person:brett kavanaugh

  • Ohio Republicans declare motherhood “necessary,” want to make it mandatory |

    While the name of Brett Kavanaugh has fallen out of the headline news cycle, the religious right has not forgotten that his recent addition to the Supreme Court now means they likely have five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortion. While the endless churn of outrageous Trump stories occupies national headlines, anti-choice activists and politicians are swiftly moving to pass laws that they clearly hope will lead, perhaps within a year, to vacating the current legal protections for abortion rights.

    In the stampede to ban abortion, Republican politicians don’t always bother to keep up the pretense that their opposition to abortion is about “life.” All to often, they let slip how much it’s rooted in contempt for women having control over their own bodies and their own futures.

    Last week, the Ohio state house passed a bill that would ban abortions at six weeks. That would effectively a ban on most abortions, since performing the procedure before a pregnancy shows up on an ultrasound, which happens at just about six weeks, is not medically recommended. During debate over the bill in the Ohio state house, Republican state Rep. Christina Hagan brought her infant twins onto the floor to shame women who aren’t mothers about their alleged selfishness.

    “Motherhood isn’t easy but it’s necessary,” Hagan dramatically declared when arguing for her bill to make motherhood mandatory.

    Perhaps we should be grateful to Hagan for using her floor time to unsubtly suggest that women who have abortions are lazy and selfish. There should be no doubt that this is the belief that motivates the anti-choice movement in general, but most abortion foes have become media savvy enough to realize that they get more sympathy if they ascribe views to a religious delusion that equates embryonic life to that of actual babies. So at least Hagan showed her true colors, revealing the resentment of childless women and desire to exert control over other people’s lives that lies at the center of the anti-choice movement.

    Still, this rhetoric is enraging on a couple of levels. First, there’s the deep sexism of assuming that a childless woman has nothing to offer society, that our value is only in the womb and not in the brain and the heart.

    Furthermore, Hagan’s insinuation — that forced childbirth is needed to ensure the continuation of the human race — simply doesn’t reflect reality. The majority — nearly 60 percent — of women who seek abortions are mothers already. Among the rest, plenty plan to have children in the future, but are waiting for stability in both their economic and romantic life — because that’s best for the child. Women have abortions because they take motherhood seriously and believe that it’s better for children to be raised in homes that are ready to accept them.

    That’s why it shouldn’t be controversial to point out that anti-choice views are rooted in misogyny. These people actively choose to ignore the carefully collected evidence about women’s lives, in order to cling to sexist stereotypes painting women who have abortions as lazy and slutty. The only reason to choose ugly stereotypes over facts is because you want to believe the worst about women.

    That, in turn, should explain why, after passing this already egregious abortion ban, the Ohio legislature is now considering an even more draconian bill that would reclassify fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as “persons” in the criminal code.

    This bill received a lot of national attention, because headlines emphasized that it could make performing or getting an abortion a capital offense. That’s alarming, absolutely, but it barely touches the surface of how troubling this bill actually is. It could very likely criminalize more than abortion, putting women in danger of prosecution if they have a miscarriage, or even use birth control.

    The six-week abortion ban is enough to end abortions in Ohio, if that’s all the Ohio Republicans wanted. This bill, on the other hand, would go much further. By designating an embryo or a fetus a person, the state could open the door to charging women for child abuse or manslaughter if authorities believe their personal choices — ranging from using drugs to eating soft cheeses — were to blame for miscarriage or poor birth outcomes.

    This isn’t just “Handmaid’s Tale” speculation, either. Many states have already experimented with charging women for child abuse for drug use during pregnancy. In Montana, women are frequently held captive during pregnancy for just this reason. Formalizing these efforts by declaring that embryos are the same as babies could drastically expand these efforts, moving it past just punishing women for drug and alcohol abuse and towards criminal investigations for any failure to follow medical advice during pregnancy.

    To understand the full scope of how awful this bill is, note that it defines as “persons” entities that are undetectable by either the woman herself or by any medical instruments. It takes a number of days for a fertilized egg, which this bill would declare a “person,” to attach to the uterine lining and start the process of pregnancy. About half of all fertilized eggs fail to attach, and the woman then experiences a normal period with no way to know the difference. This bill would render every menstrual period, at least for women who have sex with men, into a legally ambiguous area, where she may or may not have a “corpse” of a “person” in her tampon.

    It’s no mysterious why anti-choice activists think creating this troubling legal ambiguity is a great idea. For years, the movement has been spreading pseudo-science about female-controlled birth control methods, such as the pill or the IUD, claiming that they kill fertilized eggs. (In reality, they work primarily by preventing fertilization to begin with.) This pseudo-science gives anti-choice activists an excuse to claim that female-controlled contraception is a form of “abortion” — as Kavanaugh did during his confirmation hearing — and thereby lay the groundwork to restrict contraception access.

    Tendering every period a woman has as a maybe-person admittedly creates such an enormous legal gray area that it’s unlikely even Republicans want to go there. But that’s why there’s no downside for anti-choice politicians in introducing this bill. It makes the six-week ban look “moderate” in comparison. It’s unlikely that the birth control pill will ever legally be considered “murder,” but anti-choice activists are using the claim that it kills fertilized eggs as a pretext for cutting off government and insurance funding for contraception. The appointment of Scott Lloyd, a lawyer who has worked to allow pharmacists to deny contraception prescriptions to women, to work at the Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives in the Department of Health and Human Services suggests that this new office, created in May, department, exists mostly to create bureaucratic obstacles for women seeking contraception.

    In Mississippi, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks was struck down by a district court judge, who pointed out that multiple court decisions, including at least three from the Supreme Court, have upheld that states “may not ban abortions prior to viability.” Because of decisions like this, it’s believed that Ohio Gov. John Kasich will veto the six-week ban, rather than commit state resources to defending it through the lengthy appeals process as lower federal courts strike it down.

    Still, if Mississippi chooses to fight that, and if that leads to a real chance to overturn Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court, there’s no telling how aggressive Republicans might become. Abortion bans that once seemed blatantly unconstitutional now have a real shot at being upheld. It’s likely just a matter of time before there’s a showdown in the Supreme Court over whether or not abortion rights in the United States will stand.

  • The Economic Crisis Is Over. Populism Is Forever. – Foreign Policy

    This is the phenomenon we face today in the United States, where the economy has rebounded more quickly than it has elsewhere in the West yet the forces of nationalism have not abated a whit. Donald Trump has not even campaigned on the economy or the stock market, an utterly bewildering choice by classical political standards. At first the president focused on his nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, which drew attention to his crusade against abortion, the great values issue of the last generation. But recently he has switched to immigration, turning the caravan of mothers and children seeking refuge from the violence and poverty of Central America into a threat to national security and identity.

    Steve Bannon has claimed that the American electorate is dividing between “nationalists” and “cosmopolitans.” Trump plainly agrees, and he knows his base. A 2017 survey found that “fears about immigrants and cultural displacement were more powerful factors than economic concerns in predicting support for Trump among white working-class voters.” Almost half of such voters agreed with the statement, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country”—an echo of the title of Arlie Russell Hochschild’s study of working-class Louisiana whites, Strangers in Their Own Land. Hochschild observes that the stoical, self-reliant code of her Cajun subjects cannot be wholly reduced to racism and xenophobia, even if it contains elements of both.

    What this means for liberals is that a program of economic justice will not be enough to reach alienated whites. It means as well that a politics of identity that emphasizes the particularity of every group and subgroup, the right of each to stand apart from the straight white male default, will only further inflame the yearning for an atavistic whites-only identity. Liberals must find a national language that speaks to a national, inclusive identity. French President Emmanuel Macron has very consciously sought to position himself in the tradition of Charles de Gaulle as a patriot and the incarnation of an idea of France, though a far more up-to-date idea than de Gaulle’s 19th-century grandeur. (So far, it must be said, Macron has gained a reputation more for grandeur than for patriotism.) Perhaps the gap between the Democrats’ old New Deal base and the new race- and gender-conscious one is simply too large to be bridged.

    Liberals are inclined to regard their own values as universal and self-evident, unlike the so-called subjective ones that arise from religion or custom. The cosmopolitan cherishing of diversity is an intrinsic good, while the yen for the familiar constitutes a repudiation of reality. In fact, both are preferences, though very deep ones that sharply divide those who hold them. The globalization of people, goods, jobs, and ideas has brought out that difference in sharp relief and thus redefined the politics of the West. Liberals can’t abandon their own values, but they must acknowledge them. And they must take seriously the views of those who do not share those values.

    • Comme le souligne M. Nader, les représentants élus ont renoncé à leur pouvoir constitutionnel pour obéir aux ordres des sociétés en échange de l’argent des sociétés. C’est un système de corruption légalisée. L’assentiment des gouvernés est devenu une véritable plaisanterie. Les politiciens des deux partis au pouvoir sont les agents de l’exploitation et de l’oppression des entreprises, les ennemis de la démocratie. Ils ne tiennent plus d’audiences publiques au niveau des comités. Ils gouvernent en grande partie en secret. Ils adoptent des projets de loi, la plupart rédigés par des lobbyistes d’entreprise, et nomment des juges pour protéger les entreprises contre les poursuites judiciaires intentées par ceux que ces entreprises ont lésés, blessés ou escroqués. Ils nient notre droit de saisir les tribunaux. Ils détournent de l’argent de l’infrastructure et des services sociaux en ruine du pays pour soutenir une machine de guerre qui consomme la moitié de toutes les dépenses discrétionnaires. Ils accumulent des déficits massifs pour accorder des réductions d’impôts aux oligarques au pouvoir et orchestrent le plus important transfert de richesse de l’histoire américaine. Ils suppriment le salaire minimum, brisent les syndicats et légalisent la servitude pour dette que les entreprises utilisent pour exiger un tribut punitif de la part des citoyens, y compris des jeunes hommes et femmes forcés d’assumer une dette de 1500 milliards de dollars pour faire des études supérieures. Ils révoquent les lois, les contrôles et les règlements qui freinent les pires abus de Wall Street. Ils abolissent nos libertés civiles les plus chères, y compris le droit à la vie privée et à une procédure régulière. Leurs procédures publiques, comme l’a montré le procès du nouveau juge de la Cour suprême Brett Kavanaugh, sont un théâtre politique sans vergogne qui se moque du processus démocratique.

  • Pourquoi Israël (et le lobby pro-Israël aux Etats-Unis) défend MBS

    Why we should go easy on the Saudi crown prince

    For 50 years we’ve prayed for a key Arab leader who agrees to sign a significant pact with Israel. Such a leader has finally arrived

    Tzvia Greenfield
    Oct 22, 2018 1:48 AM

    Turkey, a human rights champion under Erdogan, is accusing Saudi Arabia, another human rights champion, of the abhorrent murder of a Saudi journalist who entered the lion’s den in Istanbul and, as befits horror stories typical of places like Syria China, Iran, Russia and North Korea, disappeared from sight. Now we have recordings and videotapes, allegedly from the Saudi consulate, suggesting that his body was chopped into pieces.
    The underlying reason for this gruesome act, that evokes something conjured up by the Coen brothers, is not completely clear. One shouldn’t treat any death lightly, particularly not a murder committed by an evil government. However, because of the political ramifications involved, it’s worth contemplating this episode a bit more.
    To really understand Israel and the Middle East - subscribe to Haaretz
    It’s possible that just like Putin, the Saudi royal house cannot tolerate any criticism, which is why it decided to eliminate the rogue journalist in an acid bath (a no less likely possibility that has not yet been suggested by the authorities in Ankara). It’s possible that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is gnashing his teeth over Saudi Arabia’s bolstered global status, particularly vis-à-vis U.S. President Donald Trump, and over the central role played by Mohammed bin Salman in a regional coalition meant to block Iranian influence in the Middle East — which is why Erdogan is bent on deflating the Crown Prince’s image.
    Erdogan may want to humiliate the Saudis, but his main goal is foiling the plan apparently devised by Trump and Mohammed to forge a regional alliance under the aegis of the United States, an alliance that includes Israel, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt (and possibly Iraq). These countries will jointly try to block Iran, which endangers all of them. Turkey, which is struggling to find an as-yet-undetermined place within the Arab Muslim world, does not strive merely to lead the Sunni world. It also wants to depict Israel as a foreign colonialist implant in the Middle East. Any legitimization afforded Israel thanks to an alliance with Arab states has negative implications for Erdogan.
    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    >> Why are some pro-Israel voices speaking out against Jamal Khashoggi? | Explained ■ Saudi Arabia, reeling from Khashoggi scandal, battles a new front: Arab media | Analysis
    But fate obviously has a sense of humor. It has embroiled the Turkish rivalry with Saudi Arabia in the U.S. midterm elections. Since Mohammed is currently Trump’s most important international ally, mainly for economic reasons, the campaign advocating a “liberal order,” espoused by international media assailing the Saudi leader, is buzzing with excitement. Its main objective is not the brushing aside of Saudi Arabia, but the delivery of a humiliating knockout blow to Trump and his economic plans.

    According to Time magazine, the level of public support for Trump remains stable at 43 percent, similar to that of Obama, Clinton and Reagan at comparative phases in their terms. It’s no wonder that after the failed attacks on Trump, who immerged unscathed from the intimidation of migrant children, the Stormy Daniels saga and the attempt to prevent the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, the left is eager to pounce on the Saudi murder case as if it has found a treasure trove.
    However, this time it’s necessary to treat the suspect with kid gloves. Trump’s peace initiative, if it is ever put on the table, is apparently the direct result of pressure by Mohammed bin Salman, who wishes to legitimize Israel before embarking on open cooperation with it. For 50 years we’ve prayed for a key Arab leader who agrees to sign a significant pact with Israel. Such a leader has finally arrived, and calls to depose him, such as those by former U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro in an op-ed in Haaretz (October 21) are destructive and in keeping with the best Obama tradition. Anyone waiting for a world of the purely just will have to struggle all his life with the purely evil.

    Tzvia Greenfield

    • Israël est un état colonial par la décision qui l’a créé et par son racisme (dès l’origine les kibboutz, bien que laïques étaient « juifs only »). Les nationalistes sionistes étaient sans doute habités par l’idéologie raciste coloniale propre à la période.

      Cela n’aurait pas été un problème si Israël avait accepté plus tard de reconnaitre les souffrances infligées aux populations arabes autochtones et s’il avait cherché à les compenser.
      Au lieu de cela Israël n’a jamais envisagé de créer une société réellement multi-ethnique et n’a eu de cesse de s’étendre et de réprimer toujours plus massivement les arabes, crimes de guerre sur crimes de guerre ...

      Israël comme l’Arabie, bien que différents, sont deux créations de l’occident colonial, toutes deux structurées par le racisme.
      Leur rapprochement a une logique.

  • Words matter. Is it @AP style to call migrants an “army”—above a photo of mothers tending to their infants and toddlers, no less? This is not only incorrect, but it enables a racist narrative sold by this @POTUS and his supporters. Armies invade. These people are running away.
    #armée #terminologie #préjugés #invasion #afflux #mots #vocabulaire #migrations #réfugiés #médias #journalisme #presse

    • #Polly_Pallister-Wilkins sur la marche de migrants qui a lieu en Amérique centrale...

      Dear media reporting on the Central American migrant caravan, can you please be attentive to how you talk about it? 1/n
      People are walking, walking not pouring, flowing, or streaming. Walking. They are walking along roads, they will be tired, hungry, their feet will hurt, they will have blisters and sore joints. They are not a natural liquid phenomenon governed by the force of gravity. 2/n
      Their walking is conditioned by the infrastructures they move along like roads, the physical geographies they traverse like hills and rivers and the human controls they encounter like border controls and police checkpoints. 3/n
      All of these things are risky, they make the walk, the journey more difficult and dangerous, esepcially the police checkpoints and the border controls. These risks are the reason they are travelling as a caravan, as a large group attempting to minimise the risks of controls 4/n
      And the risks from gangs and criminals that migrants on their journeys routinely face. Their journey is a deeply embodied one, and one that is deeply conditioned both by the violence they are leaving and the violence of the journey itself. 5/n
      So media please try and reflect this in your storytelling. These people are not a river obeying gravity. They have made an active yet conditioned choice to move. When they encounter a block in their path this can be deadly. It can detain, deport, injure, rape, or kill. 6/n
      And these blockages are not boulders in a riverbed around which the river flows. These blockages, these #checkpoints, border controls or police patrols are human blockages, they are not natural. So please try and reflect the political structures of this journey. Please. End/
      Addendum: there is a long history of caravans as a form political resistance in Central America.
      #marche #migrations #Honduras #Amérique_centrale #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie #média #journalisme #presse #caravane #métaphores_liquides #risque #gravité #mouvement #contrôles_frontaliers #blocages #barrières #résistance #Mexique

    • Migrants travel in groups for a simple reason: safety

      A caravan of Central American migrants traveling to through Mexico to the United States to seek asylum is about halfway through its journey.

      The caravan began on Oct. 13 in Honduras with 200 people. As it has moved through Honduras, Guatemala and now Mexico, its ranks have grown to over 7,000, according to an estimate by the International Organization of Migration.

      The migrants have been joined by representatives from humanitarian organizations like the Mexican Red Cross providing medical assistance and human rights groups that monitor the situation.

      Journalists are there, too, and their reporting has caught the attention of President Donald Trump.

      He has claimed that the caravan’s ranks probably hide Middle Eastern terrorists. Trump later acknowledged there is no evidence of this, but conservative media outlets have nevertheless spread the message.

      It is reasonable for Americans to have security concerns about immigration. But as a scholar of forced migration, I believe it’s also important to consider why migrants travel in groups: their own safety.
      Safety in numbers

      The Central Americans in the caravan, like hundreds of thousands of people who flee the region each year, are escaping extreme violence, lack of economic opportunity and growing environmental problems, including drought and floods, back home.

      Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico have some of the world’s highest murder rates. According to Doctors Without Borders, which provides medical care in crisis zones, 68 percent of the migrants and refugees it surveyed in Mexico had experienced violence. Nearly one-third of women were sexually abused.

      Whether crossing Central America, the Sahara desert or the mountains of Afghanistan, migrants are regularly extorted by criminals, militias and corrupt immigration officials who know migrants make easy targets: They carry cash but not weapons.

      Large groups increase migrants’ chance of safe passage, and they provide some sense of community and solidarity on the journey, as migrants themselves report.
      Publicizing the dangers they flee

      Large groups of migrants also attract media coverage. As journalists write about why people are on the move, they shed light on Central America’s many troubles.

      Yet headlines about huge migrant caravans may misrepresent trends at the U.S.-Mexico border, where migration is actually decreasing.

      While the number of Central American families and children seeking asylum in the U.S. has increased in the past two years, Mexican economic migrants are crossing the border at historically low levels.

      And while most migrant caravan members hope to seek asylum in the U.S., recent history shows many will stay in Mexico.

      In response to Trump’s immigration crackdown, Mexican president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador has promised to welcome Central American refugees — and try to keep them safe.


    • Trump’s Caravan Hysteria Led to This

      The president and his supporters insisted that several thousand Honduran migrants were a looming menace—and the Pittsburgh gunman took that seriously.

      On Tuesday, October 16, President Donald Trump started tweeting.

      “The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!”

      “We have today informed the countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador that if they allow their citizens, or others, to journey through their borders and up to the United States, with the intention of entering our country illegally, all payments made to them will STOP (END)!”

      Vice President Mike Pence also tweeted:

      “Spoke to President Hernandez of Honduras about the migrant caravan heading to the U.S. Delivered strong message from @POTUS: no more aid if caravan is not stopped. Told him U.S. will not tolerate this blatant disregard for our border & sovereignty.”

      The apparent impetus for this outrage was a segment on Fox News that morning that detailed a migrant caravan thousands of miles away in Honduras. The caravan, which began sometime in mid-October, is made up of refugees fleeing violence in their home country. Over the next few weeks, Trump did his best to turn the caravan into a national emergency. Trump falsely told his supporters that there were “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners” in the caravan, a claim that had no basis in fact and that was meant to imply that terrorists were hiding in the caravan—one falsehood placed on another. Defense Secretary James Mattis ordered more troops to the border. A Fox News host took it upon herself to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen whether there was “any scenario under which if people force their way across the border they could be shot at,” to which Nielsen responded, “We do not have any intention right now to shoot at people.”

      Pence told Fox News on Friday, “What the president of Honduras told me is that the caravan was organized by leftist organizations, political activists within Honduras, and he said it was being funded by outside groups, and even from Venezuela … So the American people, I think, see through this—they understand this is not a spontaneous caravan of vulnerable people.”

      The Department of Homeland Security’s Twitter account “confirmed” that within the caravan are people who are “gang members or have significant criminal histories,” without offering evidence of any such ties. Trump sought to blame the opposition party for the caravan’s existence. “Every time you see a Caravan, or people illegally coming, or attempting to come, into our Country illegally, think of and blame the Democrats for not giving us the votes to change our pathetic Immigration Laws!” Trump tweeted on October 22. “Remember the Midterms! So unfair to those who come in legally.”

      In the right-wing fever swamps, where the president’s every word is worshipped, commenters began amplifying Trump’s exhortations with new details. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida wondered whether George Soros—the wealthy Jewish philanthropist whom Trump and several members of the U.S. Senate blamed for the protests against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and who was recently targeted with a bomb—was behind the migrant caravan. NRATV, the propaganda organ of the National Rifle Association, linked two Republican obsessions, voter fraud and immigration. Chuck Holton told NRATV’s viewers that Soros was sending the caravan to the United States so the migrants could vote: “It’s telling that a bevy of left-wing groups are partnering with a Hungarian-born billionaire and the Venezuelan government to try to influence the 2018 midterms by sending Honduran migrants north in the thousands.” On CNN, the conservative commentator Matt Schlapp pointedly asked the anchor Alisyn Camerota, “Who’s paying for the caravan? Alisyn, who’s paying for the caravan?,” before later answering his own question: “Because of the liberal judges and other people that intercede, including George Soros, we have too much chaos at our southern border.” On Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, one guest said, “These individuals are not immigrants—these are people that are invading our country,” as another guest asserted they were seeking “the destruction of American society and culture.”

      Peter Beinart: Trump shut programs to counter violent extremists

      In the meantime, much of the mainstream press abetted Trump’s effort to make the midterm election a referendum on the caravan. Popular news podcasts devoted entire episodes to the caravan. It remained on the front pages of major media websites. It was an overwhelming topic of conversation on cable news, where Trumpists freely spread disinformation about the threat the migrants posed, while news anchors displayed exasperation over their false claims, only to invite them back on the next day’s newscast to do it all over again.

      In reality, the caravan was thousands of miles and weeks away from the U.S. border, shrinking in size, and unlikely to reach the U.S. before the election. If the migrants reach the U.S., they have the right under U.S. law to apply for asylum at a port of entry. If their claims are not accepted, they will be turned away. There is no national emergency; there is no ominous threat. There is only a group of desperate people looking for a better life, who have a right to request asylum in the United States and have no right to stay if their claims are rejected. Trump is reportedly aware that his claims about the caravan are false. An administration official told the Daily Beast simply, “It doesn’t matter if it’s 100 percent accurate … this is the play.” The “play” was to demonize vulnerable people with falsehoods in order to frighten Trump’s base to the polls.

      Nevertheless, some took the claims of the president and his allies seriously. On Saturday morning, Shabbat morning, a gunman walked into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and killed 11 people. The massacre capped off a week of terrorism, in which one man mailed bombs to nearly a dozen Trump critics and another killed two black people in a grocery store after failing to force his way into a black church.

      Before committing the Tree of Life massacre, the shooter, who blamed Jews for the caravan of “invaders” and who raged about it on social media, made it clear that he was furious at HIAS, founded as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that helps resettle refugees in the United States. He shared posts on Gab, a social-media site popular with the alt-right, expressing alarm at the sight of “massive human caravans of young men from Honduras and El Salvador invading America thru our unsecured southern border.” And then he wrote, “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

      The people killed on Saturday were killed for trying to make the world a better place, as their faith exhorts them to do. The history of the Jewish people is one of displacement, statelessness, and persecution. What groups like HIAS do in helping refugees, they do with the knowledge that comes from a history of being the targets of demagogues who persecute minorities in pursuit of power.

      Ordinarily, a politician cannot be held responsible for the actions of a deranged follower. But ordinarily, politicians don’t praise supporters who have mercilessly beaten a Latino man as “very passionate.” Ordinarily, they don’t offer to pay supporters’ legal bills if they assault protesters on the other side. They don’t praise acts of violence against the media. They don’t defend neo-Nazi rioters as “fine people.” They don’t justify sending bombs to their critics by blaming the media for airing criticism. Ordinarily, there is no historic surge in anti-Semitism, much of it targeted at Jewish critics, coinciding with a politician’s rise. And ordinarily, presidents do not blatantly exploit their authority in an effort to terrify white Americans into voting for their party. For the past few decades, most American politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, have been careful not to urge their supporters to take matters into their own hands. Trump did everything he could to fan the flames, and nothing to restrain those who might take him at his word.

      Many of Trump’s defenders argue that his rhetoric is mere shtick—that his attacks, however cruel, aren’t taken 100 percent seriously by his supporters. But to make this argument is to concede that following Trump’s statements to their logical conclusion could lead to violence against his targets, and it is only because most do not take it that way that the political violence committed on Trump’s behalf is as limited as it currently is.

      The Tree of Life shooter criticized Trump for not being racist or anti-Semitic enough. But with respect to the caravan, the shooter merely followed the logic of the president and his allies: He was willing to do whatever was necessary to prevent an “invasion” of Latinos planned by perfidious Jews, a treasonous attempt to seek “the destruction of American society and culture.”

      The apparent spark for the worst anti-Semitic massacre in American history was a racist hoax inflamed by a U.S. president seeking to help his party win a midterm election. There is no political gesture, no public statement, and no alteration in rhetoric or behavior that will change this fact. The shooter might have found a different reason to act on a different day. But he chose to act on Saturday, and he apparently chose to act in response to a political fiction that the president himself chose to spread and that his followers chose to amplify.

      As for those who aided the president in his propaganda campaign, who enabled him to prey on racist fears to fabricate a national emergency, who said to themselves, “This is the play”? Every single one of them bears some responsibility for what followed. Their condemnations of anti-Semitism are meaningless. Their thoughts and prayers are worthless. Their condolences are irrelevant. They can never undo what they have done, and what they have done will never be forgotten.

    • Latin American asylum seekers hit US policy “wall”

      Trump’s new restrictions mean long waits simply to register claims.

      The movement of thousands of Central American asylum seekers and migrants north from Honduras towards the southern border of the United States has precipitated threats from US President Donald Trump – ahead of next week’s midterm elections – to block the group’s entry by deploying troops to the US-Mexican border.

      Under international law the United States is obligated to allow asylum seekers to enter and file claims. However, immigration officials at the country’s southern border have for months been shifting toward legally dubious practices that restrict people’s ability to file asylum claims.

      “Make no mistake, the administration is building a wall – one made of restrictionist policy rather than brick and mortar,” said Jason Boyd, policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

      As a result, hundreds, possibly thousands, of asylum seekers have been left waiting for extended periods of time on the Mexican side of the border in need of shelter and basic services. Firm numbers for those affected are difficult to come by because no one is counting.

      Some of those turned away explore potentially dangerous alternatives. Aid and advocacy groups as well as the Department of Homeland Security say the wait has likely pushed some to attempt to enter the United States illegally, either with smugglers or on their own via perilous desert routes.

      While some of those in the so-called “migrant caravan” are searching for economic opportunity, others are fleeing gang violence, gender-based violence, political repression or unrest – all increasingly common factors in Central America and Mexico that push people to leave their homes.
      Menacing phone calls

      When people from the migrant caravan reach the southern border of the United States, they may find themselves in a similar position to Dolores Alzuri, 47, from Michoacan, a state in central Mexico.

      In late September, she was camped out with her husband, daughter, granddaughter, and aunt on the Mexican side of the DeConcini port of entry separating the twin cities of Nogales – one in the Mexican state of Sonora, the other in the US state of Arizona.

      Alzuri and her family were waiting for their turn to claim asylum in the United States, with only a police report in hand as proof of the threats they faced back home. Camping beside them on the pedestrian walkway just outside the grated metal door leading to the United States, nine other families waited to do the same.

      Over the preceding month Alzuri had received several menacing phone calls from strangers demanding money. In Michoacan, and many other parts of Mexico where criminal gangs have a strong presence, almost anybody can receive calls like these. You don’t know who’s on the other end of the line, Alzuri explained, but you do know the consequences of not following their orders.

      “If you do not give [money] to them, they kidnap you or they kidnap your family,” Alzuri said. “They destroy you. They kill you. That is why it is so scary to be in this country.”

      Other people she knew had received similar calls. She also knew that those who didn’t pay ended up dead – pictures of their bodies posted on Facebook as a macabre warning of what happens to those who resist.

      Fearing a similar fate, Alzuri packed her bags and her family and travelled north to ask for asylum in the United States. A friend had been granted asylum about nine months ago, and she had seen on television that other people were going, too. It seemed like the only way out.

      “I had a problem,” she said, referring to the phone calls. “They asked us for money, and since we did not give them money, they threatened us.”

      Before leaving her home, Alzuri said she filed a police report. But the authorities didn’t care enough to act on it, she said. “They are not going to risk their life for mine.”
      No way out

      Despite the danger at home, Alzuri and others in similar situations face an increasingly difficult time applying for asylum in the United States. At the Nogales crossing, asylum seekers must now wait up to a month simply to be allowed to set foot inside a border office where they can register their claims, aid workers there say.

      Those waiting are stuck in territory on the Mexican side that is controlled by gangs similar to the ones many are fleeing, though local aid groups have scrambled to find space in shelters, especially for women and children, so people will be safer while they wait.

      The situation hasn’t always been like this.

      In the past, asylum seekers were almost always admitted to register their claims the same day they arrived at the border. Since May, however, there has been a marked slowdown in registration.

      US Custom and Border Protection (CBP), the federal law enforcement agency responsible for screening people as they enter the country, says delays are due to a lack of capacity and space. But asylum advocates say similar numbers have arrived in previous years without causing a delay and the real reason for the slowdown is that CBP has shifted resources away from processing asylum seekers – not just in Nogales but across the southern US border – resulting in people being forced to wait for long periods or turned away altogether.

      This is happening despite the insistence of high-ranking Trump administration officials that asylum seekers present themselves at ports of entry or face criminal prosecution for crossing the border irregularly. Such contradictory policies, asylum advocates argue, are part of a broad-based effort by the Trump administration to dramatically reduce the number of people able to seek protection in the United States.

      “Our legal understanding is that they have the legal obligation to process asylum seekers as they arrive,” said Joanna Williams, director of education and advocacy at the Kino Border Initiative (KBI), a Nogales-based NGO. “There’s no room in the law for what they are doing right now.”
      A system in crisis

      In the past decade, migration across the southern border of the United States has undergone a dramatic change. Every year since the late 1970s US Border Patrol agents apprehended close to a million or more undocumented migrants entering the country. In 2007, that number began to fall, and last year there were just over 310,000 apprehensions – the lowest number since 1971.

      At the same time, the proportion of people entering the United States from the southern border to claim asylum has increased. Ten years ago, one out of every 100 people crossing the border was seeking humanitarian protection, according to a recent report published by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), a non-partisan think tank in Washington DC. Today that number is about one in three.

      According to Boyd of AILA, the increase is being driven by ongoing humanitarian emergencies in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, an area of Central America known as the Northern Triangle. These countries have some of the highest homicide rates in the world and are wracked by gang violence, gender-based violence, extortion, and extra-judicial killings. “Many of the individuals and families arriving at the US southern border are literally fleeing for their lives,” said Boyd.

      But the system that is supposed to provide them protection is in crisis. Beginning in 2010 the number of asylum requests lodged in the United States started to balloon, mirroring an upward trend in global displacement. Last year, 79,000 people approached the US border saying they had a credible fear of returning to their home country, compared to 9,000 at the beginning of the decade.

      The increase in credible-fear claims, as well as asylum requests made by people already in the United States, has strained the system to a “crisis point”, according to the MPI report. This has led to a backlog of around 320,000 cases in US immigration courts and people having to wait many months, if not years, to receive a hearing and a decision.

      Senior officials in the Trump administration, including the president, have consistently lumped asylum seekers and economic migrants together, positing that the United States is being “invaded” by a “massive influx of illegal aliens” across the southern border, and that the asylum system is subject to “systematic abuse” by people looking to gain easy entry to the country.

      People working on the ground with asylum seekers refute this. Eduardo Garcia is a communication coordinator at SOA Watch, an organisation that monitors the humanitarian impact of US policy in Latin America. He has spent time in Nogales speaking with people waiting to claim asylum.

      “The stories of many of the people we have talked to… are stories of people fleeing gang violence, are stories of people fleeing because one of their sons was killed, because one of their sons was threatened, because one of their family members [was] raped,” he said. “They have said they cannot go back to their countries. If they are sent back they are going to be killed.”

      Still, the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy on immigration – responsible for the recent child-separation crisis – has also included measures that have restricted access to asylum in the United States.

      In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Justice Department would begin criminally prosecuting everyone who irregularly crossed the US southern border, including asylum seekers. In June, that policy was followed by a decision that the United States would no longer consider gang and sexual violence – precisely the reasons so many people flee the Northern Triangle – as legitimate grounds for asylum. Around the same time, CBP appears to have deprioritised the processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry in favour of other responsibilities, leading to the long waits and people being turned away, according to humanitarian workers and a recent report by the DHS’s Office of Inspector General.

      And even as these restrictive policies were being put in place, Trump administration officials have been encouraging asylum seekers to try. “If you’re seeking asylum, go to a port of entry,” Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said in an 18 June press conference. “You do not need to break the law of the United States to seek asylum.”

      Nogales, Mexico

      “I came here with the hope that if I asked for asylum I could be in the United States,” said Modesto, a 54-year-old from Chimaltenango, Guatemala. In mid-September he was sitting in a mess hall run a couple hundred meters from the US border run by KBI, which provides humanitarian assistance to migrants and asylum seekers.

      Modesto had already been in Nogales, Sonora for several months. Like Dolores Alzuri, he fled his home because criminal gangs had tried to extort money from him. “I worked a lot and was making a living in my country,” Modesto explained. “The problem in particular with the gangs is that they don’t let you work… If you have money they extort you. If you don’t have money they want to recruit you.” And people who don’t cooperate: “They’re dead,” he added.

      The situation Modesto found when he arrived in Nogales, Sonora was far from what he expected. For starters, there was the long wait at the border. But he also discovered that – as an adult travelling with his 18-year-old son – even once he entered the United States he would likely end up in a detention centre while his case slowly made its way through the overburdened immigration courts – a practice that has also increased under the Trump administration. “I don’t want to cross… and spend a year in prison when my family needs my help,” he said.

      Modesto is in some ways an exception, according to Williams of KBI. Many of the people arriving in Nogales, Sonora are families with children. Once in the United States they will likely be released from immigration detention with ankle monitoring bracelets to track their movements. These people often choose to wait and to claim asylum at the port of entry when there is space.

      After more than 100 people piled up to wait at the border in May, local humanitarian groups set up a system to organise and keep track of whose turn it was to submit an asylum claim to US immigration officials. They also scrambled to find spaces in shelters so people were not sleeping on the walkway over the weeks they needed to wait.

      Now, only people who are likely to enter soon are camped on the walkway. When IRIN visited, about 40 asylum seekers – mostly women and children – sat on one side of the walkway as a steady stream of people heading to the United States filtered by on the other. Some of the asylum seekers were new arrivals waiting to be taken to a shelter, while others had been sleeping there for days on thin mats waiting for their turn. Volunteers handed out clean clothing and served pasta, as a CBP agent opened and closed the metal gate leading to the United States, just a few tantalisingly short feet away.

      The slowdown of processing “leaves people stranded – in really dangerous situations sometimes – on the other side of the border, and completely violates our obligations under both domestic and international law,” said Katharina Obser, a senior policy adviser at the Women’s Refugee Commission, an NGO that advocates for women, children, and youth displaced by conflict and crisis.

      As a result, some people arrive, find out about the wait, and leave. “We’re fairly certain that those are individuals who then end up crossing the border through other means,” Williams said.

      The DHS Office of the Inspector General came to a similar conclusion, finding that the contradiction between Trump administration rhetoric and policy “may have led asylum seekers at ports of entry to attempt illegal border crossings.”

      The situation in Nogales, Sonora is far from isolated, according to Boyd of the AILA. “Recent turnbacks of vulnerable asylum seekers have been documented throughout the US southern border,” he said, including at many ports of entry in Texas and California. In those states, asylum seekers have reported being stopped as they approach the border and told they cannot enter because immigration officials don’t have the capacity to process their claims.

      “Turnbacks form part of a comprehensive set of practices and policies advanced under this administration that appears aimed at shutting out asylum seekers from the United States,” Boyd continued.

      Meanwhile, people like Dolores Alzuri – and most likely some of the thousands of Central Americans who are travelling north from Honduras in the hope of claiming asylum – are left with little choice but to wait. Moving somewhere else in Mexico or returning home is not an option, said Alzuri. “The violence is the same in every state,” she said. And crossing the desert, “that’s a big danger.”

      She and her family don’t have a back-up plan. “Let’s hope that I do get [asylum], because I really do need it,” she said. “You don’t live comfortably in your own country anymore. You live in fear that something will happen to you. You can’t walk around on the streets because you feel that you’re being followed.”
      #USA #Etats-Unis #fermeture_des_frontières #Mexique

      Commentaire Emmanuel Blanchar via la mailing-list Migreurop:

      Un article intéressant car il rappelle opportunément que la « caravane des migrants » en route vers les Etats-Unis est également composée de nombreuses personnes qui souhaiteraient pouvoir déposer des demandes d’asile. Or, si la frontières Mexique-USA est loin d’être encore mûrées, un mur administratif empêche déjà que les demandes d’asile puisse être déposées et traitées dans le respect des droits des requérant.e.s.

      #mur_administratif #asile

    • No es una caravana, es un dolor que camina

      La caravana de migrantes es sólo la primera manifestación pública y masiva de la crisis humanitaria en la que vive la mayoría de la población; negada por el gobierno, por la oligarquía, embajadas, organizaciones de la sociedad civil y por algunas agencias de cooperación que le hacen comparsa a la dictadura.

      Esta crisis humanitaria es provocada por el modelo económico neoliberal impuesto a sangre y fuego, que sólo pobreza y violencia ha llevado a las comunidades, que ante la ausencia de oportunidades y ante el acoso de los grupos criminales no tienen otra alternativa que la peligrosa e incierta ruta migratoria; prefieren morir en el camino que en sus barrios y colonias.

      El infierno en que se ha convertido Honduras tiene varios responsables. En primer el lugar el imperialismo, que a través de su embajada promueve la inestabilidad política en el país con el apoyo directo al dictador, que para granjearse ese apoyo les ha entregado el país, hasta el grado del despojo y de la ignominia, como puede observarse en los foros internacionales.

      Otro responsable es el dictador, que además de la incertidumbre que genera en lo económico, en lo político y en lo social, ha profundizado y llevado al extremo las políticas neoliberales, despojando de sus recursos a comunidades enteras, para dárselas a las transnacionales, principalmente norteamericanas y canadienses.

      La oligarquía corrupta, mediocre, salvaje, inepta y rapaz también es responsable de esta crisis humanitaria, quien se ha acostumbrado a vivir del presupuesto nacional a tal grado de convertir al Estado en su patrimonio, por medio de un ejército de ocupación, de diputados y presidentes serviles y títeres, que toman las decisiones no para el pueblo, sino que para sus insaciables intereses.

      Hay otro actor importante en esta crisis y es el Ejército Nacional, fiel sirviente de los intereses imperiales y de la oligarquía, que sólo sirve para consumir una gran tajada del presupuesto nacional y más que un ejército defensor y garante de la soberanía nacional es una fuerza de ocupación; listo para asesinar, torturar y matar aquellos que se oponen al dictador, al imperio y la oligarquía.

      Desgraciadamente esta caravana la conforman los miserables, los desheredados de la tierra, los parias: “los que crían querubes para el presidio y serafines para el burdel” como dijo en su poema, Los Parias, el poeta mexicano Salvador Díaz Mirón.

      Estos miserables y desheredados no huyen de la patria, la aman, la adoran y la llevan convertida en un dolor sobre sus hombros, huyen de los verdugos y carniceros que nos gobiernan y de los otros responsables de esta crisis humanitaria. Los que huyen aman a esta tierra más que los que nos quedamos.

  • An Exorcist Is Hosting a Mass to Protect Brett Kavanaugh from Witches’ Hex

    An exorcist in California is holding a Mass to protect Brett Kavanaugh from the “evil” of a ritual hex set to curse him this weekend.

    San Jose exorcist, Father Gary Thomas, announced his plans on Wednesday to hold a mass protecting Brett Kavanaugh from a ritual planned by witches to hex him this Saturday, October 20.

    After one of New York’s most famous occult shops Catland Books announced that they’d be organizing the ritual to curse Brett Kavanaugh along with “all rapists and the patriarchy at large,” more than 10,000 people marked themselves as “going” on Facebook. But as the ritual grew in scope (Catland had to add a a second hex in November due to the number of people interested), the witches at Catland reported receiving backlash, including death threats.

    Father Thomas, who works as an exorcist for the Diocese of San Jose, alleges that organizers and those attending the ritual are part of a “cult” that must be stopped.

    “This is a conjuring of evil—not about free speech,” he told the National Catholic Register. “Conjuring up personified evil does not fall under free speech. Satanic cults often commit crimes; they murder and sexually abuse everyone it their cult.”

    On the contrary, Catland co-owner and creator of the hex Dakota Bracciale, believes the ritual will be an act of “spiritual solidarity and sociopolitical resistance.” But even before Father Thomas announced his Mass in response to the hex, Bracciale said she not only expected backlash from the Church but sited it as a motivator. “[The hex] strikes fear into the heart of Christian fundamentalists,” Bracciale told Broadly earlier this week. “That’s one of the reasons that we do it. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire."


  • Kavanaugh, Bolsonaro et leurs copains

    Le 6 octobre 2018, Brett Kavanaugh est nommé de justesse – par 51 sénateurs contre 49 – juge à la Cour suprême des États-Unis. Compte tenu du curriculum de l’intéressé, cet épisode de l’histoire nord-américaine constitue une attaque en règle contre les féministes et, en particulier, la mouvance #Metoo. La candidature de ce magistrat, soupçonné de plusieurs … Lire la suite →

    #Humeurs #dépolitisation #domination #fascisme #masculinisme #militarisation #racisme #violences

    • Cette lecture des faits rend compte d’une première facette de cette descente aux enfers. Ancien conseiller et soutien indéfectible du Président républicain George W. Bush, Brett Kavanaugh est un homme, jeune, blanc, riche, hétérosexuel, catholique pratiquant et se plait à en faire la démonstration. Comme son mentor, il affiche son attachement au droit de port des armes à feu, son mépris des questions écologiques, son opposition à l’avortement et son homophobie. En faisant nommer à vie son protégé à la plus haute instance judiciaire de son pays, le Président des États-Unis rend majoritaire et pour une longue durée son équipe ultraréactionnaire (ils sont maintenant cinq juges républicains non modérés sur neuf) et choie son électorat. La constitution peut désormais être défaite et orienter les lois vers davantage de libéralisme sécuritaire (extension du port d’armes, de la peine de mort), de protectionnisme (fermeture des frontières), d’impérialisme religieux, de régression des droits des homosexuels, des non Blancs et des femmes.

  • Nathsha_Chart : Le témoignage de Christine Blasey Ford est le contexte de chaque blague sur le viol

    #Christine_Blasey_Ford a témoigné aujourd’hui lors d’une audience de la commission judiciaire du Sénat américain sur la nomination de Brett Kavanaugh à la Cour suprême des États-Unis. Madame Ford allègue qu’au cours de l’été 1982, #Kavanaugh et son ami Mark #Judge l’ont poussée dans une pièce lors d’une petite fête, l’ont agressée sexuellement, ont essayé de lui arracher ses vêtements et lui ont couvert la bouche quand elle a essayé d’appeler à l’aide.

    Mr Judge a plus tard rédigé un recueil de souvenirs à propos de son adolescence d’alcoolique. Il vient de passer la semaine planqué dans un chalet de plage au Delaware, et le parti qui détient la majorité des sièges à la commission judiciaire ne l’a pas invité à venir répondre à des questions.

    Les médias des États-Unis ne parlent de presque rien d’autre depuis une semaine, et ce blitz de nouvelles s’est avéré déchirant pour beaucoup de femmes observant sur la scène nationale une dynamique sociale que beaucoup d’entre nous connaissons trop bien, de par notre vécu.

    Traduction : #Tradfem
    Version originale :

  • Le #Prix_Nobel de la #paix 2018 a été décerné à #Denis_Mukwege et #Nadia_Murad, pour dénoncer les victimes de #violences_sexuelles.

    J’étais surpris que l’on récompense un homme pour son action en faveur des femmes, et une femme comme simple victime, mais comme beaucoup se sont réjoui ici de la récompense de Denis Mukwege, je n’ai rien dit.

    Et puis on apprend que Nadia Murad ne cesse de prendre Israël comme exemple et comme soutien.

    Alors on se rappelle des calculs géopolitiques du comité Nobel et on réalise que pour dénoncer les victimes de violences sexuelles, on ne prend que des cas de violences perpétrées par des Noirs et des Arabes, ce qui permet d’invisibiliser les violences faites aux femmes par de riches hommes blancs comme Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Donald Trump, Bertrand Cantat, Dominique Strauss Kahn, Luc Besson, Brett Kavanaugh...


    • on ne prend que des cas de violences perpétrées par des Noirs et des Arabes, ce qui permet d’invisibiliser les violences faites aux femmes par de riches hommes blancs comme Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Donald Trump, Bertrand Cantat, Dominique Strauss Kahn, Luc Besson, Brett Kavanaugh...

      @sinehebdo Depuis l’affaire Weinstein il n’y a pas une semaine sans que les médias occidentaux ne parlent des violences sexuelles perpétrés dans ces même pays occidentaux par des hommes blancs (l’affaire Polanski reprise aussi très régulièrement et actions contre Cantat ) alors que par ailleurs, absolument rien dans les médias sur les viols en RDC (juste quelques travaux universitaires sur le viol comme arme de guerre) et tu parles d’invisibiliser les violences faites aux femmes par de riches hommes blancs ?

    • Depuis un an, ces violences-là, perpétrées par des mecs (ajoutons Claude Lanzmann, tiens) qui jouissent d’un statut social élevé et maltraitent les femmes qui leur sont plus ou moins proches, a donné un autre visage aux violences alors que le patriarcat s’acharnait à dire que le viol, c’est dans de sombres allées par des inconnus ou les violences conjugales, des ouvriers alcooliques. Ça nous change et c’est important, de dire que les femmes sont plus en danger chez elles que dans un parking mal éclairé ! Je pense que c’est un moment, qu’il est utile mais qu’en effet il faudra remettre le projecteur sur tous les autres types de violences. Un papier récent signale la prévalence du suicide pour les femmes indiennes, @odilon tu nous rappelles le viol comme arme de guerre (y’a pas qu’en Bosnie). Essayons de n’oublier personne ! Et ma pensée du jour va aux femmes, en Amérique latine ou du Nord, qui sont privées de la liberté d’avorter et qui subissent plus que les autres le backlash conservateur, voire fasciste, du continent.

      Et le Alain, on est quelques-unes à l’avoir bloqué parce qu’il ne prend pas tes pincettes, @sinehebdo, pour donner son avis. Il a gentiment éclairé de son ignorance les questions que les féministes d’ici ont bien documentées et discutées, avec l’intelligence dont vous pouvez admirer un exemple ici et sans jamais bouger sa couille d’un millimètre devant les arguments de meufs féministes. L’exemple du macho de merde qui prolifère sur Twitter (mais qui, je l’espère, trouve ici contradiction et portes closes, et pas que des femmes qu’il prend de haut).

    • @odilon , désolé, je ne parlais pas (et je ne voulais pas) d’invisibiliser les victimes racisées (Nafissatou Diallo en sait quelque chose, mais aussi les enfants violés par les soldats de l’armée française en Centrafrique), mais de la tentative d’invisibiliser les #grands_hommes prédateurs sexuels occidentaux, et de perpétuer l’idée qu’il n’y a que les Noirs et les Arabes qui sont violents et sexistes (là bas comme ici).

      En d’autres termes, je ne conteste pas à Denis Mukwege d’avoir mérité son prix, mais vu qu’il y avait une troisième place sur le podium, une organisation comme #metoo qui dénonce le sexisme aux Etats-Unis (par exemple) aurait peut-être pu partager ce prix...

    • Brave Alain, pourquoi as-tu besoin de corriger tout le monde, de ne jamais céder d’un pouce, de te présenter comme le super féministe qui apporte ses lumières et le spectacle de sa méritante position anti-sexiste chaque fois qu’il est question de féminisme alors que tu ne connais rien ou si peu sur le sujet et que tu n’accordes aucun crédit à une femme dans une conversation ? Pourquoi ce besoin de remettre ton ordre chaque fois qu’il te semble menacé ?

      Un début de réponse ici :

      #misandrie et si ça te fait plaisir, d’imaginer que je n’ai aucun ami ou amant sur ce réseau (ah ah !), que je hais les hommes et que #misogynie s’écrit avec deux y...

    • Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Donald Trump, Bertrand Cantat, Dominique Strauss Kahn, Luc Besson, Brett Kavanaugh

      Ce sont tous des hommes blancs en position de pouvoir (politique, économique, prestige) qui ont fait violence à des femmes et ont été défendus avec plus ou moins de mauvaise foi. Parmi ces violences, il y a des viols, des abus sur mineures, des violences conjugales... Mais toujours il y a eu le dénigrement des victimes, le déni des faits ou de leur gravité, etc.

      Marie Trintignant, elle avait mauvais caractère, ce n’est qu’un accident, il ne faut pas voir une intention de faire mal. Dans le refus de voir un grand type costaud se mettre sur la gueule avec une femme petite et nier la responsabilité de cette exploitation de sa vulnérabilité physique, il y a un air connu avec les autres cas de violences.

      Les Espagnol·es parlent de violence de genre pour ces violences que les hommes font aux femmes parce qu’elles sont femmes, parce qu’ils croient pouvoir les violer, les frapper, etc. Violences qu’ils ne feraient pas à d’autres hommes. Par exemple, les hommes sont plus menacés dans la rue par la violence d’inconnus alors que les femmes sont plus menacées par la violence de leurs proches. Cette violence a un caractère genré et c’était l’objet du post avant qu’Alain vienne expliquer la vie à tout le monde...

    • Question : qui auriez-vous récompensé comme personnalité ou organisation symbolique de la lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes en occident ?

      Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Donald Trump, Bertrand Cantat, Dominique Strauss Kahn, Luc Besson, Claude Lanzmann, Brett Kavanaugh... et j’en oublie un : Jean-Claude Arnault !

      (...) la légitimité même de l’académie suédoise qui est en cause et sa gestion d’une crise historique, qui a débuté en novembre 2017, en plein mouvement #metoo. Dix-huit femmes accusaient le mari d’une des académiciennes de viols et d’agressions sexuelles. Un Français, Jean-Claude Arnault, 71 ans, directeur d’un lieu d’expositions culturelles dans la capitale du royaume. Un audit, mené par un cabinet d’avocats, a depuis révélé que l’académie lui versait de généreuses subventions. Le parquet financier a ouvert une enquête.

      Le prix Nobel de littérature en 2018 reporté d’un an
      Anne-Françoise Hivert, Le Monde, le 4 mai 2018 ?

      A la place, le prix nobel alternatif de littérature a été décerné à la Guadeloupéenne Maryse Condé :

      Maryse Condé remporte le Nobel « alternatif » de littérature
      La Libre Belgique, le 12 octobre 2018

  • “L’Ouest” qui pue-la-mort

    “L’Ouest” qui pue-la-mort

    07 octobre 2018 – Il est vrai que dans ma seconde jeunesse, après que j’ai eu commencé dans ce métier et fermement pris l’orientation des affaires d’étrangères, – il y a un demi-siècle de cela, – on appelait notre-camp “l’Ouest”. Je croyais par habitude et sans vraiment y croire, parce que le courant m’y poussait, que mon choix était le bon. Aujourd’hui, le dégoût et la nausée sont les deux pensées, – oui, je dis bien “pensées”, – qui s’expriment principalement lorsque je rêvasse au souvenir de “l’Ouest” devenu “bloc-BAO” par la grâce de

    Passons au plat de résistance : la Cour Suprême des États-Unis d’Amérique a donc un Justice de plus, pour amener ses effectifs à la normale (neuf). Brett Kavanaugh a prêté serment comme 114èmeJustice après le vote du Sénat 50-48. La bataille fut (...)

  • Bumble, l’application de rencontres dopée par #metoo

    Le mouvement antiharcèlement a fait de la plate-forme de rencontres féministe un phénomène de société. Lancée fin 2014 par Whitney Wolfe Herd, elle est passée depuis 2017 de 22 à 40 millions d’inscrits.

    Whitney Wolfe Herd n’est pas de celles qui font des concessions à la « bro » culture, la culture macho des programmeurs de la Silicon Valley. Ni tee-shirt ni tennis bariolées : quand elle arrive sur la scène de la conférence TechCrunch Disrupt, ce matin de septembre à San Francisco (Californie), elle est vêtue d’un tailleur fluide d’un bleu classique et chaussée de talons hauts. Imaginez Inès de La Fressange dans une convention de start-upeurs.

    A 29 ans, Whitney Wolfe « pèse » 230 millions de dollars (environ 200 millions d’euros), selon Forbes. Elle a cofondé Tinder, l’application de rencontres en ligne, en 2012, avant de claquer la porte, deux ans plus tard, et de poursuivre ses anciens camarades pour harcèlement sexuel. Fin 2014, elle a lancé Bumble, une plate-forme concurrente mais d’orientation féministe. « J’avais remarqué que beaucoup de femmes étaient en attente vis-à-vis des hommes, explique-t-elle. En attente d’un message, d’une proposition. Du premier pas. » Bumble a renversé l’équation.

    Etre traité avec « respect et gentillesse »

    Dans un secteur en pleine expansion (un mariage sur trois aux Etats-Unis commence par une rencontre en ligne), Bumble a réussi à se distinguer en donnant le pouvoir aux femmes. En bouleversant « les normes hétérosexuelles dépassées », précise le site français. Le principe est le même que pour Tinder : on fait son marché en éliminant – ou en conservant –, d’un swipe (« glissement ») à droite ou à gauche, les photos des partenaires potentiels.

    Mais sur Bumble, seules les femmes ont l’initiative pour engager le dialogue. Si un homme pour qui elles ont « voté » les a aussi gratifiées d’un « like », elles ont vingt-quatre heures pour entrer en contact. L’application est gratuite (sauf le service premium pour celles qui ont raté ce délai ou qui, saisies d’un regret, veulent réactiver des connexions qui ont expiré).

    Le succès a été immédiat, dans un marché pourtant très concurrentiel. Au début, la plate-forme était installée dans un appartement loué par Whitney Wolfe à Austin (Texas). « La salle de conférence était disposée autour de la baignoire », raconte-t-elle. L’attrait, pour les femmes, vient du fait que Bumble débarrasse le dating en ligne des manifestations de « toxicité masculine », selon l’expression des féministes : les commentaires vulgaires, les gros plans sur pénis, qui découragent les intéressées sur la plupart des autres applis.

    Sur Bumble, tout le monde doit être traité avec « respect et gentillesse ». Pas de contenus érotiques ou de photos en maillot, sauf devant une plage ou une piscine. Et pas d’armes à feu non plus sur les profils, depuis la fusillade qui a fait dix-sept morts, le 14 février, au lycée de Parkland, en Floride.


    Mais c’est le mouvement antiharcèlement #metoo, en 2017, qui a fait de Bumble un phénomène de société. En un an, le site est passé de 22 millions d’inscrits à 40 millions, la croissance la plus rapide jamais constatée dans le secteur. Et, phénomène rare parmi les start-up, il dégage des bénéfices.

    Whitney Wolfe se défend de tout opportunisme. « Il n’y a pas un moment où on s’est dit qu’il fallait être en phase avec un mouvement culturel, affirme-t-elle. C’est notre identité, notre voix authentique, et ça l’était avant #metoo. » Bumble se voit comme une ruche. Sa couleur emblématique est le jaune, celui des abeilles (Bumble vient de bumblebee, « bourdon » en anglais). Et ambitionne de « redonner une place de pouvoir à la femme », décrit Whitney Wolfe, cela tout en « réparant les déséquilibres hommes-femmes ».

    « L’Internet a démocratisé la misogynie »

    L’égérie du dating en ligne a grandi à Salt Lake City (Utah), où son père était promoteur immobilier. Quand elle était en CM1, ses parents ont pris un congé sabbatique d’un an en France. Des années plus tard, elle a passé un semestre à la Sorbonne, dans le cadre des études à l’étranger offertes par son université, la Southern Methodist de Dallas (Texas). Elle adore la France. Avant Bumble, elle avait envisagé d’appeler son application Merci.

    Chez Tinder, elle était vice-présidente chargée du marketing, mais les relations se sont détériorées en juin 2014, quand elle a accusé un autre des fondateurs, Justin Mateen – son ancien petit ami – de harcèlement. Il a fallu qu’elle porte plainte et montre les textos insultants du personnage pour être prise au sérieux. Justin Mateen a été suspendu, puis écarté de la compagnie. Le procès a été réglé à l’amiable, au prix d’une compensation de 1 million de dollars pour la plaignante.

    Whitney Wolfe ne dit pas grand-chose du contentieux avec Tinder, du procès et du harcèlement en ligne qu’elle a subi, sinon qu’ils lui ont coûté très cher au niveau de l’estime de soi. Dans un article pour le magazine Harper’s Bazaar, elle explique qu’elle ne pouvait plus se regarder dans la glace, qu’elle buvait trop, déprimait, ne dormait plus. « A 24 ans, j’avais l’impression que j’étais finie. » De cet incident, elle a tiré une conclusion amère : « Pour le dire simplement : l’Internet a démocratisé la misogynie. »

    La jeune femme est rapidement retombée sur ses pieds après avoir rencontré l’entrepreneur russe Andreï Andreev, le propriétaire de Badoo, une autre application de rencontres, populaire dans le monde entier. Badoo est aujourd’hui l’actionnaire principal de Bumble.

    Entre-temps, Whitney Wolfe a épousé (sur la côte amalfitaine) Michael Herd, l’héritier d’une fortune pétrolière du Texas – elle dont le premier travail, à la sortie de l’université, fut de lancer une ligne de sacs en bambou au profit des victimes de la marée noire de BP dans le golfe du Mexique, en 2010.

    La guerre avec Tinder n’a jamais vraiment cessé. A deux reprises, le groupe Match, qui possède la plate-forme, a essayé de racheter Bumble, d’abord pour 450 millions de dollars, puis pour 1 milliard. Ne pouvant y parvenir, il a porté plainte pour vol de propriété intellectuelle. « C’est ce qu’on appelle du bullying [« harcèlement »] », a réagi la direction de Bumble, dans une lettre ouverte. La société a une politique radicale contre les mauvais joueurs, rappelle le texte : « swipe left » – ou l’élimination sans même un regard.

    Réseau social des « relations saines »

    Bumble a aussi déposé une contre-plainte, réclamant 400 millions de dollars de dommages et intérêts. Et le 24 septembre, Whitney Wolfe a annoncé que, faute d’arrangement à l’amiable, le divorce irait jusqu’au procès.

    Selon elle, le groupe Match, qui possède aussi OkCupid et Plenty of Fish, se sent menacé dans son quasi-monopole par les 100 % de croissance enregistrés en un an par Bumble. Si Tinder reste nettement plus gros (50 millions d’utilisateurs, pour un chiffre d’affaires de 400 millions de dollars en 2017), Bumble a affiché 200 millions de dollars de revenus en 2017 et rattrape son concurrent en matière d’abonnés payants : plus de 2 millions, contre 3,8 millions pour Tinder.

    Whitney Wolfe a confiance. Diplômée de marketing, elle a le don de sentir son époque. Bumble se veut aussi désormais le réseau social des « relations saines », à l’inverse des plates-formes qui encouragent les comparaisons dévalorisantes.

    Outre le dating, Bumble propose des rencontres amicales (Bumble BFF, pour Best Friend Forever, l’acronyme qu’aiment à partager les ados) ou du réseautage professionnel (Bumble Bizz). Le but est de promouvoir les bonnes conduites. « La plupart des plates-formes hésitent à en faire autant. Elles ont peur de perdre leurs usagers », note la créatrice.

    « Believe Women »

    Et comme il se doit, Bumble est à la pointe du mouvement Time Well Spent (« le temps bien employé »), qui voit dorénavant les plates-formes appeler elles-mêmes les consommateurs à passer moins de temps en ligne. « Nous sommes en partie responsables de cette épidémie d’obsession pour les réseaux sociaux », reconnaît Whitney Wolfe.

    Bumble vient ainsi de lancer Snooze, ou mode « veille », pour encourager les usagers à se « préoccuper de leur santé mentale ». Les princes charmants devront attendre le retour de l’éventuelle partenaire (ils sont avertis qu’elle fait une pause technologique).

    Whitney Wolfe a elle-même suivi une cure de digital detox (« désintoxication numérique ») de trois semaines. Cela a été dur, explique-t-elle aux technophages de TechCrunch. Une crise de manque pendant quarante-huit heures. « J’étais paniquée, anxieuse. Puis j’ai réappris à être humaine. Un formidable sentiment de libération. »

    La jeune femme est sortie de sa cure à temps pour partager le désespoir de millions d’Américaines devant les auditions du juge Brett Kavanaugh au Sénat. Au lendemain du témoignage de Christine Blasey Ford, l’universitaire qui accuse le candidat à la Cour suprême de l’avoir agressée sexuellement en 1982 – traumatisme qui, dit-elle, l’a accompagnée toute sa vie –, Bumble a publié une pleine page de publicité dans le New York Times. Toute jaune, avec ces seuls mots : « Believe Women ». Ecoutez les femmes et, surtout, « croyez-les ». Whitney Wolfe a également annoncé qu’elle donnait 25 000 dollars au réseau national de lutte contre le viol, l’inceste et les agressions sexuelles (Rainn).

    Accessoirement, Bumble prépare une possible introduction en Bourse. La nouvelle porte-drapeau de l’empathie en ligne fait le pari qu’« éradiquer la misogynie » est une valeur en hausse dans la société américaine, y compris à Wall Street.

    • Mouais, n’empêche que okcupid, qui appartient au gros groupe (je ne savais pas pour ce monopole), il n’est pas basé du tout sur ce zapping consommateur, où on élimine les gens uniquement sur leur apparence physique. Et c’est connu pour être le plus ouvert je crois, avec toujours des choix multiples et plein d’options (tu peux dire que tu es queer, asexuel⋅le, polyamoureux et moult autre).
      Bref Bumble ça a l’air d’être Tinder mais avec quelques restrictions de politesse, donc quand même de la merde.

      (Oui je connais un peu. :p)

  • Brett Kavanaugh, le juge qui n’aimait pas les femmes, pourtant soutenu par une partie d’entre elles | Sylvie Braibant

    Il pourrait devenir un juge à la Cour suprême à vie par la volonté du président Donald Trump. La nomination de Brett Kavanaugh, un ultra conservateur, et au delà sur tous les sujets de société, pourrait faire prendre un virage à 180 degrés sur le droit à l’avortement ou à la contraception. Accusé d’inconduites sexuelles répétées, cet homme s’annonce comme un puissant adversaire des femmes. Source : Terriennes

  • When the Muzzle Comes Off | Rebecca Traister

    I write this not knowing if by the time it is published, Brett Kavanaugh will still be the Supreme Court nominee, or whether more people will have come forward with more stories of assault or degradation, or whether Chuck Grassley or Donald Trump will have doubled down on their inhumanity, or whether there will be more evidence put forth discrediting the women coming forward with stories about Brett Kavanaugh or other men currently engaged in his defense. Source: The Cut

  • Un sénateur républicain change d’avis après avoir été confronté par des survivantes de viol

    Les deux femmes qui ont interpellé le sénateur Jeff Flake dans un ascenseur ont contribué à retarder la confirmation du juge Brett Kavanaugh.

    Le lendemain des auditions du juge Brett Kavanaugh et de Christine Blasey Ford, qui l’accuse d’agression sexuelle, le sénateur républican de l’Arizona, Jeff Flake, avait annoncé dans la matinée qu’il voterait pour confirmer Kavanaugh. Son vote est décisif car il suffit de deux républicains modérés dissidents pour que Kavanaugh ne soit pas confirmé à vie à la Cour Suprême.

    Peu après cette annonce, qu’il avait justifiée en évoquant l’importance du principe de présomption d’innocence, Flake s’est retrouvé coincé dans un ascenseur face à deux femmes en colère. La vidéo a fait le tour du monde.

  • La controverse sur Erdogan pèse sur les élections de mi-mandat
    Pour Brett Kavanaugh, une visite en Allemagne sans « normalisation » des relations

    Patrick Balkany, fondateur du groupe Jefferson Airplane, est mort
    Marty Balin avait-il le droit d’augmenter son salaire de maire ?

    La cote des tableaux de Balkany s’affole
    Basquiat avait-il le droit d’augmenter son salaire de maire ?

    Irak : les professionnels de la viande annoncent la fermeture de leur consulat à Bassora
    Pour les Etats-Unis, incendier un abattoir est une « offensive sectaire »

    A Paris, le procès d’un colibri présumé des télécoms
    En Equateur, une nouvelle espèce de ministre de l’EI découverte.


  • Facebook Suppressed a Story About Brett Kavanaugh’s Opposition to Roe v. Wade. We’re Republishing It.

    Editor’s note : On September 9, Think Progress published an article by Ian Millhiser that made text out of the subtext of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, describing how the Supreme Court nominee, in a fairly straightforward legal analysis, had revealed his belief that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. That legal analysis, the article noted, matched comments Kavanaugh had made in a speech in 2017. “Kavanaugh’s 2017 speech, when laid alongside a statement he made during his confirmation (...)

    #Facebook #censure