Mediaboss Marketing

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, a Democracy Now! special celebrating 25 years on the air. On February 19th, 1996, on the eve of the New Hampshire presidential primary, Democracy Now! aired for the first time on nine community radio stations.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! From Pacifica Radio, Im Amy Goodman in Washington. Today on Democracy Now!, Live Free or Die, a look at the political landscape in New Hampshire, where the Republican Revolution has taken its toll.

ARNIE ARNESEN: If you want a taste of the country after the revolution, you might as well visit New Hampshire today, because were the state that has the most regressive taxes in the country, that doesnt have mandatory kindergarten, that doesnt invest in its infrastructure.

AMY GOODMAN: Also, the politics of race in the Granite State, and Money Talks: Who are the Millionaires Having Their Way in Washington?

JEFFREY KLEIN: You need to go up to Bob Dole, now that hes on the corporate welfare line, and say, you know, OK, thats a great thats great that youve taken up this plank. Whose corporate jet did you fly up here on? Dwayne Andreas, the number three on the Mother Jones list, or Carl Lindner, the number four on the Mother Jones list? You need to relentlessly expose them.

AMY GOODMAN: All coming up on Democracy Now! Today is Presidents Day, and tomorrow is the New Hampshire primary. Welcome to the maiden voyage of Democracy Now!, Pacificas daily national election show. Greetings to our audiences in California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., Washington state, Kansas City and Colorado. In this election year, were embarking on a nine-month journey through the country and hope to pick up community radio stations in many more states as we go, as we give voice to the grassroots.

AMY GOODMAN: And that nine-month project, well, began a quarter of a century ago. Thats right. Democracy Now! went on the air on nine community radio stations in 1996. It now airs in over 1,500 TV and radio stations around the globe and online at democracynow.org.

In 1998, Democracy Now! documented Chevrons role in the killing of two protesters who occupied a Chevron-owned oil platform in the oil-rich Niger Delta in Nigeria. Democracy Now!'s Jeremy Scahill and I traveled to the Niger Delta to investigate and produced this special documentary, Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria's Oil Dictatorship. This is an excerpt.

AMY GOODMAN: Until now, Chevron has claimed that its only action against the occupation was to call the federal authorities and tell them what was happening. But in a startling admission in a three-hour interview with Democracy Now!, Chevron spokesperson Sola Omole acknowledged that Chevron did much more. He admitted that Chevron actually flew in the soldiers who did the killing. And he further admitted that those men were from the notorious Nigerian navy.

SOLA OMOLE: I guess

AMY GOODMAN: Who took them in?

SOLA OMOLE: Whats that?

AMY GOODMAN: Who took them in?

SOLA OMOLE: Who took them in?

AMY GOODMAN: On Thursday morning, the Mobile Police, the navy?

SOLA OMOLE: We did. We did. We did. We, Chevron, did. We took them there.

AMY GOODMAN: By how?

SOLA OMOLE: Helicopters. Yes, we took them in.

AMY GOODMAN: Who authorized the call for the military to come in?

SOLA OMOLE: Chevrons management.

JEREMY SCAHILL: And so, here we have, on May 28th, 1998, Chevron flying in the Nigerian navy and the Mobile Police to confront a group of villagers who thought they were in the midst of a negotiation with the oil giant, which brings us to another admission by Chevron spokesperson Sola Omole. Again, listen carefully.

AMY GOODMAN: Were any of the youths armed?

SOLA OMOLE: I dont know. I dont know. I dont know. So I cannot say that they came armed with there was talk about local charms and all that, but thats neither here nor there.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you dont think that they came onto the boat armed, youre saying?

SOLA OMOLE: No. No.

AMY GOODMAN: The youths.

SOLA OMOLE: Mm-hmm.

ORONTO DOUGLAS: It is very clear that Chevron, just like Shell, uses the military to protect its oil activities. They drill. And they kill.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Again, environmentalist Oronto Douglas.

ORONTO DOUGLAS: They are shooting our people for just demanding for their right.

AMY GOODMAN: In 1999, Democracy Now! was in the streets of Seattle when tens of thousands of activists gathered to shut down a ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization. In Seattle, we we spoke with Indian scientist and activist Vandana Shiva and Lori Wallach of Public Citizen.

LORI WALLACH: The WTO constrains every country government about literally the level of food safety it can provide its public, or whether or not poor farmers can have access to seeds, whether or not workers can be safe from asbestos.

VANDANA SHIVA: Actually, the secrecy through which WTO was born is apparent in the fact that most parliaments had no idea what was the content of this treaty til months after it had been ratified and signed in Marrakech. The WTO wrote the rules. It sits in judgment about implementation of those rules, and it writes the inquisition.

AMY GOODMAN: You are listening to Pacifica Radios Democracy Now!, broadcasting live from Seattle.

AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now! grew into a daily television show in 2001, but one of our first broadcasts took place in August 2000 at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia.

AMY GOODMAN: From Pacifica Radio, this is Democracy Now! Breaking with Convention: Power, Protest and the Presidency. George Bush accepts the Republican nomination for president. Well get reaction from Barbara Gonzalez and Jello Biafra. Also, a look at the conduct of the Philadelphia police this week and a tour through the Independent Media Center. All that and more, coming up on Pacifica Radios Democracy Now!

You are listening to Pacifica Radios Democracy Now!, broadcasting on community radio stations around the country, on public access TV stations around the country, on the internet, both live-streaming and videocasting at http://www.democracynow.org, in an unprecedented community-media collaboration. Im Amy Goodman, here with Juan Gonzlez, as we continue our reaction to the nomination speech of the acceptance speech of George W. Bush for nomination by the Republican Party as their presidential candidate. Juan?

JUAN GONZLEZ: Yes, as I said, an amazing speech by Bush in you know, he actually attempted, basically, to portray himself as a caring, sensitive, compassionate conservative. But the reality of the message that he was bringing, of increased military spending, of privatization of Social of portions of Social Security accounts, of charter schools that would help to begin to tear apart the public school system rather than raise the level of the public school system throughout, I think was one that was clearly, clearly at the right fringe of American politics today.

AMY GOODMAN: On Election Day in 2000, then-President Bill Clinton called Pacifica radio station WBAI in an attempt to get out the vote for Hillary for Senate and Al Gore for president. While he may have intended to spend about two minutes on the phone, WBAI host Gonzalo Aburto and I kept him on the line for about half an hour, asking him about topics that werent being discussed in the presidential race.

AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, are you there?

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: I am. Can you hear me?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, we can.

GONZALO ABURTO: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Youre calling radio stations to tell people to get out and vote. What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations and that they are at this point feel that their vote doesnt make a difference?

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Theres not a shred of evidence to support that.

AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, U.N. figures show that up to 5,000 children a month die in Iraq because of the sanctions against Iraq.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Thats not true. Thats not true. And thats not what they show.

AMY GOODMAN: The past two U.N. heads of the program in Iraq have quit, calling the U.S. policy U.S.-U.N. policy genocidal. What is your response to that?

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Theyre wrong. They think that we should reward Saddam Hussein says, Im going to starve my kids unless you let me buy nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. If you let me do everything I want to do, so I can get in a position to kill and intimidate people again, then Ill stop starving my kids. And so, were supposed to assume responsibility for his misconduct. Thats just not right.

AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, since its rare to get you on the phone, let me ask you another question. And that is: What is your position on granting Leonard Peltier, the Native American activist, executive clemency?

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I dont I dont have a position I can announce yet. I think if I believe there is a new application for him in there. And when I have time, after the election is over, Im going to review all the remaining executive clemency applications and, you know, see what the merits dictate. I will try to do what I think the right thing to do is based on the evidence.

AMY GOODMAN: Many people say that Ralph Nader is at the high percentage point he is in the polls because youve been responsible for taking the Democratic Party to the right.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: What is the measure of taking the Democratic Party to the right? That we cut the welfare rolls in half? That poverty is at a 20-year low? That child poverty has been cut by a third in our administration? That the schools in this country, that the test scores among since weve required all the schools to have basic standards, test scores among African Americans and other minorities have gone up steadily? Now, what

AMY GOODMAN: Can I say what some people

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me just finish.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me just say

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Let me now, wait a minute. You started this, and every question youve asked has been hostile and combative. So you listen to my answer, will you do that?

AMY GOODMAN: Theyve been critical questions.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Now, you just listen to me. You ask the questions, and Im going to answer. You have asked questions in a hostile, combative and even disrespectful tone, but I and you have never been able to combat the facts I have given you. Now, you listen to this.

AMY GOODMAN: That was President Clinton in a surprise call to WBAI on Election Day 2000. The White House would later call me and say they were thinking of banning me from the White House. I said, But he called me. I didnt call him.

As for Native American leader Leonard Peltier, he remains in prison to this day. I had a chance to speak to Leonard on the phone from prison in Florida in 2012 during the Obama administration.

AMY GOODMAN: Leonard, this is Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! I was

LEONARD PELTIER: Oh, hi, Amy. How are you?

AMY GOODMAN: Hi. Im good. I was wondering if you have a message for President Obama?

LEONARD PELTIER: I just hope he can, you know, stop the wars that are going on in this world, and stop getting killing all those people getting killed, and, you know, give the Black Hills back to my people, and turn me loose.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you share with people at the news conference and with President Obama your case for why you should be your sentence should be commuted, why you want clemency?

LEONARD PELTIER: Well, I never got a fair trial, for one. They wouldnt allow me to put up a defense, and manufactured evidence, manufactured witnesses, tortured witnesses. You know, the list is just goes on. So I think Im a very good candidate for after 37 years, for clemency or house arrest, at least.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Leonard Peltier. One guest whos appeared multiple times on Democracy Now! over the years is the imprisoned former Black Panther and journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal.

AMY GOODMAN: Were going to interrupt the broadcast because right now we have just gotten a call from Mumia Abu-Jamal from prison in Pennsylvania. Mumia Abu-Jamal is speaking to us for the first time no longer on death row.

OPERATOR: This call is from the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy and is subject to monitoring and recording.

MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: Youve probably heard me refer to life as slow death row. It sounds a little dramatic, but it is really more truth to it than hyperbole. And thats because, you know, in Pennsylvania, it has the highest population, or one of the highest populations, in the state, of lifers in fact, juveniles with life sentences. And in Pennsylvania, theres no gradation: You know, all lifers are lifers, and thats for their whole life. Its slow death row, to be sure.

And when you see, as Ive seen, going to chow or going to a meal and seeing what I call the million man wheelchair march, it makes an impact on you. You know, you look up in the morning, and there are 30 or 40 guys going through the handicap line, and theyre in wheelchairs. And although some are young, most are quite old. Life means life in Pennsylvania.

AMY GOODMAN: The words of Mumia Abu-Jamal. After a break, well continue our look back at the past 25 years of Democracy Now!

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Lila Downs, performing in our Democracy Now! studio.

On the evening of December 7th thats Tuesday at 8 p.m. Lila Downs will join Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Arundhati Roy, Winona LaDuke and others as we celebrate online 25 years of Democracy Now! We hope youll join us. Visit democracynow.org for details.

This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. Im Amy Goodman, as we return to our look back at excerpts of Democracy Now! over the past quarter of a century. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Democracy Now! was on the air when the World Trade Center was attacked. Broadcasting on radio for over six hours, Democracy Now! covered the attacks just blocks from ground zero.

AMY GOODMAN: The latest news we have is that there have been widespread attacks that include at least three commercial jet crashes we now believe perhaps four three commercial jet crashes into significant buildings. In the first attack, a plane hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan shortly before 9:00, followed by another plane into the second tower about 20 minutes later. Both towers later collapsed. About an hour later, a plane crashed into the Pentagon, part of which later collapsed.

AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now! closely followed the fallout from the 9/11 attacks, both at home and abroad. In December of 2001, Masuda Sultan, an Afghan American woman, reported on Democracy Now! from Afghanistan about a U.S. air raid that killed 19 members of her family.

MASUDA SULTAN: They described the scene where they were running with their kids in their arms, dodging bullets left and right, while they had while they saw balls of fire falling down to the earth. They were just women and children running for their lives, being shot at by a helicopter hovering over their home. And these people were not Taliban supporters. They werent al-Qaeda fighters. They were simple Afghans, trying to stay safe in their own country.

AMY GOODMAN: After Masuda Sultan came back to New York, she came on Democracy Now! along with Rita Lasar, who lost her brother, Abe Zelmanowitz, at the World Trade Center.

RITA LASAR: I live on the 15th floor and ran to my neighbors house, and she has a clear view of downtown Manhattan. And I looked out her window and saw the second plane hit the second building. And it dawned on me: My brother works there.

I went down to the hospitals to see if his name was on a list. And then I realized he had died. And because he had stayed behind to stay with his quadriplegic brother Im sorry, friend, who couldnt get out, although he was on the 27th floor and he could have saved himself, he died.

And then President Bush mentioned him in the National Cathedral speech and cited him as being a hero. And I realized that my government was going to use my brother as justification for killing other people, and that had a tremendous impact on me. I didnt want that to happen, not in my brothers name.

MASUDA SULTAN: First of all, I want to express my condolences to Rita. I did before, but I think your brother is a hero, and youre a hero for continuing his legacy. And its amazing to me that someone whos lost so much isnt as revenge-hungry as some of the other people that seem to want to, you know, go start bombing whoever, wherever.

AMY GOODMAN: Masuda Sultan and Rita Lasar in our firehouse studio at Downtown Community Television, DCTV. Rita died in 2017.

As we continue our Democracy Now! journey through the decades, we turn to May 20th, 2002, when East Timor became an independent country after decades of occupation by Indonesia. I had been reporting on the East Timorese independence movement for years. On November 12th, 1991, journalist Allan Nairn and I were there when Indonesian troops armed with U.S. M16s opened fire on thousands of unarmed East Timorese civilians who had gathered at the Santa Cruz cemetery.

JOS RAMOS-HORTA: I lost one sister and two brothers.

EAST TIMORESE WOMAN: It was 10 days before I was to give birth. The army was shooting people, and they would die at our feet, but you couldnt stop to help them.

JOS RAMOS-HORTA: I know families that were totally wiped out.

EAST TIMORESE MAN: Two American newsmen badly beaten: Mr. Allan Nairn and Miss Amy Goodman.

AMY GOODMAN: The Indonesian army converged in two places.

ALLAN NAIRN: Hundreds and hundreds of troops coming straight at the Timorese.

AMY GOODMAN: When they came, they opened fire on the people.

PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH: We pride ourselves, and I think properly so, in standing up for human rights.

AMY GOODMAN: At least 271 Timorese were killed that day. The Indonesian military fractured Allan Nairns skull. More than a decade later, East Timor became an independent country. Allan Nairn and I returned to the capital Dili for the celebration. Allan questioned former President Bill Clinton.

ALLAN NAIRN: In 1999, in April, the Indonesian military and their militias massacred 50 people in the rectory in Liqui. They hacked them with machetes. Two days later, Admiral Blair, the commander for the Pacific, your commander, met with General Wiranto, the Indonesian commander. He offered to help him in lobbying the U.S. Congress to get full U.S. military training restored. He made no mention of the Liqui massacre. During that same period, the Indonesian militias rampaged here in downtown Dili. They attacked the house of Manuel Carrascalo. They massacred the refugees there. Yet you continued for months with aid to the Indonesian military. Why?

BILL CLINTON: Whats your question, sir?

ALLAN NAIRN: Why did you continue with aid to the Indonesian military if they were killing civilians?

See original here:
Democracy Now! at 25: Celebrating a Quarter-Century of Independent News on the Frontlines - Democracy Now!

Myanmars ruling military threatened on Friday to arrest citizens who invested in bonds offered by a shadow government, warning of lengthy prison sentences for their involvement in what it called terrorist financing.

The National Unity Government (NUG), an alliance of pro-democracy groups, ethnic minority armies and remnants of the civilian government overthrown by the military, said this week it had raised $9.5m in the first 24 hours of its bonds sale.

The NUG says the proceeds from the zero-interest bonds will fund its revolution against the military in response to its February 1 coup and bloody suppression of protests. It has not said how the funds would be used.

Zaw Min Tun, the junta's spokesperson, said the NUG has been outlawed as a terrorist organisation, so those providing funding faced serious charges.

Action can be taken under terrorism charges with heavy sentences for those financing the terrorist groups, he told a regular televised news conference

If you buy the money bonds, it falls under that [provision].

Myanmar has been in turmoil since the coup, which led to strikes and protests and a severe military crackdown on activists. It also led to the formation in several regions of militia forces allied with the NUG, some backed by armed ethnic groups.

More than 1,200 civilians have been killed in protests and thousands detained since the coup, according to activists cited by the UN.

International pressure on the junta is intense.

The regional Association of Southeast Asian Nations blocked junta leader Min Aung Hlaing from a summit meeting in October over his failure to cease hostilities, allow humanitarian access and start dialogue, as agreed with the group.

US President Joe Biden, who addressed the summit, also rebuked the regime.

The bonds went on sale on Monday to mainly Myanmar nationals overseas in denominations of $100, $500, $1,000 and $5,000, with two-year tenures.

The NUG did not disclose how many buyers took part in the sale, which requires participants to transfer funds to an account in the Czech Republic.

Reuters

Originally posted here:
Myanmar will arrest those who buy bonds issued by pro-democracy group - Business Day

Credit...Matthew Monteith for The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re Living My Life Again, by Katharine Esty (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, Nov. 21):

Dr. Esty, who is 87, put her social life on hold for most of the pandemic, but now she goes out often, plans to attend parties and has been to several restaurants.

Although I, too, am elderly 88 my life is different. I havent received any invitations to parties and havent been inside a restaurant for over a year. I, too, had a boyfriend, but he died a few years ago. We went to restaurants together so enjoyable! and did a lot of traveling, some of it quite adventurous, but those years are the stuff of nostalgia, not present-day reality.

I think that Dr. Esty could be a little more humble about the vicissitudes of aging. Yes, of course we should all try to make the best of our situations in life, but illness can stop us dead or almost dead in our tracks. She seems a bit judgmental toward her fellow elders who succumb to fatigue, anxiety and creaky joints. She, on the other hand, pulls herself up by her bootstraps and lives every day to the fullest.

To give her credit, she wants to set a good example. Fair enough. But lets bear in mind that getting old sometimes seems like a conspiracy against our intentions no matter how deeply held to stay strong and master every challenge.

Nancy C. AtwoodCambridge, Mass.

To the Editor:

Dr. Katharine Esty has the right idea. I am 85 and my wife is 80. I work out six times a week at my local gym, and I teach mathematics at Fordham University. We are fully vaccinated, including boosters.

We eat out in restaurants about five times a week, visit our children and grandchildren, who are all vaccinated, and go out with our few remaining friends whenever we can. We have few years left, and we would be fools to spend them as prisoners in our house.

Incidentally, we have no intention of moving anywhere. We will die where we have lived for the past 51 years in the house that we had built for us where we raised our children and stored our memories.

Jack WagnerNew Rochelle, N.Y.

The term was used by Fareed Zakaria in Foreign Affairs in 1997 (The Rise of Illiberal Democracy) and was popularized by Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary to describe his regime.

Let us give that oxymoron a well-deserved rest. Suppression of human rights, repression of the press and government manipulation of elections bear not the slightest resemblance to any form of democracy. Illiberal democracy is not democracy; it is dictatorship pure and simple.

And its perpetrators are not merely authoritarians or autocrats; they are dictators.

Mark BernkopfArlington, Va.

To the Editor:

Re How the Pandemic Worsened the Housing Crisis in the Bronx (news article, Nov. 17):

As the primary housing legal services provider in the Bronx, we have seen firsthand how the pandemic has intensified the economic inequalities in the borough and pushed already vulnerable tenants deeper into housing instability.

Bronx residents need meaningful policy solutions to thwart the risk of homelessness should the statewide eviction moratorium expire in January.

There are two key bills pending in Albany that would provide robust tenant protections for Bronxites.

First, the Good Cause eviction bill, budget-neutral legislation, would protect renters in non-rent-stabilized units from baseless evictions and exorbitant rent increases. Good Cause has already been enacted in multiple localities across the state, and support continues to grow.

Another bill, the Housing Access Voucher Program, would provide vouchers to homeless families, facilitating their transition from shelters into stable housing. New York should fully fund this program to the tune of $1 billion to meet demand.

Our clients in the Bronx deserve these common-sense protections from what could be a tsunami of evictions in 2022, and Albany must act now.

Adriene HolderNew YorkThe writer is attorney-in-charge of the civil practice at The Legal Aid Society.

To the Editor:

In Whats the Matter With Scarsdale? (The Morning Newsletter, nytimes.com, Nov. 4), David Leonhardt suggests that affluent voters who support tax increases are voting against their economic interests as much as working-class voters do when they oppose those same increases. This line of argument defines the meaning of economic interest too narrowly.

Affluent voters who support more social services often do so because they understand that inequality and poverty are bad for everyone. Unequal societies have been shown to have more anxiety, less economic growth and greater political instability. It is thus in everyones economic and political interest to have more egalitarian societies. Some rich people will have fewer excess goods, but thats a small price to pay for a decent and stable world.

The real issue is that the shared interests of the affluent few and the less affluent many are perpetually blocked by a political and economic elite who continue to pit us against one another. Until this elite is either rejected by a nonviolent social movement or manages to recognize that they, too, will be better off in a more equal world, we will continue on the path of our fractured politics.

Avram AlpertPrinceton, N.J.

Excerpt from:
Opinion | In Their 80s, and Living It Up (or Not) - The New York Times

We go a long way, Ms Samantha Power, you and us. We remember you for denouncing your countrys (USA) government falsehood of avowing ignorance to what was happening in Rwanda in 1994 as the Genocide against the Tutsi.

When you penned Bystanders to Genocide, that was some research youd done there, friend. And we gave you thumbs up. Not so much that we cared for those governments looking the other way while our country burnt, despite their pledged Never Again, since only Rwandans could perceive the intrigues that had led there, as that they should appreciate this fact of only the affected party comprehending it and thus giving us space to repair the breakage.

Well, dear friend, they didnt and, to-date, they havent.

But what makes you different today is that you seem to have joined them. Like them, you go scattering allegations around about societies that are minding their own business without thinking twice of, let alone doing research on, your assertions. What happened to your knack for inquiry, for research? Has superpower politics gone to your head, too?

When you say of Rwanda and I quote: I dont think there is an environment on the ground that allows criticism or that there is pluralistic party development or the criteria that you would have in any textbook for a liberal democracy, Ms Power, these are serious claims about a society.

These no environment that allows., no political space. and other coinages that mean little but are the fad in the West in connection with third world governments, how are you magically able to assess them? If there were galaxies of political space. in these countries, how would you, in your air conditioned office, be able to see them or feel their effect?

Because if criticism in some societies is not the kind that Id call fracas criticism thats in your political culture, you must admit you may not recognise it. There are societies where criticism does not involve hurling insults, breaking property in streets or engaging in other such dishonourable conduct.

But of course, we know what you mean. Like opinion-pushers of your ilk, you are pleading for the fugitives on the loose in your countries, where they enjoy liberal favours. Well, here genocide outlaws and thieving renegades belong to the courts of law. Thats where their fates are determined. If guilty, they must suffer their punishment. When innocent, they are as free as the air we breathe.

Pluralistic party development here is alive and well. Only, its not the kind that you want: one involving those outlaws in exile. For as long as they are wedded to their vision of division, exclusion and elimination of compatriots, theyll never have a place in this country.

The currently practicing nine political parties agree on this. They also agree that their common denominator is the quest for socio-economic transformation. So, old friend, put your heart at ease.

Improved living standards for all citizens are the crux of democracy in this country. Democracy does not spring from any textbook, no, Madam. Its not a lifeless, bloodless and breathless collection of abstractions. Its a living, breathing, feeling and life-giving being.

And its not that its not yet mature, no. Its that its organic, that its evolving and always will. Itll always grow and respond to circumstances, contexts, changes and others according to how the wishes, desires and values of the citizenry are or will be at any one particular stretch of time.

For this and other reasons, every day adds a letter in the paragraph of the Rwandan textbook on liberal democracy. Its not a textbook that can be put on the shelf for occasional reference visits.

But even as its a book in progress, it must at all times be predicated on the solidity of the noblest of values. Thats why the most important pillar in this book is communication.

Communication among all citizens; among the led; among the leaders; between the led and the leaders; among those in the private sector; in the civil society. In short, communication all round.

With the right to life and liberty ensured, all must be empowered to have an equal voice and so benefit from inclusiveness and equality, which demand for good livelihood, health, habitation, etc., for all. An atmosphere of accountability and transparency ensures these are absolute rights.

It also goes without saying that the aforesaid mean ensured freedom of assembly, of association, of speech. And for all this to happen, all must enjoy peace, security and the rule of law.

We do not dabble in criticism of other countries as we are busy building our own. But think on it, dear friend: a homeless person folded up on the street. Police kneeing life out of a black. An innocent black coming out of a 55-year prison sentence. In this 21st century? Beggars belief!

Ms Power, is it in the land of your birth, Great Britain, where they cautioned us thus? Before worrying about a speck in your friends eye, check in case you have a log in your own.

The views expressed in thisarticle are of the writer.

Link:
Those berating us on democracy, is there no log in your eye? - The New Times

In 2017, about six women were killed intentionally by people they knew every hour. Of the 87,000 women killed that year, fewer than half were killed by strangers. Femicide takes different forms, and different concepts are used around the world. But while the differences between femicide and feminicidio, for example, are not merely linguistic but also cultural, there is some agreement on significant key elements. Generally, femicide refers to the killing of women and girls because they are females, i.e. because of their gender. These killings result from unequal power structures rooted in traditional gender roles, customs, and mindsets. And they are the tip of the iceberg in terms of gender-based violence against women and girls.

Given this dire state of affairs, it is painful to consider that some men are trying to justify their hate and violence against women. Shortly after a 22-year-old gunman murdered five people on the streets of Plymouth in the UK, news reports emerged linking him to the obscure, largely-online incel movement. Women are arrogant and entitled beyond belief, the killer had posted on social media shortly before the attack, describing himself as bitter and jealous and seemingly confirming his allegiance to the movement.

The incel ideology is based on the concept of involuntary celibacy the idea that certain physical, biological, social, and mental characteristics prevent men from having access to some kind of sexual marketplace. That marketplace, they claim, is dominated by so-called Chads and Stacys, who exclude incels from participating. The result is an embittered community of male forum-dwellers who perceive themselves as social outcasts and turn their ire primarily against women, but also men and romantic couples. Unlike most acts of femicide, many incels do not attack women they know in line with broader terrorist targeting preferences, the victims are typically randomly selected.

Misogyny, and sexual frustration, is certainly a key part of the movement and the ideology.

On the complex domestic extremism and terrorism stage, incels occupy a curious space. They do not appear to pose the same threat as white supremacists or Salafi-jihadists, yet they inflame fear and intense discussion. And their often-bizarre creed transcends assumed ideological boundaries. A far-right extremist who attacked a synagogue and kebab shop in Germany, for instance, repeated several tropes common in incel chatrooms. But regardless of how we understand them ideologically, violent elements of the movement retain a threat of terrorism against Western communities.

Firstly, its important to note that 2020 and 2021 were bad years for incel violence. Most lethal, of course, was the Plymouth attack, which killed five, but incidents in the US and Canada also claimed victims and provided reminders of the threat to North America. The most serious US case was one Arizona-based incel that opened fire at a mall in Glendale in May 2020 to kill couples. Three people were wounded. In Toronto, a teenager wascharged with a terrorist crime after killing a woman at a massage parlour. And in Virginia, an individual blew his hand off building a bomb.

Counterterrorism analysts often reference the nexus between intent and capability where they meet, terrorism is inevitable. With incels, intent often outpaces capability, and the only reasons the violence has not been worse or more visible these past two years isincompetence on the part of the attackers and good policing but, crucially, not a lack of intent. As long as intent persists, we are at threat.

Secondly, profound pandemic-related concerns about radicalisation to extremism may prove disproportionately true in the case of incels. Experts are concerned that the same troubles weve all experienced during the pandemic isolation, loneliness, boredom, and too much time spent online will feed extremism. The reason the pandemic is so dangerous forincelradicalisation specifically is because, unlike with other extremist movements, those factors are actually part of the ideology itself.

Incels are radicalised online, and they talk incessantly about a lack of friends and romantic prospects, about spending day after day at home alone, and about trouble in school or finding work. Misogyny, and sexual frustration, is certainly a key part of the movement and the ideology. But we must also recognise that incel ideology is self-reinforcing. And those feelings, emotions, and conditions that lead incels into radicalisation have only intensified during the pandemic. Already, most acts of incel violence have been murder-suicides like in Plymouth, violent incels primarily aim to end their own lives, while maximising the number they take with them.

Thirdly, were seeing an expansion to Europe. Most incel violence has been contained to North America, but multiple arrests in Scotland and England were followed by the tragedy in Plymouth, while Germany and Italy have also witnessed incels mobilising towards violence. Incels represent the ultimate case study in an ongoing trend in terrorism, in which movements previously assumed to exist purely domestically have instead crossed oceans and borders, accelerating along social media tentacles to radicalise newcomers in new countries. This makes them far more difficult to challenge, as they evade any traditional conceptualisations employed by national counterterrorism agencies. And this trend may intensify. There is nothing inherently Western about incel ideology that would prevent it from expanding further, for instance, to Asia.

We face a male supremacist movement producing extremists who are as emboldened to attack as ever.

Fourthly, incels have attracted a lot of media and counterterrorism attention, but there are other misogynist movements that are just as dangerous and that we risk ignoring with too much focus on incels. The clearest example is the Atlanta shooting earlier this year, during which women were targeted at multiple Asian-majority spas. The attacker was not an incel but similarly combined deeply personal, sexual grievances with an ideology that justified violence against an outgroup, which in this case also included a racial dimension. The importance of tackling broader misogyny and male supremacism at large (including the myriad forms of femicide worldwide) should not be missed while our focus is on incels.

There are ongoing debates about the countering of this movement, and about efforts to combat it as a terrorist ideology. Canada, in particular, has led the charge to classifyincelviolence as terrorism, inspiring passionate debate on the topic. The US appears to be following suit, but far more cautiously. This is one of the major questions in efforts to counter incel violence: does calling it terrorism help or hurt?

Those questions are complicated by the fact that not all acts of incel-inspired violence involve equal ideological components. Here, Plymouth provides a worthwhile case study. The first recognised incel attack, which targeted a sorority house in Isla Vista, California, involved a gunman who published a manifesto and videos directly claiming credit for his attack and linking it to the ideology. Plymouth did not. The word terrorism and the legal ramifications that might accompany it should be reserved for ideological violence that clearly targets a defined outgroup and aims to spread psychological fear a standard that does not fit every act of violence linked to incels, including the attack in Plymouth, but certainly does meet some.

In any case, we face a male supremacist movement producing extremists who are as emboldened to attack as ever, will benefit from the pandemic, are expanding to Europe, and are actually just one of many male supremacist subsects. On the post-Covid-19 counterterrorism stage, then, incels may play a leading role.

Go here to see the original:
The incel threat Democracy and society - IPS Journal