ReportWire

Tag: Press Freedom

  • Laid‑off Washington Post staff rally outside DC headquarters after massive cuts – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    One day after the Washington Post laid off roughly a third of its newsroom, former staff and supporters gathered outside the paper’s Downtown D.C. headquarters to protest the cuts.

    The rally is organized by the Post News Guild and the Post Tech Guild l unions. The crowd listens as journalists and tech workers describe the impact of losing hundreds of colleagues.
    a man speaks into a microphone in front of a group of people
    D.C. communities reporter Michael Brice-Saddler tells the rally the Metro section staff can no longer adequately serve the region.
    (WTOP/Mike Murillo )

    WTOP/Mike Murillo

    The rally is organized by the Post News Guild and the Post Tech Guild l unions.
    The rally is organized by the Post News Guild and the Post Tech Guild l unions. The crowd listens as journalists and tech workers describe the impact of losing hundreds of colleagues.
    Protesters outside of the Washington Post office demonstrate following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)
    Protesters outside of the Washington Post office demonstrate following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026, in Washington.
    (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)

    AP Photo/Allison Robbert

    Protesters outside of the Washington Post office take flyers following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)
    Protesters outside of the Washington Post office take flyers following a mass layoff, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2026, in Washington.
    (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)

    AP Photo/Allison Robbert

    This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker.
    In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.

    Laid‑off Washington Post staff rally outside DC headquarters after massive cuts

    One day after the Washington Post laid off roughly a third of its newsroom, former staff and supporters gathered outside the paper’s Downtown D.C. headquarters to protest the cuts.

    Former transportation reporter Rachel Weiner, who spent 15 years at the Post, told the large crowd she was struggling with the loss of her job and what it meant for the community.

    “Yeah, I’m sad about it obviously,” she said. “It is really disappointing having worked to cover as much as possible in this region because it’s also important. The Post has just decided it doesn’t matter to them.”

    Weiner said this round of cuts was handled differently from past layoffs.

    “They did something they haven’t done in previous layoffs and buyouts, which is you lock us out of the building and the systems immediately and not let us finish anything we were working on,” Weiner said.

    The rally was organized by the Post News Guild and the Post Tech Guild unions. The crowd listened as journalists and tech workers described the impact of losing hundreds of colleagues.

    D.C. communities reporter Michael Brice-Saddler told the rally the Metro section staff could no longer adequately serve the region.

    “How is the Metro desk supposed to earn the community’s trust if you keep taking resources away from the Metro section of this paper?” he said.

    The newspaper also eliminated its entire sports department.

    Speaking for her colleagues, former sports reporter Molly Hensley‑Clancy said the loss of the desk was both “heartbreaking” and “senseless.”

    “There’s nothing as riveting as sports, and there’s nothing that brings all of America together like sports,” she said.

    She continued, “There is simply is no Washington Post without sports.”

    Former enterprise reporter Marissa J. Lang, who was also laid off, said the full impact of losing so many journalists will ripple far beyond the newsroom.

    “I don’t think we know yet the impact of losing 300 journalists who hold power to account,” she told the crowd. “I know that the region and the country and the world is a worse place today for having lost all of these incredible reporters.”

    The rally also drew former staff who were not part of this week’s layoffs but came to support their colleagues. Among them was Kathryn Tolbert, who worked at the paper for 27 years before retiring a few years ago.

    “It’s heartbreaking the way the heart and soul of the paper are being torn apart,” Tolbert said. “This feels different in a really fundamental way.”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2026 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Mike Murillo

    Source link

  • Jimmy Kimmel defends free speech in ‘alternative Christmas message’ for Britain

    [ad_1]

    Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel took aim at U.S. President Donald Trump as he warned Thursday about the rise of fascism in an address to U.K. viewers dubbed “The Alternative Christmas Message.”The message, aired on Channel 4 on Christmas Day, reflected on the impact of the second term in office for Trump, who Kimmel said acts like he’s a king.”From a fascism perspective, this has been a really great year,” he said. “Tyranny is booming over here.”The channel began a tradition of airing an alternative Christmas message in 1993, as a counterpart to the British monarch’s annual televised address to the nation. Channel 4 said the message is often a thought-provoking and personal reflection pertinent to the events of the year.The comedian has skewered Trump since returning to the air after ABC indefinitely suspended the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show in September following criticism of comments the host made over the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.Kimmel made remarks in reference to the reaction to Kirk’s shooting, suggesting that many Trump supporters were trying to capitalize on the death.Trump celebrated the suspension of the veteran late-night comic and his frequent critic, calling it “great news for America.” He also called for other late-night hosts to be fired.The incident, one of Trump’s many disputes and legal battles waged with the media, drew widespread concerns about freedom of speech and freedom of the press.Hundreds of leading Hollywood stars and others in the entertainment industry urged Americans to “fight to defend and preserve our constitutionally protected rights.” The show returned to the air less than a week later.Kimmel told the U.K. audience that a Christmas miracle had happened in September when millions of people — some who hated his show — had spoken up for free speech.”We won, the president lost, and now I’m back on the air every night giving the most powerful politician on earth a right and richly deserved bollocking,” he said.Channel 4 previously invited whistle-blower Edward Snowden and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver the alternative Christmas message.Kimmel, who said he didn’t expect Brits to know who he was, warned that silencing critics is not just something that happens in Russia or North Korea.Despite the split that led to the American Revolution 250 years ago, he said the two nations still shared a special relationship and urged the U.K. not to give up on the U.S. as it was “going through a bit of a wobble right now.””Here in the United States right now, we are both figuratively and literally tearing down the structures of our democracy from the free press to science to medicine to judicial independence to the actual White House itself,” Kimmel said, in reference to demolition of the building’s East Wing. “We are a right mess, and we know this is also affecting you, and I just wanted to say sorry.”

    Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel took aim at U.S. President Donald Trump as he warned Thursday about the rise of fascism in an address to U.K. viewers dubbed “The Alternative Christmas Message.”

    The message, aired on Channel 4 on Christmas Day, reflected on the impact of the second term in office for Trump, who Kimmel said acts like he’s a king.

    “From a fascism perspective, this has been a really great year,” he said. “Tyranny is booming over here.”

    The channel began a tradition of airing an alternative Christmas message in 1993, as a counterpart to the British monarch’s annual televised address to the nation. Channel 4 said the message is often a thought-provoking and personal reflection pertinent to the events of the year.

    The comedian has skewered Trump since returning to the air after ABC indefinitely suspended the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show in September following criticism of comments the host made over the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    Kimmel made remarks in reference to the reaction to Kirk’s shooting, suggesting that many Trump supporters were trying to capitalize on the death.

    Trump celebrated the suspension of the veteran late-night comic and his frequent critic, calling it “great news for America.” He also called for other late-night hosts to be fired.

    The incident, one of Trump’s many disputes and legal battles waged with the media, drew widespread concerns about freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

    Hundreds of leading Hollywood stars and others in the entertainment industry urged Americans to “fight to defend and preserve our constitutionally protected rights.” The show returned to the air less than a week later.

    Kimmel told the U.K. audience that a Christmas miracle had happened in September when millions of people — some who hated his show — had spoken up for free speech.

    “We won, the president lost, and now I’m back on the air every night giving the most powerful politician on earth a right and richly deserved bollocking,” he said.

    Channel 4 previously invited whistle-blower Edward Snowden and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deliver the alternative Christmas message.

    Kimmel, who said he didn’t expect Brits to know who he was, warned that silencing critics is not just something that happens in Russia or North Korea.

    Despite the split that led to the American Revolution 250 years ago, he said the two nations still shared a special relationship and urged the U.K. not to give up on the U.S. as it was “going through a bit of a wobble right now.”

    “Here in the United States right now, we are both figuratively and literally tearing down the structures of our democracy from the free press to science to medicine to judicial independence to the actual White House itself,” Kimmel said, in reference to demolition of the building’s East Wing. “We are a right mess, and we know this is also affecting you, and I just wanted to say sorry.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawyers for suspect in Charlie Kirk assassination push to limit media access in case

    [ad_1]

    Lawyers for suspect in Charlie Kirk assassination push to limit media access in case

    The murder of Charlie Kirk is an American tragedy. Charlie Kirk was murdered while engaging in one of our most sacred and cherished American rites. The bedrock of our democratic republic, the free exchange of ideas in *** search for truth, understanding and *** more perfect union. It is also an offense against the state. And to the peace and enjoyment of the people of Utah and of all those who visit here. But Charlie Kirk’s murder also strikes *** more personal and intimate chord. Charlie Kirk was first and foremost *** husband and *** father to two beautiful young children. He was *** son, he was *** brother and *** friend. Like all murders, the senseless and needless taking of Charlie Kirk’s life. Has shattered the lives of those he loved and those who loved him. To Charlie’s wife Erica, his two young children, his parents, his family. And his friends, I express my sincere condolences and offer my heartfelt prayers on your behalf. I also want to express my concern for everyone. Who was at Charlie’s Turning Point USA event at the university or University of Utah Valley University and all who have been impacted by this tragedy. As county attorney, I am charged with bringing justice to those who offend our laws. I am charged. With bringing justice for those who harm, for those who are harmed, I am charged with bringing justice for Charlie Kirk. I am committed to these aims. I take this responsibility seriously. Today, after reviewing the evidence that law enforcement has collected thus far, I am filing *** criminal information charging Tyler James Robinson, age 22, with the following crimes. Count one aggravated murder, *** capital offense for intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Charlie Kirk under circumstances that created *** great risk of death to others. Count 2 felony discharge of *** firearm causing serious bodily injury, *** first degree felony. The state is further alleging aggravating factors on counts 1 and 2 because the defendant is believed to have targeted Charlie Kirk based on Charlie Kirk’s political expression and did so knowing that children were present and would witness the homicide. The state is also charging defendant with count 3, obstruction of justice, *** second degree felony. For moving and concealing the rifle used in the shooting. Count 4, obstruction of justice, *** 3rd degree. *** 2nd degree felony for disposing the clothing he wore during the shooting. Count 5 witness tampering, *** 3rd degree felony for directing his roommate to delete his incriminating texts. Count 6 witness tampering, *** 3rd degree felony for directing his roommate to stay silent if police questioned him. And count 7 commission of *** violent offense in the presence of *** child, *** class *** misdemeanor for committing homicide, knowing that children were present and may have seen or heard the murder and did so based on Charlie Kirk’s political expression. Also, following the press conference, I am filing *** notice of intent to seek the death penalty. I do not take this decision lightly, and it is *** decision I have made independently. As county attorney based solely on the available evidence and circumstances and nature of the crime. Because we are seeking the death penalty, the defendant will continue to be held without bail in the Utah County jail. Turning to the 10 page. Information. These are the allegations. On September 10th, 2025 at approximately 12:23 p.m., Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking to *** large crowd on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Police found the suspected murder weapon, *** bolt action 30 06 rifle nearby. Over the next approximately 33 hours. Police conducted *** manhunt manhunt for the shooter until the evening of September 11th, 2025 when Tyler James Robinson surrendered to police at the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. DNA consistent with Robinson was found on the rifle’s trigger. After shooting Mister Kirk, Robinson hid the gun, discarded the clothing he wore when he fired the rifle, and told his roommate to delete incriminating text messages and not talk to police. Children were present at the time of the shooting. The shooting. Turning Point USA, *** nonprofit organization founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk, organized *** public outdoor event to be held at noon on September 10, 2025 at UVU. The event was the first in *** series of similar events to be held at college campuses nationwide. Mister Kirk is *** well known conservative activist famous for these type of events where he discusses various political issues and debates with audience members. His events and comments have garnered *** significant number of supporters and drawn the ire of many who disagree with his political views. The event at UVU was announced far in advance and garnered significant publicity and interest. Consequently, several 100 people attended. Mr. Kirk was interacting with the crowd before the event officially got under way. Then at approximately noon Mister Kirk seated himself under *** portable canopy behind *** table and microphone. He began speaking to the crowd and fielding questions from attendees, *** format Mister Kirk commonly used at his events. Mister Kirk allowed his questionnaers to approach *** microphone positioned directly in front of him. Mr. Kirk’s team members were very close to him on his right and left as well as some behind his canopy and others at various close locations near him. The large crowd surrendered surrounded Mr. Kirk on three sides. Temporary metal fencing separated attendees from Mr. Kirk by only *** matter of feet. Directly above and behind Mr. Kirk was the UVU Hall of Flags, an indoor walkway spanning several 100 ft with floor to ceiling glass windows which overlooked the plaza where Mr. Kirk was seated. People were in the walkway at the time of the shooting. Approximately 15 minutes into the event, Mr. Kirk was answering *** question about mass shootings by transgender individuals when *** gunshot rang out. The bullet struck Mr. Kirk in the neck. He slumped to the ground almost immediately. The bullet’s tra trajectory passed closely to several other individuals beside Mister Kirk, including the questioner who was standing directly in front of Mister Kirk. Children were visible near Mister Kirk’s stage when he was shot. Mr. Kirk was rushed to *** nearby hospital where he was declared deceased. The medical examiner’s report is still pending. So UVU surveillance. So at the moment of the shot, *** UVU police officer was watching the crowd from an elevated vantage point. As soon as he heard the shot, he began to scan the area for threats. Believing the shot came from *** rifle because of its sound, he looked for potential sniper positions. He noted *** roof area approximately 160 yards away from Mr. Kirk as *** potential shooting position and rushed there to look for evidence. The suspected shooting position is adjacent to an open publicly accessible walkway. To access the suspected location, *** person must climb over *** railing and then drop to the roof only slightly below. The UV officer climbed over the railing and down onto the roof. He then walked to the suspected shooting position and confirmed *** clear shooting corridor between the position and Mister Kirk’s seat. He also noticed markings in the gravel rooftop consistent with *** sniper having lain on the on the roof, impressions in the gravel potentially left by the elbows. Knees and feet of *** person in *** prone shooting position. Police reviewed surveillance from the camera covering the roof and discovered that it recorded an individual dressed in dark clothing cross the railing from the public walkway and drop onto the roof at approximately 12:15 p.m. Although the individual moved out of the camera’s view for *** short time, the camera again captured the individual running across the roof and then low crawling to the area the UBU officer recognized as where the suspected sniper had dropped into *** pro prone shooting position. After *** short time, which matches the known time of the shot, the individual arose and ran across the roof to the northeast. This discovery led to an intensive review of UBU surveillance recordings to attempt to track and identify the suspect. Surveillance revealed the following at approximately 11:51 a.m. The suspect entered campus from the north. He is seen wearing *** black shirt with an American flag in the center, *** dark baseball cap, and large sunglasses. Throughout the surveillance, the suspect keeps his head down and rarely raises his head enough to get *** clear image of his face. As he proceeds across the campus, he is seen walking with an unusual gait. The suspect walks with very little bending in his right leg, consistent with *** rifle being hidden in his pants. This unusual gait continues until the suspect is seen crossing the railway off the open walkway and onto the roof where he leaves the camera’s view. *** camera later captures the suspect as he runs across the roof to the suspected shooting position. Immediately after the shot was fired, *** camera captures the suspect running across the roof carrying an item whose shape is consistent with *** rifle. The suspect is then seen climbing down from the roof. He appears to drop the item he was carrying as he hits the ground in *** controlled fall. He then picks up the item and runs toward the northeast end of campus. Expanded crime scene investigation. Law enforcement officers followed the suspect’s escape path to the northeast end of campus where they believed the suspect left campus and entered *** wooded area. In that wooded area, investigators found *** bolt action rifle wrapped in *** towel. The rifle contained one spent round. And 3 unspent rounds. This is consistent with the facts officers observed at the time of and immediately after the shootings. No shell casings were found on the roof, suggesting *** bolt action rather than an auto loading weapon, and only *** single round was fired. Each round in the rifle contained an etched inscription as follows. The fired cartridge. Was etched no ices bulge. Ow oh what’s this? The second cartridge. That was that was again not spent the last three were not spent, were not fired. The second hey fascist catch with arrows symbols. The 3rd cartridge, oh, Bella Chow, Bella Chow, Bella Chowchow chow. The fourth cartridge, if you read this, you are gay, LMAO. The rifle, ammunition rounds, and towel were sent for forensic processing. DNA consistent with with defendant was found on the trigger. Other parts of the rifle, the fired cartridge casing, two of the three unfired cartridges, and the towel. Law enforcement was unable to immediately locate the shooter, so they published photos of the shooter from the UVU surveillance cameras and asked for the public’s help to identify him. Meanwhile, law enforcement continued to try to identify the shooter through other means. The Washington County investigation. On the evening of September 11, 2025 as law enforcement continued their investigation, Tyler James Robinson went to the Washington County Sheriff’s office with his parents and *** family friend to turn himself in. Robinson’s mother stated that the following to police on September 11th, 2025, the day after the shooting, Robinson’s mother saw the photo of the shooter in the news and thought the shooter looked like her son. Robinson’s mother called her son. And asked him where he was. He said he was at home sick. And that he had also been at home, homesick on September 10th. Robinson’s mother expressed concern to her husband that the suspect shooter looked like Robinson. Robinson’s father agreed. Robinson’s mother explained that over the last year or so Robinson had become more political. And had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro gay and trans rights oriented, she stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, *** biological male who was transitioning genders. This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father who have very different political views. In one conversation before the shooting, Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk would be holding an event at UVU, which Robert Robinson said was *** stupid venue for the event. Robinson accused Kirk of spreading hate. Robinson’s father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched *** rifle that was given to his son as *** gift. As *** result, Robinson’s father contacted his son and asked him to send *** photo of the rifle. Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson’s father spoke on the phone with Robinson. Robinson implied that he planned to take his own life. Robinson’s parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. As they discussed the situation, Robinson implied that he was the shooter and stated that he couldn’t go to jail and just wanted to end it. When asked why he did it, Robinson explained there is too much evil, and the guy referring to Charlie Kirk spreads too much hate. They talked about Robinson turning himself in and convinced Robinson, Robinson to speak with *** family friend who is *** retired deputy sheriff. At Robinson at Robinson’s father’s request, the family friend met with Robinson and his parents and convinced Robinson to turn himself in. The family friend spoke to police and reported telling Robinson that it would be best if he brought all evidence with him to the sheriff’s office to avoid police having to search his parents’ home. The friend also asked Robinson if he had any clothes that were related to what he did. Robinson replied that he had disposed of the clothes in different areas. The roommate. Police interviewed Robinson’s roommate, *** biological male who was was involved in *** romantic relationship with Robinson. The roommate told police that the roommate received messages from Robinson about the shooting and and he did provide those messages to police. On September 10, 2025, the roommate received *** text message from Robinson which said, Drop what you’re doing, look under my keyboard. The roommate looked under the keyboard and found *** note that stated, quote, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it. Police found *** photograph of this note. The following exchange text exchange then took place. After reading the note, the roommate responded, what? You’re joking, right, Robinson. I am still OK, my love, but am stuck in Oam for *** little while longer yet. Shouldn’t be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still, to be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you. Roommate, you weren’t the one who did it, right? Robinson, I am, I am, I’m sorry. Roommate, I thought they caught the person. Robinson. No, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. It’s quiet almost enough to get out, but there’s one vehicle lingering roommate why Robinson, why did I do it? Roommate, yeah. Robinson, I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it, roommate, how long have you been planning this, Robinson? *** bit over *** week, I believe. I can get close to it, but there is *** squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don’t want to chance it. Robinson again, I’m wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. I’m worried what my old man would do if I didn’t bring back Grandpa’s rifle. ID if it’s had *** serial number, but it wouldn’t trace to me. I worry about Princes. I had to leave it in *** bush where I changed outfits, didn’t have the ability or time to bring it with. I might have to abandon it and hope they don’t find Princes. How the F will I explain losing it to my old man? Only thing I left was the rapple was the rifle wrapped in *** towel. Remember how I was engraving bullets? The ffing messages are mostly *** big meme. If I see notice bulge UWU on Fox News, I might have *** stroke all right. I’m gonna have to leave it. That really effing sucks. Judging from today, I’d say Grandpa’s gun does just fine IDK. I think that was *** 2 2K dollar scope. Wink wink. Um Robinson, Robinson again, delete this exchange. Again, Robinson, my dad wants photos of the rifle. He says Grandpa wants to know who has what. The feds released *** photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. He’s calling me RN, not answering Robinson. Since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty diehard maga. Robinson, I’m gonna turn myself in willingly. One of my neighbors here is *** deputy for the sheriff. Again, you are all I worry about love that came from Robinson, roommate. I’m much more worried about you, Robinson, don’t talk to the media, please don’t take any interviews or make any comments. If any police ask you questions, ask for *** lawyer and stay silent. The search for Robinson’s residence, police executed *** search warrant on Robinson’s residence. During that search, police discovered *** shell casing with etchings like the etchings found on the shells in the rifle near UVU. Police also found several target boards with bullet holes in Robinson’s home. Now, as I stated in the beginning when I read those allegations, these are allegations. And like the evidence set forth in this statement, those allegations, what you’ve heard from the media. Even from state and federal officials has not been tested in the crucible of *** jury trial. I understand the public’s desire to know the facts. My own family members have pressed me for information. Why are we reluctant to share the details of the investigation itself and comment on the case? Because I want to ensure *** fair and impartial trial. I became *** prosecutor because of my love for the ideals of this great country. And the principles embedded in our Constitution. The free exchange of ideas and opinions is critical to this great American experiment, but so too are the protections afforded to the accused found in the 5th and 6th Amendments, the right against self-incrimination. The right to *** speedy and public trial, the right to the effective assistance of counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right to compel the attendance of witnesses. And perhaps most importantly under our Constitution, the accused is presumed innocent until we, the state, prove to an impartial jury of defendant’s peers his guilt beyond *** reasonable doubt. That jury cannot rely on our allegations. On what they hear in the news or on what they hear from *** public official. The jury is the sole trier of fact. And they will ultimately determine those facts based on evidence *** trial judge has has determined is admissible. Again, as prosecutors, we bear the burden to prove guilt beyond *** reasonable doubt. But no, but make no mistake, we welcome this burden. I’d like to now introduce my team my team who will be charged with prosecuting the case. This is *** veteran and expert team of some of the state’s best trial attorneys. Chad Gruander, who is, uh, my one of my two chief deputies. Ryan McBride and David Sturgill, uh, on the far right there, um, and, and those two were very much involved in preparing search warrants, did *** phenomenal job, worked day and night to, to see that accomplished well after he was, uh, Robinson was, uh, taken into custody. Also Lauren Hunt, she is one of our special victims prosecutors. And Chris Ballard. My second chief deputy who will be handling motions. I’m gonna explain just the the procedural steps um we’re not ***. *** grand jury, we don’t have *** grand jury system like the federal courts do. It’s it’s *** preliminary hearing system. So the arrest and filing of the criminal information are merely the first steps in the criminal justice process. Today at 3 p.m. the defendant will appear before *** judge in the Utah Fourth District Court for his first appearance to be informed of these charges and to ensure that he has an attorney to represent him. The hearing will be brief. The judge will conduct that first appearance virtually via Webex. This is not unusual in the 4th district. All felony first appearances for defendants who are in custody are held virtually. *** link to that hearing is available for media on the Utah State court’s X account at Utah State courts. Now following defendant’s first appearance, he will be entitled to *** preliminary hearing. At that hearing, the state will be required to show probable cause that defendant committed the crimes. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is not to determine guilt. But simply to assure the court that the prosecution has enough evidence to proceed to trial. If *** judge finds probable cause and binds the case over for trial, an arraignment hearing will be held. At that hearing, *** judge will again inform defendant of the charges against him and require him to enter *** plea to each charge. The next step, the next step following the arraignment is an opportunity for the parties to file any relevant motions and then ultimately the trial itself. This case has generated *** tremendous amount of interest across our nation and even the world. The public’s desire for information is is understandable, but it bears reiterating that this case will be tried in *** court of law consistent with our Constitution, not the court of public opinion. Thus we will only discuss with the press, uh, discuss the case with the press occasionally. Uh, it’s, it will not be *** day to day or even week to week uh occurrence, and but we will only do so in *** manner as not to jeopardize the fair trial process. Before I conclude, I want to express my appreciation for the tireless work of our local, state, and federal law enforcement officers. They have an extremely difficult, dangerous, and often, often thankless job. I’m proud to acknowledge the exceptional work they do every day, and particularly their work on this case. It was truly *** marvel to witness. Their skilled work and dedication have brought us to this point. I’m also grateful for the leadership demonstrated by Bo Mason, the commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, FBI Special Agent in charger Rob Bowles. Utah County Sheriff Mike Smith. Our local police chiefs and Felice John Vitti, the acting US attorney for the District of Utah, I’m also grateful for the support of our governor Spencer Cox and our attorney General Derek Brown, who is standing behind me today and has offered his support and resources as we proceed to trial. Finally, I want to thank our Utah County commissioners Amelia Powers Gardiner, Brandon Gordon, and Skyler Beltran. They too have pledged to assist with the resources needed to successfully prosecute this case. I will now take *** few questions for ladies and gentlemen, just just really fast if you could identify yourself and what that may have known about this shooting. They are still looking into it’s an undergoing investigation. So is that *** possibility? They haven’t ruled that out, Sir Ed Lavandera with CNN. The text message is the exchange with the roommate, can you, uh, kind of give us *** sense of did that happen over several hours? Did that happen before, um I, I don’t have that information. I know acknowledging that you made this decision to independently, did you hear it on the Trump administration or Governor Cox’s as you were working on this? Um, I talked to officials from both administrations, but I was not pressured to make *** decision. I, I understood their feelings on it because it was in the news, but we didn’t really discuss that. Do you have any indication that transgender issues play *** role in the motivations. I, I’m gonna stick to what I just stated in my public, uh, in my, in our information. I, I think that is pretty much set forth there. Fox News just asking, are you planning to file charges against anyone else in connection. Again, we don’t have any information at this point of additional uh suspects, but I know that uh. Our our law enforcement agencies are continuing to follow leads that you are or that other people, *** number of people are being investigated and interrogated, so it seems that there are people who like me. Yeah, I’m not, I’m not I, I can’t comment on that. I’m not aware of all their investigation. I just know that, uh, these agencies are continuing to investigate this case and follow all leads. how does this possibly interface with any. Um, that’s up to the feds. They have different charges and they’re reviewing the evidence and after they review the evidence and the law they could file charges, but I’m not privy to exactly what they’re looking at the BBC *** lot about text messages with the roommate. The governor previously said the roommate is cooperating, but could we see charges against the room again, I’m not prepared to answer that question. It’s going to, is it unusual to cite *** political motivation? It’s, it’s part of our code and so we charge that. Ultimately *** judge will determine that. At trial and cooperation has he spoken at all has been cooperate? Again, I’m not going to comment on that. I am not aware of that information that’s again still under investigation. I I am not going to comment on that. I’m not going to comment on that. Your team has been circumspect, very measured in what they out that hampered. Well, as attorneys we typically like to control that information to preserve an impartial, uh, jury and, and *** fair trial. Excuse me, uh, I don’t have that information. Can you tell us more about what the family may have said in interviews? Um, what the family said is, is what I, uh, provided. Do you guys, uh, do you anticipate that the defense will try to get this trial moved out of Utah County and how will you? That from where that the defense will be from Utah County. Uh, I, I, I couldn’t predict what they’re gonna do. You say this suggest that the timing of the shot and the question that was asked about mass shootings transgender, is that more than coincidence? Um, that will be for *** jury to decide. Again, I’m not gonna comment on the evidence. Again, I’m not gonna comment on other than the facts that I or or the evidence that we’ve gathered so far in the conference. Jeopardize his right to *** fair trial. Uh, I don’t believe so. This is part of *** public document that we have to file, um, as we file *** criminal information. We have to file *** probable cause statement. That’s *** public document and so we’re comfortable with that. I’m not going to comment on that either. I, I can’t share any more than what I’ve already said. Do you have any evidence that he went to practice or to the shooting that’s insight, the evidence that I’m willing to share is what I just read in our statement, and it’s in the in the information we’re gonna have to cut it off there. OK, you just, did you consult Erica Kirk about seeking the death penalty? Um, I’m not going to comment on that. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

    Lawyers for the 22-year-old Utah man charged with killing Charlie Kirk are due in court Thursday as they push to further limit media access in the high-profile criminal case.A Utah judge is weighing the public’s right to know details in Tyler Robinson’s case against his attorneys’ concerns that the swarm of media attention could interfere with his right to a fair trial.Robinson’s legal team and the Utah County Sheriff’s Office have asked Judge Tony Graf to ban cameras in the courtroom.Prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 shooting of the conservative activist on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem, just a few miles north of the Provo courthouse. They plan to seek the death penalty.Robinson was expected to appear in person Thursday after making previous court appearances via video or audio feed from jail, according to a transport order.A coalition of national and local news organizations, including The Associated Press, is fighting to preserve media access in the case.Graf has already made allowances to protect Robinson’s presumption of innocence before a trial, agreeing that the case has drawn “extraordinary” public attention.Graf held a closed hearing on Oct. 24 in which attorneys discussed Robinson’s courtroom attire and security protocols. Under a subsequent ruling by the judge, Robinson is allowed to wear street clothes in court during his pretrial hearings but must be physically restrained due to security concerns. Graf also prohibited media from filming or photographing Robinson’s restraints after his attorneys argued widespread images of him shackled and in jail clothing could prejudice future jurors.Michael Judd, an attorney for the media coalition, has urged Graf to let the news organizations weigh in on any future requests for closed hearings or other limitations.The media presence at Utah hearings is already limited, with judges often designating one photographer and one videographer to document a hearing and share their images with other news organizations. Additional journalists can typically attend to listen and take notes, as can members of the public.Judd wrote in recent filings that an open court “safeguards the integrity of the fact-finding process” while fostering public confidence in judicial proceedings. Criminal cases in the U.S. have long been open to the public, which he argued is proof that trials can be conducted fairly without restricting reporters as they work to keep the public informed.Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, has called for full transparency, saying, “We deserve to have cameras in there.” Her husband was an ally of President Donald Trump who worked to steer young voters toward conservatism.Robinson’s legal team says his pretrial publicity reaches as far as the White House, with Trump announcing soon after Robinson’s arrest, “With a high degree of certainty, we have him,” and “I hope he gets the death penalty.”Attorney Kathy Nester has raised concern that digitally altered versions of Robinson’s initial court photo have spread widely, creating misinformation about the case. Some altered images show Robinson crying or having an outburst in court, which did not happen.

    Lawyers for the 22-year-old Utah man charged with killing Charlie Kirk are due in court Thursday as they push to further limit media access in the high-profile criminal case.

    A Utah judge is weighing the public’s right to know details in Tyler Robinson’s case against his attorneys’ concerns that the swarm of media attention could interfere with his right to a fair trial.

    Robinson’s legal team and the Utah County Sheriff’s Office have asked Judge Tony Graf to ban cameras in the courtroom.

    Prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 shooting of the conservative activist on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem, just a few miles north of the Provo courthouse. They plan to seek the death penalty.

    Robinson was expected to appear in person Thursday after making previous court appearances via video or audio feed from jail, according to a transport order.

    A coalition of national and local news organizations, including The Associated Press, is fighting to preserve media access in the case.

    Graf has already made allowances to protect Robinson’s presumption of innocence before a trial, agreeing that the case has drawn “extraordinary” public attention.

    Graf held a closed hearing on Oct. 24 in which attorneys discussed Robinson’s courtroom attire and security protocols. Under a subsequent ruling by the judge, Robinson is allowed to wear street clothes in court during his pretrial hearings but must be physically restrained due to security concerns. Graf also prohibited media from filming or photographing Robinson’s restraints after his attorneys argued widespread images of him shackled and in jail clothing could prejudice future jurors.

    Michael Judd, an attorney for the media coalition, has urged Graf to let the news organizations weigh in on any future requests for closed hearings or other limitations.

    The media presence at Utah hearings is already limited, with judges often designating one photographer and one videographer to document a hearing and share their images with other news organizations. Additional journalists can typically attend to listen and take notes, as can members of the public.

    Judd wrote in recent filings that an open court “safeguards the integrity of the fact-finding process” while fostering public confidence in judicial proceedings. Criminal cases in the U.S. have long been open to the public, which he argued is proof that trials can be conducted fairly without restricting reporters as they work to keep the public informed.

    Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, has called for full transparency, saying, “We deserve to have cameras in there.” Her husband was an ally of President Donald Trump who worked to steer young voters toward conservatism.

    Robinson’s legal team says his pretrial publicity reaches as far as the White House, with Trump announcing soon after Robinson’s arrest, “With a high degree of certainty, we have him,” and “I hope he gets the death penalty.”

    Attorney Kathy Nester has raised concern that digitally altered versions of Robinson’s initial court photo have spread widely, creating misinformation about the case. Some altered images show Robinson crying or having an outburst in court, which did not happen.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump’s Dream Palace of Puffery

    [ad_1]

    The President then interrupted him. “Did you ever think I was going to be called the peacemaker?”

    Glenn replied, “Actually, I did.”

    His question, when he got around to it, was about Alyssa Farah, a former aide in Trump’s first-term White House who is now a co-host of the popular ABC daytime talk show “The View” and a vocal critic of Trump’s. According to Glenn, Farah had promised to wear a Make America Great Again hat on TV if he actually managed to secure the release of Israeli hostages being held in Gaza, but she had not yet done so. After explaining all this to the President, his query to Trump was just two words: “Your response?”

    A day later, Glenn was back in front of Trump, at a press conference featuring the President and the director of the F.B.I., Kash Patel. The event’s news, among other things, was Trump complaining that law-enforcement agencies should investigate and prosecute more of his political enemies and confirming that he had secretly ordered the C.I.A. to carry out operations inside Venezuela. Glenn, however, wanted to make a point about one of Trump’s longtime preoccupations—what the President calls the “rigged election” of 2020. “By the way, you won Georgia three times,” Glenn shouted over other reporters trying to ask questions. Ed O’Keefe, of CBS News, standing in front of Glenn, could be seen shaking his head with what appeared to be exasperation. It was the last part of the exchange that really stood out, though. In response to Glenn, Trump said, “Yeah, I agree. Do you agree with me?” After Glenn replied, “I do,” the President quickly jumped back in: “And he’s the media! He’s the media!”

    I can think of no more perfect encapsulation of why the Trump Administration has done what it has to eviscerate the century-old tradition of independent reporting from the White House. In his second term, it was no longer enough to call the real news fake; now it’s the fake news that gets to displace actual journalists in order to playact the real thing. And when Trump wants validation, whether for his false claims of election fraud or some other lie, he can now claim “the media” gave it to him. How long can it be until there are only Brian Glenns in that room?

    You might think that the Kremlinization of the White House press pool doesn’t really matter at a moment when there are so many other Trump-generated crises in the country. Or that it is simply self-serving of journalists to complain about their own perks being taken away. Or that the President has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to answer questions from anyone. All of which are fair points.

    But the reason to pay attention to what’s happening with the coverage of the Presidency is that Trump cares about it perhaps more than anything else. There has never been a more media-obsessed President, nor one for whom the regard of others, even if it is suck-uppery in the crudest form, matters so much. He is known to spend hours a day consuming cable-news reports about himself. There is no detail of his public portrayal that does not concern him. In a lengthy social-media post this week, he berated Time for a cover about his Middle East diplomacy which was so complimentary it was headlined “His Triumph.” Trump’s beef was with the accompanying photo of himself, which he deemed “the Worst of All Time.” The point being: there is no pleasing a leader whose need for affirmation is so bottomless.

    The template for Trump’s second term so far has been to remake the White House as a place increasingly devoid of constraints or criticism. Gone are the first-term advisers such as John Kelly or Jim Mattis who saw themselves as checks on Trump’s tendency to go rogue. Only yes-men and flatterers need apply, and more and more they seem to be competing with one another to come up with the most over-the-top compliments possible for the boss. Last weekend, during a rally in Tel Aviv to celebrate the Trump-brokered deal to release the Israeli hostages, Trump’s Middle East negotiator, Steve Witkoff, proclaimed him “the greatest President in American history.” It doesn’t take much imagination to think what talk like that from his advisers does to a man with Trump’s ego. Those questions from reporters may soon be the last thing left tethering the President to at least some form of reality.

    This is why it’s not hard to anticipate where all this is going. Trump, it appears, is building a dream palace of endless puffery for himself, a gilded safe space where there will be no more tough questions, no more pesky reporters or impertinent demands for information that he does not want to give. And imagine how very powerful the President, who already believes the Constitution gives him the power “to do whatever I want,” will feel then. The Pentagon’s move to effectively ban journalism from its halls this week was not an outlier—it was a preview. ♦

    [ad_2]

    Susan B. Glasser

    Source link

  • Federal agents grab and shove journalists outside NYC immigration court, sending one to hospital

    [ad_1]

    Federal agents grabbed and shoved journalists in a hallway outside a New York City immigration court on Tuesday, sending one to the hospital in the latest clash between authorities enforcing President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and members of the public seeking to observe and document their actions.A visual journalist identified as L. Vural Elibol of the Turkish news agency Anadolu hit his head on the floor at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents pushed one journalist off a public elevator and shoved another journalist to the floor, according to video and witnesses.A bystander held Elibol’s head and a nurse treated him until an ambulance arrived, witnesses said. Video showed him in a neck brace as paramedics wheeled him out of the building on a stretcher. The other journalists, amNewYork police bureau chief Dean Moses and Olga Fedorova, a freelance photographer whose clients include The Associated Press, were not seriously injured.Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the agents’ actions, saying they were being “swarmed by agitators and members of the press, which obstructed operations.””Officers repeatedly told the crowd of agitators and journalists to get back, move, and get out of the elevator,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “Rioters and sanctuary politicians who encourage individuals to interfere with arrests are actively creating hostile environments that put officers, detainees and the public in harm’s way.”A message seeking comment was left for the Anadolu news agency.Moses said the situation escalated when masked agents grabbed him and shoved him from an elevator on the 12th floor as he was attempting to photograph them arresting a woman who had just left immigration court.”I walked into the elevator behind them, and they started screaming at me,” Moses told amNewYork. “Then they pushed me, grabbed me by my arms, and started pulling me out of the elevator. I tried to hold on, but I got shoved out.”Video taken by photographer Stephanie Keith showed that during the struggle, another agent shoved Fedorova, who fell backward toward where Elibol lay on the floor.Fedorova said photographers had worked in the hallway outside immigration court for months without incident. The agents making arrests Tuesday, she said, didn’t announce any limits where journalists could go, and they hadn’t made it clear they were making an arrest when they got on the elevator.”If they tell us to get out, to not cross a certain line, we follow their orders,” Fedorova said. “In this case, it was not clear to anyone that this was a detention at all.”The episode happened just days after a federal agent at the Manhattan immigration court was captured on video shoving an Ecuadorian woman into a wall and onto the floor after her husband was arrested.Both confrontations took place in a part of the federal building that is open to the public, and is routinely filled with immigrants on their way to and from court hearings, agents waiting to make arrests, activists there to protest the arrests, and journalists documenting the confrontations.Elected Democrats, including New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, denounced the agents’ use of force and the Republican administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.”This abuse of law-abiding immigrants and the reporters telling their stories must end,” Hochul wrote in a social media post. “What the hell are we doing here?”State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a candidate for New York City mayor, said: “We cannot accept or normalize what has now become routine violence at 26 Federal Plaza. It has no place in our city.”

    Federal agents grabbed and shoved journalists in a hallway outside a New York City immigration court on Tuesday, sending one to the hospital in the latest clash between authorities enforcing President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and members of the public seeking to observe and document their actions.

    A visual journalist identified as L. Vural Elibol of the Turkish news agency Anadolu hit his head on the floor at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents pushed one journalist off a public elevator and shoved another journalist to the floor, according to video and witnesses.

    A bystander held Elibol’s head and a nurse treated him until an ambulance arrived, witnesses said. Video showed him in a neck brace as paramedics wheeled him out of the building on a stretcher. The other journalists, amNewYork police bureau chief Dean Moses and Olga Fedorova, a freelance photographer whose clients include The Associated Press, were not seriously injured.

    Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the agents’ actions, saying they were being “swarmed by agitators and members of the press, which obstructed operations.”

    “Officers repeatedly told the crowd of agitators and journalists to get back, move, and get out of the elevator,” McLaughlin said in a statement. “Rioters and sanctuary politicians who encourage individuals to interfere with arrests are actively creating hostile environments that put officers, detainees and the public in harm’s way.”

    A message seeking comment was left for the Anadolu news agency.

    Moses said the situation escalated when masked agents grabbed him and shoved him from an elevator on the 12th floor as he was attempting to photograph them arresting a woman who had just left immigration court.

    “I walked into the elevator behind them, and they started screaming at me,” Moses told amNewYork. “Then they pushed me, grabbed me by my arms, and started pulling me out of the elevator. I tried to hold on, but I got shoved out.”

    Video taken by photographer Stephanie Keith showed that during the struggle, another agent shoved Fedorova, who fell backward toward where Elibol lay on the floor.

    Fedorova said photographers had worked in the hallway outside immigration court for months without incident. The agents making arrests Tuesday, she said, didn’t announce any limits where journalists could go, and they hadn’t made it clear they were making an arrest when they got on the elevator.

    “If they tell us to get out, to not cross a certain line, we follow their orders,” Fedorova said. “In this case, it was not clear to anyone that this was a detention at all.”

    The episode happened just days after a federal agent at the Manhattan immigration court was captured on video shoving an Ecuadorian woman into a wall and onto the floor after her husband was arrested.

    Both confrontations took place in a part of the federal building that is open to the public, and is routinely filled with immigrants on their way to and from court hearings, agents waiting to make arrests, activists there to protest the arrests, and journalists documenting the confrontations.

    Elected Democrats, including New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, denounced the agents’ use of force and the Republican administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.

    “This abuse of law-abiding immigrants and the reporters telling their stories must end,” Hochul wrote in a social media post. “What the hell are we doing here?”

    State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a candidate for New York City mayor, said: “We cannot accept or normalize what has now become routine violence at 26 Federal Plaza. It has no place in our city.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nicaragua, China, India among 55 Nations Restricting Freedom of Movement

    Nicaragua, China, India among 55 Nations Restricting Freedom of Movement

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Freedom House
    • Opinion by Liam Scott (washington)
    • Inter Press Service

    Governments control freedom of movement via travel bans, revoking citizenship, document control and denial of consular services, the report found. All the tactics are designed to coerce and punish government critics, according to Jessica White, the report’s London-based co-author.

    “This is a type of tactic that really shows the vindictive and punitive nature of some countries,” White said. This form of repression “is an attempt to really stifle peoples’ ability to speak out freely from wherever they are.”

    Belarus, China, India, Nicaragua, Russia, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia are among the countries that engage in this form of repression, the report found. Freedom House based its findings in part on interviews with more than 30 people affected by mobility controls.

    Travel bans are the most common tactic, according to White, with Freedom House identifying at least 40 governments who prevent citizens leaving or returning to the country.

    Revoking citizenship is another strategy, despite being prohibited by international law. The Nicaraguan government in 2023 stripped more than 200 political prisoners of their citizenship shortly after deporting them to the United States.

    Among them were Juan Lorenzo Holmann, head of Nicaragua’s oldest newspaper, La Prensa. “It is as if I do not exist anymore. It is another attack on my human rights,” he told VOA after being freed. “But you cannot do away with the person’s personality. In the Nicaraguan constitution, it says that you cannot wipe out a person’s personal records or take away their nationality. I feel Nicaraguan, and they cannot take that away from me.”

    Before being expelled from his own country, Lorenzo had spent 545 days in prison, in what was widely viewed as a politically motivated case.

    Blocking access to passports and other travel documents is another tactic. In one example, Hong Kong in June canceled the passports of six pro-democracy activists who were living in exile in Britain.

    In some cases, governments refuse to issue people passports to trap them in the country. And in cases where the individual is already abroad, embassies deny passport renewals to block the individual from traveling anywhere, including back home.

    Myanmar’s embassy in Berlin, for instance, has refused to renew the passport of Ma Thida, a Burmese writer in exile in Germany. Ma Thida told VOA earlier this year she believes the refusal is in retaliation for her writing.

    White said Ma Thida’s case was a classic example of mobility restrictions. For now, the German government has issued a passport reserved for people who are unable to obtain a passport from their home country — which White applauded but said is still rare.

    “Our ability to freely leave and return to our home country is something that in democratic societies, people often take for granted. It’s one of our fundamental human rights, but it’s one that is being undermined and violated across many parts of the world,” White said.

    Mobility restrictions can have devastating consequences, including making it difficult to work, travel and visit family. What makes matters even worse is the emotional toll, according to White.

    “There is a huge psychological impact,” White said. “A lot of our interviewees mention especially the pain of being separated from family members and not being able to return to their country.”

    In the report, Freedom House called on democratic governments to impose sanctions on actors that engage in mobility controls.

    White said that democratic governments should do more to help dissidents, including by providing them with alternative travel documents if they can’t obtain them from their home countries.

    https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/FIW_2024_DigitalBooklet.pdf

    Source: Voice of America (VOA)

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Contrasting Media Environments in the Congos: A Press Freedom Analysis

    Contrasting Media Environments in the Congos: A Press Freedom Analysis

    [ad_1]

    The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) both face significant challenges to press freedom, albeit in different contexts and degrees of severity. According to MBFC’s recent reviews, the DRC, led by President Félix Tshisekedi, ranks 123rd out of 180 in the 2024 Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), reflecting a highly restrictive media environment. Journalists in the DRC endure threats, violence, and imprisonment, particularly when covering sensitive political issues and human rights violations. Despite constitutional guarantees, the media operates under constant fear of criminal defamation suits, harassment, and the severe penalties for spreading “false news” enacted under Tshisekedi’s administration.

    In contrast, the Republic of the Congo, under the long-standing rule of President Denis Sassou Nguesso, fares slightly better in terms of press freedom, ranking 69th on the RSF index. However, the media landscape here is still heavily influenced by the government, with numerous media outlets closely tied to government allies, leading to significant self-censorship. Although the country boasts a diverse array of private TV channels, newspapers, and radio stations, government-owned entities like Radiodiffusion Nationale Congolaise (RNC) dominate, ensuring that official narratives prevail. President Sassou Nguesso’s authoritarian grip, marked by repression of opposition and widespread corruption, further hampers true media independence.

    Both countries’ media environments are shaped by their political and economic landscapes. The DRC, rich in natural resources but plagued by poverty and conflict, sees its media often pressured by both government forces and rebel groups like M23. Congo-Brazzaville, while economically dependent on oil, faces similar issues of poverty and political instability. The government’s tight control over media outlets and the pervasive influence of corruption, exemplified by ongoing investigations into President Sassou Nguesso’s financial dealings, reflect a media landscape struggling under authoritarianism. Ultimately, while Congo-Brazzaville’s press freedom appears comparatively better, both nations exhibit significant challenges in fostering a free and independent press.


    Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

    MBFC Ad-Free 

    or

    MBFC Donation


    Follow Media Bias Fact Check: 

    BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mediabiasfactcheck.bsky.social

    Threads: https://www.threads.net/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Twitter: https://twitter.com/MBFC_News

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mediabiasfactcheck

    Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@mediabiasfactcheck

    Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediabiasfactcheck/

    Subscribe With Email

    Join 23.1K other subscribers

    [ad_2]

    Media Bias Fact Check

    Source link

  • I Couldnt Remain Silent: Son Fights for Uyghur Journalists Release from Chinese Prison

    I Couldnt Remain Silent: Son Fights for Uyghur Journalists Release from Chinese Prison

    [ad_1]

    Qurban Mamut (left) and Bahram Sintash (second from left) with their family in Xinjiang, China in 1989. Credit: Courtesy of Bahram Sintash
    • Opinion by Iris Hsu (taipei, taiwan)
    • Inter Press Service

    Sintash later learned that his father had been swept up in China’s 2017 crackdown on Uyghurs and other mostly Muslim ethnic groups. China has said its policies in Xinjiang, which involve reeducation camps, forced sterilization, and family separations, are in the name of counter-terrorism, but 51 United Nations member countries have accused the government of “crimes against humanity.”

    Mamut, as a prominent intellectual who edited the state-owned Xinjiang Civilization and Tepakkur magazines, was sentenced to 15 years for “political crimes,” according to news reports. According to Sintash, his father’s decades of journalism drew the attention of the Chinese government in its efforts to quash the Uyghur cultural industry.

    After initially fearing that speaking out could harm his 74-year-old father’s case, Sintash decided to go public about the detention in 2018; in 2020, he joined the U.S. Congress-funded Radio Free Asia (RFA) in Washington, D.C. to be a “voice of voice-less Uyghurs.”

    The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) spoke with Sintash about his father’s love of journalism, restrictions on the press in Xinjiang, and what he knows of Mamut’s detention.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The Chinese foreign ministry did not reply to CPJ’s email requesting comment on Mamut’s arrest and sentencing.

    What can you tell us about your father’s detention?

    I initially thought my father was detained in 2018, but later learned it was actually in late 2017. Communication with my family in Urumqi has been severed since then, with China cutting off our ability to talk in late 2017 and early 2018. My mother told me, “We can no longer talk to you,” leaving me without any information about my father.

    In September of the following year, I sought to find out what had happened to him. Eventually, one of my neighbors who also lives overseas informed me that my father had been taken away from our neighborhood. This neighbor had heard the news from their family who witnessed my father being taken from his home. I was shocked by this revelation.

    At the same time, I was considering what actions to take. I felt that raising my voice was the right decision, but I was extremely cautious. I was unsure of the exact steps to take or the words to use, as anything I said could potentially endanger my father further, given China’s unpredictable actions.

    What was the media environment like in Xinjiang before your father’s arrest?

    In 2016, a well-known writer, Yalqun Rozi, was detained and later sentenced to 15 years , a fate similar to that of my father. My father visited the United States in January 2017 and stayed for a month, during which time he learned about the detention of Yalqun, a close friend. Yalqun had not been sentenced at that point but was under arrest, likely due to his publication of sensitive topics.

    Yalqun had written extensively on various subjects, including Uyghur welfare, and had contributed many essays to my father’s journal, Xinjiang Civilization. Their past collaboration made my father concerned that Yalqun’s arrest might not be an isolated case.

    Yalqun’s detention marked the beginning of a broader crackdown on Uyghur intellectuals. China targeted Uyghur intellectuals first in order to more successfully repress Uyghur identity. They began by arresting individuals and then expanded their investigation to a larger network of Uyghurs.

    My father understood that this could happen, but we were uncertain about China’s next steps. After 2017, under Xi Jinping’s leadership, the situation became increasingly dire, reflecting the tense atmosphere of that time.

    Can you tell us about Xinjiang Civilization, the magazine your father edited from 1985 until 2017?

    The content in the magazine mainly focuses on culture, history, current affairs, the identity of Uyghurs, examining the shortcomings of the Uyghur nation and society, and opinion pieces. This was the main content before 2017, primarily when my dad was the sole editor-in-chief.

    Interestingly, all the names of the journal’s editorial board members were removed in the third issue of 2017 just half a month before the mass detentions began in 2017. The content of the journal dramatically changed in its last publication. It now became filled with red Communist propaganda.

    Many of the members on the board were subsequently taken to re-education camps, including my dad. At least two of other members, Abduqadir Jalalidin and Arslan Abdulla, as well as my dad were sentenced to long prison terms.

    Before the magazine’s third issue in 2017, its content mainly focused on Uyghur culture and literary works. However, after that issue, it primarily began publishing political content, which mostly revolves around studying Xi Jinping’s ideology.

    The next editor even wrote an open letter titled “Protecting the security of the ideological sphere is my priority,” in which he promised not to publish anything promoting “separatism,” “terrorism,” or “two-faced” behavior. The letter followed two articles written by Uyghur officials calling the readers to “protect the unity of the nations with hearts and protect the homeland with loyalty.”

    What was your father’s relationship to his journalistic work?

    My father was the sole editor; there were no secondary editors. However, he had two assistants who could be considered as secondary editors, but their main role was typing and assisting with computer-related tasks. My father worked tirelessly, often putting in 16-hour days. He would work at the office, come home for a quick meal, and then continue working late into the night, spending countless hours at his desk.

    Your father was quite well known for his journalism. How was he seen in the Uyghur community?

    My father was an exceptional teacher, not through writing himself, but by curating and compiling works from other writers. He focused on selecting the right topics, aiming to present the truth without imposing his own opinions on the journal.

    He steered clear of politics, especially avoiding any praise of the Chinese Communist Party or spreading its propaganda, which some writers and editors did to secure better positions and ensure their safety. My father, however, sought out authentic voices who could present genuine work, which is why the journal promoted many unknown writers who eventually became famous. The platform allowed them to express the truth.

    While my father didn’t publicly express his own views, he was frequently interviewed on TV talk shows due to his extensive knowledge of Uyghur culture. These appearances contributed to his fame. During the 1990s and 2000s, there was a period when Uyghurs enjoyed a degree of freedom to discuss their identity, language, and other aspects of their culture — a stark contrast to the current situation.

    Did your father face retribution for his journalism before his imprisonment?

    My father was called in for questioning in 2004, although he didn’t face persecution or punishment. This was related to an opinion piece published in his journal about the Uyghur language. At that time, Xinjiang authorities were starting to phase out the Uyghur language from schools and universities, replacing it with Chinese in subjects like mathematics and other majors.

    The writer of the piece was arrested, and my father was questioned by the security bureau and China’s intelligence department. To avoid worrying us, my father never shared the full details of what happened.

    You believe your father was arrested for his journalism. Why?

    After his retirement in 2011 , my father didn’t stop working. He continued to serve on the editorial board of Xinjiang Civilization, and became the head editor of a newly established magazine called Tepakkur. The magazine, published by the state-run Xinjiang Juvenile Publishing House, or Chiso, gained popularity due to my father’s reputation. “Tepakkur” means “think.”

    My father, invited to be the editor-in-chief, established this magazine to have more freedom and flexibility in selecting topics.It was not available digitally, only in print, and this was just before the mass arrests began around 2014-2015. As a result, I don’t have a copy and haven’t read the articles, but the journal was well-regarded by its readers.

    Can you tell us about your work at RFA? Has your father’s imprisonment made you rethink your personal safety, especially while covering Xinjiang?

    I joined RFA because my fear diminished as I became more vocal in advocating for other Uyghurs. I couldn’t remain silent; I had to speak the truth. My mindset became open, ready to face any challenge. Many Uyghurs, concerned for their safety and their families’, avoid RFA and don’t pursue journalism there. But for me, there were no limits. I saw RFA as the only true voice for Uyghurs worldwide, so I joined to work for my people.

    As for my efforts to free my father, it’s been an emotionally challenging task. I’ve been in constant communication with organizations, governments, NGOs, and even the United Nations, explaining my father’s situation and speaking to the media. My work extends beyond my father to all Uyghurs and our culture, which I learned to preserve from my father.

    Iris Hsu is CPJ’s China representative. Prior to joining CPJ, Hsu interned at Human Rights Watch, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, and the Atlantic Council. Hsu obtained her master’s degree in international affairs from American University. She speaks Mandarin and French and lives in Taipei.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Serbia’s Suspicious Election

    Serbia’s Suspicious Election

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Vladimir Zivojinovic/Getty Images
    • Opinion by Andrew Firmin (london)
    • Inter Press Service

    Civil society has cried foul about irregularities in the parliamentary election, but particularly the municipal election in the capital, Belgrade. In recent times Belgrade has been a hotbed of anti-government protests. That’s one of the reasons it’s suspicious that the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) came first in the city election.

    Allegations are that the SNS had ruling party supporters from outside Belgrade temporarily register as city residents so they could cast votes. On election day, civil society observers documented large-scale movements of people into Belgrade, from regions where municipal elections weren’t being held and from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. Civil society documented irregularities at 14 per cent of Belgrade voting stations. Many in civil society believe this made the crucial difference in stopping the opposition winning.

    The main opposition coalition, Serbia Against Violence (SPN), which made gains but finished second, has rejected the results. It’s calling for a rerun, with proper safeguards to prevent any repeat of irregularities.

    Thousands have taken to the streets of Belgrade to protest about electoral manipulation, rejecting the violation of the most basic principle of democracy – that the people being governed have the right to elect their representatives.

    A history of violations

    The SNS has held power since 2012. It blends economic neoliberalism with social conservatism and populism, and has presided over declining respect for civic space and media freedoms. In recent years, Serbian environmental activists have been subjected to physical attacks. President Aleksandar Vu?i? attempted to ban the 2022 EuroPride LGBTQI+ rights march. Journalists have faced public vilification, intimidation and harassment. Far-right nationalist and anti-rights groups have flourished and also target LGBTQI+ people, civil society and journalists.

    The SNS has a history of electoral irregularities. The December 2023 vote was a snap election, called just over a year and a half since the previous vote in April 2022, which re-elected Vu?i? as president. In 2022, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) pointed to an ‘uneven playing field’, characterised by close ties between major media outlets and the government, misuse of public resources, irregularities in campaign financing and pressure on public sector staff to support the SNS.

    These same problems were seen in December 2023. Again, the OSCE concluded there’d been systemic SNS advantages. Civil society observers found evidence of vote buying, political pressure on voters, breaches of voting security and pressure on election observers. During the campaign, civil society groups were vilified, opposition officials were subjected to physical and verbal attacks and opposition rallies were prevented.

    But the ruling party has denied everything. It’s slurred civil society for calling out irregularities, accusing activists of trying to destabilise Serbia.

    Backdrop of protests

    The latest vote was called following months of protests against the government. These were sparked by anger at two mass shootings in May 2023 in which 17 people were killed.

    The shootings focused attention on the high number of weapons still in circulation after the wars that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia and the growing normalisation of violence, including by the government and its supporters.

    Protesters accused state media of promoting violence and called for leadership changes. They also demanded political resignations, including of education minister Branko Ruži?, who disgracefully tried to blame the killings on ‘western values’ before being forced to quit. Prime Minister Ana Brnabi? blamed foreign intelligence services for fuelling protests. State media poured abuse on protesters.

    These might have seemed odd circumstances for the SNS to call elections. But election campaigns have historically played to Vu?i?’s strengths as a campaigner and give him some powerful levers, with normal government activities on hold and the machinery of the state and associated media at his disposal.

    Only this time it seems the SNS didn’t think all its advantages would be quite enough and, in Belgrade at least, upped its electoral manipulation to the point where it became hard to ignore.

    East and west

    There’s little pressure from Serbia’s partners to both east and west. Its far-right and socially conservative forces are staunchly pro-Russia, drawing on ideas of a greater Slavic identity. Russian connections run deep. In the last census, 85 per cent of people identified themselves as affiliated with the Serbian Orthodox Church, strongly in the sway of its Russian counterpart, in turn closely integrated with Russia’s repressive machinery.

    The Serbian government relies on Russian support to prevent international recognition of Kosovo. Russian officials were only too happy to characterise post-election protests as western attempts at unrest, while Prime Minister Brnabi? thanked Russian intelligence services for providing information on planned opposition activities.

    But states that sit between the EU and Russia are being lured on both sides. Serbia is an EU membership candidate. The EU wants to keep it onside and stop it drifting closer to Russia, so EU states have offered little criticism.

    Serbia keeps performing its balancing act, gravitating towards Russia while doing just enough to keep in with the EU. In the 2022 UN resolution on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it voted to condemn Russia’s aggression and suspend it from the Human Rights Council. But it’s resisted calls to impose sanctions on Russia and in 2022 signed a deal with Russia to consult on foreign policy issues.

    The European Parliament is at least prepared to voice concerns. In a recent debate, many of its members pointed to irregularities and its observation mission noted problems including media bias, phantom voters and vilification of election observers.

    Other EU institutions should acknowledge what happened in Belgrade. They should raise concerns about electoral manipulation and defend democracy in Serbia. To do so, they need to support and work with civil society. An independent and enabled civil society will bring much-needed scrutiny and accountability. This must be non-negotiable for the EU.

    Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Bangladesh: Election with a Foregone Conclusion

    Bangladesh: Election with a Foregone Conclusion

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Munir Uz Zaman/AFP via Getty Images
    • Opinion by Andrew Firmin (london)
    • Inter Press Service

    The BNP’s boycott was far from the only issue. A blatant campaign of pre-election intimidation saw government critics, activists and protesters subjected to threats, violence and arrests.

    At the government’s urging, court cases against opposition members were accelerated so they’d be locked away before the election, resulting in a reported 800-plus convictions between September and December 2023. It’s alleged that torture and ill-treatment were used against opposition activists to force confessions. There have been reports of deaths in police custody.

    Police banned protests, and when a rare mass opposition protest went ahead on 28 October police used rubber bullets, teargas and stun grenades. Following the protest, thousands more opposition supporters were detained on fabricated charges. As well as violence from the notorious Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) – an elite unit notorious for excessive and lethal force – and other elements of the police force, opposition supporters faced attacks by Awami League supporters. Journalists have also been smeared, attacked and harassed, including when covering protests.

    As a direct result of the ruling party’s pre-election crackdown, in December 2023 Bangladesh’s civic space rating was downgraded to closed by the CIVICUS Monitor, the collaborative research project that tracks the health of civic space in every country. This places Bangladesh among the world’s worst human rights offenders, including China, Iran and Russia.

    Civil society’s concerns were echoed in November 2023 by UN human rights experts who expressed alarm at political violence, arrests, mass detention, judicial harassment, excessive force and internet restrictions.

    All-out assault

    Such is the severity of the closure of Bangladesh’s civic space that many of the strongest dissenting voices now come from those in exile. But even speaking out from outside Bangladesh doesn’t ensure safety. As a way of putting pressure on exiled activists, the authorities are harassing their families.

    Activists aren’t safe even at the UN. A civil society discussion in the wings of the UN Human Rights Council in November was disrupted by government supporters, with Adilur Rahman Khan, a leader of the Bangladeshi human rights organisation Odhikar, subjected to verbal attacks.

    Khan is currently on bail while appealing against a two-year jail sentence imposed on him and another Odhikar leader in retaliation for their work to document extrajudicial killings. Following the session in Geneva, Khan was further vilified in online news sites and accused of presenting false information.

    Others are coming under attack. Hasina and her government have made much of their economic record, with Bangladesh now one of the world’s biggest garment producers. But that success is largely based on low wages. Like many countries, Bangladesh is currently experiencing high inflation, and garment workers’ recent efforts to improve their situation have been met with repression.

    Workers protested in October and November 2023 after a government-appointed panel raised the minimum wage for garment sector workers to a far lower level than they’d demanded. Up to 25,000 people took part in protests, forcing at least 100 factories to close. They were met with police violence. At least two people were killed and many more were injured.

    Seemingly no one is safe. Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, who founded the Grameen Bank that has enabled millions to access small loans, was recently convicted of labour law offences in a trial his supporters denounced as politically motivated. Yunus has long been a target for criticism and threats from the ruling party.

    Democracy in name only

    The quality of Bangladesh’s elections has dramatically declined since the Awami League returned to power in the last reasonably free and fair election in 2008. Each election since has been characterised by serious irregularities and pre-voting crackdowns as the incumbents have done everything they could to hold onto power.

    But this time, while the Awami League victory was as huge as ever, turnout was down. It was almost half its 2018 level, at only 41.8 per cent, and even that figure may be inflated. The lack of participation reflected a widespread understanding that the Awami League’s victory was a foregone conclusion: many Awami League supporters didn’t feel they needed to vote, and many opposition backers had no one to vote for.

    People knew that many supposedly independent candidates were in reality Awami League supporters running as a pseudo-opposition to offer some appearance of electoral competition. The party that came second is also allied with the ruling party. All electoral credibility and legitimacy are now strained past breaking point.

    The government has faced predictably no pressure to abide by democratic rules from key allies such as China and India, although the once-supportive US government has shifted its position in recent years, imposing sanctions on some RAB leaders and threatening to withhold visas for Bangladeshis deemed to have undermined the electoral process.

    If the economic situation deteriorates further, discontent is sure to grow, and with other spaces blocked, protests and their violent repression will surely follow. International partners must urge the Bangladeshi government to find a way to avoid this. More violence and intensifying authoritarianism can’t be the way forward. Instead Bangladesh should be urged to start the journey back towards democracy.

    Andrew Firmin CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Navigating Russian Censorship from the Polar Circle

    Navigating Russian Censorship from the Polar Circle

    [ad_1]

    Northern night in Kirkenes, 400 kilometres north of the Arctic Circle. This Norwegian town on the Russian border has become home to four exiled Russian journalists. Credit: Elizaveta Vereykina/IPS
    • by Karlos Zurutuza (madrid)
    • Inter Press Service

    “I was informed of this development last March. I won’t say it came as a surprise to me but it still made me worried,” the journalist explains to IPS by telephone from Kirkenes, a Norwegian town with just over 4,000 inhabitants bordering Russia.

    Chentemirov, 38, is one of many journalists who have been forced to leave the country in the past two years. He labels Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine — in February 2022 —as a “turning point” for the press in Russia.

    “The Censorship Law was passed under which it was considered a crime to talk about ‘war’ in Ukraine instead of ‘special operation’. We could only cite official sources, excluding even those from the UN. Going off script, even today, can lead to long prison sentences,” recalls the Russian journalist.

    Beyond his prominence in Russian media, Chentemirov also served as the president of the Union of Journalists of Karelia, his regional jurisdiction. “Despite the subservience of the Union of Russian Journalists is, we were very independent, we were never silent,” he underscores.

    Chentemirov speaks of a country where censorship is also exercised by blocking countless web pages and social networks and where many editors live under the pressure that an out-of-tone article may force them to fold.

    “Unfortunately, real journalism in Russia involves signing with pseudonyms to protect your identity and publishing for media outlets that are not in the country,” explains Chentemirov.

    Today he works for the Barents Observer, a digital media that has collaborated with Russian journalists for 20 years and has recently added three other Russian journalists to its staff.

    “It is key to have a Russian-speaking media that can call a war ‘war’, and that covers topics banned in Russia such as certain civil initiatives, the political opposition, the brutality of the Ukrainian front, the lies of the Kremlin…,” Thomas Nilsen, editor-in-chief of the Barents Observer, explains to IPS over the phone from Kirkenes.

    Over the years, they have gained deep experience in avoiding Russian censorship. In 2019, however, it became the first Nordic media to be blocked in Russia. Nilsen claims to have resources today to overcome obstacles on the Internet.

    His readers are also forced to use alternative ways to access information.

    “As most foreign media outlets that do real journalism are banned in Russia, millions access the Internet through tools like VPNs,” explains the Norwegian journalist.

    “Climate of terror”

    The Committee to Protect Journalists has denounced the classification of dozens of media outlets and more than 100 journalists as “foreign agents” in Russia since 2021.

    The NGO which promotes the rights of journalists worldwide, points to at least 19 Russian journalists currently in prison. The most recent two were sentenced on November 17, to sentences of 9.5 and 10.5 years under “fabricated” charges according to the CPJ statement.

    Russia has fallen to 164th place (out of 180) in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index.

    “It is today, with the war in Ukraine, that we see all this disinformation machinery operating at full capacity, but we need to remember that it was created by Vladimir Putin back in 2005,” Alfonso Bauluz, president of Reporters Without Borders Spain, explains to IPS from Madrid.

    Bauluz regrets the “impossibility” of disagreement in Russia. He points to “insane” regulations that, he stresses, are pushing many independent journalists into exile and forcing those who stay to keep a low profile.

    Among the initiatives launched by RSF, the one led by the German section of the NGO stands out: two million euros have been raised to give economic viability to newsrooms in exile and to assist in evacuating journalists.

    However, harassment is not exclusive to Russian journalists. There are two Americans among those imprisoned in Russia and many more foreign correspondents based in the country have been forced to leave.

    “Before the war in Ukraine it was already difficult and dangerous to work in the country. Today, however, we can say that journalism no longer exists in Russia,” Marc Marginedas, correspondent in Moscow for eleven years for the Periódico de Catalunya, told IPS by telephone.

    He speaks from his native Barcelona after leaving the country last year. Other than a “climate of terror” that, the journalist says, the press in Russia lives in, Marginedas describes the Kremlin’s communication policy as an “orgy of fake news.”

    “There´s also the administrative offensive: visas that need to be renewed every three months, the bureaucratic nightmare of renting an apartment and obtaining registration from the Migration Service…,” explains the Spanish journalist.

    Starting over

    Everything is more painful when it’s your house you can’t return to. After seven years working for the BBC, the British public broadcaster, Moscow reporter Elizaveta Vereykina left Russia a few weeks after Moscow launched its offensive in Ukraine.

    “I worked for the channel for a few months in Turkey and Latvia. Then the BBC asked me to go back because they needed people in Russia and I did, in May 2022,” Vereykina tells IPS in a telephone conversation from Tromso, in Norway´s far north. It was barely four months until she decided to leave the country again.

    “The situation was getting worse every day and I felt it was dangerous. People were afraid to talk to us because it was a foreign channel. Besides, it was increasingly difficult to travel within the country and even do things as simple as making a reservation at a hotel,” she recalls.

    Her colleague at the BBC, the veteran British journalist Sarah Rainsford, had been forced to leave the country in August, 2021. “Even before the invasion it was clear that things were beginning to change, that we were heading towards a real witch hunt,” adds the Russian reporter.

    After passing through the United Kingdom and Georgia, Vereykina accepted the Barents Observer’s invitation to join its staff last February. Without losing sight of current events in her country of origin, she also focuses on the threats suffered by the delicate Arctic ecosystem.

    “I am in love with this part of the world and, today, I enjoy the freedom of being able to choose my own topics,” she says, just before adding that she does not see a future for herself in Russia.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • COP28: Climate Summit in Closed Civic Space

    COP28: Climate Summit in Closed Civic Space

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Bryan Bedder/Getty Images for Bloomberg Philanthropies
    • Opinion by Andrew Firmin (london)
    • Inter Press Service

    In short, there’s a lot at stake as the world heads into its next climate summit.

    But there’s a big problem: COP28, the latest in the annual series of conferences of parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will be held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This is a country with closed civic space, where dissent is criminalised and activists are routinely detained. It’s also a fossil fuel power bent on continuing extraction.

    At multilateral summits where climate change decisions are made, it’s vital that civil society is able to mobilise to demand greater ambition, hold states and fossil fuel companies and financiers to account and ensure the views of people most affected by climate change are heard. But that can’t happen in conditions of closed civic space.

    Concerning signs

    In September, the UAE was added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, which highlights countries experiencing significant declines in respect for civic freedoms. Civic space in the UAE has long been closed: no dissent against the government or advocacy for human rights is allowed, and those who try to speak out risk criminalisation. In 2022, a Cybercrime Law introduced even stronger restrictions on online expression.

    There’s widespread torture in jails and detention centres and at least 58 prisoners of conscience have been held in prison despite having completed their sentences. Many of them were part of a group known as the UAE 94, jailed for the crime of calling for democracy. Among the ranks of those incarcerated is Ahmed Mansoor, sentenced to 10 years in jail in 2018 for his work documenting the human rights situation, and held in solitary confinement for over five years and counting.

    Ahead of COP28, civil society has worked to highlight the absurdity of holding such a vital summit in closed civic space conditions. Domestic civil society is unable to influence COP28 and its preparatory process, and it’s hard to see how civil society, both domestic and international, will be able to express itself freely during the summit.

    Civil society is demanding that the UAE government demonstrate that it’s prepared to respect human rights, including by releasing political prisoners – something it’s so far failed to budge on.

    An ominous sign came when the UAE hosted a climate and health summit in April. Participants were reportedly instructed not to criticise the government, corporations, individuals or Islam, and not to protest while in the UAE.

    Civic space restrictions aren’t the only indication the UAE isn’t taking COP28 seriously. The president of the summit, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, also happens to be head of the state’s fossil fuel corporation ADNOC, the world’s 11th-biggest oil and gas producer. It’s like putting an arms manufacturer in charge of peace talks. Multiple other ADNOC staff members have roles in the summit. ADNOC is currently talking up its investments in renewable energies, all while planning one of the biggest expansions of oil and gas extraction of any fossil fuel corporation.

    Instead of real action, all the signs are that the regime is instrumentalising its hosting of COP28 to try to launder its reputation, as indicated by its hiring of expensive international lobbying firms. An array of fake social media accounts were created to praise the UAE as host and defend it from criticism. A leaked list of key COP28 talking points prepared by the host made no mention of fossil fuels.

    A summit that should be about tackling the climate crisis – and quickly – is instead being used to greenwash the image of the host government – something easiest achieved if civil society is kept at arm’s length.

    Fossil fuel lobby to the fore

    With civil society excluded, the voices of those actively standing in the way of climate action will continue to dominate negotiations. That’s what happened at COP27, also held in the closed civic space of Egypt, where 636 fossil fuel lobbyists took part – and left happy. Like every summit before it, its final statement made no commitment to reduce oil and gas use.

    The only way to change this is to open the doors to civil society. Civil society has consistently sounded the alarm and raised public awareness of the need for climate action. It’s the source of practical solutions to cut emissions and adapt to climate impacts. It urges more ambitious commitments and more funding, including for the loss and damage caused by climate change. It defends communities against environmentally destructive impacts, resists extraction and promotes sustainability. It pressures states and the private sector to stop approving and financing further extraction and to transition more urgently to more renewable energies and more sustainable practices. These are the voices that must be heard if the cycle of runaway climate change is to be stopped.

    COPs should be held in countries that offer an enabling civic space that allows strong domestic mobilisation, and summit hosts should be expected to abide by high standards when it comes to domestic and international access and participation. That should be part of the deal hosts make in return for the global prestige that comes with hosting high-level events. Civil society’s exclusion mustn’t be allowed to happen again.

    Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • 12 Journalists Killed This Week In Israel-Hamas War, Totaling 36 Deaths

    12 Journalists Killed This Week In Israel-Hamas War, Totaling 36 Deaths

    [ad_1]

    At least 12 journalists were killed in the past eight days in the Israel-Hamas war, ticking the death toll for media workers covering the conflict up to 36.

    Hamas, a militant group based in Gaza, unleashed a surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7. In retaliation, Israel launched airstrikes at the territory and declared war. An estimated 10,000-plus people — 9,000 in Gaza and the West Bank and 1,400 in Israel — have been killed, along with journalists who have been covering the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the overall war.

    The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that as of Friday, 31 Palestinian journalists, four Israeli journalists and one Lebanese journalist have been killed since the war broke out on Oct. 7. CPJ also reported several other journalists injured, missing or arrested, and reported censorship, threats, assaults, cyberattacks and the killing of journalists’ family members.

    “CPJ emphasizes that journalists are civilians doing important work during times of crisis and must not be targeted by warring parties,” Sherif Mansour, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program coordinator, said in a statement.

    “Journalists across the region are making great sacrifices to cover this heart-breaking conflict. Those in Gaza, in particular, have paid, and continue to pay, an unprecedented toll and face exponential threats. Many have lost colleagues, families, and media facilities, and have fled seeking safety when there is no safe haven or exit.”

    The Israel Defense Forces told Reuters on Oct. 27 that it could not guarantee journalists’ safety in Gaza.

    Among the journalists killed this week were Palestinian journalist Yasser Abu Namous, who worked for the media organization Al-Sahel, and Nazmi Al-Nadim, who worked for Palestine TV. Both were killed by airstrikes at their respective families’ homes in Gaza on Oct. 27 and Oct. 30.

    Al-Nadim’s family died with him, the fate of other journalists and their families this week as well.

    On Nov. 2, journalist and correspondent for Palestinian TV Mohammad Abu Hattab was killed along with 11 members of his family in an Israeli airstrike at their home in the Gaza Strip.

    Shortly after Abu Hattab was killed, his colleague Salman Al-Bashir appeared on the channel.

    “Our colleague Mohammad Abu Hattab was standing here only 30 minutes ago, and now he left us, along with his wife, his brother, and many members of his family are now victims here inside the hospital,” Al-Bashir said, according to CNN.

    Al-Bashir also delivered emotional words about the dangerous realities facing journalists covering the war.

    “We can’t bear this anymore. We are exhausted, we are here victims and martyrs awaiting our deaths, we are dying one after the other, and no one cares about us or the large-scale catastrophe and the crime in Gaza,” he said on air.

    “No protection, no international protection at all, no immunity to anything, this protection gear does not protect us … These are just slogans that we are wearing, it doesn’t protect any journalist at all.”

    As Al-Bashir spoke, he took off his helmet and protective press gear.

    “We are victims, live on air,” he said, his voice cracking. “We are victims awaiting our turn to be killed. Mohammad was here half an hour ago [reporting]. Now he lies dead with his family in this same hospital.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Halfway to 2030: Our 5 Asks at the SDG Summit

    Halfway to 2030: Our 5 Asks at the SDG Summit

    [ad_1]

    A protest for women’s rights in Puebla, Mexico. Credit: Melania Torres/Forus
    • Opinion by Bibbi Abruzzini, Marie LHostis (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    The 2023 Special Edition of the SDG Progress Report emphasized that we’re falling short in implementing the SDGs. In April this year, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres deplored that “Progress on more than 50 per cent of targets of the SDGs is weak and insufficient; on 30 per cent, it has stalled or gone into reverse,” disproportionately impacting the world’s poorest and most vulnerable.

    As we approach the halfway mark of the 2030 Agenda, we urge world leaders at the UN General Assembly to address the precarious state of SDG implementation. Here’s our 5 asks.

    Walk the talk with clear implementation plans and benchmarks for the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals.

    “In Guatemala, there are two worlds, one for a small group that benefits from this macroeconomic stability, this weakness of democracy, this co-optation of state institutions, and a large majority of the population that faces poverty and inequality,” says Alejandro Aguirre Batres, Executive Director of CONGCOOP, the national platform of NGOs in Guatemala that recently published an alternative report on the implementation of the SDGs in the country.

    Governments must make specific national implementation plans to advance the Sustainable Development Goals, with clear benchmarks on when to achieve the targets set in 2015. Following the SDG Summit, we call on the United Nations and its partners to ensure that the “National Commitments to SDG Transformation” called for by the Secretary-General are adequately compiled and tracked, including by providing a transparent and inclusive platform for showcasing these commitments, helping to ensure adequate implementation, follow-up and accountability.

    All efforts and commitments must focus on breaching the increassing gap in inequalities, healing polarisation and restoring socio-environmental rights at the core of Agenda 2030 implementation as no form of development should come at the cost of environmental degradation and injustice.

    Presenting a viewpoint from Asia, Jyotsna Mohan Singh, representing the Asia Development Alliance, emphasizes that while the SDGs look good on paper, their real-world implementation remains far from satisfactory. She explains, “Governments should develop a policy coherence for sustainable development roadmap with timebound targets,” adding that it’s all about creating spaces grounded in equity where civil society and other stakeholders can join discussions and connect with local communities.

    In regions like the Sahel, stretching 5,000 kilometers below the Sahara Desert from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, challenges like conflict, political instability, extreme poverty, and food insecurity affect nearly 26 million people. Yet, this region is teeming with opportunities, boasting abundant resources and a young population, including 50% young women and girls.

    As civil society leader Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule, Forus Chair and President of SPONG, the Burkina Faso NGO network, puts it, “What unfolds in the Sahel and in so many other forgotten communities ripples across the globe, impacting us all even if we choose to look away.

    Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals is vital to unlock a different future. But for global change to truly happen, we need countries to come together, we need solidarity, horizontal spaces, and for world leaders to start listening and acting accordingly.”

    Commit to the protection of civic space and human rights.

    “Although the state of Pakistan has ratified many global instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the SDGs, the irony is that none of them have been transformed into local policies and regulatory frameworks. Unfortunately, civil rights advocates and organizations have either transformed themselves into humanitarian organizations or practiced self-censorship to avoid state atrocities. Pakistan is failing to achieve SDGs due to disengagement with civil society and other stakeholders.

    Ironically, the government is unable to provide reliable data on any of their own priority indicators to measure progress towards the implementation of SDGs, particularly on rights-based indicators,” says Zia ur Rehman, National Convener of the Pakistan Development Alliance. Their newly published Pakistan Civic Space Monitor reveals a generally restricted civic space, including restraints on freedom of speech, assembly, information, rule of law, governance, and public participation, with further deterioration. This rings true for 92% of Forus members – comprising national and regional civil society networks in over 124 countries – who consider the protection of civic space and human rights a top priority.

    Indeed, over the past decade, thousands of civil society organizations have faced increasing challenges due to restrictions on their formation and activities. Nine out of 10 people now live in countries where civil liberties are severely restricted, including freedoms of association, peaceful assembly, and expression, according to the CIVICUS Monitor. Forus reports confirm that civil society deals with increasing restrictions, involving extra-legal actions, misinformation and disinformation about their work both online and offline.

    Research also highlights the insufficiency of current institutional mechanisms to ensure an enabling environment for civil society, including addressing impunity for attacks on civil society and human right defenders, implementing supportive laws and regulations, and facilitating effective and inclusive policy dialogue. A recent ARTICLE 19 report highlights the inadequate integration of crucial elements like freedom of expression and access to information into SDGs, hampering progress.

    Journalist killings increased in 2022. Additionally, monitoring access to information mainly focuses on having a legal framework, ignoring its quality and adoption. Strengthening these rights is vital for advancing all SDGs. The growing number of human rights defenders being killed every year – at least 401 in 26 countries were murdered for their peaceful work in 2022 – is another worrying trend that needs to be reversed as the protection and promotion of human rights is the cornerstone of achieving sustainable development. Without human rights we will just move backwards.

    Strengthen and Catalyze Robust Financing for the SDGs.

    From the recent Summit for a new global financing pact to the Finance in Common initiative, it’s clear that the focus this year has been on increasing investment. But we need quality not just quantity, as expressed in a join civil society declaration aimed at public development banks signed by over 100 civil society organisations from 50+ countries.

    While we welcome UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’s call for a SDG Stimulus, we remind Governments, International Financial Institutions, public development banks and donors that more efforts must be done to scale up investments for the realization of the SDGs at all levels, including through additional support for civil society and by involving communities in all “development talks”.

    The role of the private sector and financial institutions in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda must be talked about openly. It is important to include in all development projects being carried out specific budgets for actions linked to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Discussions about financial reforms that are being repeatedly undertaken by several countries cannot happen behind close doors and in non-inclusive forums such as the G7 and G20. Instead, they should be open, inclusive, and transparent, involving a broader spectrum of protagonists, including civil society, to ensure fairness and sustainability in shaping global financial policies.

    “The SDGs are severely off track as we reach the critical half-way point of Agenda 2030. We need a renewed global ambition on financial commitments to make progress on the SDGs. Reforms of global financial architecture are a crucial part of this to ensure we have a fairer, more effective, inclusive and transparent system supporting lower-income countries that are at the forefront of the global climate, debt, poverty, food, and humanitarian crises. It’s not about a lack of finance, it is about political will and getting our priorities right,” says Sandra Martinsone, Policy Manager – Sustainable Economic Development at Bond UK.

    Mobilize Transformative Commitments for SDG16+.

    Recognizing the vital role of SDG16+ as a critical enabler for the entire 2030 Agenda, governments should come to the SDG Summit with targeted, integrated, focused and transformative commitments to accelerate action on SDG16+.

    As developed in the #SDG16Now collective campaign, this includes domestic policies and resources, legal reforms and initiatives to advance SDG16+ at the international, national and local levels, as well as ambitious global commitments to strengthen multilateralism and international resolve to promote peace, justice, the rule of law, inclusion and institution-building.

    Additionally, governments must use key moments – such as the 2024 High-Level Political Forum and the Summit of the Future – to advance implementation and delivery of the SDGs through similar commitments to action, and ensure adequate follow-up to these commitments going forward.

    Ensure civil society participation and listen to communities, reinvigorate commitments to SDG17.

    The 2030 Agenda overall cannot be achieved without building on the role of civil society and fostering a true global partnership. Every year at the fringes of the UN General Assembly, initiatives such as the Global People’s Assembly bring to the ears of world leaders the voices of communities historically marginalised. Governments need to reinvigorate engagement towards SDG17 to trengthen the means of implementing sustainable development goals and revitalising global partnerships for sustainable development.

    It’s high time we move away from conducting discussions about the future of development in closed-door settings. Tokenistic participation of civil society, where their involvement is merely symbolic or superficial, undermines the core principles of nclusivity, hurting genuine progress and meaningful collaboration. A more inclusive approach must be embraced that actively involves civil society and communities. Let’s #UNmute their voices and perspectives by bringing about reforms to current participation mechanisms, and giving them a real platform to be heard.

    In 2015 every government in the world agreed as a global community on what we want for our comon future for people and planet. So many efforts and work went on to reach such an agreement. Now is the time for governments and world leaders to walk the walk and prioritize people and the planet, delivering the 2030 Agenda, essential to secure our shared future. It is time for world leaders to act decisively and uphold their commitments to the SDGs.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Senegal: Democracy in the Balance?

    Senegal: Democracy in the Balance?

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Zohra Bensemra/Reuters via Gallo Images
    • Opinion by Andrew Firmin (london)
    • Inter Press Service

    Political conflict

    Recent protests have revolved around the populist opposition politician Ousmane Sonko. Sonko came third in the 2019 presidential election and has grown to be the biggest thorn in President Macky Sall’s side. He’s won support from many young people who see the political elite as corrupt, out of touch and unwilling to tackle major social and economic problems such as the country’s high youth unemployment. He’s also been the subject of a recent criminal conviction that his supporters insist is politically motivated.

    On 1 June, Sonko was sentenced to two years in jail for ‘corrupting youth’. This resulted from his arrest on rape charges in March 2021. Although he was cleared of the most serious charges – something women’s rights advocates have expressed concern about – his conviction likely makes him ineligible to stand in the next presidential election.

    Sonko’s arrest in March 2021 triggered protests in which 14 people died. His conviction set off a second wave of protests. Sonko was arrested again on 28 July on protest-related charges, including insurrection. A few days later, the government dissolved his party, Pastef. It’s the first such ban since Senegal achieved independence in 1960.

    All of this gave fresh impetus to Sonko’s supporters, who accuse the government of instrumentalising the judiciary and criminal justice system to stop a credible political threat.

    Repressive reaction

    The latest wave of protests saw instances of violence, including stone-throwing, tyre burning and looting. The state responded with lethal force. According to civil society estimates, since March 2021 over 30 people have been killed, more than 600 injured and over 700 detained.

    In response to the recent protests, the army was deployed in the capital, Dakar. Live ammunition was used and armed people dressed in civilian clothes, evidently embedded with security forces, violently attacked protesters.

    Journalists were harassed and arrested while covering protests. Recent years have seen a rise in verbal and physical attacks on journalists, along with legal action to try to silence them. Several journalists were arrested in relation to their reporting on Sonko’s prosecution. Investigative journalist Pape Alé Niang has been jailed three times in less than one year.

    The government also limited internet access and TV coverage. TV station Walf TV was suspended over its protest coverage. On 1 June, social media access was restricted and on 4 June mobile internet was shut down for several days. In August, TikTok access was blocked. Restrictions harmed both freedom of expression and livelihoods, since many small traders rely on mobile data for transactions.

    Third-term tussle

    A major driver of protests and Sonko’s campaign was speculation that Sall might be tempted to seek a third presidential term. The constitution appeared to be clear on the two-term limit, but Sall’s supporters claimed constitutional amendments in 2016 had reset the count. Thousands mobilised in Dakar on 12 May, organised by a coalition of over 170 civil society groups and opposition parties, to demand that Sall respect the two-term limit.

    On 3 July, Sall finally announced that he wasn’t running again. But it hasn’t ended suspicion that the ruling Alliance for the Republic (APR) party will go to any lengths stay in power, including using the state’s levers to weaken the opposition.

    There’s precedent here: ahead of the Sall’s re-election in 2019, two prominent opposition politicians who might have presented a serious challenge were excluded. In both cases, barely weeks before the election the Constitutional Council ruled them ineligible due to prior convictions on corruption charges that were widely believed to have been politically motivated.

    That Sonko and Pastef might have stood a chance in 2024 was suggested by the results of votes in 2022. In local elections, the APR lost control of Dakar and Sonko was elected mayor of Ziguinchor city. And then in parliamentary elections, the APR lost 43 of its 125 seats and Pastef finished second, claiming 56 seats, leaving no party with a majority.

    Reputation on the line

    Senegal long enjoyed an international reputation for being a relatively stable and democratic country in a region that’s experienced numerous democratic setbacks. With West African countries such as Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali and now Niger under military control, and others like Togo holding deeply flawed elections, Senegal stood out. It’s held several free elections with changes of power.

    The country’s active and youthful civil society and relatively free media have played a huge part in sustaining democracy. When President Abdoulaye Wade sought an unconstitutional third term in 2012, social movements mobilised. The Y’en a marre (‘I’m fed up’) movement got out the youth vote to oust Wade in favour of Sall. Wade himself rode a similar youth wave in 2000. So Sall and his party are surely aware of the power of social movements and the youth vote.

    A small step forward was taken recently when parliament voted to allow the two opposition candidates who’d been blocked in 2019 to stand in 2024. But the government needs to do much more to show its commitment to democratic rules.

    Upholding protest rights would be a good start. The repeated use of violence and detention of protesters points to a systemic problem. No one has been held to account for killings and other rights violations. It’s high time for accountability.

    Media freedoms need to be respected and people detained for exercising their civic freedoms must be released. For Senegal to live up to its reputation, Sall should strive to enter history as the president who kept democracy alive – not the one who buried it.

    Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Cambodia’s Election a Blatant Farce

    Cambodia’s Election a Blatant Farce

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Tang Chhin Sothy/AFP via Getty Images
    • Opinion by Ines M Pousadela (montevideo, uruguay)
    • Inter Press Service

    On 23 July, running virtually unopposed, Hun Sen’s Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) took 82 per cent of the vote, winning almost all seats. The only party that could have offered a challenge, the Candlelight Party, had been banned on a technicality in May.

    Following the proclamation of his ‘landslide victory‘, Hun Sen finally announced his retirement, handing over his position to his eldest son, Hun Manet. Manet had already been endorsed by the CPP. Winning a parliamentary seat, which he just did, was all he had to do to become eligible. To ensure dynastic succession faced no obstacle, a constitutional amendment passed in August 2022 allows the ruling party to appoint the prime minister without parliamentary approval.

    Hun Sen isn’t going away: he’ll remain CPP chair and a member of parliament, be appointed to other positions and stay at the helm of his family’s extensive business empire.

    A slippery slope towards autocracy

    Hun Sen came to power in a world that no longer exists. He managed to cling onto power as everything around him changed.

    He fought as a soldier in the Cambodian Civil War before defecting to Vietnam, taking several government positions under the 1980s Vietnamese government of occupation. He was appointed prime minister in 1985, and when 1993 elections resulted in a hung parliament, Hun Sen refused to concede defeat. Negotiations resulted in a coalition government in which he served as joint prime minister, until he orchestrated a coup to take sole control in 1997. At the head of the CPP, he has won every election since.

    In 2013 his power was threatened. A new opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), offered a credible challenge. The CPP got its lowest share of votes and seats since 1998. Despite obvious fraud, the CNRP came dangerously close to defeating Hun Sen.

    In the years that followed, Hun Sen made sure no one would challenge him again. In 2015, the CNRP’s leader Sam Rainsy was summarily ousted from the National Assembly and stripped of parliamentary immunity. A warrant was issued for his arrest, pushing him into exile. He was then barred from returning to Cambodia, and in 2017 convicted for ‘defaming’ Hun Sen. His successor at the head of the CNRP, Kem Sokha, soon faced persecution too.

    In November 2017, the Supreme Court ordered the dissolution of the CNRP and imposed a five-year political ban on 118 opposition members.

    As a result, the only parties that eventually ran on a supposedly opposition platform in 2018 were small parties manufactured by government allies to give the impression of competition. In the run-up to the vote, the CPP-dominated National Election Committee (NEC) threatened to prosecute anybody who urged a boycott and warned voters that criticising the CPP wasn’t allowed. What resulted was a parliament without a single dissenting voice.

    There was no let off after the election, with mass arrests and mass trials of former CNRP members and civil society activists becoming commonplace. Rainsy was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment, and Sokha was given 27 years for ‘treason’. At least 39 opposition politicians are behind bars, and many more have left Cambodia.

    But as the CNRP faded, the torch passed to the Candlelight Party. In June 2022 local elections, Candlelight proved that Hun Sen was right to be afraid: in an extremely repressive context, it still took over 20 per cent of the vote. And sure enough, in May 2023 the NEC disqualified Candlelight from the July election.

    Civic space under assault

    Political repression has been accompanied by tightening civic space restrictions.

    The crackdown on independent media, underway since 2017, intensified in the run-up to the latest electoral farce. In March 2022, the government stripped three digital media outlets of their licences after they published stories on government corruption. In February 2023, Hun Sen ordered the closure of Voice of Democracy, one of the few remaining independent media outlets, after it published a story about Manet. Severe restrictions weigh on foreign media groups, some of which have been forced out of the country.

    In contrast, government-owned and pro-government media organisations are able to operate freely. Major media groups are run by magnates close to the ruling family. One media conglomerate is headed by Hun Sen’s eldest daughter. As a result, most information available to Cambodians comes through the filter of power. Most media work to disseminate state-issued disinformation and discredit independent voices as agents of propaganda.

    The right to protest is heavily restricted. Gatherings by banned opposition parties are prohibited and demonstrations by political groups, labour unions, social movements and essentially anyone mobilising on issues the government doesn’t want raised are routinely dispersed by security forces, often violently. Protesters are subjected to threats, intimidation, arbitrary arrests and detention, and further criminalisation.

    As if leaving people with no choice wasn’t enough, Hun Sen also mounted a scare campaign to force them to vote, since a low turnout would undermine the credibility of the outcome. People were threatened with repercussions if they attempted to boycott the election or spoil ballot papers. The election law was hastily amended to make this a crime.

    Experience gives little ground to hope that repression will let up rather than intensify following the election. There’s also no reason to expect that Manet, long groomed for succession, will take a different path from his still-powerful predecessor. The very least the international community should do is to call out the charade of an election for what it was and refuse to buy the Cambodian regime’s whitewashing attempt.

    Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Civil Society Space in Southern Africa Shrinking as Government Repression Rises

    Civil Society Space in Southern Africa Shrinking as Government Repression Rises

    [ad_1]

    • by Busani Bafana (bulawayo)
    • Inter Press Service

    “The state of civil society is unfortunately not improving; civil restrictions continue across the world,” said David Kobe, the advocacy Lead at CIVICUS.

    “More than 2 billion people live in countries that are rated as closed, which is the worst rating any country can have – this means that 28 percent of the world’s population are not able to speak out when there is corruption or human rights violations restrictions or cannot write articles as journalists without facing appraisals,” Kobe told IPS in an interview, noting that the organization’s human rights tool is indicating growing suppression of civil space across the world.

    The CIVICUS Monitor, a tool accessing the state of civic space in more than 190 countries, provides evidence of restrictions on human rights by governments. The CIVICUS Monitor rates the state of civil space ‘open, ‘repressed’, and ‘closed’ according to each country.

    Kobe notes that human rights violations are increasing globally with more restrictions on civil society in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The picture is not different in the Southern Africa region where restrictions on civil space have been continuing, and these have included censorship, violent response to protests and restrictive laws as seen in Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe

    Closing Civil Society Space

    Zimbabwe remains on the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist as attacks on civic space continue ahead of the scheduled 2023 national elections.

    Last November, Zimbabwe approved the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Amendment Bill, 2022, known as the Patriotic Act. The law seeks to create the offence of “wilfully damaging the sovereignty and national interest of Zimbabwe” and will essentially criminalise the lobbying of foreign governments to extend or implement sanctions against Zimbabwe or its officials.

    Furthermore, the Zimbabwe government gazetted the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill in November 2021, amending the Private Voluntary Organisations Act, which governs non-profit organizations. The main aim of the Bill is to comply with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations to strengthen the country’s legal framework to combat money laundering, financing terrorism and proliferation.

    Civil society organizations warn that the Bill could hinder their activities and financing with potential adverse impacts on economic development. Besides, NGOs argue that they are a low-risk sector with no precedence of financing terrorism and money laundering.

    Musa Kika, Executive Director of Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum, says the PVO will affect the operations of NGOs, including deterring donors from funding PVOs, fearing the money could end up under the grip of the government. Besides, the Bill has a provision giving the Minister of Justice unfettered powers to place under supervision or surveillance, using subjective discretion, those PVOs the Minister deems to be high risk.

    “Continued hostility and harassment on the part of the government towards the work of CSOs in the country will thus only result in a hugely detrimental effect on their efforts in advancing the protection of and respect for the basic human rights and freedoms of ordinary Zimbabwean civilians as espoused under Zimbabwe’s Constitution,” Kika said. He noted that civil society organisations were operating in a tough environment in Zimbabwe where the government does not trust them, especially those working in the fields of governance and human rights.

    “We have a government that does not want to account,” said Kika. “We have had many human rights activists who have been arrested on flimsy charges…Terrorism finance is being used as a cover, but the motive is to close the democratic space because the government and accountability in human rights and governance are sworn enemies.”

    In Zimbabwe, NGOs have, in partnership with the government, supported development, providing a range of services in health, education, social protection, humanitarian assistance, environmental management, emergency response and democracy building.  A research report commissioned by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum in collaboration with the Southern Defenders and Accountability Lab has warned of huge job and financial losses if the Bill is passed into law.

    United Nations experts have urged Zimbabwe’s President Emerson Mnangagwa to reject enacting a bill that would severely restrict civic space and the right to freedom of association in the country.

    However, President Mnangagwa has defended the passage of the PVO Bill, vowing to speedily “sign it into law once it reaches my desk”. In a commentary in his weekly column published by the government-owned Sunday Mail, Mnangagwa said signing the bill into law will usher Zimbabwe into a “new era of genuine philanthropic and advocacy work, unsullied by ulterior political or financial motives.”

    Mnangagwa said the law was meant to defend the country from foreign infiltration.

    Engendering Patriotism but Endangering Democracy

    Zimbabwe has also recently approved another repressive law known as the ‘Patriot Act’.

    “The Patriotic Act is an extremely repressive and unconstitutional piece of legislation that has serious ramifications for citizens’ rights, particularly the rights of freedom of expression in the lead up to the elections,” human rights lawyer, Dough Coltart, tells IPS in an interview.

    “There is a very real need to educate the citizens on what the ramifications of this Act are for people’s lives because the Act has far-reaching consequences for the entire country and will essentially stifle any public dialogue around the challenges we are facing as a country.”

    “The Patriot law is a bad piece of legislation which is an affront to the practice of ethical journalism in Zimbabwe,” Njabulo Ncube, Coordinator of the Zimbabwe National Editors’ Forum (ZINEF), told IPS. “It stinks to the highest skies as it criminalizes the practice of good journalism. It is anti-media freedom and free expression…civil society organisations have also been caught in the mix; they cannot effectively make government account for its actions.”

    Democracy Dimming

    The situation in Zimbabwe is echoed in some countries across Southern Africa, where governments are cracking down on CSOs in the name of protecting national sovereignty and the threats of money laundering and terrorism financing.

    In Angola, the country’s National Assembly, on May 25 2023, passed a draft NGO Statute, which CSOs have criticized for limiting freedom of association by giving the state excessive powers to interfere with civil society activities.

    According to the Movimento de Defensores de Direitos Humanos de Angola (Movement of Human Rights Defenders of Angola, KUTAKESA), the government has targeted civil society with legislation that is meant for terrorists and money launderers, though it has never been proven in any court that a CSO has committed an act of terrorism in Angola.

    On the contrary, the rationale of this legislation constitutes institutional terrorism, the target of which are CSOs, said Godinho Cristóvão, a jurist, human rights defender and executive director of KUTEKA in an interview with the CIVICUS Monitor.

    “The Angolan authorities should have aligned themselves with the democratic rule of law and respected the work of CSOs and HRDs,” Cristóvão is quoted as saying.

    “Instead, there has been an increase in threats, harassment and illegal arrests of human rights defenders who denounce or hold peaceful demonstrations against acts of bad governance and violations of citizens’ rights and freedoms. There have been clear setbacks with regard to the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the constitution, as well as the rights set out in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other human rights treaties Angola has ratified.”

    In Mozambique, a new NGO on Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act, which overregulates CSOs, is seen as the death knell for the civic movement in the country. The Act was approved in October 2022 under the pretext of fighting terrorism. It has further curtailed freedoms of expression, information, press, assembly and public participation.

    Paula Monjane, Executive Director of the Civil Society Learning and Capacity Building Centre (CESC), a Mozambican non-profit civil society organisation, said currently, the legislation was being proposed to silence dissenting voices and people fighting for better governance of public affairs and the protection of human rights in the country.

    The draft Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Act law establishes a legal regime for the creation, organisation and functioning of CSOs, and Monjane highlighted that it contains several norms that violate freedom of association despite this right being safeguarded by the constitution and international human rights treaties.

    “It gives the government absolute and discretionary powers to ‘create’, control the functioning of, suspend and extinguish CSOs,” said Monjane, adding, “If the bill is approved, it will legitimise already existing practices restricting civic space, allowing the persecution of dissenting voices and organisations critical of the government, up to banning them from continuing to operate.”

    Monjane said if the bill is passed into law CSOs in Mozambique will push for it to be declared unconstitutional and will ask the African Union, through the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the United Nations, through the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association to urgently condemn it.

    On actions to foster human rights and human rights defenders, Kobe said civil society organisations must be supported to hold governments accountable for upholding national and international human rights conventions that they have subscribed to.

    The Universal Periodic Review, an assessment of the state of civic and human rights of a country over a four-year period, provides recommendations to governments enabling them to open civic space and remove restrictive laws.

    “Governments need to implement the recommendations of the UPR and not treat them as a formality for them to be seen by the international community as respecting human rights when they are not,” said Kobe, adding that encouraging governments to implement the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development was also a way of getting them to see development alongside human rights.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Mandela Day Reminder to Stand Witness to Human Rights Defenders

    Mandela Day Reminder to Stand Witness to Human Rights Defenders

    [ad_1]

    • by Joyce Chimbi (nairobi)
    • Inter Press Service

    “Like Nelson Mandela was, hundreds of human rights defenders around the world are in prison for their human rights activities. Just like him, they are unjustly treated, fictitious charges levelled against them and handed the most serious sentences that are often used against criminals. One of our priorities is to work with human rights defenders to advocate for their release,” says David Kode from CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society with a presence in 188 countries around the world.

    Inspired by the life story of the late iconic South African President Nelson Mandela, the Stand As My Witness Campaign was launched on Nelson Mandela Day in 2020 by CIVICUS, its members and partners.

    In commemoration of the third anniversary of the Stand As My Witness campaign, CIVICUS and its partners, including human rights defenders, hosted a public event titled, ‘Celebrating Human Rights Defenders through Collaborative Advocacy Efforts’, to celebrate the brave contributions of human rights defenders and raise awareness about those who are still in detention.

    “Over the last three years, we have profiled more than 25 human rights defenders collectively because some human rights defenders are profiled as individuals and others, such as those in Burundi, are profiled as a group because they were arrested as a group. More than 18 human rights defenders have been released over the last three years. As we celebrate, we must recognize that the journey has just started, it is quite long, and the battle is far from over,” Kode said.

    The event brought together families and colleagues of detained human rights defenders, previously detained human rights defenders, representatives from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and other human rights mechanisms and civil society organisations.

    Lysa John, the Secretary General of CIVICUS, spoke about how special Mandela Day is, for it is the one day of the year when the spirit of solidarity is celebrated in his memory. It is also a day to look back at what has been achieved and how much more could be achieved in solidarity.

    She further addressed issues of civic space restrictions, closure of civic space and how these restrictions impact societies and individuals. John stressed that the event was held in the context of the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and the 75th anniversary of the UNDHR or Human Rights 75 to promote their objectives.

    “One-third of the population of the world live in contexts which are closed. Where attacks on people who speak out or exercise their civic freedoms are attacked or arrested without any accountability. More and more people in the world, in fact, the largest section of the world, estimated at 44 percent live in countries where civic space and civic freedoms are restricted. In this regard, civic society is more than ever reinventing itself, and there is increased support for them,” she said.

    Birgit Kainz from OHCHR spoke about the importance of bringing to life the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders for its adoption was a consensus that human dignity is at the core of everything.

    She spoke about the need to be deliberate in the defence of civic space as it enables people to shape their future and that of their children. Kainz said that protection and security are two sides of the same coin and urged participants to network and connect to improve civic space and to also play a complementary role. Further emphasizing the need to maintain data, especially about who is in detention and where in line with SDGs.

    Maximilienne Ngo Mbe spoke about the life and times of human rights defenders today. She is one of the most prolific human rights defenders in Africa and continues to receive a lot of restrictions for her fearless human rights activities that often have her fleeing from Cameroon to other countries for safety.

    “We need a network for women rights defenders because of the special challenges they face as girls, wives, mothers and vulnerable people. Women are engaging less and less because of these challenges and the multiple roles they play in society,” she said.

    The event was an opportunity for released human rights defenders such as Maria Esperanza Sanchez from Nicaragua to speak about resilience in the face of brutal regimes. She spoke about how armed men often came to her house to threaten and intimidate her. Of her arrest, humiliation and torture in 2020, being sentenced to 10 years in prison and her eventual release.

    It was also an opportunity to speak on behalf of those who cannot. They include Khurram Parvez, a prolific human rights defender in India. At the time of his arrest for human rights activities, he was leading two critical organizations at the national and regional levels.

    Parvez is being charged as a terrorist. His story aligns with that of Kenia Hernandez, a 32-year-old indigenous Amuzga woman, mother of two, lawyer and an advocate for human rights who is currently detained in a maximum-security prison in Mexico and has been sentenced to 21 years. Her story is illustrative of the high-risk female rights defenders and people from marginalized groups face.

    Ruben Hasbun from Global Citizen spoke about how to effectively advocate for the release of human rights defenders, sharing lessons from Stand As My Witness campaigners.  The event further opened up space to address the role of the private sector.

    Christopher Davis from Body Shop, a brand that continues to be at the forefront of supporting human rights and rights defenders, fighting social and environmental injustice.

    At the end of the session, participants were invited to sign a petition to have the United Arab Emirates immediately and unconditionally release all those detained solely for the exercise of their human rights and end all abuse and harassment of detained critics, human rights defenders, political opposition members, and their families.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Human Rights Concerns Ahead of Zimbabwe Polls

    Human Rights Concerns Ahead of Zimbabwe Polls

    [ad_1]

    Analysts are concerned about pre-election violence and intimidation ahead of next month’s Zimbabwean poll. Credit: Ignatius Banda/IPS
    • by Ignatius Banda (bulawayo)
    • Inter Press Service

    Lawyers representing opposition political activists have not been spared assaults from police and suspected ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (Zanu PF) party supporters as economic conditions worsen.

    In January, Kudzayi Kadzere, a human rights lawyer, was beaten up by police and his arm broken after being dispatched to a local police station in the capital city, Harare, to represent arrested opposition political party supporters. The police accused him of being a “criminal nuisance.”

    Early this month, the country’s security forces allegedly attacked Obey Shava, a human rights lawyer who has represented several opposition Citizens for Coalition for Change (CCC) officials and other human rights abuse victims. Unknown assailants broke his legs.

    However, the country’s main political opposition led by Nelson Chamisa, the CCC, was quick to point fingers at ruling party activists and the country’s secret police for Shava’s attack. The CCC has routinely been tipped to win successive elections without success.

    These incidents have been met with widespread condemnation on the eve of what is seen as crucial elections slated for 23 August, with the British parliament discussing and raising concerns early this month about what is seen as deteriorating human rights conditions in Zimbabwe ahead of the polls.

    “What we are seeing in this election cycle is lawfare or the weaponisation of the law,” said Ringisai Chikohomero, a senior analyst at the  Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in Pretoria, South Africa.

    “This has led to a lot of prosecution and persecution, and what this has done is to create an atmosphere of fear that you can be locked up for a long time without actually going to trial,” Chikohomero told IPS.

    These comments come when human rights organisations say almost a hundred political prisoners are incarcerated, with former opposition legislator Job Sikhala having spent more than a year behind bars and accused of obstruction of justice.

    Amnesty International has condemned Sikhala’s long detention, with Flavia Mwangovya, Deputy Director for East and Southern Africa, Amnesty International saying in a May statement  that “there is a worrying restriction of civic space underway in Zimbabwe with growing attempts to persecute anyone who dares to freely express themselves.”

    The developments come amid escalating economic hardships, with President Emmerson Mnangagwa accusing the business sector of deliberately sabotaging the economy to stoke anti-government sentiment.

    While Mnangagwa has used the campaign trail and radio jingles to denounce violence and appeal for peaceful elections, human rights defenders have questioned the continuing human rights abuses despite its condemnation from the highest office in the land.

    “The challenge about the pre-election conditions is that can it be proven that there have been systematic human rights violations,” said Piers Pogue, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group.

    “Though international observers from the EU are coming, it is quite clear that six weeks before elections doesn’t constitute long-term observation,” Pogue told IPS.

    Already, police have banned or placed stringent conditions for opposition political rallies, such as outlawing the chanting of slogans, further setting the stage for possible confrontations and running battles with party supporters as has happened in past elections.

    However, analysts say there is a need for the country to move from continued disputed poll outcomes, and one of the recommendations is to have long-term observer teams from such groups as the African Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

    “Ideally, the AU and SADC should have deployed longer-term observer teams. We have seen in the past that only long-term missions manage to get to grips with election conditions. Differences between long and short-term observer missions expose the contradictions of how electoral conditions are assessed,” Pigou said.

    Zimbabwe’s elections have for years hogged regional and international headlines after successive controversial victories by the founding Zanu (PF) party amid decades-old worsening economic conditions; with eleven presidential candidates in next month’s general election, the stage could be set for yet another contentious poll outcome.

    Meanwhile, as election day approaches, the Zimbabwe Catholic  Bishops Conference has added its voice to concerns about the pre-election conditions, appealing to voters to exercise their democratic right to vote.

    “Do not be intimidated, coerced or manipulated to vote against your will. Please refuse to be used in violent attacks against your fellow brothers and sisters,” the Catholic bishops said on 9 July.

    The clerics also appealed to the country’s security services, long accused of doing the ruling party’s bidding, to maintain law and order without taking sides.

    “To members of the security sector, we appeal to you to work to maintain peace and justice and let all the perpetrators of political violence be held accountable,” the bishops said.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Guatemala Clings to Democratic Promise

    Guatemala Clings to Democratic Promise

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Silvia Rodríguez/AFP via Getty Images
    • Opinion by Ines M Pousadela (montevideo, uruguay)
    • Inter Press Service

    But an unexpected development brought some hope: Bernardo Arévalo, leader of the progressive Movimiento Semilla, made it to the runoff.

    Arévalo’s promise to fight against systemic corruption and bring back the numerous justice operators – people such as judges, prosecutors and public defenders – currently in exile to help clean up institutions is causing great concern for those who profit from the current state of affairs. The fact that Arévalo could become Guatemala’s next president has made the election results an instant object of contention.

    Corruption and democratic decline

    Guatemalan electoral processes aren’t pristine, but that isn’t where the most serious problems lie. Civic freedoms are steadily deteriorating and state institutions have been weakened by predatory elites and coopted by organised crime. Transparency International finds evidence of strong influence by organised criminals over politics and politicians, with some criminals themselves in office.

    No wonder Guatemalans have a low level of confidence in state institutions. In the latest Latinobarómetro report, the church was by far the most trusted institution, winning the trust of 71 per cent of people, followed at some distance by the armed forces and police. But only nine per cent of people trust political parties, and trust is also very low in Congress, electoral bodies and the judiciary.

    At 25 per cent, satisfaction with the performance of democracy is extremely low – as is the number of people who think the country is ruled for the benefit of all rather than just elites.

    The run-up to the vote

    Those denouncing corruption, collusion, illegal private sector practices and human rights abuses have increasingly been subjected to smear campaigns, surveillance, harassment and criminalisation by state authorities. Many have been pushed into exile. Rising violence against journalists and human rights defenders, including killings – the latest being that of journalist Orlando Villanueva – recently led the CIVICUS Monitor to downgrade its civic space rating for Guatemala to the second-worst category, repressed.

    Restrictions on civic freedoms increased in the run-up to elections, ranging from smear campaigns to criminalisation. On 14 June, José Rubén Zamora, head of the newspaper elPeriódico, which had exposed more than 200 corruption cases, was sentenced to six years in prison for alleged money laundering. Zamora had been subjected to harassment and intimidation for years and had survived an assassination attempt.

    An observation mission carried out by Reporters Without Borders and others ahead of voting warned that the absence of basic press freedoms made it impossible to guarantee a legitimate electoral process.

    The process was indeed marred by multiple irregularities, starting with the disqualification of several contenders, including Indigenous leader Thelma Cabrera and her running mate, Jordán Rodas Andrade, the only left-wing candidacy polls showed stood a fighting chance. The candidate who led opinion polls, conservative business leader and TikTok star Carlos Pineda, was also disqualified.

    What happened on 25 June

    With two dozen candidates competing in the presidential race, it was no surprise that none reached the 50 per cent threshold required to avoid a runoff. What was unexpected was Arévalo’s good performance.

    The front-runner, Sandra Torres of National Unity of Hope, is a political insider, Guatemala’s first lady between 2008 and 2011. Now standing for the third time in a row, she received 16 per cent of the vote. If elected, she would become Guatemala’s first female president. But she’s by no means a champion of women’s rights: she’s a vocal anti-abortion activist and her running mate is an evangelical pastor.

    Runner-up Arévalo is an unusual politician at the head of an unusual party. Originally an academic with social-democratic views, he’s currently a member of Congress, where he leads a five-member progressive caucus. His running mate, low-key feminist Karin Herrera, is a microbiology researcher and university professor.

    Unlike many Guatemalan parties, Arévalo’s party wasn’t created as a vehicle for someone’s presidential ambitions or corrupt interests: it was the creature of a group of concerned people that grew out of mass anti-corruption protests that broke out in 2015. In 2019, its presidential candidate was disqualified. But it found its footing among middle class groups, young people and women, particularly in Guatemala City.

    The aftermath

    Opinion polls had placed Arévalo eighth or ninth among the many contenders, so his performance caught elites off guard.

    There’s no guarantee he’ll win the run-off. He’d have to gain the votes of the many who abstained or cast blank and invalid votes. But the fact that Arévalo might win has galvanised those who currently profit from the corrupt status quo, and they’re trying to push him out of the race. A majority of pro-establishment parties, including Torres’s party, have submitted complaints demanding a recount. Their supporters converged outside the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), quickly pushing further and calling for a rerun.

    While various incidents were recorded on election day – including instances of vote buying, mostly by parties linked to the ruling alliance – international and domestic observers alike concluded that the results were valid and the gap of more than 200,000 votes between Semilla and the next contender, the outgoing president’s party, was insurmountable.

    Mirador Electoral, a civil society platform, denounced pressures on the TSE as an attempted ‘electoral coup’. The European Union’s observer mission and the Organization of American States have called for the will of voters to be respected. Arévalo condemned it all as an intimidatory manoeuvre and called for the TSE, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court to act quickly and responsibly.

    Instead, the Constitutional Court ordered the TSE to suspend official certification of results until complaints are resolved. Some fear an attempt to annul the elections will come next.

    Guatemala stands at a crossroads. On the eve of voting it seemed on the verge of autocracy. An unexpected result hinted at the possibility of a much brighter path – one that fills many with hope but scares those who see their wealth and power endangered. The coming days and weeks will witness an arm-wrestling match between the past and the future, with three potential outcomes.

    In the worst-case scenario, the runoff continues to be delayed by legal appeals and the task of appointing a president ultimately falls to Congress. In the second-worst scenario, a vote-by-vote recount is conducted instead of a simple cross-check of tally sheets, fraud occurs along the way and the ruling party’s candidate takes Arévalo’s runoff spot. Either way, the past wins.

    Only if the recount is properly conducted, the results are corroborated and the runoff is held on 20 August will the future have a fighting chance. The corrupt establishment may still beat Arévalo – but this decision belongs to no one but the citizens of Guatemala.

    Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

    © Inter Press Service (2023) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link