution !, nous expliqua Toni, rayonnant d’optimisme : elle s’avance à travers d’innombrables mouvements sociaux plus inventifs les uns que les autres. Je ne suis pas sûr de l’avoir vraiment cru, mais j’en suis sorti, débarrassé de mes humeurs noires et conquis pour toujours.

    Je n’avais pas suivi le fameux séminaire sur les Grundrisse de Karl Marx [manuscrits de 1857-1858, considérés comme un sommet de son œuvre économique avant Le Capital], organisé en 1978 à l’Ecole normale supérieure par Yann Moulier-Boutang, qu’on m’avait dit fascinant autant qu’ésotérique. Et j’ignorais presque tout de « l’operaismo », [d’« operaio » , « ouvrier » en italien] dont il était l’une des têtes pensantes.

    Pour moi, Negri était ce théoricien et praticien de « l’autonomie ouvrière », dont l’Etat italien, gangrené par la collusion de l’armée et des services secrets américains, avait essayé de faire le cerveau du terrorisme d’extrême gauche ; une accusation qui s’effondra comme château de cartes, mais qui l’envoya pour des années derrière les barreaux. Avant et après ce séjour, entouré de camarades aux vies assagies et aux passions intactes, il fut le pilier de cette Italie française, image inversée de la France italienne que nous avions rêvé d’instaurer avant 1968. Prises ensemble, autour de quelques revues et séminaires, elles allaient lancer une nouvelle saison philosophique et politique. Par ses provocations et ses études, Negri en serait l’inspirateur.

    Liberté et émancipation du travail

    Je ne donnerai que quelques repères elliptiques, en choisissant les références selon mes affinités. Spinoza, évidemment. Après le coup de tonnerre de L’Anomalie sauvage (PUF, 1982 pour l’édition française, précédée des préfaces de Gilles Deleuze, Pierre Macherey et Alexandre Matheron) viendront encore d’autres essais, inspirés par ces mots : « Le reste manque », inscrits par l’éditeur sur la page blanche du Traité politique (Le Livre de Poche, 2002) qu’avait interrompu la mort en 1677 du solitaire de La Haye.

    Ce reste, contrairement à d’autres, Negri n’a pas cherché à le reconstituer, mais à l’inventer, suivant le fil d’une théorie de la puissance de la multitude, qui fusionne la métaphysique du désir et la politique démocratique, contre toute conception transcendantale du pouvoir, issue de la collusion entre le droit et l’Etat. Spinoza, l’anti-Hobbes, l’anti-Rousseau, l’anti-Hegel. Le frère des insurgés napolitains dont il avait un jour emprunté la figure. On n’a plus cessé de discuter pour et contre ce « Spinoza subversif », qui marque de son empreinte la grande « Spinoza-Renaissance » contemporaine.

    Passons alors à la problématique de la liberté et de l’émancipation du travail, qui repart de Spinoza pour converger avec Foucault, mais aussi Deleuze, en raison du profond vitalisme à l’œuvre dans l’opposition de la « biopolitique » des individus et du « biopouvoir » des institutions. Elle réinscrit au sein même de l’idée de pouvoir l’opposition naguère établie entre celui-ci et la puissance, et autorise à reprendre, comme l’essence même du processus révolutionnaire, la vieille thématique léniniste du « double pouvoir », mais en la déplaçant d’une opposition Etat-parti à une opposition Etat-mouvement.

    Or les fondements en sont déjà dans son livre de 1992 Le Pouvoir constituant. Essai sur les alternatives de la modernité (traduction française au PUF, 1997). C’est pour moi l’un des grands essais de philosophie politique du dernier demi-siècle, dialoguant avec Schmitt, Arendt, les juristes républicains, sur la base d’une généalogie qui remonte à Machiavel et à Harrington. Tout « pouvoir constitué » procède d’une insurrection qu’il cherche à terminer pour domestiquer la multitude et se trouve corrélativement en butte à l’excès du pouvoir constituant sur les formes d’organisation même révolutionnaires qu’il se donne.

    Un communisme de l’amour

    Revenons donc à Marx pour conclure. D’un bout à l’autre, Negri aura été son lecteur et son continuateur, dans une étonnante combinaison de littéralité et de liberté. Marx au-delà de Marx (Bourgois, 1979), cela veut dire : emmener Marx au-delà de lui-même, et non pas le « réfuter ». C’était déjà le sens des analyses de la « forme-Etat », aux temps de l’opéraïsme militant. C’est celui de la géniale extrapolation des analyses des Grundrisse sur le machinisme industriel (le « general intellect »), qui prennent toute leur signification à l’époque de la révolution informatique et du « capitalisme cognitif », dont elles permettent de saisir l’ambivalence au point de vue des mutations du travail social. Combat permanent entre « travail mort » et « travail vivant ».

    Et c’est, bien sûr, le sens de la grande trilogie coécrite avec Michael Hardt : Empire (Exils, 2000), Multitude (La Découverte, 2004), Commonwealth (Stock, 2012), plus tard suivis par Assembly (Oxford University Press, 2017, non traduit), dans laquelle, contre la tradition du socialisme « scientifique » et sa problématique de la transition, se construit la thèse aux accents franciscains et lucrétiens d’un communisme de l’amour. Celui-ci est déjà là, non pas dans les « pores » de la société capitaliste, comme l’avait écrit Marx repris par Althusser, mais dans les résistances créatrices à la propriété exclusive et à l’état de guerre généralisé du capitalisme mondialisé. Il s’incarne dans des révoltes et des expérimentations toujours renaissantes, avec les nouveaux « communs » qu’elles font exister.

    Toujours, donc, ce fameux optimisme de l’intelligence, dont on comprend maintenant qu’il n’a rien à voir avec l’illusion d’un sens garanti de l’histoire, mais conditionne l’articulation productive entre connaissance et imagination, les « deux sources » de la politique. Toni Negri nous lègue aujourd’hui la force de son désir et de ses concepts. Sans oublier son sourire.

    Merci, Étienne Balibar

    (et du coup, #toctoc @rezo )

    d’autres fragments d’un tombeau pour Toni Negri
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1032212

    #Toni_Negri #Étienne_Balibar #opéraïsme #forme_État #révolution #autonomie #double_pouvoir #État #mouvement #general_intellect #travail_vivant #communisme

    • Antonio Negri, lecteur de Spinoza Pour une « désutopie », Christian Descamps, 28 janvier 1983
      https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1983/01/28/antonio-negri-lecteur-de-spinoza-pour-une-desutopie_3078936_1819218.html

      Parlons aujourd’hui de l’homme, « la plus calamiteuse et frêle de toutes les créatures », disait Montaigne, et aussi « la plus orgueilleuse ».D’un livre de Francis Jacques, Christian Delacampagne retient cette idée fondamentale que la personne ne peut se constituer que par le dialogue avec l’Autre. Déjà Spinoza, comme le montre Christian Descamps à propos d’un ouvrage d’Antonio Negri, ne concevait le bonheur que s’articulant à celui des autres. Tandis que Patrice Leclercq résume le cheminement de l’attitude inverse : cet orgueil que le Christ a voulu abolir et qui continue d’exercer partout ses ravages.

      « SPINOZA est tellement crucial pour la philosophie moderne qu’on peut dire qu’on a le choix entre le spinozisme ou pas de philosophie du tout. » Que Hegel, qui ne l’aime guère, soit amené à ce constat, bouleverse Toni Negri. Ce professeur de Padoue, théoricien de l’autonomie ouvrière, avait écrit un Descartes politique. Le présent ouvrage est d’une autre nature. Il fut conçu en prison d’où - depuis 1979 - son auteur attend d’être jugé en compagnie des inculpés du « procès du 7 avril ». Mais ce grand livre érudit n’est aucunement une œuvre de circonstance, même si on peut supposer que la force, la joie spinozistes ont réconforté le prisonnier.

      La Hollande du dix-septième siècle, cette Italie du Nord, est un pays en rupture qui perpétue les expériences révolutionnaires de la Renaissance. Là, #Spinoza, l’exclu de sa communauté, réalise un véritable coup de force ontologique : il joue la puissance contre le pouvoir. S’invente alors une philosophie de la plénitude, de la multiplicité, de la liberté qui, sans partir de la réduction des appétits, parie sur l’épanouissement. Le penseur artisan - qui refuse les pensions - réfléchit dans un temps de crise. La Maison d’Orange prône une politique guerrière, un État centralisé ; le parti républicain, qu’anime Jean De Witt, préférerait une politique de paix, une organisation libérale. Pourtant l’intolérance, le bellicisme, l’amour de la servitude, sont vivaces ; et quand notre philosophe hautain et solitaire clame, au nom de la raison, son entreprise de démystification, le tollé est général. Jamais - sauf peut-être contre les Épicuriens - la hargne ne fut aussi forte. Le front est au complet : orthodoxes juifs, protestants, catholiques, cartésiens, tous participent au concours d’anathème.

      Negri interroge cette unanimité. Savante et tranchée, la métaphysique spinoziste avait osé articuler -comme le souligne Deleuze à qui l’auteur doit beaucoup (1), - une libération concrète, une politique de la multitude, une pensée sans ordre antérieur à l’agir. Spinoza proposait de rompre avec la vieille idée de l’appropriation liée à la médiation d’un pouvoir. Dans ses ateliers nomades, le philosophe du « Dieu ou la Nature » élabore une conception de la puissance de l’Être.Mine de rien, ses bombes douces font exploser la transcendance, la hiérarchie. A un horizon de pensée centré sur le marché, aux philosophies politiques du pouvoir et de la suggestion, l’auteur de l’Éthique oppose, méticuleusement, des concepts qui rendent possible une existence consciente du collectif. Mon bonheur, mon entendement, mes désirs, peuvent - si j’ai de la nature une connaissance suffisante - s’articuler à ceux des autres. La guerre de tous contre tous n’est pas inéluctable, j’ai mieux à faire qu’à devenir un loup...

      De fait si l’Être est puissance, je suis capable d’y puiser la force d’échapper à la médiation politique de ceux qui parlent à ma place, à la conscience malheureuse des arrière-mondes, aux sanglots du négatif. Partir de la puissance de la vie, réconcilier passion et raison, c’est militer contre la haine et le remords. Pratique, cette métaphysique se fait aussi politique. Le Tractatus theologico-politicus insiste sur l’activité.

      Certes - et honnêtement Negri le souligne, - il arrive que Spinoza se replie. Devant les coups de boutoir de l’histoire concrète il accepte - un moment - des positions oligarchiques... Ici l’auteur reprend l’hypothèse de deux Spinoza dont il fait les axes de notre univers. Le premier, baigné de la lumière de Rembrandt, se meut au sein de la révolution scientifique, de la Renaissance, du génie de son temps. L’autre propose une philosophie de notre avenir, de notre crise. Car de « démon » qui ferraille contre le fanatisme et la superstition, contre les asiles d’ignorance, s’appuie sur le désir, cet « appétit conscient de lui-même ». Avec des lunettes d’analyste aussi bien rangées que ses instruments, il enseigne la désutopie. Pas de programme, de glande pinéale : un projet de déplacement mille fois plus fort. Sortir de l’ignorance, jouer l’Être contre le moralisme de devoir être, ce n’est pas rêver d’âge d’or. Il s’agit, au contraire, de s’appuyer effectivement sur les désirs, les appétits. Difficile 7 Oui, car « nous ne pouvons reconnaître aucune différence entre les désirs qui proviennent de la raison et ceux que d’autres causes engendrent en nous ».

      Pourtant la violence immédiate peut s’éclairer d’un ordre, fait de degrés successifs de perfection, tissé dans l’Être. Une liberté joyeuse est possible qui tire sa force du droit et non pas de la loi, de la puissance et non pas du pouvoir. Aux figures de l’antagonisme, aux réconciliations molles de la dialectique, on peut opposer l’autonomie, la constitution de l’être ensemble. La puissance est possibilité de liberté, d’expansion des corps, recherche de la meilleure constitution. Question d’aujourd’hui, d’un dix-septième siècle encore vivant. Negri souligne : « Spinoza n’annonce pas la philosophie des Lumières, il la vit et la déploie intégralement. »

      –------------------------
      (1) L’Anomalie sauvage est précédée de préfaces de Gilles Deleuze, Pierre Macherey et Alexandre Matheron.

      * L’Anomalie sauvage, d’Antonio Negri. PUF, 350 pages, 145 F.

      [cette typo sans relief est celle du journal]

      #philosophie #politique #passion #raison #puissance #pouvoir #droit #loi

  • When the Coast Guard Intercepts Unaccompanied Kids

    A Haitian boy arrived on Florida’s maritime border. His next five days detained at sea illuminate the crisis facing children traveling to the U.S. alone and the crews forced to send them back.

    Tcherry’s mother could see that her 10-year-old son was not being taken care of. When he appeared on their video calls, his clothes were dirty. She asked who in the house was washing his shirts, the white Nike T-shirt and the yellow one with a handprint that he wore in rotation. He said nobody was, but he had tried his best to wash them by hand in the tub. His hair, which was buzzed short when he lived with his grandmother in Haiti, had now grown long and matted. He had already been thin, but by January, after three months in the smuggler’s house, he was beginning to look gaunt. Tcherry told his mother that there was not enough food. He said he felt “empty inside.”

    More strangers, most of them Haitian like Tcherry, continued to arrive at the house in the Bahamas on their way to the United States. One day police officers came with guns, and Tcherry hid in a corner; they left when a man gave them money. The next time he and his mother talked, Tcherry lowered his bright, wide-set eyes and spoke to her in a quieter voice. “It was like he was hiding,” his mother, Stephania LaFortune, says. “He was scared.” Tcherry told her he didn’t want to spend another night on the thin mattress in the front room with scuffed pink walls. She assured him it would be over soon. A boat would take him to Florida, and then he would join her in Canada, where she was applying for asylum. LaFortune texted Tcherry photos of the city where she lived. The leaves had turned brown and fallen from the trees. Still, she was there, and that’s where Tcherry wanted to be. He waited another week, then two, then three.

    Tcherry didn’t laugh or play for months on end, until one day in February, when two sisters, both Haitian citizens, were delivered to the house. One was a 4-year-old named Beana. She wore a pink shirt and cried a lot. The other, Claire, was 8. She had a round face and a burn on her hand; she said that at the last house they’d stayed in, a girl threw hot oil on her. Claire did everything for her sister, helping her eat, bathe and use the bathroom. Like Tcherry, the girls were traveling to join their mother, who was working at a Michigan auto plant on a temporary legal status that did not allow her to bring her children from abroad. Their clothes were as dirty as his. Sometimes Tcherry and Claire watched videos on his phone. They talked about their mothers. “I am thinking about you,” Tcherry said in a message to his mother in early February. “It has been a long time.”

    Finally, nearly four months after Tcherry arrived at the house, one of the men in charge of the smuggling operation woke him and the two girls early in the morning. “He told us to get ready,” Tcherry recalls. With nothing but the clothes they wore, no breakfast or ID, they were loaded into a van and were dropped off at a trash-lined canal just outside Freeport, Bahamas. In the muck and garbage, more than 50 people stood waiting as a boat motored toward them. “Not a good boat,” Tcherry told me, “a raggedy boat.” But nobody complained. The 40-foot vessel tilted from the weight as people climbed aboard and pushed into the two dank cabins, sitting shoulder to shoulder or standing because there was no more space. Tcherry felt the boat speeding up, taking them out to sea.

    For almost 12 hours they traveled west, packed together in cabins that now smelled of vomit and urine. In the lower cabin, a baby was crying incessantly. A heavily pregnant woman offered up the last of her package of cookies to the child’s mother to help soothe the infant. Tcherry was thirsty and exhausted. Not far from him, he heard a woman say that the children’s parents must be wicked for sending them alone into the sea.

    The passengers had been promised they would reach U.S. shores hours earlier. People were starting to panic, sure that they were lost, when passengers sitting near the windows saw lights, at first flickering and then bright — the lights of cars and buildings. “That is Florida,” a young man said as the boat sped toward shore. Tcherry pulled on his sneakers. “If I make it,” he thought, “I will spend Christmas with my family.”

    But as quickly as the lights of Florida came into view, police lights burst upon them. A siren wailed. People screamed, a helicopter circled overhead and an officer on a sheriff’s boat pointed a long gun toward them. Uniformed men climbed on board, yelled orders and handed out life jackets. The group of 54 people was transferred to a small Coast Guard cutter. As the sun rose over Florida just beyond them, a man with a tattoo on his arm of a hand making the sign of the benediction began recording a video on his phone. “As you can see, we are in Miami,” he said. “As you can see, we are on a boat with a bunch of small children.” He intended to send the video to relatives waiting for him on land, and he urged them to contact lawyers. But his phone was confiscated, and the video was never sent.

    The Coast Guard frames its operations in the sea as lifesaving work: Crews rescue people from boats at risk of capsizing and pull them from the water. But the agency, which is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, also operates as a maritime border patrol, its ships as floating holding facilities. Since the summer of 2021, the Coast Guard has detained more than 27,000 people, a number larger than in any similar period in nearly three decades. On a single day in January, the agency’s fleet of ships off the Florida coast collectively held more than 1,000 people. The public has no way of knowing what happens on board. Unlike at the U.S.-Mexico border, which is closely monitored by advocates, the courts and the press, immigration enforcement at sea takes place out of public view.

    The Coast Guard routinely denies journalists’ requests to witness immigration patrols, but in early March, I learned that several days earlier, a boat carrying dozens of Haitians had been stopped so close to land that they were first chased down by the Palm Beach County sheriff’s marine unit. Among them were three unaccompanied children: two young sisters and a 10-year-old boy. In the months afterward, I obtained a trove of internal Coast Guard documents, including emails and a database of the agency’s immigration interdictions, and I tracked down Tcherry, Claire and Beana and 18 people traveling with them. Many of them told me about the five days they spent detained on Coast Guard ships — an experience, one man said, “that will remain a scar in each person’s mind.”

    People intercepted at sea, even in U.S. waters, have fewer rights than those who come by land. “Asylum does not apply at sea,” a Coast Guard spokesperson told me. Even people who are fleeing violence, rape and death, who on land would be likely to pass an initial asylum screening, are routinely sent back to the countries they’ve fled. To try to get through, people held on Coast Guard ships have occasionally taken to harming themselves — swallowing sharp objects, stabbing themselves with smuggled knives — in the hope that they’ll be rushed to emergency rooms on land where they can try to claim asylum.

    The restrictions, combined with the nearly 30-year spike in maritime migration, created a crisis for the Coast Guard too, leading to what one senior Coast Guard official described in an internal email in February as “war-fighting levels of stress and fatigue.” Coast Guard crew members described to me their distress at having to reject desperate person after desperate person, but the worst part of the job, several said, was turning away the children who were traveling alone. From July 2021 to September 2023, the number of children without parents or guardians held by the Coast Guard spiked, a nearly tenfold increase over the prior two years. Most of them were Haitian. “The hardest ones for me are the unaccompanied minors,” one crew member told me. “They’re put on this boat to try to come to America, and they have no one.”

    The treatment of children is perhaps the starkest difference between immigration policy on land and at sea. At land borders, unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada cannot simply be turned back. They are assigned government caseworkers and are often placed in shelters, then with family members, on track to gain legal status. That system has its own serious failings, but the principle is that children must be protected. Not so at sea. U.S. courts have not determined what protections should extend to minors held on U.S. ships, even those detained well within U.S. waters. The Coast Guard says that its crew members screen children to identify “human-trafficking indicators and protection concerns including fear of return.” A spokesperson told me that “migrants who indicate a fear of return receive further screening” by Homeland Security officials.

    But of the almost 500 unaccompanied children held on the agency’s cutters in the Caribbean and the Straits of Florida between July 2021 and early September 2023, five were allowed into the U.S. because federal agencies believed they would face persecution at home, even amid escalating violence in Haiti, including the documented murder and rape of children. One other child was medically evacuated to a hospital in Florida, and six were brought to land for reasons that the internal Coast Guard records do not explain. The rest were delivered back to the countries they left, and it’s often unclear where they go once they return. Some have nowhere to stay and no one to take care of them. On occasion, they are so young that they don’t know the names of their parents or the country where they were born. One official from an agency involved in processing people delivered by the U.S. Coast Guard to Haiti told me “it is an open secret” that the process can be dangerously inconsistent. “Children leave the port,” the official said, “and what happens to them after they leave, no one knows.”

    Stephania LaFortune had not wanted to send her 10-year-old son on a boat by himself. She knew firsthand how perilous the journey could be. In May 2021, before the boat she had boarded made it to a Florida beach, some of the passengers jumped into the water to wade through the heavy waves. “They almost drowned,” she told me when I met her in Toronto. LaFortune waited on the beached vessel until U.S. Border Patrol officials came to detain her. In detention, she claimed asylum and was soon released. For months, she searched for other ways to bring Tcherry to her, but LaFortune ultimately determined she had no alternative.

    The first time LaFortune left Tcherry, he was 3 years old. Her husband, a police cadet, had been shot in his uniform and left to die in a ditch outside Port-au-Prince, and LaFortune, fearing for her life, departed for the Bahamas. Tcherry stayed behind with his grandmother. Four years later, as violence began to flare again, Tcherry’s mother finally made good on her promise to send for him. She arranged for him to fly to the Bahamas, where she had remarried and had a baby girl. But Tcherry was in the Bahamas not even a year when LaFortune told him that she would be leaving again — not because she wanted to, she assured her sobbing son, but because she had seen how Haitians were harassed and deported, and she simply didn’t believe there was real opportunity there. Tcherry’s stepfather and his younger half sister, who were Bahamian citizens, joined LaFortune months later. She arranged for Tcherry to live with relatives, promising to send for him as soon as she could.

    LaFortune’s asylum case in Florida dragged on, so she and her husband and daughter traveled over land to Canada, where they hoped they could get legal status more quickly. While they waited for a decision in their asylum case, the relative Tcherry was staying with said he could no longer take care of a growing boy by himself. After begging others to take her son, LaFortune found a woman she knew back in Haiti who said she was planning to make the trip to Florida herself with her own children. For $3,000, the woman said, she could take Tcherry with them. LaFortune sent the money. The woman took Tcherry to the smuggler’s house and did not return for him.

    That house, and the one where Tcherry was moved next, were filled with Haitians fleeing the crisis that began in July 2021, when President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated by a team of mostly Colombian mercenaries hired through a Miami-area security company. The U.S. Justice Department has accused nearly a dozen people, some based in the United States, of setting the assassination in motion. As the Haitian state crumbled, proliferating gangs, many with ties to the country’s political elite, burst from the neighborhoods they’d long controlled and began terrorizing Port-au-Prince and swaths of the rest of the country. Kidnapping, extortion, the rape of women and children, and the torching of homes and neighborhoods became routine weapons of fear. Thousands have been murdered, and in June the United Nations estimated that nearly 200,000 have been internally displaced. Haitians able to gather the resources have left however they can. Many have traveled over land to the Dominican Republic or by air to South and Central America. And thousands have boarded boats bound for the beaches of Florida.

    The people on the vessel with Tcherry had reasons, each as urgent as the next, for being there. There was a 31-year-old street vendor whose Port-au-Prince neighborhood had been taken over by gangs; she said that when she tried to flee north by bus, men with guns forced her and other women off the bus and raped them. A man from a district in the north said he’d been beaten more than once by thugs sent by a political boss he’d opposed; both times they threatened to kill him. A man who worked as a Vodou priest in Port-au-Prince said he left because he needed money for his sick daughter, and gangs were confiscating his wages. The pregnant woman who helped comfort the crying baby said she had been kidnapped and raped; she was released only after her family sold land and collected donations to pay for her ransom. Two women were traveling with their daughters, but Tcherry, Claire and Beana were the only young children traveling alone.

    Tcherry sat on the deck of a Coast Guard cutter called the Manowar along with the rest of the group, exhausted, scared and confused. Nobody had explained to him what would happen next. Crew members in blue uniforms finally gave them food, small plates of rice and beans, and began to search their belongings and run their photos and fingerprints through federal immigration and criminal databases. Tcherry and the sisters followed the orders of a crew member with blond hair, cut like the soldiers in movies Tcherry had seen, to sit in the shaded spot under the stairs to the bridge.

    On the stern of the cutter, a man in his early 30s named Peterson sat watching the children. He had crossed paths with them weeks earlier in one of the houses; seeing they were hungry, he had brought them extra slices of bread and even cut Tcherry’s hair. Claire reminded him of his own young daughter in Haiti. Peterson had not wanted to leave his child, but gangs had recently taken control of roadways not far from his home in the coastal city of Saint-Marc. He had not earned a decent wage for many months, not since he lost his job as a driver at a missionary organization. He had decided to leave for the United States so he could send money back to Haiti for his daughter, who remained behind with her mother.

    Now it occurred to Peterson that his connection to Tcherry and the girls could work to his advantage. Surely the Coast Guard wouldn’t return children to Haiti, he thought. Surely they wouldn’t separate a family. “I thought that there might be an opportunity for me to get to the U.S.,” he told me. He approached Tcherry, Claire and Beana and told them they should tell the crew he was their uncle.

    Peterson’s small kindness in the smuggler’s house had given Tcherry reason to trust him. When it came time for the blond-haired crew member, Petty Officer Timothy James, to interview the children, Peterson stood close behind. With the help of another Haitian man who spoke some English, Peterson told James that he was their uncle. James asked the children if it was true. Tcherry and Claire, both timid, their eyes lowered, said it was. Beana was too young to understand. James handed her a brown teddy bear, which the crew of the Manowar keeps on board because of the growing number of children they detain, and sent the children back to the stern.

    But no more than a couple of hours later, Peterson changed his mind. He’d noticed that the pregnant woman had been evaluated by Florida EMTs, and he moved over to offer her a deal: If she would tell the crew he was her husband and let him join her if they brought her to land, his brother in Florida, who already paid $6,000 for his place on this boat, would make sure she was compensated. “I helped her understand that that is something she could profit from,” he says. The woman agreed, and Peterson, who now needed to tell the truth about the children, divulged to a crew member that he was not their uncle. “I was just trying to help if I could,” he said.

    James crouched down beside the children again and told them not to lie. “Why did you leave your home to go to the United States,” he read off a questionnaire. “To go to my parents,” Tcherry replied. To Tcherry, the questions seemed like a good sign. He was unsure whether he could trust these crew members after the officer on the sheriff boat pointed a long gun at them the night before. “I thought they were going to shoot me,” Tcherry says. But James calmly directed the children to sit in the one shaded place on the boat, and gave them cookies and slices of apple. “He was nice,” Tcherry says — the nicest anyone had been since Peterson brought them bread in the house.

    James kept reading the form. “What will happen when you get there?” he asked. Tcherry looked up. He latched onto the words “when you get there” and took them as a promise. He asked James when they would be on land. James said the same thing he told everyone on the boat: that the decision was not up to him, that he was just doing his job. Tcherry was convinced James would send him and Claire and Beana to their mothers. He thought of the story his mother had told him about his father’s murder, his body in a ditch by the road, and of his last memory of Haiti, when he passed through a gang checkpoint on the way to the airport. “I saw bandits approaching toward us, and he had a gun pulled,” Tcherry told me. “My heart started beating fast, and I thought he was going to shoot.” He was overwhelmed with relief that he would never have to go back there.

    A boat came to bring someone to land. But it was not there to pick up Tcherry or the other children. A Coast Guard medical officer had reviewed the pregnant woman’s vitals and made a decision that because she “may go into labor at any moment,” she would be brought to a hospital in Palm Beach County accompanied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Before she was taken away, Peterson said the woman told him she would not claim to be married to him after all. She didn’t want a stranger on her baby’s birth certificate. She offered to say she was his cousin. “I knew that being the cousin would not be enough,” Peterson recalls, “and I have to say that I lost hope.”

    The pregnant woman disappeared on a small boat toward land. Those left on the stern began to talk among themselves, asking why the baby, who had barely stopped crying, and the other children had been left aboard the cutter. They said they could not keep going like this, eating only small portions of scarcely cooked and saltless rice and beans, unable to bathe and forced to urinate and defecate in a toilet seat attached to a metal box with a tube off the side of the open deck. They decided they would rise in unison and protest, and they passed the word from one to the next. At around 9 p.m., dozens of people began to yell toward the bridge demanding interpreters, lawyers or just to know what would become of them. From the bow where he stood, James heard faint yelling, and then the voice of the officer in charge over the loudspeaker. “They’re starting an uprising on the fantail,” he said. “I need you back there.”

    Timothy James came from a conservative family in a conservative little town in the mountains of North Carolina. He and his wife held handguns aloft in their wedding photos, and his first job after dropping out of college was as a sheriff’s deputy at the jail. James joined the Coast Guard in 2015. “My main goal,” he told me, “was to chase down drug runners and catch migrants” — two groups that were more or less the same, as far as he understood.

    He’d been on the job no more than a few weeks before his expectations were upended. “I had no idea what I was talking about,” he told me. There was much less “running and gunning, catching bad guys” than he’d anticipated. Instead, the people he detained would tell him their stories, sometimes with the help of Google Translate on his phone, about violence and deprivation like he had never contemplated. People described what it was like to live on $12 a month. There were children and grandmothers who could have been his own, and young men not so unlike him. They were not trying to infiltrate the country as he’d thought. They were running because “they didn’t have another option,” he says.

    James and his colleagues learned the lengths people would go to try to get to land. Since last fall, people detained on cutters have pulled jagged metal cotter pins, bolts and screws from the rigging and swallowed them, apparently trying to cause such severe injury that they’d be taken to a hospital. Last August, near the Florida Keys, three Cuban men were reported to the Coast Guard by a passing towboat operator; most likely fearing they would be brought back to Cuba, they stabbed and slashed their legs with blades and were found in puddles of blood. In January, a man plunged a five-inch buck-style knife that he’d carried onto a cutter into the side of his torso and slashed it down his rib cage. The crew taped the knife to the wound to stop him from bleeding out as he fell unconscious. Most of these people were delivered to Customs and Border Protection and rushed to hospitals on land, where they probably intended to claim asylum. By the time James began working as operations officer on the Manowar last summer, he and other crew members started every leg at sea by scouring the decks for anything that people might use to harm themselves. (According to a DHS spokesperson, “medical evacuations do not mean that migrants have a greater chance of remaining in the United States.”)

    People detained on cutters have in rare cases threatened to harm Coast Guard members or others they’re traveling with. In January, a group the Coast Guard detained pushed crew members and locked arms to stop their removal to another cutter, according to an internal record. That same month, a group of Haitians held children over the side of a boat, “threatening to throw them overboard and set them on fire” if the Coast Guard came closer. Weeks later, a group of Cubans brandished poles with nails hammered into them and tried to attack an approaching Coast Guard boat. Conflicts between crew and those they detain have escalated to the point that Coast Guard members have shot people with pepper balls and subdued others with stun maneuvers.

    James tensed as he heard the order over the loudspeaker. He thought of the crowd-control techniques he’d learned to immobilize someone, and stepped down the side walkway toward the stern. In front of him were dozens of angry men and a few women, yelling in Haitian Creole. James hesitated and then walked forcefully up to the group, his hands pulled into his sides as if he were ready to throw a punch. Instead, he took a knee. He gestured to the men around him to come join him. He spoke into a cellphone in English, and on the screen he showed them the Google Translate app: “You’ve got to tell everybody to calm down,” it read in Creole. “I can’t help you if I don’t know what’s going on.”

    Before they could respond, five other crew members came down the stairs, plastic zip ties and batons hanging from their belts. Tcherry was sitting under the stairs, beside Claire and Beana, who had not let go of the teddy bear. “Shut up, shut up,” one of the crew told the protesters as he stepped in front of Tcherry. “One of them said he was going to pepper-spray their eyes and handcuff them,” Tcherry says. James told his colleagues to wait. The yelling in English and Creole grew louder. A man to Tcherry’s left began to scream and roll on the ground, and then he rolled partway under the handrail. A crew member grabbed the man by the back of the pants and hauled him up. James secured his wrist to a post on the deck. “Nobody’s dying on my boat today,” James said.

    Above Tcherry, another crew member stepped onto the landing at the top of the stairs. He held a shotgun and cocked it. James claims that the gun was not loaded, but the threat of violence had its intended effect. The protesters stepped back and went quiet.

    James kept speaking into the phone. “What do you want?” he asked the men.

    “If we go back, we’re dead,” one man replied. They said they could not endure being on the boat much longer.

    “If it were up to me, we’d be taking you to land,” James said. “But it is not up to us.” There was a process to seek protection, he told them. “But what you’re doing now is not that process.”

    Coast Guard crews do not decide who will be offered protection and who will be sent back. Their responsibility is only to document what the agency calls “manifestation of fear” (MOF) claims. The Coast Guard instructs them to make note of such claims only when people proactively assert them or when they observe people exhibiting signs of fear, such as shaking or crying. They are not supposed to ask. That may help explain why the agency has logged only 1,900 claims from more than 27,000 people detained in this region between July 2021 and September 2023. Fewer than 300 of those came from Haitians, even though they make up about a third of people held on cutters. Officials in the Coast Guard and in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told me that Haitians face a systemic disadvantage in making a successful claim for protection: Almost no one working on Coast Guard boats can speak or understand Creole. (The Coast Guard told me it has access to contracted Creole interpreters aboard cutters.)

    Regardless of the person’s nationality, the process is nearly always a dead end. Each person who makes a claim for protection is supposed to be referred to a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officer, who conducts a “credible fear” screening by phone or in person on a cutter. Between July 2021 and early September 2023, USCIS approved about 60 of the approximately 1,900 claims — around 3%. By contrast, about 60% of asylum applicants on land passed a credible-fear screening over roughly the same period. Unlike on land, people who are denied on ships have no access to courts or lawyers to appeal the decision. And the few who are approved are not sent to the United States at all. Should they choose to proceed with their claims, they are delivered to an immigration holding facility at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, where they are evaluated again. They’re told they should be prepared to wait for two years or more, until another country agrees to take them as refugees. Only 36 of the people with approved claims agreed to be sent to Guantánamo. The State Department says there are currently no unaccompanied minors held at the Migrant Operations Center at Guantánamo, but a recent federal contract document says that the facility is prepared to accept them.

    The Manowar crew had been tasked by the local Coast Guard office with logging any requests for protection. But the night after the protest had been too chaotic and exhausting for them to do so. In the morning, a larger cutter with more supplies arrived. The people detained on the Manowar would be transferred to that boat. Before they departed, James told them that anyone who intended to seek protection should seek help from the crew on the next boat. “Tell them, ‘I’m in fear for my life,’ just like you told me,” he said. “You tell whoever is processing you that specific thing.”

    But subsequent crews logged no such claims, according to records I obtained. One man told me that, in response to his plea for protection, an officer on the next boat wrote a note on a piece of paper, but nobody ever followed up. Another said that an officer told him their claims would be heard later. But there were no more interviews. “We had no opportunity,” a woman in the group says. When I asked the Coast Guard about this, a spokesperson told me the agency meticulously documents all claims. “Since we do not have a record of any of those migrants communicating that they feared for their lives if returned to Haiti, I cannot say that they made MOF claims while aboard,” he said.

    Tcherry fell asleep on the larger cutter and woke at around dawn to commotion. He saw an EMT pressing on the chest of a middle-aged woman who lay several yards away from him. She had been moaning in pain the night before. The crew member keeping watch had found her dead, her nose and mouth covered in blood. Another Haitian woman began to sing a hymn as the EMT performing CPR cried. A small boat took the woman’s body away and then returned for another man who had been complaining of pain and could not urinate. “I thought they would take us to land after the woman had died,” Tcherry says. “I thought they would let us go.” But that afternoon, he was transferred to yet another cutter that pulled away from Florida and into the high seas. Tcherry finally understood he was being sent back.

    The Coast Guard was first deployed as a maritime border-patrol agency to stop an earlier surge of migration from Haiti. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan made a deal with Jean-Claude Duvalier, the Haitian dictator, that allowed the Coast Guard to stop and board Haitian boats and deliver those detained directly back to Haiti. They would be processed on Coast Guard cutters, far from lawyers who could review their cases. The order, advocates argued at the time, undermined U.N. refugee protections and a U.S. refugee-and-asylum law that Congress passed just the year before. “This effort to push borders into the world’s oceans was new, and it marked a perverse paradigm shift,” Jeffrey Kahn, a legal scholar at the University of California, Davis, wrote recently.

    A decade after the Reagan agreement, as Haitians again departed en masse following a military coup, the George H.W. Bush administration further buttressed the sea wall. Bush signed an order that said federal agencies had no obligation to consider asylum claims from Haitians caught in international waters, no matter the evidence of danger or persecution. Lawyers and activists protested, calling the maritime regime a wholesale abdication of human rights doctrine. But the Bush order still stands. By the mid-1990s, its reach expanded to nearly anyone of any nationality caught in the sea, whether out in international waters or a couple of hundred feet from the beach.

    Pushing migrants and refugees away from the land borders to avoid obligations under law has now become common practice. In the United States, consecutive policies under Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden have attempted to cast whole swaths of the land south of the border as a legal no-man’s land like the ocean. They have outsourced deterrence, detention and deportation to Mexico and Central America. Trump and Biden have sought to bar people from seeking asylum if they don’t first try to apply for protection in countries they pass through on their way to the United States. Europe, for its part, has pushed people coming by boat through the Mediterranean back to North African shores, where countries have imposed brutal regimes of deterrence.

    None of those measures have prevented the latest wave of migration from the Caribbean. In January, amid a generational spike in Haitians and Cubans held on their cutters, the Coast Guard acknowledged that crew members were reaching a breaking point. “We are in extremis,” a senior official wrote to colleagues in a widely circulated internal email in January. “I know you and your teams are pushed beyond limits.” The head of the Coast Guard for the eastern half of the United States, Vice Adm. Kevin Lunday, wrote in February to colleagues that two outside experts had told him their crews were under extreme stress similar to the levels experienced in “sustained combat operations.”

    Coast Guard members told me they had become accustomed to retrieving corpses from capsized boats, worn down by water or gnawed on by sharks. It was not uncommon to walk down a stairway or into a bunk room and come upon a crew member sobbing. Crew members waited months for mental health appointments, and the agency was talking openly about suicide prevention. “I don’t see how the current level of operations is sustainable,” Capt. Chris Cederholm, the commander of U.S. Coast Guard Sector Miami, wrote to colleagues, “without the breaking of several of our people.” Some were struggling with what one former crew member called a “moral dilemma,” because they had begun to understand that the job required them to inflict suffering on others. “We hear their stories, people who say they’d rather we shoot them right here than send them back to what they’re running from,” one Coast Guard member says. “And then we send them all back.”

    Tim James told me he tried to take his mind off the job by lifting weights and frequenting a cigar bar where service members and cops go to talk about “the suck,” but he soon realized he needed more than weights or whiskey to reckon with the mounting stress, even despair. “I go home, and I feel guilty,” he told me, “because I don’t have to worry about somebody kicking in my front door, you know, I don’t have to worry about the military roaming the streets.” He sought mental health support from a new “resiliency support team” the agency created. But James had not been able to shake the memories of the children he detained, particularly one 7-year-old Haitian girl with small braids. She’d been wearing shorts and a tank top, her feet were bare and she smiled at James whenever their eyes caught. “My mom is dead,” she told James with the help of an older child who spoke a little English. “I want to go to my auntie in Miami.”

    In the girl’s belongings the crew found a piece of paper with a phone number she said was her aunt’s. After James interviewed her, they sent her unaccompanied-minor questionnaire to the district office in Florida, and they waited for instructions on what to do with her. Out on the deck, James couldn’t help hoping she’d be taken to shore, to her aunt. But late in the morning the next day, the crew received a list from an office in Washington, D.C., of the people to be sent back. The girl was on the list. James cried on the return trip to port. One of his own daughters was about the girl’s age. “I can’t imagine sending my 7-year-old little kid across an ocean that is unforgiving,” James told me, nearly in tears. “I can’t imagine what my life would be like to have to do that.”

    That was just weeks before he encountered Tcherry, Claire and Beana. So when Peterson admitted the children were alone, the news came as a blow. “It’s a pretty hard hit when you think the kids have somebody and then it turns out that they really don’t,” James told me. He could see that Tcherry thought he would be making it to shore. “To see the hope on his face and then have to kind of turn around and destroy that is tough,” James told me. He never learns what becomes of the people he transfers off his cutter: that the pregnant woman gave birth in a hospital to a healthy boy and has an asylum case pending; that the body of Guerline Tulus, the woman who died on the cutter of what the medical examiner concluded was an embolism, remains in a Miami morgue, and that authorities have not identified any next of kin. He does not know what happened to the three children after they were sent back, but many months later, he says, he still wonders about them.

    Tcherry followed Claire and Beana up a rickety ramp in the port of Cap-Haïtien, Haiti, past a seized blue and yellow cargo ship into the Haitian Coast Guard station. The ground was littered with plastic U.S. Coast Guard bracelets that previous groups of people had pulled off and thrown to the ground. Officials from the Haitian child-protection authority and the U.N.’s International Organization for Migration watched as Tcherry and the rest of the group disembarked. “They looked scared and they said they were hungry,” a veteran official at IBESR, the Haitian child-protection agency, who was working at the port that day told me. “As a Haitian, I feel humiliated,” he says, “but we can’t really do anything about it. We’ve resigned ourselves.” To him, the people the Americans offloaded in Haiti always looked half dead. “It seems to me that when those children fall in their hands, they should know how to treat them. But that’s not the case.”

    Tcherry’s throat hurt and his legs were weak. He had never felt such tiredness. He ate as much as he could from the warm plate of food the UN provided. Slumped over on a bench, he waited for his turn to use the shower in a white and blue wash shed on the edge of a fenced lot behind the Haitian Coast Guard station. The officials brought several people to a hospital and got to work figuring out what to do with the unaccompanied children.

    The U.S. Coast Guard and State Department say that the children they send back are transferred into the hands of local authorities responsible for the care of children. “When we have custodial protection of those children, we want to make sure that the necessary steps are taken,” Lt. Cmdr. John Beal, a Coast Guard spokesperson, told me, “to ensure that when we repatriate those migrants, they don’t end up in some nefarious actor’s custody or something.” But no U.S. agency would explain the actual precautions the U.S. government takes to keep children from ending up in the wrong hands, beyond initial screenings aboard cutters. Last year, the Coast Guard stopped tracking the “reception agency” in each country, because according to the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. government has set up rules establishing which agencies take these children and no longer needs to track them on a case-by-case basis.

    Haitian child-protection officials in Cap-Haïtien say their agency always finds relatives to take children, though sometimes after weeks or months. But the official with one of the other agencies involved in the processing of returned and deported Haitians at the Cap-Haïtien port said this claim is simply not true. The official said that children have departed the port with adults and with older children without any agency confirming they have an actual relationship or connection. “This is a serious concern in terms of trafficking,” the official told me. IBESR said those claims were unfounded. “According to the procedure, every child who leaves the port is accompanied by someone,” the IBESR official said, adding that when possible, the agency follows up with families to make sure children arrive safely. But the agency acknowledged there are limits to the support it can provide because of a lack of resources.
    Before they left the cutter, Peterson told Tcherry and the sisters that he would take care of them until they could contact their parents, who would figure out where they needed to go. Tcherry agreed. Peterson later told me he’d thought carefully about whether he wanted to get involved in the kids’ affairs once they were off the boat. He’d talked to other adults onboard, and they all agreed that someone needed to step up, that the Haitian government was surely not to be trusted. “If I didn’t do it,” Peterson says, “they would remain with the Haitian state, with all the risks that they could’ve faced, including kidnapping.”

    Peterson told the child-protection agency that he was the children’s guardian. The officials said they would need to contact the parents to confirm, so Peterson did the only thing he could think to do: He called the man who had been his conduit to the boat out of the Bahamas. The man sent him photos of the children’s IDs and put Peterson in touch with Claire and Beana’s mother, Inose Jean, in Michigan. She screamed and cried with relief upon learning her daughters were alive. Peterson explained that he’d taken care of the girls at sea and he asked her what to do with them. She said she would call back. Two hours later, she instructed Peterson to take the girls to her friend’s house in Cap-Haïtien.

    But Peterson still had no number for Tcherry’s mother. So he told the officials that Tcherry was Claire and Beana’s cousin, and that he’d gotten the image of Tcherry’s ID from Inose Jean. At dusk, Peterson walked with the three children through the metal gate of the Haitian Coast Guard station, at once incensed and relieved that he’d been allowed to take them. “The Haitian authorities didn’t talk to the children’s mothers,” Peterson says. “There was not enough evidence to actually prove I was who I was, or to prove a relationship.” They took a taxi to Jean’s friend’s house, and Claire, who recognized the woman from years earlier, rushed into her arms.

    The woman agreed to let Tcherry spend a night there. Peterson went to a cheap hotel with spotty electricity and a dirty pool. The man in the Bahamas finally sent Peterson Tcherry’s mother’s number. “I am the person who stood up to care for Tcherry on the boat,” Peterson told LaFortune. She collapsed onto the bed in her room, the only piece of furniture in the Toronto apartment she shared with her husband and her daughter. She had spent the last six days in a terrified daze, calling the people in the Bahamas she’d paid, begging for any news and fighting images in her mind of her son sinking into the sea. The next morning, after Tcherry woke, Peterson called LaFortune again. Tcherry looked weak and his voice was frail and hoarse. “When will I be with you, Mommy?” he asked.

    LaFortune did not for a moment consider trying to put Tcherry on another boat. She told him she would wait until she got asylum in Canada and send for him legally. But Haiti was even more dangerous for Tcherry than when he’d left. One man who was detained with Tcherry, whom I interviewed in Haiti two weeks after he returned there, said he feared he would be killed if he left Cap-Haïtien for his home in Port-au-Prince. After he ran through the roughly $50 the U.N. agency gave each of the returnees, which he used for a hotel, he did go back and was attacked on the street as he traveled to a hospital, he said, to get medicine for his daughter. He sent me photographs of gashes on his body. A second man sent me photos of a deep head wound that he suffered during an attack by the very armed men he had said he was running from. Another woman from the boat who told me she fled because she was raped says she is now “in hiding” in Port-au-Prince, living with relatives and her daughter, whom she does not allow to leave the house.

    Others on the boat have been luckier. In late 2022, the Department of Homeland Security started an unusually broad new legal-immigration program that now allows Haitians and Cubans, along with Venezuelans and Nicaraguans, to apply for two-year entry permits on humanitarian grounds from their countries, rather than traveling by land or sea first. The Department of Homeland Security says that since the program began, it has processed 30,000 people a month. More than 107,000 Haitians and 57,000 Cubans have been approved for entry, including a man who was detained with Tcherry. On Oct. 18, he stepped off a plane in Fort Lauderdale with a legal entry permit. He made it just under the wire, given the timing of his interdiction in February. In late April, DHS added a caveat to the new program: Anyone stopped at sea from then on would be ineligible to apply to the parole program. The Coast Guard says the new program and the accompanying restriction have caused the numbers of Cubans and Haitians departing on boats to fall back down to their pre-2021 level. “People have a safe and lawful alternative,” Beal, the Coast Guard’s spokesperson in Florida, told me, “so they don’t feel their only option is to take to the sea.”

    Tcherry rode a bus with Peterson over the mountains to Saint-Marc. In the stucco house on a quiet street where Peterson lived with his fiancée and her parents, Tcherry struggled to stop thinking about his experience at sea. “When I sleep, when I sit down, I want to cry,” Tcherry told me days after his arrival there. “They had us for five days. We couldn’t eat well, couldn’t sleep well. Couldn’t brush our teeth.” He thought of his body soaked from the sea spray, of the woman who died. Although Peterson assured him it was not true, Tcherry kept wondering if the officers had just thrown her body into the sea. “He is having nightmares about the boats,” Peterson told me a week after their arrival, “reliving the same moment again and again, and he starts crying.”

    LaFortune told Tcherry that she was arranging for him to travel to his grandmother in another part of the country. But it soon became clear to her that the roads were too dangerous, spotted with gang and vigilante checkpoints guarded often by men carrying AK-47s. Peterson told LaFortune that Tcherry could stay with him as long as she needed him to. But as the weeks turned to months, Tcherry felt that Peterson began to change. He said Peterson needed money, and he was asking Tcherry’s mother to send more and more. Peterson was frequently out of the house, working odd jobs, and often could not answer LaFortune’s calls. She grew worried. When she did talk to Tcherry, he was as quiet as he was in the smuggler’s house in the Bahamas.

    Two months passed. LaFortune’s asylum case was denied, and she and her husband appealed. Four more months passed. LaFortune’s husband heard news that gangs were closing in on Saint-Marc. LaFortune decided that they must move Tcherry, that it was time to risk the journey on the roads. In September, she sent an old family friend to collect him. They rode on a bus through a checkpoint where the driver paid a fee to a masked man. “I saw a man holding his gun,” Tcherry says. The man made a sign that they could pass.

    Tcherry arrived at a busy bus station in Port-au-Prince and looked for his grandmother. He saw her in a crowd and remembered her face, her high forehead and wide smile. “That is my grandma,” he said, again and again. His mutters turned to song. “That is my grandmother, tololo, tololo, that is my grandmother.” He sank into her arms. He held her hand as they boarded another bus and passed through another checkpoint, back to where he began.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/when-the-coast-guard-intercepts-unaccompanied-kids

    –—

    Reprise du #modèle_australien et son concept de l’#excision_territoriale :

    “People intercepted at sea, even in U.S. waters, have fewer rights than those who come by land. “Asylum does not apply at sea,” a Coast Guard spokesperson told me. Even people who are fleeing violence, rape and death, who on land would be likely to pass an initial asylum screening, are routinely sent back to the countries they’ve fled.”

    Excision territoriale :

    https://seenthis.net/messages/416996
    #Australie

    #droits #mer #terre #USA #Etats-Unis #asile #migrations #réfugiés #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés #enfants #enfance #Haïti #réfugiés_haïtiens

    via @freakonometrics

  • Au Texas, la Cour suprême suspend une autorisation d’avortement
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/12/09/au-texas-la-cour-supreme-suspend-une-autorisation-d-avortement_6204806_3210.


    Molly Duane, avocate du Center for Reproductive Rights, qui représente Kate Cox, devant le tribunal d’Austin, le 19 juillet, dans le cadre d’une précédente affaire. SUZANNE CORDEIRO / AFP

    La Cour suprême de cet Etat américain très conservateur a suspendu, vendredi, la décision d’une juge qui avait autorisé, la veille, une femme de 31 ans à la grossesse très risquée à bénéficier d’un avortement.

    Le Monde avec AP et AFP

    La Cour suprême de l’Etat américain conservateur du Texas a empêché, vendredi 8 décembre, une femme à la grossesse très risquée de bénéficier d’un avortement, ont rapporté des médias américains.

    Elle avait été saisie par le procureur général Ken Paxton en vue d’empêcher Kate Cox d’avoir recours à l’interruption volontaire de grossesse (IVG). Dans une ordonnance d’une page, le tribunal a annoncé qu’il suspendait temporairement la décision, sans se prononcer sur le fond.

    Jeudi, Maya Guerra Gamble, une juge du Texas, avait autorisé cette femme de 31 ans – dont la grossesse pourrait, selon son médecin, menacer sa vie et sa fertilité – à recourir à l’IVG ; une décision remarquable dans cet Etat qui interdit l’avortement sauf très rares exceptions, une des législations les plus strictes en la matière aux Etats-Unis.
    Lire aussi : Une juge du Texas autorise une femme à la grossesse très risquée à avorter

    Kate Cox, enceinte de vingt semaines lorsqu’elle a poursuivi le Texas pour obtenir le droit d’avorter, avait eu la confirmation que son fœtus était atteint de trisomie 18, une anomalie chromosomique associée à des malformations graves. Selon ses arguments, elle présente une très forte probabilité de fausse couche ou de mortinatalité et de faibles taux de survie. En outre, les médecins lui ont déclaré que si le rythme cardiaque du fœtus s’arrêtait, déclencher l’accouchement entraînerait un risque de rupture utérine en raison de ses deux césariennes antérieures, et qu’une autre césarienne mettrait en danger sa capacité à porter un autre enfant.

    « Sans tenir compte du fond, la cour suspend administrativement la décision du tribunal de district » qui permettait à Mme Cox d’avorter, explique le Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) qui représente la jeune femme devant la justice. Le CRR est un groupe de défense de droits tels que l’avortement, situé à New York et actif sur tout le territoire américain.

    Une plainte dans le Kentucky
    « Nous espérons toujours que la cour rejettera en fin de compte la demande de l’Etat et qu’elle le fera rapidement », explique Molly Duane, l’avocate principale du CRR. Elle craint que le report de la décision de justice soit synonyme de refus. Mme Cox a besoin de « soins médicaux urgents. C’est la raison pour laquelle les gens ne devraient pas avoir à supplier [d’obtenir] des soins médicaux devant un tribunal », a-t-elle déclaré.

    « La loi texane interdit les avortements volontaires », a déclaré, de son côté, le procureur général, un républicain ultraconservateur, qui avance que les arguments de Mme Cox ne répondent pas aux critères d’une exception médicale à l’interdiction de l’avortement dans l’Etat. Il a appelé la Cour suprême du Texas à « suspendre » la décision de la juge Guerra Gamble, affirmant qu’elle avait « abusé de son pouvoir » sans « aucune preuve ».

    Dans un communiqué assorti d’une lettre adressée à des établissements hospitaliers, M. Paxton avait mis en garde, jeudi, des hôpitaux du Texas que, malgré la décision de la juge qu’il qualifie de « militante », ils pourraient faire face à des conséquences juridiques s’ils autorisaient le médecin de Mme Cox à pratiquer l’avortement.

    A l’été 2022, la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis avait cassé son arrêt Roe vs Wade, qui garantissait depuis un demi-siècle le droit fédéral des Américaines à interrompre leur grossesse. Depuis, une vingtaine d’Etats ont interdit l’avortement ou l’ont très fortement restreint, comme le Texas, qui n’autorise les IVG qu’en cas de danger de mort ou de risque de grave handicap pour la mère.

    Vendredi, une femme enceinte du Kentucky, où l’IVG est aussi interdit, a également déposé une plainte exigeant le droit à l’avortement. Contrairement au procès de Mme Cox, cette plainte cherche à obtenir le statut de recours collectif pour inclure d’autres habitantes de l’Etat qui sont (ou vont devenir) enceintes et souhaitent avorter.

    #IVG #CRR #Cour_suprême_du_Texas

  • Un commentaire de lecteur approfondi sur la guerre en #Ukraine et la destruction du concept d’#Europe par les #États-Unis

    https://lostineu.eu/hoffnung-auf-europa-schwindet-orban-bei-macron-und-die-spur-des-geldes

    Il faut à mon avis rendre hommage aux Etats-Unis. Avec la guerre en Ukraine, qu’ils ont préparée stratégiquement depuis longtemps selon le scénario de Brezinski, ils voulaient à tout prix élargir l’écart entre la Russie et le cœur de l’Europe afin d’écarter toute concurrence imminente. Ils ont aujourd’hui atteint cet objectif de manière si complète et durable que, dorénavant, plus aucune herbe ne pourra pousser entre l’Europe, et en particulier l’#Allemagne, et la #Russie. …

    • der vollständige Kommentar:

      Man muss den USA hier m.E. Respekt zollen. Mit dem Ukrainekrieg, den sie von langer Hand strategisch nach dem Drehbuch von Brezinski vorbereitet haben, wollten sie den Abstand zwischen Russland und Kerneuropa wieder vergrößern, um sich drohende Konkurrenz vom Leibe zu halten. Sie haben diese Ziel Stand heute so umfassend und nachhaltig erreicht, dass bis auf weiteres kein Gras mehr zwischen Europa und insbesondere Deutschland und Russland wachsen kann.

      Um dieses Ergebnis zu erzielen haben die USA bisher nur überschaubare Mittel aufgeboten. Fünf Milliarden Euro zur Bewerkstelligung des Maidan (nach Auskunft von Frau Nuland), ein paar Ladungen abgängiger Waffensysteme ein ein paar zig Milliarden für den Krieg und die Stützung des Staates Ukraine. Ein Teil der Waffenlieferungen der USA dürfte nicht einmal unentgeltlich erfolgt sein, sonst hätte es keiner #Lend&Lease Beschlüsse in den USA bedurft.

      Auf dem weg sind die USA die verhassten #Nordstream Pipelines losgeworden. Nicht nur, dass sie dafür Sündenböcke parat haben. Sie haben sogar bewirkt, dass sich unter den Regierungen Europas nicht eine einzige findet, die die richtigen Fragen stellt und den Willen zur Aufklärung aufbringt.

      Jetzt ziehen sich die USA zum bestmöglichen Zeitpunkt zurück. der Konflikt ist aktuell kaum durch Verhandlungen auflösbar. Russland hat gewonnen und wird die Bedingungen diktieren können. Das Verhältnis Russlands zu Europa ist zerrüttet. Und die richtig großen Geldausgaben stehen erst noch vor der Tür, namentlich der Wiederaufbau und die Alimentierung der Ukraine und die Sicherung einer drastisch vergrößerten und extren gefährlich gewordenen Grenze nach Russland. All dies wird Europa zu bezahlen haben. Zuzüglich der Entgelte für die US-Waffenlieferungen (Lend&Lease).

      Das Glanzstück ist aber, dass die EU ernsthaft die Aufnahme der Ukraine anstrebt, während der #Nato Beitritt schon fast abmoderiert wurde. Dadurch wird es für #Europa unmöglich, sich diesem Fass ohne Boden zu entziehen und der Graben nach Russland wird noch einmal deutlich vertieft. Und die USA können ihr Spiel über die Nato weitertreiben, ohne dafür signifikant geradestehen zu müssen.

      #Putin hat schon verlautbart, dass er sich konstruktive Politik mit den USA womöglich nach dem Krieg noch vorstellen kann, mit Europa bis auf weiteres nicht. Von daher wird es schon wieder Geschäfts der #USA mit #Russland geben, während Europa mit schmutzigen #LNG aus den USA und teurer Energie seine Wettbewerbsfähigkeit verspielt hat und seine Industrie Richtung USA verliert.

      Ich habe in meinem inzwischen nicht ganz kurzen Leben noch niemals gesehen, wie man seinen Karren mit soviel Zielstrebigkeit und Vehemenz strategisch gegen die Wand und gleichzeitig tief in den Morast fahren kann, wie es unsere #EU-Elite flankiert von unserer Bundesregierung gemacht hat.

  • Alec Karakatsanis sur X : "The first time I asked for an undocumented client to be unshackled in court to hug his family one last time before being imprisoned and deported, a lawyer from the “Department of Justice” stood up and objected “on behalf of the United States.”" / X
    https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1732763627554328657

    The first time I asked for an undocumented client to be unshackled in court to hug his family one last time before being imprisoned and deported, a lawyer from the “Department of Justice” stood up and objected “on behalf of the United States.”

    #états-unis

  • Sur les extraordinaires agissements de Karim Khan de la CPI.

    Mouin Rabbani sur X : https://twitter.com/MouinRabbani/status/1731544662454731077

    THREAD: To understand why International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan’s conduct regarding “The Situation in Palestine” is so scandalous and should disqualify him from office, a little background is necessary.

    Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute, and is not a State Party (i.e. member state) of the ICC, the global tribunal established in 2002 to hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes, crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

    Of specific concern to Israel was that the Rome Statute, in Article 8.2.(b).(viii), defines as a “war crime” the “transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the occupied territory within or outside this territory”.

    This closely reflects Article 49 of the IV Geneva Convention of 1949 Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which defines such activities as a “grave breach”, the Convention’s equivalent of a war crime. Other articles, such as 7.1.(j) which defines “apartheid” as “a crime against humanity”, became a serious concern more recently, as the longstanding judgement of Palestinians on this matter was endorsed by the leading Israeli and international human rights organizations.

    The ICC is only empowered to prosecute individuals, not states. (The conduct of states is adjudicated by the International Court of Justice, the ICJ, a separate institution also located in The Hague).

    The Office of the ICC Prosecutor can conduct investigations into alleged violations of the Rome Statute only if either 1) a case is referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), 2) requested by at least one ICC member state, or 3) initiated by the Prosecutor, provided it is authorized to move forward by a panel of ICC judges known as the “pre-trial chamber”.

    Given that the US, which like Israel refused to join the ICC, has veto powers at the Security Council, and that Palestine was not an ICC member, Israel was not particularly concerned that the ICC Prosecutor would independently seek to initiate an investigation of its conduct.

    So it sufficed with periodic tirades dismissing, demonizing, and delegitimizing the Court. That began to change in 2015 when Palestine, which has the status of Permanent Observer State at the UN, was admitted to the ICC and permitted to formally ratify the Rome Statute.

    The Palestinian leadership had for many years stalled on this and other initiatives promoting the application of international law to the Palestinians. This was, parenthetically, not out of fear of potential ICC prosecutions of Palestinians.

    Hamas, whose members are the most likely to be prosecuted if the ICC investigates Palestinian violations, in fact called for Palestine’s accession to the ICC, in both word and writing.

    In writing, because Hamas propaganda had been denouncing Abbas for promoting Palestine’s ICC application at a snail’s pace out of fear of the Israeli and Western response.

    Abbas responded by insisting that Hamas and Islamic Jihad sign a document supporting the application before it was submitted, so he could not later be accused by them of joining the Court in order to have his rivals extradited to The Hague.

    When the deed was done, Palestinians from across the political spectrum welcomed it, and stated they were prepared to see all alleged violations of the Rome Statute committed in Palestine investigated by the ICC.

    Hamas’s criticisms of Abbas may have been propaganda, but they were also correct. Israel and its US and European sponsors had from the outset made clear their opposition to Palestine seeking to join the ICC, and demanded that it desist.

    The Europeans, who unlike the US and Israel have joined the ICC, were in a particular pickle. As a European diplomat stated to me at the time: “We don’t want the Palestinians to put is in a position where we have to choose between our commitment to international law and our commitment to Israel”. In other words, they didn’t want to expose the rotten core of their rules-based international order, where the rules only apply to everyone else. When they failed to prevent Palestinian accession, Israel in particular went berserk. It began withholding Palestinian taxes it was legally obliged to transfer to the Palestinian Authority, imposed a variety of restrictions on Palestinian officials, and threatened to punish the PA in multiple additional ways. The US also made its displeasure clear, but directed the brunt of its retaliatory measures directly at the ICC.

    Washington at one imposed sanctions on Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, normally reserved for designated criminals. It was Washington’s way of informing the ICC it had no right to investigate either Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians or US conduct in Afghanistan.

    In 2002 the US had already adopted legislation known as The Hague Invasion Act, which authorizes the US military to invade The Netherlands, a fellow NATO member, and free any US citizen in ICC custody.

    Not clear how Nato’s collective defense provisions enshrined in Article 5 would operate under such circumstances….

    The Europeans, duplicitous as ever, kept confirming their support for the ICC while submitting vacuous legal arguments to the Court insisting it had no jurisdiction over Palestine.

    In doing so they came within a hair of endorsing Israel’s position that the ICC is an illegitimate body. The Dutch government for its part indicated it could not take a position on the matter because as the state that hosts the ICC,

    it was obliged to preserve its neutrality in such matters. Yet several years later it demonstratively awarded the ICC several million Euro to support its investigation of Russian conduct in Ukraine, an initiative it repeatedly and publicly endorsed.

    In the event, the Palestinians in 2015 submitted an application to the Office of the ICC Prosecutor to investigate violations of the Rome Statute in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1967, beginning in 2014.

    The Court wasted years adjudicating matters of jurisdiction and competence, before finally confirming, in 2021, that it had a mandate to conduct an investigation.

    Which brings us back to the scandal known as Karim Khan. In previous functions, for example investigating the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia and that by ISIS in Iraq, he developed a reputation as an attention whore of sorts.

    Didn’t achieve much by way of results, but always found his way to the television cameras. A British citizen, his candidacy as ICC Prosecutor was energetically supported by the UK government. His candidacy was also championed by the US and Israel, two non-member states opposed to the very existence of the Court. In 2021, Khan narrowly won election to a nine-year term. Unless he’s forced out, we’re stuck with him until 2030.

    Some held the forlorn hope that Khan would prioritize efforts to revive the ICC’s stature and reputation, which by the time he took office was being widely derided as the “International Caucasian Court” and “International Criminal Court for Africa”, on account of the cases it chose – and chose not to – prosecute. In protest at such biases, South Africa at one point temporarily renounced its ICC membership.

    In practice, Khan wasted no time aligning his agenda with that of his sponsors. Almost immediately, he informed the UN Security Council that he would prioritize only those cases referred to him by the Council and essentially ignore the rest.

    The ICC Palestine investigation, such as it was, effectively ceased to exist.

    Yet when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, which the UNSC could not have referred to the ICC for investigation because of Moscow’s power of veto, Khan immediately reversed course on his previous commitments.

    It took him only a week to pop up in Kiev, informing any and every journalist within a 100-mile radius that his investigation was already active. A little over a year later he indicted none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Throughout this period, the ICC’s Palestine investigation remained non-existent.

    There was considerably less spring in his step as the latest crisis in the Middle East erupted on 7 October. It was only at the very end of October that he took the trouble to visit the region.

    Claiming he had been denied entry to the Gaza Strip, he spoke to the assembled media in Cairo, where he delivered a lengthy and impassioned denunciation of the 7 October Palestinian attacks, announced his availability to work with the Israeli authorities to prosecute those responsible for violations of the Rome Statute on that day, yet pointedly refrained from any reference to Israeli war crimes, which his predecessor Bensouda had already in 2019 announced were being committed. Rather, his message to Israel was of a more general nature: that it had clear obligations under international law and would be held accountable for (unspecified) violations.

    Khan further, and disingenuously, claimed that in 2021 he established the “first dedicated team to investigate the Palestine situation”.

    and instead denounced the violence of Israel’s settlers, as if these form an independent vigilante force rather than auxiliary militia implementing state policy.

    The reason Khan tread so lightly also reflects what appears to be the most disturbing element of his agenda.

    Pursuant to the Rome Statute the ICC only prosecutes cases where national authorities have demonstrably failed to ensure accountability. In this context, every examination of Israel’s judicial system with respect to violations of Palestinian rights,

    has concluded that it is essentially a sham, and exists to provide legal justification for such violations and/or exonerate perpetrators.

    Yet Khan emphasized that he stands “ready to engage with relevant national authorities [i.e. Israel] in line with the principle of complementarity at the heart of the Rome Statute”.

    In other words, Khan will prosecute Palestinians, and Israeli violations will be adjudicated by Israel’s court system. Both with predictable results.

    In order to keep this short, I conclude with posting an article
    @hasmikegian
    and I recently wrote for
    @PassBlue
    on why Karim Khan is not fit for purpose. I am also indebted to her for multiple insights and substantial input into this thread. https://www.passblue.com/2023/11/28/is-the-icc-prosecutor-karim-khan-fit-for-purpose

    #CPI