06 Nov 20 | Opinion, Ruth's blog, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115489″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]As I type we are still awaiting the final vote tallies for the US elections and while it looks like we will have a new president inaugurated in January, we’re still awaiting confirmation.
I am a politics addict. I love elections. I love campaigning. But most of all I love the fact that elections are a demonstration of public will. In a democracy, every person’s voice is heard and carries the same weight – at least that’s the plan. It is, and should be, one of the purest forms of an individual’s freedom of expression. This is an opportunity for our voices to be heard, to endorse or to challenge the status quo. It is our time to send a message about what type of society we want to live in and who embodies that desire. This is the fabric of our democracy and is at the heart of who we are.
Elections also send a message to the world about the resilience of a nation state’s democratic processes. Which is why events in the USA this week have been such a concern. In the middle of a global pandemic it should be no surprise to anyone that the results were going to take a while. Given the fractious nature of US politics over the last four years we also shouldn’t be surprised at the political rhetoric, centred on the concept of election stealing, emerging from the White House. But the cynical undermining of the core premise of free and fair elections is so dangerous and not just because of the impact that it will have on US society.
US elections set a bar for emergent democracies around the world. They give the USA the moral authority to challenge authoritarian and repressive regimes. They also, vitally, inspire hope in people around the world who seek to have their own voices heard.
Which is why it is so concerning to not only be watching events unfold but to have read the OSCE’s independent assessment of the election. While praising the organisational competence of the election officials they stated that: “Nobody – no politician, no elected official – should limit the people’s right to vote. Coming after such a highly dynamic campaign, making sure that every vote is counted is a fundamental obligation for all branches of government. Baseless allegations of systematic deficiencies, notably by the incumbent president, including on election night, harm public trust in democratic institutions.”
These comments alone give succour to dictators around the world. What criticism can the US state department level at national leaders who seek to undermine their own democratic processes if the US president has questioned the validity of his own democracy?
The imminent result is therefore not just incredibly important for Americans, but vital for the rest of the world. Which is why I keep refreshing the vote count in Philadelphia County…[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”41669″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
29 Oct 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
A George Floyd protest in Los Angeles, USA. Credit: Mike Von/ Unsplash
“Blacks known merely to talk about voting in certain towns in Alabama or Mississippi could get fired or have their businesses wrecked.”
This was six decades ago but harassment of black voters continues in today’s USA, writes acclaimed author Darryl Pinckney in his book Blackballed: The Black Vote and US Democracy. Originally published in 2016, the book has been republished this October with a new essay reflecting on Juneteenth, racial justice and protest in the context of Covid-19 and the death of George Floyd.
Pinckney, speaking to Index just days before the US elections on 3 November, says harassment can take several forms.
“You can have a boss who thinks you’re going to vote the way he doesn’t like, so he will tell you things that aren’t true. If you don’t have the resources or the imagination to look it up yourself you will believe him. [The boss might say] that if you owe child support and you to the polls they will arrest you when they have your name. And so you won’t go.”
Pinckney adds: “Election day is not a [public] holiday. It would be difficult to document but some bosses tell people ‘If you’re not back in an hour you’re fired’. You can’t wait in line – you’ll lose your job.”
Intimidation, he says, also happens at the polling station, all of which has contributed to low voter turnout in 2016, particularly amongst black people living in the key swing states. It’s for this reason, as Index reported earlier this year, that many organisations have emerged dedicated to improving transparency and information around how to vote.
As news comes in that already 70 million people have voted early, we may finally be seeing a positive shift, or at least a return to 2012 when Pinckney says an “enormous black voting block” contributed to Barack Obama’s second term win.
“There’s much better information today,” said Pinckney. “People are so alert to the possibilities of intimidation and voter suppression.”
“Early voter turnout is so overwhelming, probably for a number of factors, one being not trusting the process entirely so wanting to get in there. People are standing in line, two hours, three hours, five hours,” he said.
Pinckney believes that the protests surrounding the death of George Floyd have also played a role in this early voter turnout. We discuss how several years ago Index published an article from one of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street in which he was concerned that the movement would not have a lasting impact (compared to the rights movements of the 60s and 70s, he felt that the ease of gathering a crowd today due to the internet actually worked against its long-term goals). Pinckney believes that this year’s protests have managed to bypass this problem somewhat.
“The huge early voter turnout and maybe a higher youth vote than ever is a direct result of signing people up at the George Floyd protests. People were turning the protests into a registration drive,” he said, adding:
“The walk from the street to the voting booth got a lot shorter this summer.”
While Pinckney doesn’t know what exactly will happen this coming Tuesday, he says that he lives “with an optimist and so I have latched onto his wagon”.
“You have to not be a prisoner of history and know that history is manmade.”
Pinckney has written before about “Afro-Pessimism”, the deliberate withdrawal of political and social consciousness by black people. Today the situation feels different.
“I think that the Black Lives Matter movement and the police protests and by extension this examination of the part racism plays and how society is constructed is very much not Afro-Pessimism,” he said.
“A kind of activism is in the air.”
At the end of Blackballed Pinckney writes that there “are new names to learn: Li Wenliang, and then Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow, Shu Kei, Nathan Law, Isaac Cheng. We must act out our freedom, one masked, unnamed girl said in English to a camera during demonstrations on the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China.”
What made Pinckney chose to highlight those who have been persecuted by the Chinese government as a note to end on?
“The George Floyd protests were global. But look who is really up against it, look who is putting themselves and everything, their lives, on the line. These really innocent-looking people in Hong Kong. They’re up against this authoritarian state. You must remember them and their names.”
He adds:
“That kind of state is around the corner for a lot of us if we don’t say something now.”
Darryl Pinckney is the author of High Cotton, Black Deutschland, Out There and Busted in New York and Other Essays. His 2016 book Blackballed: The Black Vote and US Democracy has just been republished with a new essay for October 2020. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
27 Oct 20 | News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115312″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]A proposal by the Department of Homeland Security, USA, to limit visas to journalists has been widely condemned by free speech groups.
The proposed changes will require foreign media and journalists to apply for an eight-month visa with a further maximum extension of another 240 days.
Many foreign journalists working in the USA use the so-called “I” visa, which is vital to upholding scrutiny and media freedom from across the world in one of the world’s leading powers.
Dominic Ponsford, editor-in-chief of media-focused magazine Press Gazette, spoke of his concerns with the changes which he described as “an alarming development” and how they reflect the increasingly difficult situation for journalists in the USA.
“There have been concerns about the treatment of journalists increasing over the last four years,” he told Index. “The latest changes are an alarming development.”
“The I visa is a good scheme, although tricky to get hold of. Once you have it, it provides a lot of security and predictability for journalists.”
Under the current rules, the visa allows for a term of one year, but each holder may reapply for an unlimited amount of time. It is this particular change that Ponsford believes will cause problems for journalists.
“The concern with the time limit is the threat of having it rescinded, meaning journalists will constantly be looking over their shoulder. You may not have it renewed if your journalism is not complimentary to the administration.”
Press freedom in the USA has been under increasing threat during President Donald Trump’s four years in power. The difficult situation has intensified since the killing of George Floyd in May, which caused mass outrage and tensions between citizens and law enforcement.
The US Press Freedom Tracker has logged 219 journalists attacked, 62 equipment damages, 71 journalists arrested and over 10 occasions where equipment was searched or seized in this year alone.
Non-profit organisation the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) campaigns to protect US citizens’ civil liberties enshrined in the constitution and have been deeply critical of the proposed changes.
A spokesperson for the union said: “This proposal is going to hamper the ability of foreign media outlets to report from the United States, by arbitrarily limiting foreign correspondents to a short period of stay.”
Civil liberties are protected by the First Amendment of the constitution. ACLU believes the proposal is a clear attempt by the current administration to “chill reporting that might hold it accountable.”
“There is no legitimate justification for this proposal and no problem that it is solving. It is critically important that people in America have access to information from a wide range of media operating independently of the government.”
“The US government cannot take actions that are intended to chill reporting that might hold it accountable. The administration should abandon this attempt.”
The likelihood of the proposed changes being pushed through is difficult to determine. With the presidential election on 3rd November looming large, there is a chance these proposals will not manifest. However, with the election being set to be very contentious, with controversy already surrounding the mail-in ballot system, nothing right now is certain.
Should the Trump administration secure four more years, these proposals will almost undoubtedly become law, if they do not already do so in the last three months of the current government. Journalists globally will all be the worse of for it.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”5641″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Oct 20 | Free Speech and the Law, News and features, Uncategorized, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Rachel Malehorn, WikiCommons
As Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court advances to the Senate – despite a boycott from Democrats – it is still unclear where she stands on free speech.
Coney Barrett did little to allay fears over her positions on key constitutional issues during her confirmation hearings for the vacant seat on the US Supreme Court.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned the judge on issues including free speech and the First Amendment.
The First Amendment gives five separate protections to citizens. Namely the freedoms of speech, religion, press, protest and redress.
When asked by Republican Senator Ben Sasse what the freedoms protected by the amendment are, Coney Barrett was unable to recall the latter.
The freedom of redress gives citizens of the USA the right to petition or complain to government authorities at the federal, state and local level without fear of reprisals or punishment. It is a vital part of the constitution and very much a contemporary issue.
There has been extra scrutiny on issues around the First Amendment ever since the protests against the killing of George Floyd broke out in May this year.
With the typical rigour of judicial committee hearings, Coney Barrett could be forgiven for what was likely an innocent slip-up. However, the response will have done little to calm the nervousness over her appointment from free speech campaigners and members of the press.
The judge, 48, does not have an extensive record on dealing with with issues of First Amendment freedoms and her position on them has therefore been difficult to interpret.
On whistleblower cases, for example, Coney Barrett has joined different sides of the debate in different cases.
In August this year, Coney Barrett’s court favoured the First Amendment and the right of a public employee to raise alarm. However, in the case of Kelvin Lett, a Chicago investigator who refused to change a police report under direction from his supervisor, Coney Barrett ruled: “Lett may have had a good reason to refuse to amend the report [but this] does not grant him a First Amendment cause of action.”
On other issues, Coney Barrett was repeatedly accused of being “evasive” during the hearings, particularly on more controversial matters; the Democrats have repeatedly alluded to her Catholic faith as a potential problem.
However even before her nomination, she has expressed her belief in the importance of the separation of church and state.
“I think one of the most important responsibilities of a judge is to put their personal preferences and beliefs aside. Our responsibility is to adhere to the rule of law,” she said.
The Trump administration has faced repeated criticism from free speech groups since taking office in 2016. Among the criticisms are the crackdown on Black Lives Matter protests across the country, as well his repeated attacks on press freedoms.
Index, along with other free speech organisations have raised concerns over harms to media freedom in the country and in particular since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The US Press Freedom Tracker has logged 219 journalists attacked, 62 equipment damages, 71 journalists arrested and over 10 occasions where equipment was searched or seized in this year alone.
As Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, these issues naturally fell on Coney Barrett to talk at length on during the hearings, but she gave little insight into her stance on media freedom.
Coney Barrett’s addition would give the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative majority, heightening concern over the consequences of Trump’s potential election victory and the impact on policy should Joe Biden win instead.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
