Mediaboss Marketing

Wednesday July 19 2017

People attend a candlelight march for the late Chinese Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo in Hong Kong on July 15, 2017. His ashes were buried at sea on Saturday, depriving his supporters of a place to pay tribute to the pro-democracy dissident. PHOTO | DALE DE LA REY | AFP

The death of Liu Xiaobo deprives China's dissident movement of a crucial figurehead at a time when political activism on the mainland is being forced ever deeper underground, and pro-democracy forces in Hong Kong are under threat.

The world had not heard from Nobel laureate Liu since he was jailed in 2009 for writing a petition calling for political reform, but he remained an influential heavyweight of China's democracy movement and an inspiration for opponents of the Communist-ruled system.

His death in custody from cancer last week triggered rage and frustration among the dissident community but also a sense of hopelessness as they face hardened repression under China's President Xi Jinping.

"When the Chinese authorities can so easily control life and death, people are more afraid to fight," said activist Su Yutong, who fled to Germany after being repeatedly detained and questioned over her work at an NGO.

"They see that even a Nobel Peace Prize winner can die in jail."

There are fears that Liu's supporters will now be targeted, particularly his wife Liu Xia, who has been under house arrest since 2010.

Veteran China specialist Willy Lam said most of Liu's friends were already under 24-hour surveillance and that the dissident community in general was "highly demoralised".

"They realise they are going through a long winter with no light at the end of the tunnel," said Lam, a politics professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

The fact that support from the international community is outweighed by the desire of foreign governments to keep Beijing onside has also hit hard, said Teng Biao, a human rights lawyer and visiting scholar at Princeton University.

"If the West is reluctant to anger China, there will be no hope," Teng told AFP.

However, some say they will brave it out.

One of the country's most prominent social activists Hu Jia, 43, has vowed not to leave China despite being under police surveillance since his release from prison six years ago.

"I want to stay and make an impact on the country," he told AFP.

Liu's death prompted an outpouring of grief in semi-autonomous Hong Kong, where pro-democracy forces must also contend with an increasingly assertive Beijing.

"We have to face the same political system and oppression," said pro-democracy lawmaker Eddie Chu.

"There used to be some distance, but now it's more intimately felt."

A day after Liu died, Hong Kong's High Court disqualified four pro-democracy lawmakers from parliament following an unprecedented intervention from Beijing over the way they incorporated protests into their oaths of office last year.

Two lawmakers who advocate complete independence for Hong Kong a concept that infuriates China had already been ousted from the legislature.

Hong Kong still enjoys freedoms unseen on the mainland thousands gathered for a memorial march to Liu on Saturday, while over the border even online tributes to him were removed.

But a string of incidents, including the disappearance of a city bookseller and a reclusive mainland tycoon, have heightened concerns of Beijing's political overreach.

When it was handed back to China by Britain in 1997 under a semi-autonomous "one country, two systems" deal, some hoped Hong Kong's colonial institutions, such as an independent judiciary and partially elected legislature, would lead to liberalisation over the border.

However, as China's wealth and global clout skyrocketed, Hong Kong's influence waned. Now it is seen by Beijing as a hotbed of subversion, particularly since mass protests calling for more democratic reform in 2014.

Xi warned any challenge to Beijing's control over Hong Kong crossed a "red line" earlier this month when he visited the city to mark 20 years since the handover.

Jonathan Sullivan, director of the China Policy Institute at the University of Nottingham, described the current political environment as "increasingly circumscribed".

"It remains to be seen if (the democracy movement) feels it can advance its agenda through the 'legitimate' political process. And if not will there be a resurgence of street politics?" asked Sullivan.

The movement itself is struggling for direction, having splintered between veteran activists calling for change across China and younger Hong Kong-centric "localists" who say the city must just fight for itself.

Analysts agree that by-elections for the seats of the ousted lawmakers will prove whether or not the pro-democracy message is alive and kicking.

Lawmaker Chu says the movement needs a clearer vision, but must also accept that change will not come quickly.

"Liu Xiaobo persevered, sacrificing even his life, not because he knew he would succeed but because he saw himself as part of a long-term process," Chu told AFP.

"Maybe Hong Kong is like this too. It's not about setting a goal for victory at a certain time."

University don-turned-politician clears the air on her relationship with Total Man.

How did the exceptionally rich Kenyan coastal forest ecosystem turn into a battleground?

See the rest here:
Dark days for China's democracy dream - Daily Nation

By Wendy R. Weiser By Wendy R. Weiser July 18 at 2:55 PM

Wendy R. Weiser directs the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

Even before the microphones are turned on, the White Houses new voter fraud commission has already done significant damage to American democracy.

By now, most are familiar with the slapstick launch of this so-called bipartisan group, which is set to have its first meeting Wednesday. It was announced in a hurry two days after the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey before half its members were selected. Its led by two Republicans and stacked with some of the nations most notorious promoters of vote suppression. Prime among them is its vice chair, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), whose ill-conceived and ill-executed request for state voter data remains a debacle.

Given the commissions fiasco-filled first weeks, its easy to dismiss it as a joke. That would be a mistake. The panel is already having a big impact, and it is in no way benign.

Much of the damage so far flows from Kobachs data request, which has overwhelmed election offices and forced them to spend an inordinate amount of time, money and energy dealing with the commission instead of doing their jobs. State officials have had to compile detailed responses to the letter, engage lawyers to make sure they dont run afoul of state laws and mobilize to reassure citizens that their personal data will be safe. One state official told the Brennan Center for Justice that his office has spent 50 percent of its time in recent weeks responding to calls from concerned constituents.

The request faces no fewer than 10 legal challenges over multiple alleged infractions. Already one commissioner has resigned. And last week, in publishing the first set of public comments, the White House publicly released the addresses and phone numbers of individuals who expressed concern over the privacy of their data.

The farce is also wasting federal resources. Taxpayers will spend at least half a million dollars on the commission, even though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in February that no federal funds should go toward any examination of voter fraud.

Even more disturbing, the commission has already accomplished one of the main goals critics accuse it of harboring: making people less likely to vote.

Election administrators across the country are reporting that, in response to Kobachs request, voters are asking to be removed from the rolls. The director of elections in Denver said her office has seen more than a 2,000 percent increase in voter registration withdrawals. And the Seminole County, Fla., supervisor of elections a Republican said that in his 12 years in office, he has never had to talk so many people out of giving up their right to vote, telling them: Please dont let an action or policy you disagree with have the effect of silencing your most powerful tool to change or affirm it: your vote.

Kobach offered a callous, evidence-free response: Those who withdrew their registration could be people who are not qualified to vote or someone who is not a U.S. citizen saying, Im withdrawing my voter registration because Im not able to vote.

The commissions threat to publicize private voter information previously protected by the states has naturally caused anxiety and has deeply shaken confidence in election administration. As has its unprecedented effort to assemble a national voter registry at the White House.

The commission plans to match the voter lists it receives from states against other federal databases, such as those used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, supposedly to identify ineligible voters on the rolls. This threatens to further undermine confidence. Experts believe that any list matches using data the commission is seeking would significantly inflate the amount of improper voting, and findings could allow the commission to falsely claim it has identified widespread fraud.

The effort has thinly veiled ends: to justify President Trumps absurd claim that he lost the popular vote because of millions of illegal voters and to lay the groundwork for laws that dramatically restrict access to voting, including through strict voter-ID requirements and obstacles to voter registration such as requiring documentary proof of citizenship.

The agenda is pre-baked. According to emails made public last week, Kobach told Trumps transition team in November that he is putting together ... legislation drafts for submission to Congress and that he had started drafting amendments to the National Voter Registration Act to make clear that proof of citizenship requirements are permitted.

Every minute local officials spend dealing with this sham is time they cannot focus on pressing problems, such as the need to shore up our systems against foreign actors attempting to interfere in our elections, especially Russia.

And yet, Kobach and crew havent even gotten started. We should not underestimate the further damage they can do to the publics confidence in our election system. Its up to us to ensure this farce doesnt turn into a tragedy.

Originally posted here:
The White House's voter fraud commission has already damaged our democracy - Washington Post

Planet Jackson Hole

DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS: Suppressing Dissent Planet Jackson Hole JACKSON HOLE, WY In police body-camera footage obtained by Democracy in Crisis, the scene in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 20, 2017, shows the war zone our nation really is right now. The balance of power in the battleboth on the streets then and in the ... and more »

Continue reading here:
DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS: Suppressing Dissent - Planet Jackson Hole

Armed with candles and Polish and EU flags,thousands of Poles gathered in front of the country's supreme court in Warsaw. They were there to support the country's judiciary in the face of the government's push to reform it. The protesters projected a statement onto the court building: "This is our court."

The demonstration, while moving, cannot paper over the fact that it amounted to a paltry, estimated 5,000 to 10,000 people in a city of nearly two million. Polls give the ruling, conservative Law and Justice Party (PiS) a consistent 35 to 40 percent approval rating, while the most important opposition party garners just 22 to 25 percent.

It is no wonder, then, that the PiS and its leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, feel confident in their ability to push through reforms of the supreme court and regular court system, following an already controversial reform of the Constitutional Tribunal.

Read more -Polish court reforms: What Jaroslaw Kaczynski actually proposes

Crude pretext

Their case against the courts has been building: Theylack democratic legitimacy, PiS lawmakers say judges are building a state within a state, lacking a "moral core;" and commit crimes that are covered up by their judicial colleagues. That is why, they say, the chief justice now needs to be appointed by the justice minister and the newly reformed National Council of the Judiciary.

Bartosz Dudek is head of DW's Polish department

It is not uncommon in democratic countries that judges are selected by lawmakers. But it is the fine print that counts, such as when it comes to who confirms the candidates. Generally the opposition also has a say, a check on power that the PiS reforms do not envision.

Pure partisan interests

The ruling party's unwillingness to compromise suggests that when the PiS talks about "democratic legitimacy" it actually means whipping partisans into line.

Much the same as with state media, which has been turned into an instrument of propaganda for the PiS under the banner of "news diversity," there is good reason to fear that when Jaroslaw Kaczynski speaks of "returning the courts to the people," he really means tightening his grip on power by way of his conservative revolution.

In Poland, it is the supreme court that certifies parliamentary elections. Should supreme court justices, as planned, be relieved of their posts and replaced by PiS loyalists, it would be unclear what would happen were the PiS to lose an election. The potential conflict of interest would be a catastrophe for democracy. As such, we can only hope that the thousands of protesters did not carry their candles to the supreme court in vain.

Original post:
Opinion: A catastrophe for Poland's democracy - Deutsche Welle

citizens or even law-abiding citizens. Photograph: Shelby Lum / Times-Dispatch/AP

In the middle of the hot summer, citizens will gather this week in Florida to champion a ballot initiative to end the states permanent felony disenfranchisement.

As we face the daily jaw-dropping revelations about the Trump campaign and administrations actions, keeping our focus on restoring legitimacy to our elections and our democracy has never been more important, and ending the historic wrong of felony disenfranchisement absolutely must be part of our agenda.

It seems unlikely that the Trump-Pence electoral integrity commission will touch this important issue, and any commission that ignores it isnt serious about the legitimacy of our elections.

The right to vote is the most fundamental right of any democracy, granting it legitimacy as a means of government by instilling power in the people and not in politicians. It ensures consent of the governed and holds government accountable to the people: not law-abiding people, or moral people, or any other qualifier, but the people.

This most fundamental right is not and never has been about rewarding good citizens or even law-abiding citizens. It is not a luxury or a reward, handed out by the government as it sees fit. It is a right, and should not be conditioned on anything more than citizenship, and being of voting age.

And yet since the civil war, states have intentionally denied the right to vote to a certain category of citizens those with a felony conviction. Today, felony disenfranchisement bars roughly 6.1 million citizens from the ballot box one in 13 African Americans nationally.

This denial of a right so inherent to democracy and to citizenship is not based on respect for the law, but is rather a historic and deliberate effort to prevent black people from voting.

Proponents of felony disenfranchisement argue that as a felon or former felon, an individual has shown a disregard for the law, and therefore must demonstrate respect for the law before being able to vote on issues related to law. Yet felony disenfranchisement did not originate, nor is it being maintained, out of any high reverence for the law: quite the opposite.

It was invented after slavery, when white elites sought to diminish the power of newly freed slaves. White politicians tied disenfranchisement only to those crimes believed to be disproportionately committed by black people. The sole objective was to prevent black citizens from threatening the power of the white elite an act fundamentally at odds with the very purpose of voting rights.

The discriminatory intent and impact of felony disenfranchisement is alive and well today. Those affected by disenfranchisement are disproportionately minorities and low-income citizens, voting groups that trend Democratic.

Moreover, the discriminatory politics and impact of todays mass incarceration cannot be separated from those of felony disenfranchisement. By doubling down on mass incarceration under President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and perpetuating felony disenfranchisement, the Republican party effectively blocks a determinative number of voters from voting, including in key battleground states.

Take Florida, for instance, where felony disenfranchisement bars nearly one in four black Floridians from voting. In tight races, that disenfranchisement can make or break an election. In 2000, an estimated 600,000 ex-felons were prevented from voting President George W Bush won Florida by just 537 votes.

Disenfranchisement is fundamentally undemocratic. And yet only two states in the country fully protect the right to vote and enable people who are incarcerated to vote (Maine and Vermont).

The rest of the 48 states disenfranchise voters, with some states restoring voting rights at certain stages after completion of ones sentence, parole or probation. Disenfranchisement is most illegitimate in Florida, Iowa and Kentucky, where a felony conviction costs a citizen his or her right to vote for life.

The only way to regain the right to vote in Florida, for instance, is to seek clemency from a court or the governor. This process is incredibly time intensive and has a low rate of success. Moreover, in clemency hearings, applicants are granted mere minutes to plead their cases, and can be asked any array of questions unrelated to their original conviction, including about acts of good citizenship and any traffic violations.

Citizens seeking clemency have already served whatever sentence, probation, and parole has been deemed appropriate by a court of law, and are back in society trying to successfully reintegrate. And yet a mere speeding ticket can be used to justify the permanent denial of their right to vote, forever making them a second-class citizen. Imagine if the right to free speech or religion were so conditioned.

There are 23 states that have expanded voting rights for former felons, and ending felony disenfranchisement is actually a bipartisan issue. Just recently, Alabama dramatically reduced the number of felonies that result in disenfranchisement. Florida could be next.

The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition is rallying volunteers of all backgrounds at a gathering this week to build momentum toward next years state ballot initiative, which would automatically restore voting rights upon the completion of ones sentence, parole, and probation.

Supporters of felony disenfranchisement argue that the current system is about preserving respect for the law. But they know better. Felony disenfranchisement has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with politics. It is an excuse to deny voting rights, just like voter ID laws and the literacy tests and poll taxes of old.

When a person is incarcerated, they do not lose their citizenship. We do not disown them and cast them from our borders. As citizens, they have a right to vote, and that right must be protected.

The alternative is to weaken our foundation as a democracy, at the expense of all of us. As citizens, we should seize the momentum building across the country and reject the Trump-Pence voter suppression commission, and instead champion the restoration of voting rights and our democratic legitimacy.

Read more:
America steals votes from felons. Until it stops, our democracy will be weakened - The Guardian