In recent years, many freedoms of Hong Kong citizens have been stripped away. Once a British colony now under the rule of Beijing, legislation has restricted the voice of its journalists and activists.
Critiques of the Hong Kong and Chinese government are met with an iron fist. New laws such as the National Security Law and Article 23 law have limited what can and cannot be said in public and media. Consequently, activist such as Jimmy Lai have fallen victim to these new laws.
Historical Background of Hong Kong, The National Security Law, and Article 23
Britain acquired Hong Kong after the first Opium War with China, under the Treaty of Nanjing 1842. Negotiations of Hong Kong took place in 1984, with the signing of the Joint Declaration. In 1990, the Basic Law was completed which served as a mini-constitution for Hong Kong. The former British Colony was officially turned back over to the People’s Republic of China on July 1, 1997.
Beijing had promised Hong Kong a “One Country, Two Systems” rule and to continue their political practices for 50 more years. However, after an economic crisis in Hong Kong, Beijing sought to implement strict regulations in 2003. The National Security Law was proposed to be added to the Basic Law, but half a million Hong Kong citizens marched in protest. The bill was unable to be passed due to the pushback.
Despite citizens’ displeasure with the proposal in 2003, 17 years later, the National Security Law was put into place. This has heavily restricted many freedoms that people in Hong Kong partook in previously. The crackdown of this law came in the form of dozens of activists being arrested. In recent years, the recognition of the Tiananmen Square Massacre has been censored. With that, people are no longer permitted to hold vigils in memory of those who died during the protest. Beijing has frequently been exercising their authority to interpret the Basic Law in Hong Kong.
The Basic Laws are similar to a mini-constitution for Hong Kong. The Nationals Security Law (NSL) was passed in 2020. This heavily restricts Hong Konger’s rights to protests and freedom of speech and expression. Because of this new law, the Hong Kong government was able to pass Article 23. This article, officially called Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, creates new offenses, heavier prison sentences, and stronger enforcement for violations of national security. The law adopts mainland China’s definition of “State security threats” and “State secrets” which encompasses almost anything. The law is up for interpretation, but only the interpretation of the Hong Kong government and Beijing.
Who is Jimmy Lai? What is he charged with?
Jimmy Lai first came to Hong Kong in 1961 at the age of 12. After having fled from Communist China, Lai had arrived at a colonized Hong Kong. Because of its national status at the time, he is considered a British National. As a child, Lai worked as a child laborer in a clothing factory, persevering through years of working in harsh conditions. By 1981, Lai opened a chain clothing store called Giordano. Through this Jimmy Lai became extremely successful.
As a result of the events at the Tiananmen Square Massacre, Lai began to dedicate his life to activism for human rights (see my blog post about China for an in-depth look into the Tiananmen Square Massacre and its influence on activists in Hong Kong and China). In 1995, he opened a newspaper called Apple Daily. Frequently, this pro-democracy media outlet would criticize the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
On August 10, 2020, Jimmy Lai was arrested and in December 2020, he was charged with three counts of foreign collusion and one charge for sedition. For four years, Lai has been detained in the conditions that violate many human rights. According to Amnesty International, Lai has been subjected to solitary confinement and is allowed outside for less than an hour a day.
Jimmy Lai’s international legal team has reported that Lai, a Catholic, has been denied his freedom to practice his religion. In an interview conducted by Nick Schifrin, International Human Rights Lawyer, Caoilfhionn Gallagher said, “He’s also a devout Roman Catholic being denied access to the sacrament of holy communion.” While his legal team continues to fight for his release, Gallagher emphasizes the imperative danger that Lai is in of losing his life.
Lai’s son, Sebastien Lai, also spoke out about his father. In the interview, he worries about the passing of his father while in prison. Sebastien said that his ultimate goal was to see his father out of prison before his death. Despite their best hopes the chances of the case against Jimmy Lai being dropped are slim. Sebastien reflects on the memory of his father, “My memory of my father is always of this man smiling, because he knew that, despite all of this, he was doing the right thing.” This quote summarizes the kind of person Jimmy Lai is. One that fights for his freedoms and the freedoms of the people around him. Lai had not hesitated, in any of the times he was released on bail, to continue to attend Tiananmen vigils and stand up for democracy and freedom of speech.
The Lai Trial and November 20th Resumption Update
The long awaited trial of pro-democracy advocate, Jimmy Lai, began on December 18, 2023. Lai had been held in custody awaiting his trial for over 1,000 days due to delays from Beijing over their interpretation of the national security law. Beijing ultimately decided that Lai would not be allowed his choice of a British lawyer.
A trial that was only supposed to last 80 days, ran until June 11, 2024. The court was unable to have the mid-trial submission until July 24-25. Since then, the court has been adjourned until November 20, 2024.
In another case, Hong Kong rejected Jimmy Lai’s request for a jury trial in early October 2024. This was in response to Jimmy Lai bringing a case against Ta Kung Pao, a pro-Bejing newspaper, in November 2020. Ta Kung Pao had published defamatory statements regarding Lai in June 2020. In the article, Ta Kung Pao accused Lai of trying to escape and create chaos within Hong Kong. Unfortunately, Judge Queeny Au Yeung rejected Lai’s request, stating that the legal documents needed further in-depth examination.
The court case for the national security trial resumed on November 20 with the testimony of Lai. In the charges of collusion with foreign forces, Lai pleaded not guilty. Hong Kong’s Prosecutor Anthony Chau insisted that Lai was asking other countries, specifically the United States, to impose sanctions and encourage hostilities against Hong Kong and China.
In his first court testimony, Lai stated that it was not his intention to manipulate foreign policy in the United States to be hostile towards China and Hong Kong. This was in response to the prosecution bringing forth evidence of Lai’s “collusion with foreign forces” in a meeting he had with Vice President Mike Pence and secretary of state Mike Pompeo during Donald J. Trump’s presidency in July 2019.
Lai said that all he did was answer honestly of what was happening in Hong Kong when asked. In relation to his newspaper Apple Daily, Lai denies advocating for Hong Kong’s independence. He also reiterated that any conversations held with Officials from other countries were strictly professional. Lai further stated that the National Security Law would bring about the end of free speech in Hong Kong.
Conclusion: What is the international reaction? What can be done to help Lai and others?
The trial will continue throughout November while the rest of the world awaits the fate of Jimmy Lai. Amnesty International continues to call for the release of Jimmy Lai. Both the U.K. and the U.S. have criticized Beijing for the imprisonment of Lai. Beijing in response, has condemned the U.S. on its involvement with a “threat to the security of Hong Kong and China.” They have also stated that the U.K. should stay out of all legal processes.
“Support Jimmy Lai” is an online website that has been keeping track of Lai’s case. On the website they provide case updates and a timeline of Lai’s life. They ask people to show support by using the hashtag #FreeJimmyLai. If you would like to donate to the cause or for more information check out “Support Jimmy Lai.”
Thousands of miles away, activists for basic human rights sit in prison cells. Most await punishments that far exceed the crime. In China, heavy prison sentences weigh on the shoulders of its brightest human rights activists, scholars, and lawyers.
According to Amnesty International, freedom of expression and speech is having the right to say what you believe and to call for a better world. To express your freedom of speech is to be able to openly, and without consequences, critique those in power. The United Nations (UN) states that the right to peaceful assembly is the right to hold peaceful gatherings, sit-ins, rallies, and protests without fearing repercussions.
Who are They? And What Does the Law Say?
Human rights lawyer, Ding Jiaxi, has been imprisoned since December 2019 for subversion of state power. Also arrested for subversion of state power was Xu Zhiyong, a legal scholar.
Ding Jiaxi and Xu Zhiyong are members of the New Citizens’ Movement, a group of activists dedicated to creating a better China. Xu and Ding co-created the movement back in 2012 in order to shed light on government corruption. After a meeting with the activist movement in December 2019 in a Chinese city called Xiamen, multiple members were arrested. As a result of their critique of the Chinese government’s handling of the coronavirus, Xue Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi were charged with “subversion of state power.” Both have been imprisoned, with sources saying that they have been subjected to various forms of torture.
By examining China’s laws regarding freedom of press and expression, a clearer understanding of the regulations that restrict the people of China is achieved. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China Article 5 states that the government must protect their citizens’ right to freedom of press so long as they do not criticize the basic principles of the constitution. Citizens must abide by certain regulations put into place of what they can and cannot publish. In support, Article 26 outlines specific regulations such as, no publication shall oppose basic principles and shall not endanger the unification, sovereignty and integrity of the State.
How then, can a people that are restricted from criticizing their own government be considered free? In 1989, Tiananmen Square became a testament to just how far the Chinese government was willing to go to suppress its citizens dissent.
Tiananmen Square History and Influence of Chinese Activist
During the month of April, in 1989, a peaceful gathering to mourn Hu Yaobang, a liberal Communist Party member, took place in Beijing at Tiananmen Square. The gathering calmly turned into demonstrations that called for the abrupt end of corruption in the Chinese government. An estimated one million people joined in to peacefully protest their grievances.
In response, Martial Law was enforced and thousands of troops were released upon the protesters. They opened fire on those gathered and plowed through the crowds with military tanks. To this day, the Chinese government refuses to release any new information regarding the massacre. This event is prohibited from being spoken about or commemorated in China and Hong Kong.
The total number of deaths is unknown in China’s attempt to purge the memory of Tiananmen Square from history. The event is censored; families have been unable to mourn or acknowledge their loved ones. People are forced to forget, and the truth is neglected from the knowledge of a new generation.
Zhou Fengsuo is the Executive Director of Human Rights in China and was also a student leader at the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. What was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration turned into a horrific bloodbath. Zhou was there when his peers were shot down in front of him. His eyes are a witness to military tanks and tear gas being used as a means to end the uproar. In his testimony Zhou wrote, “The scene was that of a war zone; a war conducted by the CCP’s army against the Chinese people.” Zhou calls out on foreign governments to take a firmer stance on China’s violation of human rights.
Activists Imprisonment of Chinese and Hong Kong Human Rights Activist
Xu Zhiyong writes in his book, A Beautiful China -Thirteen-The Citizens Movement, about his vision for China. In his writings, he talks of a better China; one that is accomplished through peaceful protest and nonviolence. He says, “We are all Chinese, and we will build a beautiful China together in the future.” Throughout his collection of twenty-four essays he repeatedly reiterates the importance of unity.
To be a true citizen is to have basic rights. Xu writes that when they have the right to vote and to speak freely they will be true citizens. People that are free are ones that can openly and without fear criticize their governments. In A Beautiful China Xu says, “Amid the absurd, we stick to the truth; amidst evil, we hold fast to our conscience; in the darkness, we create light.” Many Chinese and Hong Kong activists are dedicated to changing their governments.
After being handed over to China in 1997, Hong Kong was promised fifty years with their independent government. Halfway through their allotted time, Beijing implemented a law that gave them further influence in Hong Kong. As of 2020, the new law in Hong Kong, known as the National Security Law (NSL), was passed. This law has since then increased prison sentences and allowed for extreme censorship.
Chow Hang-tung and Jimmy Lai are both Hong Kong activists. Jimmy Lai was arrested for “colluding with foreign forces” and sedition. His newspaper, Apple Daily, which advocated for human rights such as freedom of expression and speech, was later closed down in June 2021. He has been held in solitary confinement awaiting his trial to resume in November 2024. Lai is 76 years old and only gets around 50 minutes of time outside a day. Chow Hang-tung was arrested after attending a vigil for the Tiananmen Square Massacre. She was imprisoned for 22 months and faces possible imprisonment again for 10 years or more. The new National Security Law states that she was “inciting subversion.” She has also been subjected to solitary confinement.
Chow Hang-tung, Ding Jiaxi, and Jimmy Lai have been considered by Amnesty International to be prisoners of conscience. A prisoner of conscience is someone imprisoned because of political, social, religious, or other personal beliefs.
Conclusion: What is China’s Response? What is the Global Reaction?
The United Nation Human Rights Council accepted China’s report on their Human Rights achievement for the 56th Universal Periodic Review (UPR). While multiple activists remain imprisoned in solitary confinement, Chinese Daily flaunts the approval given to them for their advanced improvements in Human Rights by countries like Russia, Algeria, and Venezuela. Chinese Daily said, “China welcomes and remains open to all constructive suggestions that are proposed in good faith to help it improve its human rights conditions.” This seems to be the case so long as the criticism and call for improvements, recognition, and change do not come from Chinese or Hong Kong citizens.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, continue to call for the release of activists Jimmy Lai, Chow Hang-tung, Ding Jiaxi, and Xu Zhiyong. Activists like Zhou Fengsuo, who has been advocating for change in China for many years, will continue the fight for human rights. It is through them that freedom will be achieved.
After 3 years of searching, Yanette Bautista finally reunited with her disappeared sister. In the outskirts of Bogota, Colombia, buried under NN (No Name), using the same dress and jacket she was last seen wearing, the body of Nydia Erika Bautista was found. After a witness from the Colombian military confessed and tipped off the location of the body, Yanette, her lawyer, and a forensics expert were able to dig up Nydia’s remains.
The Bautistas are one of the many direct and indirect victims of enforced disappearances in Latin America. To this day, thousands of people continue to be missing, and their loved ones continue their search, hoping to one day end their anguish and bring justice.
carry out investigations to locate victims and hold perpetrators accountable, and
provide reparations and support to affected families.
Enforced disappearances are widely spread in the Americas, linked to the proliferation of violent nonstate actors —gangs, cartels, armed groups—and serving as tools of state control. These disappearances have waves of repercussions, from the fear experienced by the victims to the sadness and uncertainty of their loved ones. Often testing the competency and efficiency of authorities, these disappearances force families to undertake searches when official investigations fail. Most victims of enforced disappearances are men, leading women and children to become the providers or breadwinners. The families, then, have great financial burdens and are more vulnerable to abduction due to their relations with disappeared family members, their role as witnesses and human rights activists, and their “defiance” of societal rules.
The work of women searchers
Despite having a target on their backs, women lead the search efforts for their loved ones, forming groups dedicated to collaboratively searching. They unite forces and resources to bring justice to their families. In the past, women-led collectives have done great work for the disappeared. Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo in Argentina and Chilean women of Calama are examples. These collectives deal with the disappearances that occurred during dictatorships or government regimes and the relocation of family members.
Nowadays, social media plays a crucial role in search efforts for missing persons. In Guanajuato, Mexico, the group Hasta Encontrarte (Until I Found You) uses its Facebook page to share information about missing individuals and mobilize support for their recovery. Beyond social media, organizations like The Nydia Erika Bautista Foundation, created by Yanette Bautista, provide legal support to families. This foundation documents the stories of the disappeared and offers leadership training through schools across Colombia to empower families and advocates.
How are women searchers affected?
Although collectives have the urgency and willingness, they face the financial burden of searching. Transportation, gas, food, water, lodging accommodations, tents, and coal may be required depending on location. Luckily, they collect money by organizing raffles and sales while receiving company donations. However, some governments, like the Mexican administration, have recently passed legislation that makes registration of collectives stricter and the reception of donations more difficult.
What’s more, families may also be vulnerable to scams. American Spanish-language news outlet Univision News reported that activists in Mexico denounced groups that charge $29 to $147 per week (500-3,000 Mexican pesos). They take advantage of how desperate the families are to create a business. Unfortunately, families may find these scamming groups before they come across better-established collectives without fees. Being scammed amid the despair of a disappearance further affects the families’ finances and their mental health.
Besides the financial aspect, women searchers face other obstacles. Amnesty International research reveals that the state and non-state actors can utilize their influence over the criminal system to open arbitrary and sometimes illegal criminal investigations against them. They may also stop the police from investigating accordingly. What’s more, societal stereotypes often blame mothers for “not keeping their children safe” or “not doing their job as mothers.” Comments like this spread guilt among mothers looking for their children. Women searchers, like human rights activists, are subject to threats and attacks, particularly in Honduras, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. They are vulnerable to gender-based violence, especially the sexual kind.
In Mexico, Teresa Magueyal, a member of the group Una Promesa Por Cumplir (A Promise to Fulfill), was searching for her son, José, who disappeared in 2020. Teresa was killed three years later in the same town. Two months later, Catalina Vargas, another activist member of the Collective United for the Disappeared in Leon, also disappeared. In August of 2022, activist Rosario Rodriguez was kidnapped by an armed group after a mass in honor of her disappeared son. Her youngest son called the authorities right away, but nothing was done. She was found dead a day later.
For more stories, check out the story of the Barajas Piña family, or listen to the “Hasta Encontrarte | Until I Found You” podcast on Spotify and Apple Music.
The future of women searchers
While much progress remains to be made, important steps are underway to promote women’s safety in search efforts. The National Human Rights Commission has urged states to protect searchers, recognizing them as human rights defenders. In early 2024, Colombia passed the Proyecto de Ley (Project of Law), which aims to guard the rights of women searchers, acknowledging them as peacebuilders and individuals requiring special protection. Additionally, Amnesty International recently launched its #SearchingWithoutFear campaign to establish searching as a right that the state must protect. These initiatives highlight the vital contributions of women searchers and open the doors to developing stronger legal frameworks to ensure their safety. Continued community support and collaboration between governments and organizations are essential for reaching and supporting victims across national and international boundaries.
For most people, college is the first time they are living away from home. Restless nights and cheap dinners line our schedules like old friends greeting us. Oftentimes, college students struggle financially. College campuses can easily turn into hotspots for people trying to find fast and easy ways to make money.
People on social media platforms are always advertising for side gigs. Maybe it is a convenient modeling gig that wants new people, or maybe it is a random person in your DMs asking you to be their sugar baby. Suppose you’ve ever received a DM or ad like that, and you might have laughed them off. But have you ever thought about the implications of those messages and ads? What are they actually asking you? And could there be a darker side to their propositions?
The startling reality of human trafficking is that it can happen in plain sight. Trafficked victims are not always locked away and secretly exploited. Social media, dating apps, and dating websites are used to recruit victims into human trafficking. Traffickers will create deceptive jobs or opportunities that a person more vulnerable may be susceptible to.
Human trafficking is the use of fraud, coercion, and/or force to acquire labor and/or sexual acts. Blue Campaign is an organization that outlines guides for recognizing human trafficking victims and things to look out for in college students. Persons who may be more susceptible to becoming victims might struggle financially, lack support, be considered people pleasers, and be someone on their own for the first time.
The Process and Sugar Dating Among College Students
Relationships between sugar babies and sugar daddies are based on the exchange of goods, money, and other incentives for intimate images and/or sexual intercourse. This relationship creates an imbalance of power. Sugar dating websites advertise themselves as your average dating website. The former sugar dating website SeekingArrangement, now known as Seeking, offers mutually beneficial relationships for its members. In the section, How Seeking Works, the first sentence advertises a luxury site for beautiful and rich people to meet.
These sites are aimed at younger people who struggle with money problems. In the Polaris Project, they examine the process of how human trafficking can begin. In their introduction to the topic, they state: “Sometimes they offer material support – a place to live, clothing, a chance to ‘get rich quick’.” Traffickers offer “support” to their victims either monetary, materialistic, and/or emotional.
While not everyone on sugar dating websites will be trafficked, the power imbalances of the relationships can create unhealthy environments that can lead to even worse circumstances. Some college campuses, like Georgia State University, have been reported to have decent amounts of students using sugar dating websites. To combat this, the university has implemented a National Campus Safety Month. College campuses are encouraged to hold information events and send out resources that students can use to be educated on the subject.
Social Media in Trafficking
Recruitment can happen in many different ways. Not only can a trafficker manipulate a victim in person or on a website, but also on social media. These are some of the most popular places where recruitment can take place. In a study by the Pew Research Center, the most used social media platforms were YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. When narrowing the age to under 30, the majority of platforms used are Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok.
Another study showed that 84% of adults ages 18-29 use some type of social media. Out of that number, 70% use Facebook, and a large sum use Snapchat, Instagram, and/or TikTok. Traffickers have been found to use social media to groom their victims. By faking relationships, they gain the trust of their victims. The technique that is used is called “boyfriending” where traffickers will portray themselves as loving partners and confidants. Traffickers will look at potential victim’s social media for signs that they might be easy to manipulate. People who overshare online and show active struggles with things such as financial stability, lack of romantic life, and loneliness are at higher risk of becoming targets.
It has also been reported that traffickers use social media as a means of control. Victims’ social media are heavily regulated and their messages are monitored. In some instances, the trafficker will take complete control of the victims social media, going as far as to impersonate them. From there they are able to post explicit images and videos; some even communicate with friends and family. The purpose is to further alienate the victim from any potential support systems.
Social media–as is the case with many things–has the potential for good and bad. While it is a tool for recruitment and controlling victims, it has also given escape routes for fortunate survivors. Social media platforms like Snapchat allow for disappearing messages and pictures. In some cases, this has been used to communicate with outside forces that could help them escape their dire situation.
How to Prevent, Things to Look For, And Sources to Use
College can be a stressful time for people. For the majority of students, it is their first time away from home. Each year, college gets more expensive, and with these added expenses comes added pressure and stress. It is in times like these that it can be especially tempting to turn to other means of financial and emotional support.
It is incredibly important to be conscious of the things we post on our social media. It is even more detrimental that we are aware of online “friends” and whether or not they are using manipulation tactics. By being more aware of our and other people’s social media presence, bad situations can be avoided. Taking an active role in our community and spreading awareness are important ways to help in the fight against human trafficking. It can be as easy as sharing an article, donating to organizations that support survivors, keeping a lookout, and reporting strange ads, websites, or social media users. Human trafficking is one of the biggest stains on our society as humans. As advances in technology increase, so too do new methods of recruitment. It is imperative that social media platforms and websites that advertise connection with other people have better preventative systems in place.
A source to report human trafficking is the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Tip Line. If you want more information on safety tips, check out the National Human Trafficking Hotline. There are many organizations that dedicate their resources and time to helping trafficked survivors. The WellHouse is one of those organizations that provides survivors support and a chance to reintegrate into society. At this organization, survivors are given structured support on their healing journey, opportunities to further education, and encouraged to pursue personal interests. The WellHouse has a shop where you can help support survivors by buying handmade jewelry. If you would like to donate, support through purchasing at their shop, or volunteer, check out the WellHouse.
Arbitrarily detained, beaten in prison, exiled, and stripped of their nationality has become a common experience for activists in Nicaragua. This is the case of Kevin Solís, who was arbitrarily detained twice; in 2018 for allegedly obstructing public services and carrying a firearm, and later in 2020 for alleged robbery and assault. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determined there had been irregularities in the legal procedures of Kevin’s case, a violation of his legal rights, and a concerning threat to his rights to life and integrity. Along with Solís, another two hundred political prisoners were released in 2023, some of whose citizenship was later revoked. Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega’s war against NGOs is rooted in his plan to crush opposition to his leadership and avoid responsibility for human rights violations.
But how did Nicaragua get to this point?
2018 was the start of a large and violent retaliation of the government against protestors. However, 5 years prior, discontent was already blooming in the Nicaraguan people’s hearts. The Nicaraguan Congress passed, on June 13, 2013, a law that affects the future livelihood of many communities, Law 840. The law deals with the development of infrastructure and free trade zones. As a result of this legal advancement, communities would be pushed out of their homes to accommodate ‘new and improved’ facilities. According to an Amnesty International report, Law 840 allows the government to authorize the construction of projects without consulting the communities that would be affected. Among those is Francisca Ramirez, whose community learned about a new project approved through Law 840 in a televised announcement by President Ortega. To their surprise, the president had sold the land they lived on to foreign investors for canal construction and subsequent amenities. Francisca and her community, along with other human rights activists, took their concerns to the streets to advocate for their rights and oppose the Canal. Yet, they were met with threats, harassment, and arrest.
Protests of 2018
Localized demonstrations in response to President Ortega’s actions continued until 2018 when large-scale protests exploded in the streets of Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan people responded negatively to the new changes the Ortega administration implemented to the social security and pension system. However, it wasn’t all about social security. Previously, widely censored media was combined with excessive use of force by police officers who were firing tear gas and rubber bullets at protestors. Hence, years of corruption and repression of peaceful protest made the population join the rally against the new social security measures. Human Rights Watch reported on the injured and death toll after initial protests, in which the Nicaraguan Red Cross claimed to have helped 435 injured people between April 18th and 25th, while the CIDH listed 212 people dead between April 19th and June 19th, 2018. In this same report, it is stated that Nicaraguan newspapers that spoke about the protests and the death toll were later impacted by the government’s agenda against media outlets that didn’t back up President Ortega. Independent and critical newspapers like El Nuevo Diario had been unable to access paper and supplies due to a blockade on imports imposed by the Ortega administration, said Carlos Fernando Chamorro, an exiled journalist and director of El Nuevo Diario. Chamorros’ exile follows the trend of journalists and communicators who have been imprisoned and forced to leave the country to speak against Ortega.
What does the Government have to say?
The Ortega administration made several claims invoking laws that have increased monitoring, making NGOs’ work more difficult and giving the government grounds for forced dissolution. A legal framework was created to regulate organizations and individuals that receive foreign funding and utilize those funds to attempt to undermine the nation’s sovereignty and independence. Among some of the requirements, organizations need to present monthly reports of who their donors are or their source of income. For NGOs, this law means that whoever receives foreign funding or fails to report accurately would be stripped of their political personality. And this is exactly what happened. Invoking this framework, it was stated in an official release that the organizations had not complied with the law by reporting their finances, which also led to accusations based on money laundering laws.
The pro-Ortega news outlet La Nueva Radio Yacalled the 2018 protest a “coup” orchestrated by NGOs associated with organized crime and international organizations like the OEA (Organization of American States) and IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights) who want to push an imperialistic agenda into the Nicaraguan people. The article dismissed the reasons for the protests as well as the number of injured and dead protestors. Instead, it focuses on the number of police who were injured and killed, claiming there was never such an assault against the national police force, which in turn shows that the protests were not peaceful. Equally, it holds that the “failed coup” led to kidnappings, assaults, torture, murder, and a great impact on the jobs and theincomes of many families.
NGOs have faced villainization and limitations of their funding and activities because they were thought to be too politically involved. Staying on trend with other democracies and post-soviet governments, after the events of 2018, Daniel Ortega’s administration escalated violations of free speech and freedom of assembly, starting a public crackdown on individuals and groups who spoke against his leadership. In addition to the medical associations, climate change, education, and more, one type of largely targeted NGO was religious. So far, clergy members have been imprisoned and exiled, catholic churches and universities have shut down, and the legal standing of charities has been revoked. On the last round of suspensions on August 19th, 2024, hundreds of the 1,500 NGOs were small faith groups whose property may be seized.
Ronaldo Alvarez, a Nicaraguan bishop, put a target on his back after speaking on human rights issues and the retaliation of the government against religious organizations. He was under house arrest in his home and later at his parent’s house while he was investigated for inciting violence. The priest was later accused of “conspiracy against the government, carrying out hate acts, and damaging society.” Others, such as priest Oscar Benavídez, were indicted at the prosecutor’s office on unknown charges.
Reactions of the International System and Future Implications
The United Nations General Assembly released the resolution 49/3 calling for the protection of human rights in Nicaragua. The resolution includes requests for the Government to fully cooperate with the monitoring and reporting of human rights, including the free passage of human rights groups to assess the country’s conditions. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) has also pronounced itself on the crimes against humanity perpetrated in the state and encouraged accountability for human rights violations. The press release cited the impactful reports it had filled on the closure of universities, crackdown of media outlets, and repression against Indigenous and Afro-descent who opposed the government. At the same time, the IACHR followed suit; the U.S. imposed sanctions and additional actions, such as visa restrictions on Nicaraguan officials who were involved in the imprisonment and violence against religious institutions and religious leaders. The international system is concerned with the violent developments in Nicaragua and the lack of accountability. However, the ability of international instruments to punish is limited, and without the cooperation of the rest of the international community, Nicaraguans won’t receive much outside help.
No NGOs to advocate for the rights of the people they protect means there are no organizations with enough structure and funding that can help people in a situation where the oppressor is the state. These groups were able to provide individuals with resources and programs that the government didn’t or was unable to. Now, their access to the safe spaces NGOs create is rapidly crumbling down. The persecution of NGOs should be addressed by a large number of actors in the international system to apply pressure on the Ortega Administration and support Nicaraguans. Although the fate of Nicaraguan-based NGOs is uncertain, check out other organizations that survived the last wave of suspensions, likeEl Porvenir(The Future).
Poland is a highly polarized nation, with many valuing tradition, culture, and national identity. The combination of these three components, along with repeated rightwing electoral victories, has led to the democratic backsliding of the country, seen in their overreaching policies regarding women’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and judicial reform. Although many human rights violations have happened throughout the country in the past few decades, the results from the most recent election, held on October 15, 2023, have the potential to expand rights to more citizens in the country. To properly describe its importance, I will explain the political context surrounding this recent election before moving on to discuss the future administration and its potential impacts on human rights.
Political Context
Even while under communist rule, Poland has been a predominantly Catholic state, with an overwhelming majority continuing to practice Catholicism today. Traditional Catholic values continue to influence Poland’s political policies and the opinions of many citizens. This influence is most notably seen in the rise of the Law and Justice Party (PiS), with its social policies rooted in Catholic norms and having close relations with the Catholic Church. Up until the October election, PiS controlled the government and had, since 2015, used its eight years of authority to undermine democracy and human rights. These influences have shaped the repressive policies on issues such as women’s autonomy, LGBTQ+ rights, and judicial practices. Listed below are the current status of these issues, showing the political climate leading into the 2023 election.
Women’s Bodily Autonomy
Under the current administration, abortion has continued to be a huge issue. While abortion was essentially banned in 1993, a 2020 amendment tightened restrictions even further. The recent change eliminated the option for abortion even when the fetus is known to have developmental problems or health conditions incompatible with life outside the womb. Prior to the ban, around 90% of all abortions performed in Poland happened for one of these two reasons: after 2020, women were required to carry even unviable pregnancies to term. While abortions are allowed when the life of the mother is threatened, this doesn’t mean that doctors will provide the necessary care. Countless stories have been recorded of Polish doctors overlooking women’s birth complications, favoring the life of the child, even when the child is unlikely to survive and the mother is likely to die or suffer lifelong complications.
In cases where an abortion is not deemed essential to save the life of the mother, doctors who carry out abortions are subject to punishment. If caught aiding an abortion, . This puts women and their doctors in a dangerous position, with women unable to access necessary help and doctors unable to provide adequate assistance without fear of imprisonment.
Not only is abortion increasingly difficult to obtain, but so is contraception. Out of all European countries, Poland ranked the lowest in terms of contraception access. For example, unlike in many European countries, Poland prohibits access to emergency birth control and hormonal birth control without a prescription. All of this shows the lack of women’s bodily autonomy, which can be interpreted as violating the human right to health and poses a threat to all women in Poland.
LGBTQ+ Rights
Those in the LGBTQ+ community face frequent discrimination and a lack of legal protections throughout Poland. Even since the adoption of the modern Polish Constitution in 1993, marriage is seen as proper only when between a man and a woman, meaning that gay couples receive no legal protections when married. Under PiS, steps were taken to further ensure traditional family norms, as seen with the party’s campaigning for a “family charter,” which sought to end marriage between gay couples and eliminate their ability to adopt children. This, along with a rising number of Polish cities that have decided to implement so-called “LGBT Ideology Free Zones,” has led to a climate that actively oppresses those within this community.
Throughout the European Union, Poland ranks the worst regarding LGBTQ+ rights, with only 15% of family, equality, and recognition rights being obtained. Unfortunately, activists cannot look to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) for assistance, as the document lacks protections on the basis of gender identity or sexuality. This omission of rights from the UDHR makes it nearly impossible for LGBTQ+ members to advocate for legal protections, having no doctrine to support their claims. Not only does this issue show that changes need to be made within Poland, but also the need to expand protections within the UDHR to provide a solid foundation for other advocacy groups worldwide.
Judicial Protections
Human rights concerns in Poland go beyond social issues; in fact, they bleed into the governmental structure itself. In 2019, a law was passed that undermined judicial independence, allowing the government to punish judges who question the legal changes made by PiS. This raised serious global concern, as this move would have allowed the executive branch to have control over the courts effectively, eliminating one of the greatest checks on executive and legislative power in Poland. This followed similar judicial changes that were ultimately made to serve the party. These changes included lowering the retirement age and appointing party loyalists to the Supreme Court. All of this led to the European Courts deeming these judicial revisions illegal in June 2023, making it an even more pressing issue leading into the latest election.
This infringement on the separation of powers causes a genuine and well-defined human rights violation, going against Article eight of the UDHR Article eight grants all humans the “right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals,” which is not available when the government has major authority over court cases.
The Recent Election
Given these issues and the increase in authoritarian policies, voters were aware that the 2023 election was extremely important, as seen in the voter turnout rate of about 73%, the highest rate since the fall of communism in 1989. Before explaining further, it’s important to note that Poland has a parliamentary government, meaning citizens’ votes are translated up to the legislature as a percentage of party representation. For example, if a party gained 30% of the total vote, they would receive that much representation in the legislature. This is necessary to know when understanding the outcome of the election.
The Results
The results are as follows: the Law and Justice Party (rightwing) received a plurality of the votes, at 35.4%, Civic Coalition (center-left) received 30.7%, Third Way Coalition (centrist) at 12.4%, and Lewica (far-left) at 8.6%. While PiS holds a plurality, the remaining parties will likely form a center-left coalition, which would oust PiS from power and install a new government with a pro-democracy, pro-human rights agenda.
Likely Impact
Given the percentage of seats held by rightwing versus leftwing and centrist parties, progressive parties will likely assume power and work to steer Poland back to valuing democratic ideals and aligning more closely with the European Union. The three parties that are expected to form the new Polish government all promote democracy and pro-Europeanism, making it likely that action will be taken to support the oppressed groups mentioned above. It is also more probable that European Court rulings regarding the judicial branch will be respected and upheld.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the 2023 election results hold great promise in regard to human rights in Poland. As the Law and Justice Party (PiS) loses its grip on the government, a center-left coalition will likely form and create an overwhelming majority. Although these results won’t be officialized until December, many believe rights will be expanded under the new regime, and Poland can set a precedent for a return to liberal democracy within Central Europe.
Stay tuned for my next article, where I will explore how the process of the death penalty, as well as the methods used to end the lives of inmates, may bring up additional human rights concerns. That article will be posted in the upcoming weeks.
October 10th is the World Day Against the Death Penalty.
It was my eighth birthday. I had gotten home from school and after eating my snack, I sat down on the couch. My birthday is in January and my mom hadn’t gotten around to packing up the expensive nativity scene from my grandmother that was set out on the sofa table behind my head. I got bored with my show, as eight-year-olds do, so I turned around and started playing with the porcelain figurines. To me, they were no more than stiff, less fun Barbies. Little did I know all it took was one little high-five between Joseph and the wise man with the frankincense before *CRACK* Joseph lost a hand.
I still remember my mother’s face when I told her what happened. This nativity scene from her mother-in-law meant so much to her and she was feeling so many emotions. I knew that I deserved to be punished in some way for my mistake. I sat in time out for a while, I got a “stern talking-to” when my dad got home, and I didn’t see my favorite (real) Barbie for weeks.
My eight-year-old, future-philosophy-student self couldn’t help but question why all of this was happening to me. It was my birthday; my parents were supposed to be nice to me that day, but I still got in trouble. I knew that I should’ve been more careful with the figurine, but I also knew that what I did was an accident. I knew as soon as it broke that I had caused a problem, but I almost immediately learned from it: this material is weaker than Barbie material so I would need to use gentler hands when holding it. But I still couldn’t figure out why my parents were doing this. As I grow up, this concern still follows me. What motivates society to punish people who break the law? How could our system of punishment improve to allow people to learn from their mistakes and to still participate in society?
Theories of Punishment
Retribution
The Retribution Theory of punishment holds that people who harm others deserve to be harmed and that the justice system should give them what they deserve. I like to call this the revenge theory or the “eye for an eye” theory. The arguments for this theory are, in my opinion, not very strong. Sure, it seems intuitive that when somebody wrongs us we want to wrong them back, but what good does that do? And should we really set up an entire justice system based on retribution when that only causes more harm to people, despite if they “deserve it?”
Deterrence
The Deterrence Theory of punishment holds that societies should punish moral failings in a way that when people hear about the punishment for a certain crime, it deters them from committing it. For example, people may not use drugs because they are afraid of what would happen if they got caught. If we want people to stop doing drugs, according to deterrence theory, we should inflict harsher punishments for those caught with drugs. The main critique of this theory is that it does not deter people from doing the thing, it only deters people from getting caught doing the thing, thus driving the whole crime farther and farther underground.
Restoration
The Restoration, Humanitarian, or Utilitarian theory of punishment is based on the idea that after a harm occurs, we should avoid any further harm coming to anybody involved. This may entail rehabilitating people with addictions to live addiction free or mandating driving school and road safety courses for negligent drivers. This doesn’t just apply to low-level crimes though. This may mean a prison system similar to Norway’s, where even the most violent criminals are kept in a remote community where their rights and privileges are upheld. The average sentence is around 8 months, and after they’ve had time to reflect on their actions, they are allowed to return to society as usual. Click here to learn about what went into the design of one of Norway’s most famously humane prisons. This theory is often criticized as being “soft on crime,” saying that if we don’t make going to prison incredibly unpleasant, criminals will not have any reason not to re-offend.
Pragmatically, when we are deciding which theory of punishment to ascribe to, we are balancing the weight of the government’s function that motivates law enforcement with the human rights of everybody involved in the crime.
So what is the government function of capital punishment and does it outweigh the most fundamental human right, one’s right to one’s own life?
Government Function
It is widely agreed upon that the government’s most fundamental function is to protect the rights of people in its jurisdiction. This includes mediating conflicts in which a person impedes on another’s rights. In these terms, the crime of theft is when a perpetrator impedes on the victim’s right to own property. In this case, the government then has an obligation to interfere in some way to bring justice to the victim. Most of the time, this interference will constitute the government temporarily impeding on the rights of the perpetrator themselves. This may mean keeping them in jail until their trial, imposing a fine on them, or even sentencing them to prison time.
Human Rights
The right to life is inarguably the most fundamental natural human right that exists. All humans have a fundamental right to live their bodies’ natural lifespan through to its end. It can even be argued that humans have the right to the best healthcare available to extend their lifespan as long as possible. Without the right to life, no other human rights of any kind can be realized. This is why the most widely recognized phrase about human rights lists life as the first.
As the Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and from that, they derive inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
To take someone’s life is to take away that person’s most fundamental, widely-recognized human right.
Balancing Both
Does the governmental function of societal safety ever justify taking away the perpetrator’s number one human right? Especially when, given that life in prison is an alternative option, societal safety is not even at risk by keeping these people alive. Many people will argue that keeping them in prison requires too many resources whereas the death penalty is a quick and easy way to save resources for the rest of society. Not only does this completely dehumanize people who have committed crimes, but it also switches the governmental interest from public safety to the much less compelling governmental interest of distributing resources. The interest in these resources is not compelling enough to justify the deprivation of someone’s life. Even if you think it is okay to impede on a perpetrator’s rights to prevent them from causing more harm to society, it is unclear that the deprivation of life would achieve this goal when life in prison is an alternative.
According to the Retribution theory, people who took another life deserve to be killed solely on the “eye-for-an-eye” principle. But something doesn’t sit right when we try to defend this principle without dehumanizing people convicted of crimes. As a society, is it a good thing that we think a certain group of people deserves to die, even if their qualification into that group was voluntary?
According to the Deterrence theory, the death penalty may actually be an effective deterrence for prospective criminals. If they knew that committing this crime may literally mean the end of their lives, they may not commit the crime. However, it is unclear that the deterrence factor of life in prison, essentially ending people’s lives as they know it, is so much less effective than the deterrence factor of the death penalty that it justifies taking lives.
According to the Restoration theory, capital punishment stands no chance. This theory is based on the hope of rehabilitation for criminals, even if that means they are only ever restored insofar as to live a meaningful life in prison. This theory is considered to be the most humane approach to punishment, and as far as research can tell, the one compatible with the lowest recidivism (re-offending) rates.
** Some information in this blog was obtained from reputable news sources who reported on evidence obtained from public records requests. Narratives constructed from this have been presented as such and are still under investigation, please take this into consideration.**
This blog is a follow-up on the ongoing protests against the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center, otherwise known as Cop City.
To learn about what Cop City is, its historical background, and efforts to end this mega-development project from destroying Atlanta’s last major urban forest, read my article here. In the meantime, the Atlanta City Council approved the funding for the Atlanta Public Safety Center, i.e. “Cop City” in early June 2023. What is described below are the developments since my last post.
Since March, the movement to stop Cop City and relationships with law enforcers have only become more contentious. Construction in the South River Forest has begun, while the efforts to stop it have only become more fervid.
Autopsy revelations and public record reports
Environmental activist Manuel “Tortuguita” Teran (they/them), was lethally shot 13 times on January 18th, 2023. The altercation between state troopers and protesters began simply over the forced removal of activists from the site soon to be developed into the nation’s largest police training facility. Instead of peaceful dialogues or dispersions, the incident ended in the tragic killing of Manuel Teran.
Much speculation surrounds this event given the lack of body-cam footage as state troopers do not usually wear body cams. Given the presence of multiple other agencies, however, such as the DeKalb County police departments, Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and possibly the FBI, the lack of footage is concerning in and of itself.
In whatever case, Teran’s family has released the conclusions of an independent autopsy they had done. Based on the location of bullet wounds, the report hypothesized that Tortuguita was more than likely in a cross-legged seated position, with their hands raised in the air. Tortuguita suffered from multiple gunshot wounds, but most tellingly, they had several exit wounds through their palms.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) released a statement on Friday, March 10th stating that the initial autopsy was conducted by the DeKalb Medical Examiners Office and that the GBI would not be communicating more at present due to concerns over the ongoing investigation. The state has still not released its own autopsy report over two months after Tortuguita’s death.
In spite of this, incident reports have become available (alongside the independent autopsy) and state that, in contradiction to widespread claims that police acted in “self-defense,” just the opposite is true.
These new records were obtained by The Guardian through a public records request with the Georgia Department of Public Safety 一 previously unreleased in the wake of international outrage calling for answers and accountability. The written narratives are not to be totally trusted, memory is a fragile thing often more subject to our imagination than we would like to believe. With this in mind though, a tentative sequence of events can be gleaned from the multiple officers’ reports on the day of Teran’s killing.
The following is the sequence of events gleaned from reports accessed by The Guardian.
Before the police raid, officers and SWAT teams were briefed on the ‘domestic terrorists’ trespassing in the forest beforehand, with claims that demonstrators might possess rifles, pistols, explosive devices, or Molotov cocktails. It was stated that the Defend the Atlanta Forest group had national contacts and widespread solidarity. Additionally, officers were warned about the possibility of booby traps and tripwires. Lastly, officers were warned some protesters may throw fecal matter or urine, and since, quote, “it was known that some trespassers carried STDs” this may lead to infection for the city personnel. (It should be noted this is not how STD transmission works.)
Three search teams of officers were deployed into the forest. The second team, consisting of SWAT, were the ones who encountered the large encampment where Teran resided. They approached their tent from behind and noted movement inside, the tent flap was closed. This is where some accounts start to contradict slightly in their order of events, however, the main components remain the same.
Officers ordered Manual Teran to exit their tent or they would be arrested for trespassing, to which they responded, “No, I want you to leave.”
At this point, Teran either opened the flap slightly, surveyed, and then re-closed the entrance, or asked what they were being arrested for without opening their tent flap beforehand. In either case, Teran opened and closed their tent flap at one point to which one officer wrote that this was “resisting orders.”
Then there was an order to fire a pepper ball gun into the tent and chaos ensued.
After hearing cracking sounds inside, officers began firing into the tent.
One officer called out they had been hit and medics rushed to provide immediate medical attention. The same was not given to Teran.
After opening their tent with a ballistic shield and a diversionary device was deployed, officers found Teran with multiple gunshot wounds, “unquestionably deceased.”
Coinciding these written accounts with body cam footage of officers in other parts of the forest, at 9:01 am four shots were heard followed by a flurry that lasted approximately 11 seconds. At 9:02 am officers heard on the radio that one was injured.
Body cam footage caught the discussions of police a few minutes after the incident and caught one asking, “Did they shoot their own man?”
Tortuguita is the first environmental activist to be killed by the police in America.
Protests of destruction over Cop City construction
As construction began on the proposed Cop City site in the Weelaunee Forest, attempts to remove protesters have a renewed fervor. Two ‘clearing out’ raids to remove protesters from the forest have been conducted by police since construction began, the first of which resulted in the death of an activist.
Nearly two months later, Cop City has come under the scrutiny of international attention, and feelings surrounding the issue have only intensified. In the first week of March, protesters planned to hold a “week of action” wherein a coalition of people from various social justice networks would come together over the growing concerns to stop Cop City.
These included Atlanta-area residents, organizations such as the Community Movement Builders and Black Voters Matter, and a local rabbi. The week was to include a music festival, a Shabbat, and a “know your rights” workshop.
However, during the music festival, certain protesters entered the construction site and set fire to construction equipment. The events escalated further to include throwing bricks at officers. In the end, 35 people were detained.
This too has become massively contentious as 23 of the 35 detained were at the Weelaunee Forest Festival 一 located over a mile away. On March 5th, an hour after the events at the construction site, police arrived at the festival and began arresting people, especially those with out-of-state IDs. These individuals have been charged with domestic terrorism (a sentence that can carry up to 35 years) for ‘vandalism’ and ‘arson’ of the site over a mile from the concerts.
On March 23rd, a judge denied bond to 8 out of 10 defendants. Only two were granted bond at $25,000 and with numerous other conditions. One was a law student who had been at a food truck in the area when arrested. They were almost forced to withdraw from school before finally being granted a bond and being ordered to wear an ankle monitor. Another person was denied bond because they live in New York as the sole caretaker of her aging uncle with dementia. She was denied bond because the judge deemed her a “flight risk.”
These arrests of people attending the music festival have been called indiscriminate because of a lack of evidence from the police and little to no case from the prosecution. Micah Herskind commented:
“During these bond hearings, it was clear that the prosecution has not yet put together any case. They are using these fallbacks. You know, one of the examples that they gave was that people were wearing black and that that was evident of playing on the team, of being on the side of the protest. And so, you know, the charges are all really shaky. There’s really no legitimate evidence that’s been put forward.”
Intake paperwork of arrested individuals also noted mud on people’s clothes as probable cause for being at the construction site despite the music festival being hosted in the South River/Weelaunee Forest.
Tensions have only been rising, and with it, the threat of violence, in whatever form be it legal or physical, has become apparent on both sides of this contentious issue.
The creation of labels and narratives impacts on social justice movements
Since protesters are being labeled as domestic terrorists, we need to understand the implications of this language, or better yet, where it originated from.
In an email from April 2022, the Atlanta police and fire department described the movement to save the Weelaunee Forest as a group of “eco-terrorists” in correspondence with the FBI over unspecified investigations.
This would not be the first instance of the FBI insinuating violent behaviors in those with environmental concerns.
The Stop Cop City movement gained international attention after the killing of Tortuguita Teran, however, support had already crossed state borders in the U.S. as demonstrators spread their message on social media.
On July 18th, 2022, a Twitter account named “Chicago Against Cop City” began posting information on the campaign to resist the construction over 700 miles away. Additionally, a post on the same day promoted a speaking event at a local bookstore on Chicago’s West side. This was one of several events that activists held over the year, and across the country, to educate people on the plan to construct Cop City and raise awareness surrounding the issue.
According to research conducted by Grist, it took less than two weeks for the FBI to flag the account and begin tracking posts on the account, including other Chicago activist groups, and events. Grist also obtained FBI records through a Freedom of Information Act request which they have made publicly available. This first document focuses on the “potential criminal activity” of groups resisting the development of the Obama Presidential Library, Tiger Woods golf course, and Chicago Police Training Center that would destroy over 2,000 trees (page one).
It goes on to claim that Chicago Against Cop City is a “spin-off” of the Defend the Atlanta Forest group (page 3), however, according to a spokesperson for Rising Tide Chicago they do not know who created the Chicago Against Cop City Twitter account and claim that it “doesn’t appear to be a formal group.”
Mike German, a former FBI agent who now works as a fellow for the Brennan Center for Justice in the Liberty and National Security Program, reviewed the documents and stated that the FBI had made several misleading statements meant to create a narrative. While it is true that some violent and destructive events in Atlanta have occurred, no evidence was given in this dossier to support any direct connection with either organization in Atlanta or Chicago. Moreover, the Chicago Police Training Center did not require the clearing of forested land, and most controversy in the last couple of years on the issue focus on the cost of construction being $170 million.
In the second document, on page 15 the Defend the Atlanta Forest group (DTAF) is called “a very violent group” and noted that Chicago has several projects of a similar nature (threatening environmental spaces against public wishes). This report then claimed that “DTAF members came to Chicago to provide training to like-minded individuals.”
While these documents have an emphasis on Chicago, the first document I mentioned also includes photos of similar accounts in Minnesota (page 12).
According to Adam Federman, one unnamed activist who had traveled to Chicago in July 2022 had only given “informational slideshow presentations” that had no training and merely focused on raising awareness about the issue.
None of the “evidence” collected by the FBI has shown any encouragement of violent tactics.
In the end, the dossier that was created by the FBI on August 16th, 2022 is important for several reasons. One, the FBI is clearly monitoring actions that are protected by the U.S. Constitution and as human rights, which include freedom of speech and assembly. These rights are clearly laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Preambles 18, 19, and 20.
Moreover, the usage of the labels “Anarchist Violent Extremists (AVE) and Environmental Violent Extremists (EVE)” set the tone for how these groups and their concerns are approached by law enforcement (page 4). This has been made clear in the case of Tortuguita Teran when teams that entered the forest that morning were informed about the alleged “violent nature” of the DTAF activists.
Changing dynamics of protests: Resisting assaults on social justice attempts
It is clear that the issue over the destruction of the South River forest is one that extends beyond Atlanta. Groups in Chicago have contested the destruction of Jackson Park on the South side and other green spaces. Also, concerns over police militarization are not just in Atlanta but extend hundreds of miles away in the United States. This very reason has prompted resonation with abolitionists and environmental activists alike.
More and more police training facilities are being built across the country and some are estimated to cost around $120 million to $150 million in construction. Two have been proposed in both Pittsburgh and Chicago despite public outcry.
However, in the face of this coalition building across specific issues and geography, new and more frightening narratives are being written to undermine the efforts of these groups. This is not to say that violence and destruction are answers but to emphatically denounce strategies that seek to end civil rights and social justice movements with arbitrary arrests, exaggerated charges, and monitoring of activist groups.
The use of social media is a revolutionary tool for activists since it has the power to succinctly and quickly reach a broad audience 一 a crucial step in sustaining a thriving movement. This, alongside workshop events on rights and training on peaceful civil disobedience (this latter one not being mentioned as occurring in the Chicago or Atlanta groups), are tactics that are protected and signal a thriving political culture. This shows that a nation has strong democratic values as people seek to not only engage with their local and national governments but also do so with the equality of all people.
Instead of monitoring with suspicion and animosity, we should celebrate the diversity of people who have come together to raise their voices in support of their goals. There is hope here. What may look like tensions, anger, divisions, and even hate, also shows us the passion of so many people of different backgrounds and social causes being engaged. It shows us that there are those who will not accept a lack of representation, lack of community, or lack of safe environment. It shows us that, if only the channels of communication would open, there are people screaming, chanting, and singing for the opportunity to work for a future for us all. There are people who are fighting in the forest for more than just the space, but for a future.
After a public meeting that stretched 14h and in which many people spoke out against the project, Atlanta City Council approved “Cop City” in a vote of 11-4 on June 6, 2023. The Council agreed to provide $31m in public funds for the center’s construction and approved a provision that requires the city to pay $1.2m a year over 30 years ($36m total) for using the facility. The rest of the $90m project is to be funded by private donations to the Atlanta Police Foundation, the non-profit responsible for planning and building the center. Atlanta organizers unveiled a plan to stop “Cop City” at the ballot box.
If you want to learn more about activism or the organizations mentioned in this article, check out the links below. Also, if this is an issue you feel connected to, please contact your local, state, or federal representative to express your concerns directly. Urge your representatives to reach out and begin talks with any activist groups because we all have a part and voice to play in securing our rights and ensuring the best, most equitable community.
The Implications of Selective Activism on Human Rights by Danah Dib
The City in the Forest Soon to be Cop City by Alex Yates
Remembering Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as we Celebrate Human Rights Day by Chadra Pittman
Parallels of Democratic Turmoil: Looking at Riots in the U.S. and Brazil by Alex Yates
I grew up in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Not inside the perimeter as one might say, I spent my childhood in the forests for hours at a time. My brother and I never grew bored of the endless possibilities and freedom we felt among the oaks: they are some of my most treasured memories. So, whenever we drove into Atlanta proper, I would watch the trees blur by as we encroached further to the city’s heart, well past the notorious highway 285 that encircles it. I always had a tree in sight no matter the distance we ventured into the city, and it always reminded me that home could extend and coincide with a vibrant metropolis rising ever closer in my sight. This always soothed me and put me at peace.
Not all is peaceful in the forest, however.
When protesting is rebranded as domestic terrorism
Since the quiet release of plans to demolish South River Forest (also known as the Old Atlanta Prison Farm) in 2021, protesters have been camping in the forest for months. Local organizations have banded together in order to advocate for the forest and resist police attempts to forcibly remove protesters. These organizations includeDefend the Atlanta Forest, Community Movement Builders, a Black-led nonprofit serving working-class and poor Black people, and the newly formed Stop Cop City group.
These organizations have intersecting goals that culminate in mutual aid to stop the construction of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center known as “Cop City.” Leaders from the Community Movement Builders described the project as a “war base” wherein “police will learn military-like maneuvers to kill Black people and control our bodies and movements.”
One reason for the clear disdain for the project, aside from the historical implications discussed further below, is that the proposed site resides in unincorporated Dekalb county. Thus, those living in the neighborhood had no representatives on the council that approved the project in the first place. After public outrage at the lack of transparency and community engagement, the Atlanta council begrudgingly allowed public comments before the vote in September 2021. The council received 17 hours of recording on the proposal with 70% (or 12 hours) expressing opposition. The plan still passed 10-4.
Protesters have created makeshift barricades from mounds of illegally dumped material such as automobiles and tires in the forest. There is no water or electricity in the encampments so the protesters live very frugally to defend their beliefs. Access to water has continued to be an issue as police try to cut off supplies in an attempt to disperse the protesters and conduct regular raids and wreaking camps.
Confrontations with the police have only become more frequent: and with more serious consequences. At first, some activists found themselves with trespassing charges, but protests escalated on January 18th when demonstrator Manuel “Tortuguita” Teran, a 26-year-old queer environmental activist, was lethally shot by Georgia state police.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation released a statement that Tortuguita, they/them, did not “comply with verbal commands” and allegedly shot a Georgia State Patrol trooper who is in stable condition. As a result of these alleged sequence of events, Tortuguita was shot over a dozen times by multiple different firearms and there is no body cam footage of the tragedy.
Now, the state is planning to convict 18 activists of domestic terrorism charges which holds a possible sentence of up to 35 years.
Local authorities have continued to falsely claim that organizations involved in resisting police development plans are “domestic violent extremists.” During the bail hearing for those arrested on Jan. 18th, bail was denied to four activists while two were given the unprecedented amount of $355,000, along with conditions for ankle monitors and curfews.
What once would have been considered a sit-in protest has now been twisted into “domestic terrorism.”
Considered a private-public venture between the city of Atlanta and the Atlanta Police Foundation (APF), the 85 acres slotted to be turned into a police compound would cost $90 million to construct. Renderings of the project include indoor and outdoor shooting ranges, an auditorium, classrooms, a space dedicated to explosion tests, and a mock miniature city to practice high-speed chases and burn-building training.
The Public Safety Training Academy Advisory Council was formed under the previous mayor, Keisha Lance Bottoms, on Jan. 4, 2021. According to investigative work conducted by the Mainline, a woman-led independent magazine based in Atlanta, the council was comprised entirely by “government, police, and fire officials, including Chief Operating Officer Jon Keen and APF CEO and President Dave Wilkinson.”
After meeting on Jan. 22, Feb. 12, March 4, and March 26 in 2021, the plan that would become Ordinance No. 21-O-0367 (Cop City) was introduced on June 7th the same year. It was passed shortly thereafter on September 8th, 2021.
Two-thirds of the costs ($60 million) to construct Cop City are coming from corporate donors such as Chick-Fil-A and Delta. Otherwise, despite the desperate and apparent need for affordable housing, food, and other life-affirming infrastructures, the remaining third of the costs ($30 million) is to be paid by taxpayers.
The land is currently under lease to the Atlanta Police Foundation for only $10 a year (see page 10) and construction started this February.
Hidden racist history of the forest continued with the development of Cop City
Before South River Forest became known as such, located in the bustling perimeter of Atlanta’s sprawling metropolitan, the land belonged to the Muscogee Creek nation. In the early 19th century, these people were forcibly removed from their land by ever-encroaching settlers on the East coast and South Florida.
In 1821, Georgia held its fourth land lottery, dividing the Muscogee Creek home into 202.5 acres. Between an 11-year period (1827-38), 23,000 Muscogee were driven from their lands by white, enslaving men.
Soon after, the land became a part of a complex of plantations that exploited the labor of enslaved people. The proposed South River Forest zone contained at least 9 plantations. The names of these plantation owners will not be given here, however, to learn some of the known names of enslaved peoples residing in this area, please read this article.
Eventually, this land was sold to the city of Atlanta which was then used as a city-run forced agricultural labor prison that ran uninterrupted from 1920 to nearly 1990, being officially shuttered in 1995.
Originally, the land became the first “honor farm” in the state, allowing trustworthy prisoners and those with minor infractions to work off their time. This was only a mask for a new form of slavery, cruelty, and so much worse as the Prison Farm ran, without clear archived records, for decades. The last official record comes from a 1971 health inspection record.
There are no official reports on the number of people who died under the inhumane working conditions, but there is a widespread belief that some inmates who died were buried in unmarked graves though none have been found yet. A little of what we know is troubling at best and stomach-churning at worse. In 1941, a prison superintendent reported housing 9 Black prisoners in a 12 ft space, alongside numerous reports of sexual violence from guards, and inmate deaths, often under suspect circumstances.
In one example, prisoners were allowed to handle Sulfotep, which was only contained in unlabeled squeeze bottles and is an extremely toxic chemical pesticide only supposed to be dispensed by licensed company personnel. We know this because of the death of Leroy Horton, who was serving only a 20-day sentence, and who had been sprayed with the substance by another inmate at his own request after contracting lice at the prison. He served only four days of his sentence and died three weeks later due to these gross malpractices in safety protocols and sanitary living conditions.
Now, the land is once more under contract by state policing structures.
Benefits and necessity of urban forests
Atlanta has been called the “City in the Forest” for its vast canopy coverage and abundance of trees within the city. That is because Atlanta leads the nation and major metropolitan cities in canopy coverage at 47.9 percent.
The canopy is not distributed evenly across the city, rather it decreases as one approaches downtown and increases as one approaches the outskirts, making the presence of South River Forest within the perimeter that much more extraordinary. Researchers also found that the lowest canopy coverage was along transportation corridors, but was over 90 percent along stream corridors and in nature preserves.
More and more cities are tracking the number of trees they foster because of the multitude of benefits they offer. This ranges from combatting urban heat island effects, reducing heating and cooling costs overall, providing blue/green space which improves mental health, acting as stormwater management to control flooding, and sequestering carbon thus improving air quality, combatting carbon emissions and climate change.
Results from a Montgomery, Alabama analysis found that urban forests removed 3.2 million lbs of pollutants from the air annually which is valued at $7.9 million. Moreover, the urban forest sequestered 11,263 tons of carbon each year and stored a total of 1.45 million tons of carbon.
In Atlanta, climate scientists have warned that destroying woods will make the city more susceptible to flooding and dangerously hot temperatures. Other concerns over the South River Forest area are worsened air quality due to construction, fires, and weapons training. In this mainly Black part of metro Atlanta, people have been historically neglected. According to the US Census, 75 percent of the neighborhoods near the forest are Black and suffer from high poverty rates and health challenges like diabetes and asthma.
The Sierra Club Georgia Chapter issued a statement on behalf of Black and Latinx community members, who have long been victims of environmental injustice and pollution within the city, stating their vehement opposition to the destruction of the South River Forest.
Intersections of social ecology and human rights
In recent years, there has been a burgeoning movement to connect ecological and social issues together: known as the theory of social ecology. Murray Bookchin, a pioneer in the environmental movement and social theorist, has stated that ecological problems stem from social issues which in turn are exacerbated by ecological destruction. This vicious cycle has become the driving force behind new movements to address climate change and foster more awareness of the interdependence of people and their environment. Without this widespread recognition, social-ecological theorists have argued that hierarchical societies that rely on violent institutions like prisons and police are more likely to treat their environment and people as entities to be dominated, conquered, and/or controlled.
In the case of the South River Forest/Cop City contention, this theoretical framework can be easily illustrated, alongside numerous normative international human rights standards.
Firstly, the plans to develop Cop City were done so surreptitiously; there were no public announcements on the proposal before voting, nor were community members and organizations/specialists asked to participate in the development of the plans. Secondly, the council that approved the plans was not elected by anyone from the community in which the Cop City construction will take place. These are prime disregards for political and public representation: foundational blocks for democratic governance, rule of law, and social inclusion. From the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR):
“Participation rights are inseparably linked to other human rights such as the rights to peaceful assembly and association, freedom of opinion and expression and the rights to education and to information.”
Next, the economic and social human rights of the South River Forest community are also being threatened. Economically, once again without any representative input, ⅓ of the cost ($30 million) is to be paid by taxpayers. Socially, each human has the right “to social protection, to an adequate standard of living and to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental well-being.” These rights are being threatened by the gross environmental degradation of a low-income community that already suffers from health conditions such as asthma. Moreover, it has long been scientifically proven that blue-green space increases one’s mental health 一 an explicitly aforementioned social right.
Lastly, we come to environmental rights. The task of succinctly explaining them can be a lot, I encourage readers to look on our site in the “Environmental Rights” category for even more insight. However, in this case, where the environment is the key concern of protest, one should return again to social-ecological theory. In human rights, the right to health found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights,cannot be fully achieved in an environment that contributes to worse air quality, mental health, and dangerously high temperatures. The right to security, found in Article 3 of the UDHR, cannot be achieved in an environment where the community is under threat of more flooding, subject to burns, bombs, and shooting daily, and lives in fear of violence. And this can go on and on.
Ultimately, this issue is complex and multifaceted: and it deserves public and civilian representation and more time than 7 months of deliberation to destroy a forest hundreds of years old.
With the start of quarantine in 2020 and the rise of the social media app TikTok, many activist movements come to light and shed knowledge on the horrific injustices. One of the most prevalent examples is the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement in 2020 and the period following it; it has become crucial for individuals to speak out against injustices. In a sense, it is part of “cancel culture” not to speak out, or if you speak out on the incorrect issues. As important as that is, it has been observed that many liberals and progressives only stand against injustices for specific issues. In a way, it involves choosing who is more worthy of having their rights protected. This may seem like an extreme notion or definition of selective activism, but it is essential.
The idea of selective activism was first introduced to me while reading “Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics” by Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick. Even though this book specifically regarded the issues of Palestine and Israel, it dealt with an extremely important point and message; when we label ourselves as activists, we must be activists in all important issues. This is not to say that selective activism is always done intentionally; sometimes, it is by mere mistake or lack of knowledge on various issues. Everyone is guilty of this. Sadly, there are so many human rights injustices in our world that it is impossible to dedicate all your time to fighting for them. But what one can do in these situations is to be cautious of all issues at their prevalent times.
What is Selective Activism?
Selective activism is closely linked to the idea of selective hearing, only hearing what you want to hear. Its advocating for specific things only. The best way I have found to explain selective activism is through this quote in the book: “progressives and liberals who oppose regressive policies on immigration, racial justice, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, and other issues must extend these core principles to the oppression of others.” Some questions arise when speaking of selective activism; how do we choose? What makes one cause more worthy than another? The answer is simple. There are always causes that we feel especially connected to and that we constantly advocate for, but what is essential is that if one labels themselves as an activist, progressive, or humanitarian, then this needs to apply to all issues. If one is going to protest the killing of innocent individuals in America, then the same support must be shown to women in Iran. If one is going to advocate for Ukrainian refugees, then activism must be shown to MENA refugees and those whose countries are still under occupation. Ravyen Monroe, a writer for Affinity Magazine, explained it perfectly: “You can’t be an activist but stop advocating for certain groups when you get mad. You don’t get to pick and choose who is worthy of respect and who gets degraded by terms that have oppressed them for centuries…That’s not how activism works.”
Instances of Selective Activism
The most recent example of selective activism can be the world’s response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis compared to refugees from the MENA region (see blog on this topic here). Although what Ukrainians are going through is indescribable and is seen as an urgent humanitarian crisis, the problem is selective activism. The attention given to Ukrainian refugees was commendable. They were given the necessary aid and protection as needed. However, the same support was not extended to refugees from the MENA region. An Armenian writer explained this as a betrayal and stated, “it hurts to feel that certain people are prioritized in the eyes of the media, and thus, the world.” This type of selective activism is not limited to political activism and can also be seen in environmental activism. For instance, climate change activists. Many took the stance against using plastic and began investing in metal straws once it became a trend but continued to utilize plastic throughout their lives.
Impact of Selective Activism
Selective Activism has negative implications and effects on the world, like the forgotten issue of the Yemen crisis, Islamophobia in European countries, refugees, etc. The list is long and never-ending. Despite the many important human rights crises in the world, some face extreme critical conditions that tend to be forgotten. Many become activists when issues are trending, yet will forget about them once they are off the mainstream media. As illustrated, it is not possible for one to advocate for every cause or injustice. But, if one labels themselves an activist and sees many prevalent issues but ignores it, then that is participating in selective activism. An inclusive solution would be to continue the fight for human rights for all and to stay educated. If there are specific humanitarian causes important to one, make sure you are advocating for all the individuals affected. Below are books, movies, and resources that expand upon the notion of selective activism.
Books:
“Except for Palestine: Limit on Progressive Politics” By Marc Lamont Hill & Mitchell Plitnick (This book opened my eyes to the idea of selective activism and its existence)
Movies:
Many movies educate one on the many humanitarian causes. My favorites are:
UAB is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution dedicated to providing equal opportunities and equal access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex (including pregnancy), genetic information, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran’s status. As required by Title IX, UAB prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity that it operates. Individuals may report concerns or questions to UAB’s Assistant Vice President and Senior Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX notice of nondiscrimination is located at uab.edu/titleix.