Mediaboss Marketing

FRANKLIN The feeling of not breathing is what makes it a challenge for Heather Guess, 38, to wear a face covering in public during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Its one of many consequences of indelible trauma. The feeling is a reminder of when, as a young girl, a playmate shoved Guess and her sister into a dark chest freezer and locked the hatch. To this day, Guess struggles with tight spaces and crippling panic attacks. So in 2020, she changed her extroverted life to avoid people and what she said are inevitable conflicts with others in public.

I have been argued with, I have been told Im a liar, that I can wear a mask and Im just choosing not to and Ive actually had people tell me that they hope I get the virus and die, Guess said.

If the threats werent enough, the pandemic threw everything it had at Guess. She lost work as a traveling barista as the virus unfolded in spring 2020. Then, along with her husband and three young children, Guess was evicted from her Indianapolis apartment. After living in a hotel for three weeks, the family made it to their current residence in Franklin with the help of a local nonprofit.

Heather Guess, 38, shows a video featuring Geert Vanden Bossche, a Belgian virology expert whos worked for several international vaccine distributors. In the video, Boscche claims the current COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous to humans and should be reconsidered. His claims have sparked controversy and have been debunked by other health experts, who argue he is stoking fear over normal unknowns about the vaccine.

The experience has made Guess question whether the state and local decisions made in the interest of public health are correct, including on the issue of masks.

Scientists around the world support masks as a way to protect each other and achieve herd immunity and would say Guesss perspective is wrong or even harmful.

Guess realizes this and is still skeptical: She wonders why people wear masks in the first place, arguing they prevent peoples biology from working as it should so they can build immunity. She continues to ask over coffee in a socially distanced shop whether the vaccine can be trusted and turns to a video on her secondhand iPad that suggests the vaccines are dangerous. The remarks in that video, from Belgian vaccine expert Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, are unverified and have been refuted by experts.

Now living as a stay-at-home mom, Guess often finds herself asking these questions alone, save for the community shes found in some of her neighbors and on social media. Its there where she finds other people asking the questions that count, in her mind the questions that she says others might call her a conspiracy theorist for asking.

Guess is one of many Americans whos trying to make sense of a complex world with its pandemics and politics and racial justice protests at a time when the truth can become blurred.

Whether in Johnson County or around the country, debates over what is real and what is misinformation seem to be multiplying. This has left ordinary people with a new puzzle: Who and what institutions can they trust? And how can they be involved in a community increasingly conflicted over what is fact and what is fiction?

The path to a solution hasnt been a simple one. Instead, its often left people isolated from one another in the search for answers.

While its unclear what specific role the conflict over misinformation is playing in Indianas Johnson County, where Guess lives, wider studies suggest misinformation belief is closely linked to partisan divides. People on both the left and the right of the political spectrum can believe lies that best fit their worldview.

In Johnson County, most people support Republicans, according to Politico. In the 2020 presidential election, 66% of the vote representing more than 51,200 ballots went to Donald Trump. Thats also in a decidedly red state with Trump winning in all but five counties.

Guess, a Trump supporter who identifies as an independent voter, said she often feels vilified for her political views. She says Trump represents the truth telling and action she doesnt see from enough politicians, particularly around issues like abortion.

She also thinks too many Trump supporters are being characterized as QAnon conspiracy theorists, who have leveled broad accusations that deep state actors are pulling the strings in the United States at the expense of everyday people. QAnon has also been linked to some attendees at the January 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Im not a QAnon fan, Guess said. They are activists in a negative light. Whereas I am an activist thats more looking for the positives.

Theres a more dangerous undercurrent to groups like QAnon, Guess thinks, that has less to do with supporting Trump and more to do with tearing government down, and to no ones benefit.

She also says her perspective is rooted in more than politicians: Shes a Christian first, and that is what leads her to be a truth seeker and search for different narratives not provided in mainstream media. She wants to get the full picture and for her, thats guided by God, not by people.

If were so stuck in our own viewpoint that everybody else in the world has to be wrong and were right thats not from God, Guess said. Thats not what he says. He listens to people. He didnt jump right in and enforce his view, even though hes always correct.

Robin Blom, associate professor of journalism at Ball State University, describes how conspiracy theories and misinformation can enter the mainstream.

As Guess describes, identifying how someone finds different information, and potentially misinformation, isnt as simple as looking at someones political preferences. Robin Blom, an associate professor of journalism studying the role of misinformation and psychology in news at Ball State University, said conspiracy theories are likely to play a more prominent role in times of crisis. People use them as a way to explain disruptive events because its often the easier and more human choice.

So, it only makes sense that the many debates around public life in the last year a high-stakes election, a life-changing pandemic and a resurgence in racial justice protests would lead more people to believe conspiracy theories.

Nationally, a 2020 survey by the Center for American Progress found more than half of Democratic and Republican respondents reported belief in unproven claims. As one example, a majority of Republicans in the survey said they believed in a coordinated effort by unelected government officials to disrupt the Trump administration, a core assertion of the QAnon theory.

When misinformation gains enough prominence, Blom adds, this can pose a real problem that plagues the wider community. People cant agree on a set of facts around which to frame debate. Ultimately, one side believes in falsehoods as fact, creating a barrier people must overcome to have informed conversation.

It almost creates a vacuum in the public discourse, to avoid there being political or public discourse about that topic, Blom said. And this basically numbs democracy.

James Vaughn rests his hands on his leather notepad. His brown hair shines in the clean light of a conference room in The Daily Journal newsroom. Through a nearby window, one can see the brick and limestone faade of the Johnson County Courthouse, topped with a clock tower that juts into the morning sky. Its here where Vaughn and a small staff serve Johnson County and the south side of Indianapolis.

James Vaughn, executive editor of The Daily Journal, sits at his desk in the newspapers office in downtown Franklin. Since becoming editor in 2020, Vaughn said hes observed the impact of mistrust in the media firsthand. I think there is more of a spreading of misinformation online through social media in general that is making people look at us a bit differently, Vaughn said.

Vaughn says The Daily Journals job has become more difficult since 2020. He entered his role as the newspapers editor when the COVID-19 pandemic was just starting to unfold. From day one, he noticed disdain in social media comments left on The Daily Journals stories.

I think there is more of a spreading of misinformation online through social media in general that is making people look at us a bit differently, Vaughn said.

This changed perception is manifesting itself in action, too. Vaughn is seeing accusations in personal comments and letters to the editor that The Daily Journal isnt covering all sides.

Right away, I started to see this mistrust on social media, Vaughn said. I started to see it in the letters that I was getting, I started to see it in emails and calls I was getting you know, with people wanting to know why we werent telling the other side of the story the other side that is full of baseless claims and misinformation.

Vaughn added he believes misinformation is on the rise and changing how the public interacts with their community newspaper. In between newsgathering and working with reporters at The Daily Journal, Vaughn spends many of his hours trying to repair a community dynamic he said feels broken.

For example, when Vaughn hears complaints in the community, he encourages the people who reach out to send him the sources to their claims so the staff can investigate further. This rarely happens, though, so the conversation is often abandoned.

Unlike in the past, where a newspaper would be a towns main platform for debate and information, hes finding a public thats increasingly disengaged. Many seem to be turning to social media, and for 28-year-old Vaughn, thats where The Daily Journal staff can make more efforts to join conversations, promote their work and fact check.

Scholars support Vaughns perspective: According to a January 2021 report by PEW Research Center, more than 86% of U.S. adults report getting their news from a digital device like a smartphone or tablet. While 68% of adults who look for news online still report going to news websites, in many cases representing around 53% of U.S. adults information is often or sometimes coming from social media rather than a verified news organization.

The effort to reel readers back to a trusted source like The Daily Journal can only go so far, Vaughn said. If misinformation becomes more rampant than it already is, Vaughn believes the outlook isnt very optimistic for anyone. The outcome for media, if it fails to stay relevant, is particularly grim.

I think that we die. The media dies, Vaughn said. There becomes so much distrust in it that it doesnt exist anymore because people dont support it anymore.

Second-year teacher Chaz Hill, 24, stands in the classroom at Franklin Community High School where he teachers juniors and seniors about American history and government. Hill used the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol to talk to his class about fact-checking and democracy.

Misinformation is driving separation in other spaces, too. While hes only in his second year of teaching at Franklin Community High School, social studies teacher Chaz Hill, 24, is doing what he can to educate young people on fact-checking and media literacy as they create lives online.

That mission became more real, Hill said, after the events at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6 and as more of his students began to ask questions about the 2020 election. Some wondered in class, for example, whether the results of the presidential election could be believed, citing a false claim that ballots from dead voters were being accepted around the country to rig the election.

Its being brought to the forefront sometimes by people that you thought you trusted to find factual information, Hill said. Its being filtered into the general zeitgeist, which I think is terrifying.

So, Hill approaches his class as an open forum. Students can ask questions about whatever they want, and if that question or claim is rooted in a conspiracy theory, the class will take time to do their research together before coming to a conclusion.

The Jan. 6 Capitol riot posed a unique and emotional time for Hill to teach this important lesson. Hill recalled being at school when the events unfolded. Surrounded by Star Wars and Marvel movie posters, he listened to a livestream of the election certification process while responding to emails.

Jan. 6, a Wednesday, was when his students would work asynchronously at home, so he didnt have a class to lead that day. In his empty classroom, Hill watched in horror with his fellow teachers as dozens of rioters marched through the Capitol building, chased police and broke windows.

What was scariest for Hill, though, was realizing his students were at home and perhaps not in a position to process what happened or get the basic facts. He wondered about how he would reckon with students who had no knowledge of what happened and its significance and those students who might have been in a place where the riot would be celebrated.

You dont know what is being said at home, Hill said. Are there families that are happy this is going on? Are there families that are able to facilitate those conversations? Or are there families who just dont have the news on and dont care?

Hill resolved then to spend several days after Jan. 6 unpacking what happened with his juniors and seniors, who came to class on a staggered schedule, in the hopes he might prepare them to understand its significance and the social media influences that contributed to it.

Talking about Jan. 6 in the classroom wasnt straightforward, though. Hill wasnt sure what might happen by presenting the available facts or how his students (and their parents) might react. He compared his approach to how his own teachers explained 9/11 and the Sandy Hook massacre, two tragedies that defined Hills childhood.

I never knew that my morning after conversation as a teacher would come that fast, Hill said. But now its up to me, as a teacher, to walk in the classroom that next morning and face 30 kids.

Hill, Vaughn and Blom each said more needs to be taught about media literacy if the country is to move forward. Its lessons in media literacy that they said help people understand how to debate, how to ask questions and, in an increasingly competitive media environment, who to trust.

How to best rope in neighbors like Guess, though the people with not only a different understanding of the forces leading our world but also a differing perspective on the facts remains to be solved.

At some point, every teacher should look themselves in the mirror and should be comfortable saying a fact, Hill said. But the problem is facts have become politicized, and now its a political opinion to believe a fact. Thats dangerous.

See more here:
Numbing democracy: Conspiracy theories, misinformation on social media divide neighbors - Evening News and Tribune

East Northport, L.I.: To Voicer Julio E. Rivera: First, thank you for your service. I just missed the Vietnam War but I knew to respect those who served. As to West Side Story, to me, it has always been a story, as was Romeo and Juliet, about the futility and absurdity of hate. Poor American youth in a gang are Catholics who hate these Puerto Rican immigrants (also Catholics) because they look and sound different. Theyre not foreigners. They even share the same religion. It is truly pitiful. And yet they hate each other they cant share a playground or a gym. Today, things may be better for some but I can see and hear hatred all around me. Different faces, different skin color, different cultures and languages and foods and sexuality and more. Maybe its time for this redo of West Side Story as another attempt to remind us of the futility of such hate. Ron Troy

See original here:
Readers sound off on the fraying of democracy, pajamas in public and Dr. Fauci - New York Daily News

What are Democrats willing to do to save our democracy, and how far are they willing to go? Thats the question they must answer now, while theres still time to protect our flawed and fragile democracy from an extremist, countermajoritarian Republican Party hellbent on subverting the political process to implement rule by and for a white Christian minority.

For the past few months, it appeared that Democrats would respond to this daily threatwith the former president talking about how his office was stolen from him and his former national security adviser calling for a coup while the partys lawmakers fight tooth and nail against any examination of the Jan. 6 insurrectionwith nothing more than some strongly worded rhetoric and finger-wagging.

But then Texas Democrats kicked the hornets nest and walked out of the Texas House of Representatives to temporarily block a vote on a dangerous Republican voter suppression bill. Then over 100 prominent scholars of democracy signed a Statement of Concern urging Congress to do whatever is necessaryincluding suspending the filibusterto pass national voting and election administration standards. And finally President Biden appointed Vice President Harris to lead an effort to combat Republicans voter-suppression efforts and declared June a month of action during his address commemorating the centenary of the Tulsa race massacre. Its a start.

The month of action should have started in January, right after his inauguration, but now democracy itself is up against the clock as we race towards the 2022 midterms. You might think thats an alarmist statement, but listen to Larry Sabato, director of the UVA Center for Politics and one of the signatories of the statement who told me, It's not just the threat of a Jan. 6-style coup attempt again. It is the possibility of a silent coup in 2024, where state legislatures controlled by the GOP ditch the electoral votes for the popular-vote winner (because of made-up "fraud") and appoint Republican electors in their stead in swing states.

Thats not inevitable. If Biden is serious about fighting like heck against the GOPs full-frontal assault on democracy, here are five things his party must do to save it.

1.Kill the Filibuster: Ive written about killing the filibuster before, but it bears repeating that this Jim Crow relic used by Republicans to hijack the will of the minority, obstruct progress, and turn the Senate into a legislative graveyard must meet a swift, ignoble end. Just like he did with President Obama, Senator Mitch McConnell has committed himself 100 percent to obstructing President Bidens entire agenda. Zero Republicans voted for Bidens relief bill during a deadly pandemic, and McConnell called in a personal favor with Republican senators to kill the proposed bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection where five people died and others were trying to lynch Vice President Mike Pence for his refusal to throw out the constitution and declare that Donald Trump had won the race hed plainly lost.

If theyre willing to make Pence a human sacrifice, theyll do it to anyone not named Trump. When people show you who they are for the 4,080th time, believe them.

Biden just needs 50 votes in the Senate to kill the filibuster, but unfortunately we cant have nice things thanks to Senators Joe Manchin, who is perpetually deeply disappointed in the GOP and prepared to do nothing yet still believes in a magical unicorn known as bipartisanship, and Kristen Sinema, whose sole talents so far appears to be her remarkable lack of accountability and tone-deaf responses to progressive causes, such as giving a thumbs-down vote and curtsy to a minimum wage increase while wearing a Lululemon bag. One way to move these two useless vessels of archaic moderation is to legally bribe them with lavish attention and pork that will help their states. Or Biden can play bad cop and join the progressive chorus in openly shaming them, which is what he flirted with at his recent speech where he called them out, not by name, as two members of his party whom he said vote more with the GOP than Democrats.

Its time that fellow Democrats start openly asking Manchin and Sinema why they are supporting an instrument of Jim Crow to suppress the Black and brown voters who helped Biden win the election.

2. Flex Your Power. Did you know that Democrats currently control the White House, House of Representatives and hold the tiebreaker in the 50-50 Senate? I always lament that Democrats bring a policy paper to a knife fight and the GOP brings a bazooka. You dont have to guess wholl win in the end. Although Biden and his team are predicting his popular policies and civil tone might be enough to barely win in 2022 and 2024, why play it safe and mild against an aggressively extremist party threatening our democracy and the rights of millions? The Texas Democrats showed the party how its done as they temporarily blocked an oppressive voter suppression bill that could endanger the sanctity of the 2022 election. They said they were sending a very, very clear message to President Biden: We need a national response to federal voting rights.

Norm Eisen, a senior fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings and an expert on law, ethics, and anti-corruption, praised the Texas Democrats and said their actions should be an absolute role model for Democrats moving forward. Was it wrong to do one thing they had in their power? No. It was right. You have to fight with every tool you have, he told me, wearing his activist hat.

Another tool Democrats have is a congressional majority in the House which brings with it oversight powers. The Republicans are the arsonists at the crime scene and congressional Democrats have the ability and the authority to use the levers of oversight however they see fit, Kurt Bardella, advisor to the DCCC and former staffer to Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, told me. He said Democrats need only look at what Republicans did during the Obama years with their majority to issue over 100 subpoenas, countless depositions, and wasteful and prolonged hearings on Benghazi and Clintons emails solely to attack her presidential run, per Rep. Kevin McCarthys own admission in 2015. He says these hearings were successful in damaging Obama, changing the narrative in favor of the GOP and harming Clinton during the 2016 election.

With Trump and his acolytes, theres actual evidence of criminal behavior that demands legitimate oversight and investigation. Speaker Pelosi must jettison any hope for a bipartisan inquiry into the Jan. 6 insurrection and have Democrats initiate it on their own, issuing subpoenas and calling witnesses to hold their Republican colleagues who incited and supported the mob to account. Democrats should use all the levers of oversight they have at their disposal and bring transparency and accountability to Trumps malfeasance, criminality and abuse of power, dragging along any accomplices along the way. It has to happen soon, because we are running out of time, says Bardella. History will repeat itself and it will probably be much worse and violent.

3. Blitzkrieg the Media. Democrats need to be in the media every day delivering a simple message about how the GOP is an extremist party actively attacking our democracy, including supporting the lethal Jan. 6 insurrection. They need to remind voters that Republicans refused to vote for a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrectionand that zero Republicans voted for the relief bill. This has to be done continuously because people have fickle, short-term memories and Republicans are great at manufacturing outrage, headlines, attention and winning votes by raving about Mr. Potato Head, critical race theory, cancel culture and woke corporations.

Sabato told me: It is vital for voters to understand just how critical the situation is. Our democratic institutions are in disarray or decay. Bidens recent remarks in Tulsa and his comments over Memorial Day where he said democracy itself is in peril were a start but that rhetoric has to be ramped up and hammered home, again and again.

Unfortunately, we have two sides to the media: a right-wing echo chamber centered around Fox News and then both sides news operations that feel compelled to be neutral umpires as they elevate and enable bad faith actors who promote lies and conspiracy theories, gaslight the nation, and undermine democracy in front of our eyes. Journalists have to make a decision about whether they will allow themselves and their platforms to be used to accelerate this attack on our democracy or will they be biased in favor of preserving and protecting it. They need to actively press every Republican elected official each time they appear as to why they or their colleagues support regressive voter suppression laws, endorse the Big Lie, and pal around with extremist militias. Every Republican official has to be asked if they believe Joe Biden is the president and if he won the election, and anyone who refuses to answer should be taken off the air until they will. These politicians need these media outlets to win voters, because believe it or not, not every Republican can get by on just OANN, Newsmax and Steve Bannons podcast.

4. Support Black women and their grassroots leadership: Stacey Abrams and Georgia. Case closed. In case that isnt enough, listen to Steve Schale, a strategist who helped Obama win Florida twice, and told the AP that Black women can assemble Democrats ideal alliance for statewide elections: older Black voters, younger voters across racial and ethnic lines, urban white liberals and enough white moderates, especially women, in metro areas. Last year, I wrote a piece telling Democrats to stop chasing Amy, that mythical Rust Belt moderate white voter, and start investing in Black women and elevating them as Democratic candidates. This is whats happening right now at local and statewide offices and theres a chance these women can help give Democrats much-needed victories in competitive elections. Black women, according to Schale, can rebuild [Obamas coalition] better than anyone.

5. Build a grand coalition. Speaking of coalitions, Eisen agreed with my list, but he told me he had to put on his scholar hat and add one more suggestion: building a grand coalition with Republicans, such as Rep. Liz Cheney. I reminded him that she was recently cancelled by her own party for standing up to Trump and moderate Republicans are now an endangered species. He responded by citing his recent Brookings report, Democracy Playbook, which he said reveals that backsliding democracies like the U.S. can only hold up if they form a grand coalition around the idea of democracy itself and with those willing to commit to that ideawhich in our case means joining forces with Republicans like Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger.

I dont share Eisens optimism about creating this grand coalition because I believe the GOPs base will further radicalize and is best represented by the Three Stooges of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and white nationalist Paul Gosar. But if aligning with Cheney is what it takes to save our democracy then so be it, so long as that grand coalition doesnt compromise on a progressive platform that continues to fight and advocate for policies that will bring about real equity and progress.

Biden and Democrats have what could be their last chance to save democracy and promote progressive values at the same time but they have to stop playing nice and finally throw down and use the powers that the people trusted them with while they still have them, to get it done by any legal means necessary.

See the original post:
Five Things Dems Must Do Now to Save Democracy From the GOP - The Daily Beast

Veteran democrat Emily Lau brought their current dilemma into public view recently when she cautioned all her pro-democracy colleagues to think twice about contesting the next Legislative Council election. It was to have been held in September last year but was postponed, ostensibly due to the coronavirus pandemic, and has now been rescheduled for this coming December.

Lau suggested that all aspiring pro-democracy hopefuls whatever their party affiliation should sit this one out due to the many traps that were being laid for them under Hong Kongs new national security regime.

The context of her warning is Hong Kongs National Security Law promulgated by Beijing last summer, on June 30, and the revamp of the citys election system, also mandated by Beijing and announced on March 30 this year.

The pandemic provided a convenient excuse, allowing time for a sweeping overhaul of Hong Kongs local lawmaking body that will reduce pro-democracy representation to a bare minimum. Probably such candidates, who in past Legislative Council elections habitually received a majority of the popular vote, will be able to win no more than about a dozen seats, although the council itself will be enlarged from 70 to 90 representatives. Democrats had already chosen their September 2020 campaign slogan for a 35 + 1 majority.

A relatively concise guide to the culture of entrapment inherent in this new regime, but not evident at first glance, has now been provided by yet another piece of legislation. It has just been issued locally, this one the work of Hong Kongs own legislature, and is in the nature of a follow-up effort to try and nail down any remaining loose ends so that no errant elements can slip in unnoticed.

The aim is to ensure that Beijings new election designs can achieve their intended purpose. That means rewarding only safe candidates , or true patriots in Beijing terminology, while the unfamiliar rules are being imposed on a voting public that is not celebrating at the prospect.

This new law is known as the Public Offices (Candidacy and Taking Up Offices) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance, 2021, or Ordinance No. 13 of 2021. It was passed by the Legislative Council on May 12, with only one opposing vote. This was cast by contrarian Cheng Chung-tai, the one pro-democracy legislator remaining in the council. For reasons of his own, Cheng refused to follow all the others when they resigned in protest last November over the mounting impositions.

The current provisional council is sitting for an extra year with only pro-establishment councillors in attendance, plus Cheng and one non-partisan who tries to hold himself above politics. The election calendar for this year includes formation of the all-important Election Committee in September, with the delayed Legislative Council election in December. The Chief Executive selection process will be concluded on schedule, in March 2022.

The new law is all about oath-taking. On the face of it, the idea seems harmless enough and even redundant. It also seems a minor matter after the draconian security law and electoral system juggernaut. Together those two initiatives have already spelt the end of Hong Kongs decades-old democracy movement that began to take shape in the 1980s, soon after the plan for the return to mainland rule was announced. But this additional law is actually the most devastating of all because it follows up with such a comprehensive after-bite.

As a routine exercise, all leading public officeholders and aspiring election candidates have been required to sign various forms. These affirm allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, and pledge to uphold Hong Kongs Basic Law as promulgated by Beijing in 1990. The Basic Law was designed to serve as Hong Kongs constitution for at least 50 years after the 1997 transfer from British to Chinese rule.

Until 2016, the name signing was treated as routine and created little controversy. This began to change with the growth of the new localist trend that gained strength after the 2014 Occupy Movement failed to win any political concessions from Beijing on the issue of genuine universal suffrage elections. A few aspiring fringe candidates did refuse to sign a new confirmation form reiterating the basic loyalty pledge. This was added in preparation for the September 2016 Legislative Council election.

But the refusal was not necessarily grounds for disqualification. And one champion of the new more insistent demand for genuine local autonomy, Edward Leung Tin-kei, was not allowed to contest even though he had signed the new confirmation form. His vetting officer reasoned that his pledge was not sincere, and he also had charges pending for his role in the early 2016 Mong Kok riot, for which he is now serving a six-year jail term.

Several successful 2016 candidates then decided to improvise their oaths of office during the swearing-in ceremony. Thereafter the die was cast for oath-taking and Hong Kongs new law, just passed on May 12, derives from the saga that followed.

Although several more newly elected legislators had also improvised their oaths during the October 2016 ceremony, six were selectively and retroactively singled out to serve as examples. All eventually lost their seats after an appeals process that went on for years.

Additionally, in November 2016, Beijing issued a formal Interpretation of Hong Kongs Basic Law Article 104, on the subject of oath-taking. At that time, pro-democracy legislators contemplating the text of Beijings Interpretation remarked that actually, they all could be held in violation of its strictures. In fact, they all are now subject to the same constraints under the new oath-taking law.

Especially ominous in 2016 was the proviso that the oath of office was a legal pledge made by the public officers, and is legally binding. The oath taker must sincerely believe in and strictly abide by the relevant oath prescribed by law. An oath taker who makes a false oath, or, who, after taking the oath, engages in conduct in breach of the oath, shall bear legal responsibility in accordance with law.

All of those responsibilities are now being activated by Hong Kongs May 12 law. it follows from Article 6 of the new National Security Law that says all citizens must safeguard Chinas sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity. Article 6 also specifies that those who contest elections and assume public office must confirm in writing or take an oath pledging to uphold the Basic Law and Hong Kongs status within the Peoples Republic.

The new ordinance gets off to a clear start with a statement by Chief Executive Carrie Lam introducing the contents. Since they address virtually every aspect of Hong Kongs democracy movement that has been giving her headaches for the past five years and more, she must have taken no little satisfaction in being able to write an end to them all.

According to her introduction, the new law comprises amendments to multiple existing ordinances in order: to EXPLAIN the meaning of the reference to upholding Hong Kongs Basic Law and bearing allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC); and to REQUIRE that District Councillors must henceforth take the oath of allegiance, which was not previously required.

The new amendments also EXPLAIN the consequences of declining or failing to take the oath; ADD new grounds for disqualifying candidates for Legislative Council and District Council elections, as well as for disqualifying them from being elected and holding office; REMOVE the time limit during which disqualification proceedings can be brought by the Secretary for Justice; PROVIDE for the suspension of such persons; ADD new grounds for disqualifying candidates from being nominated for the position of Chief Executive, and so on.

Some Key Explanations: Part Two

In anticipation of this law, officials have been promising that it would contain a list of dos and donts so that everyone would know the rules of the new national security game, if for no other reason than to be able to avoid violating them. Part Two of the new ordinance contains this list, phrased in terms of upholding Hong Kongs Basic Law and bearing allegiance to the HKSAR of the PRC.

Official observers in Beijing and Hong Kong have obviously been keeping careful notes on all the creative political ideas that have taken hold here in recent years. Part 2 of the new law targets them all in language both tautological and specific. It is aimed at the perpetrators and their supporters, for all to understand and as a warning to all.

References to upholding the Basic Law and bearing allegiance to China mean upholding the constitutional order of the HKSAR established by the Chinese constitution and by Hong Kongs Basic Law. The references also mean upholding national sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity, and the national security of the Peoples Republic.

The references mean: that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the PRC, that the central authorities in Beijing exercise governance over Hong Kong, that the political structure of Hong Kong must be safeguarded, and the one-country, two-systems principle upheld.

Uphold means to intend to genuinely and truthfully observe, support, maintain, and embrace and to do so both in words and deeds.

A person does not uphold or bear allegiance by carrying out activities, or intending to do so, that endanger national security including the activities specified in Article 23 of Hong Kongs Basic Law. This is the article that Hong Kong has successfully resisted since 2003.

Article 23 says Hong Kong must enact laws prohibiting acts of treason, secession, sedition, subversion, theft of state secrets and foreign interference. Since Hong Kong has failed to fulfill its responsibilities in this respect, the central government stepped in and got the job done by promulgating the National Security Law as an interim solution. Hong Kongs obligation to pass its own version of the Article 23 legislation still stands.

A person also does not uphold or bear allegiance by advocating or supporting Hong Kong independence, or Hong Kong state-building, or by participating in organisations that so advocate.

Also beyond the pale of proper behaviour is the promotion of self-determination and referendums, and advocating that Hong Kong be transferred to another country (which some did); and soliciting interference by foreign governments or organisations in Hong Kong affairs (which many have done, repeatedly).

Additionally, targeted for special mention are all the many activities associated with pro-democracy legislators, candidates, and campaigners including especially those related to last years informal straw poll or self-administered primary election.

All the participants in that exercise including the candidates and organisers are now accused of subverting state power under the new National Security Law. Over 50 participants were arrested in January. Ultimately a few were granted bail, but most are remanded in jail awaiting trial dates that have yet to be announced.

The crimes of these suspects are now specified, which they had not been before, signifying the retroactive nature of their punishment, at least in terms of publicly available information about the meaning of the new rules. The National Security Law, which the primary election participants are accused of violating by committing the crime of subversion, was promulgated on June 30, 2020. Their primary election was months in the planning but went ahead as scheduled during the weekend of July 11-12.

According to its Article 39, the NSL itself is not retroactive and is supposed to apply only to acts committed after its entry into force, for the purpose of conviction and punishment.

Further on the new rules specified in the new oath-taking law: not upholding and not bearing allegiance refer to acts that have a tendency to undermine the political structure of Hong Kongs executive-led government. Such acts include attempting to compel the Chief Executive to change a policy, threatening the government or rendering it incapable of performing its duties or forcing the Chief Executive to step down.

Yet all of these possibilities are listed in Hong Kongs Basic Law, which was the authority cited for the July primary election and democrats drive to win a 35+1 majority afterwards, in the September 2020 Legislative Council election. So how could the primary election participants know they were committing the crime of not upholding Hong Kongs Basic Law and subverting state power?

But if these standards as specified in the new loyalty-oath law are to be used in judging who is and is not fit for the purpose of contesting the coming series of elections, then the game is well and truly over for Hong Kongs current generation of pro-democracy campaigners. This is because there are few among them who can claim to be innocent of such behaviour. In fact, the law seems to have been written with the express purpose of disqualifying them all.

Hence it follows that the official intent is also to disenfranchise the majority of the voting public that has routinely favoured pro-democracy candidates. These voters were responsible for giving democrats their landslide victory in the November 2019 District Councils election when democrats won majorities on all but one of the councils.

The popular mandate carried over to the informal primary election in July 2020 that democrats organised to winnow their field of candidates in preparation for the September 2020 Legislative Council poll. Over 600,000 people came out to endorse democrats strongest and most outspoken candidates the very same who are now sitting in jail awaiting trial on suspicion of subverting state power for having taken part in that exercise.

Nevertheless, all this is really just in the nature of an introduction to the new rules. The concluding proviso of Part 2 notes cryptically that this section does not limit the meaning of a reference to upholding the Basic Law and bearing allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China.

Some Key Administrative Details: Parts Three, Four, and Five

Part Three of the new law mandates that judicial officers, members of the Chief Executives advisory Executive Council, Legislative Council, and District Councils must all take the loyalty oath as soon as possible after the start of their terms all to be administered by the Chief Executive or a person authorised by the Chief Executive.

Instructions on declining to take the oath are clearly laid down, reflecting the 2016 controversy when newly elected Legislative Councilors improvised the wording in various creative and insulting ways. A person is regarded as declining or neglecting to take the oath if he/she deliberately changes the wording of the formal oath or behaves in ways deemed not sincere or solemn while reciting the oath. An oath so distorted may not be retaken.

Part Five specifies that the power of the Legislative Council to conduct business is not affected by vacancies in its membership or suspension of a legislators functions and duties or a defect in his/her election as a legislator. Thus, the entire democratic caucus may be absent as it currently is, but the business of lawmaking goes on.

A person who is disqualified from being nominated as a candidate for office, or from being elected, or holding office, cannot contest another election for a period of five years afterward.

A disqualified person may appeal, but his/her functions and duties are suspended until the court decision becomes final, and the person must not enjoy any corresponding entitlements during the period of suspension.

If it is approved that a person is disqualified from acting as a member on a certain date, the person ceased to be entitled to any corresponding entitlement beginning on that date. This follows from the 2016 controversies that continued after the government tried to reclaim funds already issued and spent by legislators-elect before the term began, to hire staff and set up their offices.

Still, this new law for all its attention to detail only forbids acts, retroactively, that have already been committed. Unfortunate it is for everyone associated with the July 2020 primary election exercise to be punished, after the fact, for actions they had no way of knowing were subsequently to be declared state security offences.

But it is perfectly possible to imagine some future agitation that declares its allegiance to the central government in Beijing and veneration for Hong Kongs Basic Law while still continuing to demand a genuine universal suffrage election, which is actually where they all began in 1997.

How might future Beijing leaders respond? Would they be able to adapt their definition of patriot to the revolving demand? Or will they still insist on declaring the law is whatever they say it is and on forcing everyone to accept the vindictive discipline of one-party dictatorship?

SIGN UP to our mailing list

HKFP Dim Sum is a weekly email summary of our best content sent every Friday. Unsubscribe at any time. We will not share your details with third parties.

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Follow this link:
Hong Kongs new loyalty oath is the final nail in democracys coffin - Hong Kong Free Press

By Ioanna Achilleos Zavitsanaki

The population has once again elected its parliamentary representatives. Democracy has spoken. But does democracy and the role of the citizen end here? The answer is of course, no. Electoral democracy can and should coexist with participatory democracy, to reinforce commitment to the realisation of democratic principles.

The need for citizen participation beyond elections alone has become more evident and more pressing in Cyprus in recent years and this is reflected in the results of Sundays parliamentary elections, for example through the following statistics:

The principle of citizen participation stems from the conviction that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. Having said that, something that should be stressed from the outset is that for citizen participation to be of any value, it must not be viewed by either citizens or government as an obstacle for government action but rather as an integral part of its success.

So how can citizens continue to influence politics beyond elections alone? By taking an active part in democratic civic life to ensure that their interests, needs, values and opinions are being heard and responded to by government and its representatives. Citizen participation can take many forms including communities organising around issues that are important to them, influencing decision-making by initiating, proposing or commenting on plans, policies and legislation, petitions, public presentations, exhibitions and discussions, demonstrations, etc.

But it is not enough for government to accept the right of citizens to be involved; it needs to ensure that they are actually empowered to do so. By acknowledging this and facilitating citizens to be active and valuable participants in the political process, leaders can help to boost public confidence, something that seems to be lacking in Cyprus today. Fostering a spirit of cooperation and trust between the governing body and the public can help leaders to gain public support for decisions, come out of deadlocks, avoid costly conflicts and delays and build up goodwill.

Certainly, this is not something that can be achieved overnight but achievable it is. There is a plethora of tools that can be used to achieve citizen participation and empowerment such as the establishment of citizen assemblies and moderated discussion platforms, the simplification of bureaucratic procedures for non-profit organisations and the inclusion by local authorities of their citizens in discussions about public issues involving local infrastructure, public space, budget allocation and prioritisation of issues.

When citizens feel that they are being heard, respected, valued and included, the function of democratic institutions in society is strengthened, both in actual and perceived terms. Only then can public confidence be boosted and the economy be able to thrive.

Ioanna Achilleos Zavitsanaki is an entrepreneur and member of the organising committee of New Wave The Other Cyprus

The rest is here:
Democracy has spoken. But does democracy and the role of the citizen end at the ballot box? - Cyprus Mail