Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoed two of three bills on Monday that would have broadened the government’s powers in shaping the Supreme Court. The three laws, proposed by the populist Law and Justice Party (PiS) and passed by parliament last week, ignited protests across the country. They also brought swift condemnation from the European Union and the U.S. State Department.

In a televised statement, Duda said the judicial reforms would “not strengthen the sense of justice” in Poland. Duda added that he supports reform, “but a wise reform.”

The vetoed legislation would have allowed the Justice Ministry to remake the Supreme Court. Current justices would have been pushed out, forced into early retirement, while new judges would have been selected by the justice minister. The third bill, which Duda approved, gives the justice minister the authority to select judges to fill Poland’s lower courts.

Despite Duda’s surprising decision to veto the controversial bills, PiS can still push through the reform measures with a three-fifths majority vote. PiS could not achieve that unilaterally however, and would need an assist from other parties. Given the bill’s unpopularity outside the right-wing PiS, a veto-proof majority is an unlikely scenario.

The effort by PiS, the ruling party, to reshape the courts prompted protests in at least 100 cities over the weekend. In Warsaw, thousands of people packed the streets to protest the legislation, waving EU and Polish flags, and carrying signs that read “constitution.” Some protests turned violent.

“People can demonstrate in the streets, can show their dissatisfaction, but not resort to violence,” Duda said in his address.

The EU and the U.S. also disapproved of the reforms. Last week, Donald Tusk, the European Council president and former leader of Poland, said the bills would “ruin the already tarnished public opinion about Polish democracy.” The EU also threatened to trigger Article 7 and impose sanctions on Poland, a rarely used diplomatic maneuver.

The State Department also chimed in, saying in a statement on Friday that the legislation “appears to undermine judicial independence and weaken the rule of law in Poland.”

“We urge all sides to ensure that any judicial reform does not violate Poland’s constitution or international legal obligations and respects the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers,” the statement from State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert continued.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Polish President Vetoes Controversial Judicial Reform Bills appeared first on Law Street.

Venezuela has been plagued by political unrest and protests since April. Last month, a prominent opposition politician who often joined members of the public in the protests, Wilmer Azuaje, disappeared without a trace. And also last month, an 18-year-old violist named Armando Cañizales was shot and killed by government forces for participating in a demonstration. Both became symbols of the resistance and protesters have only become more determined to bring about change.

But so far, the military has been firm in its support of the sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, whom members of the opposition say has turned into a dictator. However, last week the leader of the National Defense Council, Gen. Alexis López Ramírez, resigned from his position, and on Tuesday he announced why. While López Ramírez expressed his general appreciation of Maduro, he also said he disagreed with the president’s plans to create a constituent assembly.

Maduro has said he wants to create a citizens’ assembly to rewrite the constitution. The opposition has criticized the move as a way to create more power for Maduro without having to consult the opposition-controlled National Assembly first. Maduro claims the assembly would bring peace to the country. López Ramírez’s resignation further increased the unrest, and many wondered whether the military could stop its support of Maduro.

Protesters set fire to Venezuela’s Supreme Court as anti-government clashes rage on after two months https://t.co/aqK0Hg7Plk pic.twitter.com/E42NisYgis

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) June 13, 2017

Last week, Venezuela’s chief prosecutor Luisa Ortega Diaz challenged Maduro’s efforts at creating a constituent assembly. On Monday, the country’s Supreme Court dismissed her request, after which protesters set the Supreme Court building on fire. Ortega Diaz said that after she turned against Maduro, she and her family have received multiple threats. She also said agents had followed her and state officials have verbally attacked her.

So far, 70 people have died in the protests. The increasing violence of the protests has caused people that have received benefits from the government to turn their backs on it. After Cañizales, the violinist, was killed last month, the country’s classical musicians took to the streets.

Classical musicians in Venezuela have generally stayed out of politics. Most of them belong to a state-financed musical program that has offered training for hundreds of thousands of kids from working-class families. “In its 42 years, El Sistema somehow managed to keep an impartial position,” said Ollantay Velásquez, the director of Cañizales’s orchestra, referring to the program. “It has stayed that way until today.”

Classical music in Venezuela had long been neutral to politics — until a young musician was killed in protests https://t.co/iBQ2C1yAZf pic.twitter.com/Oi0VQfAo6u

— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) June 12, 2017

Azuaje, the politician who disappeared, was allegedly last seen being shoved into a National Guard plane in the middle of the night in early May. “He’s disappeared. They kidnapped him. There is complete silence,” his mother Carmen Cordero said, adding that he has been a thorn in the side of the government for a long time. He allegedly encouraged people to keep protesting, which led Maduro supporters to call him a promoter of violence.

Names of those who were killed during protests in Venezuela https://t.co/D4SbFgw91w pic.twitter.com/B2uMyVkIJh via @MariaGMonagas

— Liveuamap (@Liveuamap) June 12, 2017

Many Venezuelan officials and former politicians have chosen to move abroad, but recently they have faced increasing public shaming. Last month in Miami, former minister Eugenio Vasquez was having breakfast at a bakery when angry Venezuelans caught sight of him. With shouts of “rat” and “thief,” the people drove him out of the bakery. In Switzerland, a woman ran into Ambassador Cesar Mendez at a grocery store, and shouted “corrupt” and “thieves.”

Similar cases have been reported from New York, Madrid, and Sydney, where the daughter of the Caracas Mayor Jorge Rodriguez, Lucia, was harassed by a woman shouting “Thanks to your father, people are dying!” Lucia Rodriguez is currently in Sydney on a student visa. A petition to the Australian government to revoke her visa–and other children of Venezuelan officials–has almost 30,000 signatures.

Maduro has condemned the treatment of officials and their families abroad, and even compared it to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews. But, as Javier Fungairino from the Miami bakery pointed out, they only use words. “I never laid a finger on him. I simply raised my voice,” he said. “They hate when people complain. They think they’re so powerful that they’re not used to that kind of treatment.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unrest in Venezuela Rages on After Military Kills Teenage Violinist appeared first on Law Street.

A Milo Yiannopoulos supporter filed a lawsuit on Monday against regents of the University of California, Berkeley for $23 million. Kiara Robles, the plaintiff, says the school infringed on her First Amendment rights when a protest erupted on campus last February.

The protest, which drew over 1,500 students, was a response to the controversial invitation the Berkeley College Republicans student group sent to Yiannopoulos, asking him to speak at the campus. Yiannopoulos, a long-standing fan of President Donald Trump and a self-described cultural libertarian, is a former senior editor of alt-right media source Breitbart.

He gained prominence because of his highly controversial comments on women, Islam, homosexuality, and religion. He once said “gay rights have made us dumber” and called transgender people mentally ill.

Robles was pepper-sprayed during the Berkeley protest and says she and her friends were targeted during the clash because they hold and express conservative views. She was planning on attending Yiannopoulos’ talk before the Berkeley police department canceled the event citing security concerns.

More peaceful protests mad at capitalism. #miloatcal pic.twitter.com/1qrdJ5zeJ8

— Kiara Robles ಠ_ಠ (@kiarafrobles) February 2, 2017

https://twitter.com/kiarafrobles/status/827418775230099456

The lawsuit states that the defendants, which includes local law enforcement, billionaire George Soros, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for allegedly institutionalizing Robles’ concerns, have subjected “students and invitees who do not subscribe to the radical, left wing philosophies … to severe violence and bodily harm for merely expressing a differing viewpoint.”

“She was assaulted,” Robles’ lawyer told The San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday. “The California university system, and in part, Berkeley, is out of control, and they’re facilitating, if not inciting, violence, and the campus police sit around twiddling their thumbs.”

The university said in a statement that it will mount a strong defense “contesting this collection of false claims.”

This lawsuit comes at a time when freedom of speech debates are increasingly common on college campuses and the media. Liberal students’ requests for “safe spaces” and outright bans on perceived hate speech have raised questions regarding whether or not other students’ freedom of expression rights are being curtailed.

Hitting at the heart of the debate and opposing Robles, Jonathan Gow, a UC Berkeley sophomore, said “when it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down,” about the Yiannopoulos protests at Berkeley.

Last Friday, late-night talk show host Bill Maher, who said he would soon invite Yiannopoulos back on his show, was caught up in a similar controversy when he said the N-word on live television. Many outraged viewers called for his show to be canceled or for him to step down, while others said self-censorship of this word placed a limitation on individual freedom of speech.

Yiannopoulos has often found himself at the center of these debates, on and off campuses. Recently, he announced he would resort to self-publishing his new book “Dangerous” after the provocateur lost his controversial Simon and Schuster book deal when videos surfaced of him seemingly defending pedophilia. On Tuesday, the book was at the top of Amazon’s best-seller list in the humor category.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Milo Yiannopoulos Fan Sues UC Berkeley Over Violent February Protests appeared first on Law Street.

Protests in Portland, Oregon, erupted Sunday after two men were murdered in the city last week while trying to defend young girls from anti-Muslim taunts on a train.

On one side of the Portland protests was a free speech rally for supporters of President Donald Trump. It was organized by conservative group Patriot Prayer, led by Joey Gibson, a self-described “Libertarian and a Christian.” The rally of Trump supporters, located near city hall, led to two counterprotests–a rally originating from an anti-fascist group and a “Portland Stands United Against Hate” rally.

A heavily protected police force, along with Homeland Security officers, stood between the two sides. After violence broke out, police said that officers had been assaulted.

A small group of Buddhists silently joined the Portland protests, according to the Washington Post. 

Portland police face off with counter protesters as Alt-Right activists are seen in background #trump #PDXprotests @wweek pic.twitter.com/ucqnyub87m

— William Gagan (@WillyFoReal) June 4, 2017

The groups were given protest permits despite Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s plea to the federal government to revoke the permission.

“Our city is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation,” Wheeler posted on Facebook.

During an interview with HLN Network, Wheeler clarified that he supports free speech no matter the topic, but believed that the timing was a threat to public safety.

While the Trump supporters argued that their rally was simply to promote the First Amendment, the other side viewed it as an endorsement of the aforementioned train stabbing.

Jeremy Christian, the suspect in the murder case, brought free speech to the forefront of his trial as he entered the courtroom on May 30.

“Get out if you don’t like free speech!” he shouted.“You call it terrorism; I call it patriotism. Die.”

Christian had been seen at previous alt-right rallies in Portland, performing Nazi salutes and screaming racial slurs, according to the Washington Post.

Despite a large police presence separating the protesters, violence erupted throughout the day. The Portland Police Department made 14 arrests at a “variety of locations” and confiscated various weapons, including bricks, hammers, and hunting knives.

Another collection of weapons seized today. pic.twitter.com/tdMmMSM2Wp

— Portland Police (@PortlandPolice) June 5, 2017

The 14 suspects, whose ages ranged from 19-to 64-years-old, were all caucasian. Three got off with citations. The charges include disorderly conduct, carrying a concealed weapon, and interfering with a peace officer. The remaining 11 suspects will be arraigned in court this Friday at Multnomah County Court, according to CNN.

Police say that the situation began with each side hurling insults and names before things escalated. At some point in the day demonstrators began throwing bottles, bricks, and balloons filled with “foul-smelling liquid,” according to USA Today.

Gibson, who claims he disapproves of Christian’s actions both on the train and at previous protests, spoke against violence at the rally.

“I want everybody here . . . to find it in yourself to make this day positive, with no hate and no violence,” he told the crowd. “We have to understand Portland is legitimately shaken up right now.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Portland Protests Result in 14 Arrests, Confiscated Weapons appeared first on Law Street.

Anti-government protests have defined Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s time in office, but few, if any, past demonstrations compare to this latest wave. Infuriated by a highly controversial Supreme Court ruling in late March, millions of Venezuelans have been taking to the streets demanding the 2018 presidential election be held ahead of schedule.

On Wednesday evening, Yibram Saab Fornino, son of Venezuela’s Defensoría del Pueblo (Ombudsman), Tarek William Saab, posted a video on YouTube denouncing the government’s violent response to protesters and calling on his father to act. While the Ombudsman is meant to be a politically independent defender of social justice and humans rights, Saab is considered a government insider.

In December 2014, pro-Maduro United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) legislators controversially elected Saab as Ombudsman weeks before they would lose control of the National Assembly. The opposition Democratic Unity Table (MUD) boycotted the vote on the basis that Saab was a former PSUV state governor who only left the party to take up the politically independent role. Although PSUV did not have the two-thirds majority constitutionally required to elect an Ombudsman, the Supreme Court, stacked with government sympathizers, upheld the vote.

Critics argue that by ignoring the violence the supposedly apolitical Ombudsman is protecting his political allies, and is complicit in the violent suppression of the opposition. Opponents of the government are latching onto Yibram Saab’s statement.

Yibram Saab begins the open letter to his father by expressing his concern for Venezuela’s “ruptured constitutional order.” He affirms that neither he nor his siblings were threatened into publishing the video but were acting freely and in accordance with the values imparted by their father. Saab goes on to condemn the “national security forces’ brutal repression” of protesters. Saab then pays tribute to Juan Pablo Pernalete, a 20-year-old university student and recent victim of Venezuela’s security forces, before appealing to his father by saying “that could have been me.”

Over the past month, Venezuela’s security forces have killed at least 29 demonstrators. Maduro has justified the violence by claiming that security forces are fighting against a terrorist-led coup. Nonetheless, Yibram Saab’s video is emblematic of the fact that state sanctioned violence has only served to embolden anti-government sentiment.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence in Venezuela: Son of Ombudsman Calls on His Father to Act appeared first on Law Street.

During his four years as president, Nicolás Maduro has faced an ever-growing political opposition and has become the focal point of near constant anti-government protests. On March 29, Venezuela’s pro-government Supreme Court ruled to dissolve the majority-opposition legislature and absorb its powers. Though the high court softened its decision after an intense backlash, anti-government protesters continue to flock to the streets of Caracas and cities across Venezuela in opposition to what they are calling a coup d’état. Although the opposition is growing louder, larger, and more determined, Maduro is intent on keeping power at all costs. The current conditions have been long in the making and it is unclear what lies ahead.

Hugo Chávez and Oil

By most estimates, Venezuela has the largest discovered crude oil reserves in the world. For decades, the Venezuelan economy has depended on the exports of this single commodity. When Hugo Chávez rose to power in 1998, world oil prices were high and the economy was booming. Chávez used the profits generated by Venezuela’s nationalized oil industry to build a country with his socialist vision. Under his rule, social spending increased and many felt that Chávez more than lived up to his promises of a socialist society. Chávez famously launched an initiative in 2011 to provide over one million houses to families in need.

In spite of his promise to defy capitalism and imperialism, Chávez’s undiversified and commodity-based economy was always at the mercy of international markets. After hitting an all time high in July 2008, oil prices crashed in January 2009, putting the Venezuelan economy under immense pressure. However, although Chávez’s approval rating did suffer slightly, he retained popular support and his mandate was rarely in doubt. In tough times, Chávez’s cult of personality guaranteed him a certain amount of unconditional support and there was no one who could mount a realistic challenge against him.

Maduro’s Rise

Nicolás Maduro took over the United Socialist Party (PSUV) upon Chávez’s death in March 2013 and won a special election the following month. Maduro’s surprisingly narrow victory suggested he would never have the kind of support that his predecessor had enjoyed. Venezuela’s economy had been flagging long before Maduro took over; soaring inflation rates and a dependency on imported consumer goods had resulted in widespread shortages. However, without Chávez at the helm, Venezuelans appeared far less willing to turn a blind eye. Though Maduro promised to continue the Chávez legacy, he would never be able replace the revolutionary figure.

In January 2014, anti-government demonstrations gained traction after a violent government response to initial demonstrations caused matters to escalate. In May 2014, oil prices crashed and the situation went from bad to worse. Already struggling in the polls, Maduro’s approval rating plummeted below 25 percent. Protests continued to rage, and in March 2015, the National Assembly finally granted him permission to rule by decree.

Political Resistance

In spite of Maduro’s move to expand his power, the political resistance continued to mount. In December 2015, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable Party (MUD) took control of the National Assembly for the first time in more than 16 years of PSUV rule. MUD controlled 112 (67 percent) of the legislature’s 167 seats–a supermajority that granted deputies expanded powers over Maduro’s executive branch.

While Maduro initially accepted the results, the loyalist Supreme Court ruled to block three newly elected MUD lawmakers from taking office, citing electoral irregularities. The ruling, which was handed down a week before the deputies were set to meet for their first session, was seen by opposition politicians as a blatant attempt to dismantle the supermajority. The MUD-controlled National Assembly ignored the ruling and swore the deputies in. It was this act of defiance that compelled the court to dissolve the National Assembly and hand control of the country back to Maduro and the PSUV on March 29.

While the ruling effectively restored Maduro’s control over Venezuela’s three branches of government, it in no way restored his control over the country. On the day of the ruling, protestors amassed outside the court. In response to the outcry, the Supreme Court revised the contentious decision last Saturday. While it seems the Supreme Court will no longer take over the legislature’s power to enact legislation, the ruling was not reversed. The legislature has still been ruled to be in contempt of the court and may not be allowed to pass new laws. Unsurprisingly, this revision has done little to quell the opposition. Protests continue to rage and have since turned violent.

While there are signs that Maduro could lose the faith of some high-ranking PSUV members and face a challenge from inside the party, it seems unlikely the party will turn on him just yet. Maduro is intent on expanding his powers, while an ever-increasing number of Venezuelans are adamantly opposed to his leadership.

Maduro would almost certainly lose a free and fair election–scheduled for October 2018–but any number of things could happen before then. Long-standing tensions have reached a point where some fear a civil war may be imminent.

Under Chávez, the PSUV dominated every aspect of Venezuelan politics. While critics often called Chávez a dictator and decried his authoritarian style, the popular support for the socialist leader was undeniable. Maduro, the heir to Chávez’s throne, does not enjoy this level of popularity. Maduro is simply incapable of filling the seat Chávez left behind. Many of the systemic issues that plague Venezuela pre-date Maduro’s presidency, but his approach to the role has only aggravated an already disgruntled, disenfranchised, and disenchanted public.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Turmoil in Venezuela: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

“We stand up here, Mr. Jones. Don’t forget,” Bernard Marks, a Holocaust survivor who now lives in Sacramento as an educator, said on Tuesday. Marks was one of hundreds of protesters who gave pointed and stirring speeches at a public forum in Sacramento featuring County Sheriff Scott Jones and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Thomas Homan.

“When I was a little boy in Poland, for no other reason but for being Jewish, I was hauled off by the Nazis,” Marks said. “I spent five and a half years in concentration camp [sic] for one reason and for one reason only: because we picked on people.”

His speech was the boiling point of an already toxic event. From the very start of the forum, Jones and Homan were shouted at by a hostile crowd, as captured by the Los Angeles Times:

Attendees shouted and cursed, chanted and held up protest signs. “Lies!” some yelled when the officials said authorities did not target immigrants who did not pose a danger to the community.

“Where is the money, Jones?” others asked when the sheriff attempted to explain ICE immigration detention contracts, a budget he said totaled $4.8 million for his department.

“You are bringing the uncertainty,” one man shouted at Homan before deputies escorted him out. “You are bringing the uncertainty to everybody.”

Across the country, numerous stories have popped up about actions taken by ICE against illegal immigrants, including Dreamers, or immigrants who came to the country illegally as children. In Portland, a Dreamer was arrested and held in a detention center, which echoes stories concerning detained Dreamers in places like Seattle and Mississippi. In Fort Worth, Texas, 26 parolees suspected of being undocumented immigrants were recently arrested when they showed up to perform their mandatory community service, according to a local NBC affiliate.

They are now detained at an ICE facility in Dallas while they await their fate. In Los Angeles, the LAPD has said reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence among Latino residents has plummeted in 2017, presumably due to concerns over deportation. In the midst of these stories, residents, politicians, and activists around the country have decided to take a stand. And, in a heartbreaking story which has since gone viral, Fatima Avelica, a 13-year-old girl whose father was detained by ICE while he was dropping her off at school, spoke through her tears while telling her story at Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) news conference on Tuesday.

Sacramento isn’t the only city standing up for immigrants. On Monday, hundreds of people gathered in Boston outside the JFK Federal Building (where immigration hearings are held) to protest the arrest of three human rights activists from Vermont. Two of the activists were released on bail later that day. In Somerville, Massachusetts, after Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson called for public government officials of sanctuary cities to be arrested for not following federal immigration orders, Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone taunted him on Facebook, writing “come and get me.”

Further up north, in Rochester, New York, two immigration protests were held in a span of 24 hours after a woman and her brother, originally from Guatemala, were detained. In Charlotte, North Carolina, 200 protesters “shouted down” a city council meeting concerning the city’s coordination with ICE officials and federal immigration orders. In Chicago, immigration advocates staged a sit-in at a regional ICE office. And in Cape May, New Jersey, protesters made their voices heard at a Board of Freeholders meeting at the county courthouse discussing the county’s new proposed partnership with ICE, according to Shore News Today.

People around the country are standing up for immigrants, and for ICE Acting Director Homan, that is something that will be hard to forget.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post People Around the Country Are Protesting ICE Arrests and Deportations appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of people fanned out across cities in Russia to protest corruption on Sunday, the largest public demonstrations in five years. Hundreds were arrested, including Russian and foreign journalists and scores of young people. While the protests broadly targeted government corruption, there were few direct displays of dissent against President Vladimir Putin, who throughout his nearly 17-year rule has kept a tight grip on protests and opposition.

From Vladivostok in the east to Kaliningrad in the west to Moscow, protesters waved Russian flags and wielded banners and signs, chanting: “Russia without Putin,” and, in Moscow, “this is our city.” A spokesman for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, called the protests a “provocation and a lie” and said young people were “promised financial rewards in the event of their detention by law enforcement agencies.”

Aleksei Navalny, an increasingly influential and strident opposition politician, called for the protests weeks ago. His Foundation for Fighting Corruption organized the demonstrations. Navalny, who ran for mayor of Moscow in 2013, was arrested in Moscow on Sunday while protesting. While some see him as a viable Putin opponent in the 2018 elections, he is widely expected to lose. In February, a Kremlin-backed court found him guilty of fraud (he denied the charge), further derailing his chances.

Unprecedented number of young Russians who’ve known no president but Putin came to protest him today. This looks like being the iconic shot pic.twitter.com/noRLeNNxDu

— max seddon (@maxseddon) March 26, 2017

Regardless of his political future, Navalny, who also helped organize the protests that followed tainted elections in 2011 and 2012, is hitting a nerve across the country. Sunday’s protests in Moscow were the most visible and received the harshest crackdown from authorities. Protesters were met with riot police and surveillance helicopters. The Moscow Police Department said “around 500” people were detained for an “unapproved public event.” A group that monitors arrests, OVD-info, said the number of arrests was closer to 1,000.

In the U.S., the White House response was muted; some lawmakers were vocal about the Kremlin’s swift response to the protests. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NB) said in a statement: “Putin’s thugocracy is on full display. The United States government cannot be silent about Russia’s crackdown on peaceful protesters. Free speech is what we’re all about and Americans expect our leaders to call out thugs who trample the basic human rights of speech, press, assembly and protest.”

And while President Donald Trump–who is currently under investigation by the House and the Senate for his communications with Russia during the election–was silent on the issue, Mark Toner, the acting spokesman for the State Department said the U.S. “strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout Russia on Sunday.” He added: “Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an affront to core democratic values.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hundreds Arrested in Anti-Corruption Protests Across Russia appeared first on Law Street.

Today, NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre stayed true to the White House’s line that protesters speaking out against the administration are paid. In fact, he claimed that protesters are being paid $1,500 a week. And given that the future of journalism seems to be less-than-rosy right now, I have to ask: where do I sign up?

I mean, $1,500 a week is a lot of money. That’s about $78,000 a year. That’s about on par with what the average accountant, architect, epidemiologist, psychologist, or nuclear technician makes–all professions that I’m fairly certain take quite a bit more schooling than being a protester.

LaPierre, also said that the protesters are specifically and deliberately inciting violence, and compared them to terrorists. He claimed that, “the left’s message is absolutely clear. They want revenge, you’ve got to be punished. They say you’re what’s wrong with America and now you’ve got to be purged.” He went on to say: that the “extreme left” “literally hate everything America stands for” and “are willing to use violence against us.” But Mr. LaPierre, you can’t have it both ways. Are the protesters apathetic, and that’s why they need to be paid? Or do they hate America with such a fiery passion–in which case you would think that most of them would just protest for free?

Also, who is supposedly paying out this $1,500 a week to protesters? We’ll probably never have an exact estimate on how many people attended Women’s marches throughout the U.S. on January 21, but let’s use FiveThirtyEight’s safe and conservative estimate of 3.2 million. And while the peddlers of this “paid protester” myth haven’t been clear on what percentage of the protesters are supposedly paid, let’s say that just one-third–a million individuals–from the Women’s March got their weekly $1,500 takeaway. That right there is $1.5 billion dollars. That’s quite a lot of money apparently secretly floating around.

While that’s a very literal interpretation of LaPierre’s claims, the ridiculousness of a vast “paid protesters” conspiracy to the tune of over a billion dollars isn’t that remarkably far off from what some have claimed since Trump took office. That ridiculousness is always worth being called out–and Mr. LaPierre, I can assure you that no one is paying me $1,500 a week just to say that.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wayne LaPierre Says Paid Protesters Make $1,500 a Week: Where Can I Sign Up? appeared first on Law Street.

Startling viral video footage of an off-duty LAPD cop firing his gun during an altercation with teens prompted about 300 outraged demonstrators to protest in the streets of Anaheim, California late Wednesday night.

What Happened?

The confrontation erupted Tuesday outside of the cop’s home. Cellphone footage captured the unnamed officer grabbing onto 13-year-old Christian Dorscht, as a group made up mostly of young boys wearing backpacks stood nearby.

A physical scuffle ensued as a few of the teens attempted to fight back, until the cop dragged the boy over a hedge before pulling out his weapon and firing it. No one was injured by the gunfire.

JUST IN: Hundreds protest in Anaheim after an off-duty LAPD cop grabbed a teenager and fired his weapon during a scuffle on his lawn. pic.twitter.com/ry6W56fkh1

— Fusion (@Fusion) February 23, 2017

The LAPD officer was not arrested, but the 13-year-old boy and another 15-year-old boy were taken into custody and later released. Some early reports said they have been charged, but the details are unclear at this point. Photographs of Christian taken after he was released show bruises on his wrists and other markings on his neck from the cop pulling and dragging him.

LAPD Launches Investigation

The cop is on administrative leave while the LAPD launches an internal investigation into the officer’s actions. The department is insisting that it “began over ongoing issues with juveniles walking across the officer’s property.”

Christian’s father, Johnny Dorscht, says the scuffle actually began after the cop began swearing at one of Christian’s female friends for walking on his yard.

“My son defended her and said, ‘don’t talk to a lady like that,’” Johnny told Fusion. “That’s when the cop got mad and confronted my son, and threw him on the floor. The cop was choking him out. He got away, the cop pulled him back, and that’s when the video started.”

In one part of the uncut video, Christian is heard pleading “stop grabbing me” and “I didn’t do anything to hurt you, all I said was respect a girl.” The cop responds, “You shouldn’t have said you were going to shoot me.” Christian protests, “I didn’t say that, I said I’m going to sue you,” as he’s dragged across the lawn.

It may be some time before the LAPD announces its findings, and whether or not the officer involved will be charged with a crime.

Protesters Take to the Streets

About 300 marchers began protesting late Wednesday night. They began in the west Anaheim neighborhood where the shooting took place, before moving into the streets.

Video of hundreds protesting in #Anaheim overnight after video of #LAPD off-duty officer’s altercation with teen surfaces. @WPTV pic.twitter.com/dJssQGUXJO

— Chris Stewart (@CStewartWPTV) February 23, 2017

Protesters kneel with their hands up, in front of the police formation on Palais and Euclid in Anaheim. pic.twitter.com/RAjhJKwarl

— Marcus Yam (@yamphoto) February 23, 2017

A young demonstrator in #Anaheim wraps an American flag around himself as police stand nearby #anaheimprotest pic.twitter.com/X3CBHcl3Ok

— Melissa Etehad اتحاد (@melissaetehad) February 23, 2017

Police reported several acts of vandalism, including broken windows and anti-police graffiti. Authorities arrested 24 people–10 men, eight women and six juveniles.

Social Media Reacts

Many people also posted about the incident on social media

Keep in mind this all started cuz an off-duty cop was ready to shoot children over walking in his yard. https://t.co/Efm3d4bssc

— X (@XLNB) February 23, 2017

Yet they ask why Blacks and Latinx don’t trust the system? They’re shown at an early age that police can’t be trusted. #Anaheim

— Nathan Mousa (@nathanmousa) February 23, 2017

When I’m feeling “threatened” I always hold a kid hostage, pull out my gun, & literally drag them back to my property like prey. #Anaheim

— NaijaKingCharles (@ChuckAkpan) February 23, 2017

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protests Erupt in Anaheim After Off-Duty Cop Fires Gun in Altercation With Teens appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump signed an executive order that banned travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, it came as a shock to most people. All of a sudden, families were stranded abroad, students couldn’t return to school, and refugees from war zones were denied entry. But immigration lawyers had suspected this was coming, based on rumors from the White House, and had already begun to prepare. Last Wednesday, a group of lawyers from the Urban Justice Center called for additional attorneys who could volunteer at airports where refugees were scheduled to arrive, in case an order like the one that came on Friday was announced. When that exact thing happened, lawyers willing to volunteer headed to airports across the country.

In New York, Andre Segura, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) arrived at JFK International Airport and said that one section of the airport was completely flooded by lawyers. “There were attorneys from numerous major law firms, nonprofits, all working together,” he said. “I’ve never seen that immediate coming together of teams to start filing actions to try to protect people.” Thousands of Americans protested outside airports, as lawyers were inside trying to talk to family members of detained travelers and offer their legal services pro bono. Many of these lawyers didn’t sleep all night and didn’t eat. Pictures on social media showed them sitting on floors, with laptops and phones connected to the airport’s power outlets.

Please RETWEET this tweet

Lawyers volunteering their time & knowledge to help free those wrongfully detained at #JFK #MuslimBan pic.twitter.com/Zat5mVToci

— #HeWillNotDivideUs (@HWNDUS) January 29, 2017

On Saturday night, Federal Judge Ann Donnelly announced that people with valid visas could not be sent back to where they came from, as there “is imminent danger” that there will be “substantial and irreparable injury” if they are sent back. Big crowds of people had gathered outside the courthouse and cheered the decision, but the lawyers’ work had just started. The judge’s ruling only specifically said not to send travelers back, but did not say that the detained were free to enter the U.S.

On Sunday, Customs and Border Protection Agents defied the court order, according to several congressmen and lawyers. “Four members of Congress asked CBP officials to enforce a federal court order and were turned away,” wrote Representative Don Beyer on Twitter. In New York, an Iranian Fulbright scholar was put on a plane to be sent back to Iran several hours after the airports had received orders to stop sending people away. She was forced onto an airplane, where she asked the crew to let her out but was ignored. The plane started preparing for takeoff before attorneys finally managed to persuade officials to let the woman out. Becca Heller, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, said on Sunday that CBP agents handcuffed people, forced them onto departing airplanes, and tried to make detainees surrender their green cards.

As New Yorkers we have no tolerance for intolerance and that’s what we’re going to stand up and say. pic.twitter.com/1b85T3bD6h

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) January 29, 2017

One of the most difficult tasks for the lawyers was to determine how many people were in custody, as customs officials wouldn’t provide an answer, despite pressure from congressmen and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office. This meant that the lawyers needed to improvise most of their work, handwriting signs stating “immigration lawyer” in the hope that family members of detained people would approach them for help. Many lawyers were also shocked by what they were witnessing. “I’ve never seen anything like this in my practice. Maybe if we look back to Chinese exclusion laws in the 1800s,” said one of the volunteer lawyers, Jonathan Mulligan.

I repeat: A FIVE YEAR OLD BOY was detained and kept from his mother at a US airport. In our name. And Team Trump wonders why the outcry?

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) January 29, 2017

Some volunteer lawyers were physically at the airports, but other lawyers worked on litigation from their offices. “I was sitting at my desk working on a template habeas petition that could be used by lawyers at airports all around the country,” said Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the ACLU. Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrant Rights Project, said getting together the paperwork that led to the judge’s stay was not an easy task; they didn’t have anything prepared in advance but had to rush to get something together when Trump’s order came.

And even after the judge’s order, confusion ruled at airports. On Monday it was still unclear how many people remained detained. Although the Department of Homeland Security claimed that everyone had been released, attorneys say that claim is impossible to verify, as the department still hasn’t released a list of names. Judge Donnelly also ordered government attorneys to hand the ACLU a complete list of names of those who were detained, but they have yet to comply. In Washington D.C., some lawyers who were told there were no detainees left at the airport suspect that they have secretly been taken to detention centers, despite the court order.

We are being told there aren’t any there. We also believe they are being taken to detention facilities. Updates when we get them. https://t.co/zuCHaLD9yE

— Mirriam Seddiq (@mirriam71) January 30, 2017

But a tweet by the volunteer group at JFK suggests that only one person was still in custody late Sunday night. Though those numbers are not officially confirmed, it seems hopeful, largely thanks to the hard work of these lawyers.

Lawyers at #NoBanJFK still going strong. #NoBanUSA#NotOnOurWatchpic.twitter.com/AfMh3LU112

— NoBanJFK (@nobanjfk) January 30, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lawyers Rush to Help Travelers as Confusion Continues appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s decree on Friday, barring refugees and immigrants from seven largely Muslim countries from entering the U.S., ignited protests across the country on Saturday and Sunday. Now, members of the State Department are joining the dissent: over 100 officials have signed a memorandum that warns that the executive order could in fact deepen the terrorist threat that Trump is seeking to contain.

A draft of the State Department memo said the order runs the risk of increasing “anti-American sentiment” and implies “that we consider all nationals of these countries to be an unacceptable security risk.” The executive order suspends the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days; Syrian refugees and immigrants are blocked indefinitely. Visitors and immigrants from the other six countries–Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan–cannot come to the U.S. for 90 days.

This was hardly the first time the State Department has utilized its “dissent channel,” which was created after the Vietnam War, but this number of signatories is unprecedented. In June 2016, 51 State Department officials signed a dissent memo that criticized President Barack Obama’s policy in Syria. The number of signatories to that memo was considered unusual at the time. The latest memo has attracted nearly double the number of dissenting officials.

State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said the department’s “dissent channel” is an “important process.” He added: “It allows State employees to express divergent policy views candidly and privately to senior leadership.” Traditionally, dissent memos are given to the secretary of state, who has the power to act on the memo. Trump’s choice, Rex Tillerson, is not expected to be confirmed until Wednesday.

The White House, which has vehemently defended its actions after a torrent of criticism from religious leaders, Democrats, private citizens, business leaders, and many Republican congressmen, did not seem to react well to the dissent memo. In a press conference on Monday afternoon, Press Secretary Sean Spicer said if somebody “has a problem” with Trump’s agenda, then that can “call into question whether or not they should continue in that post or not.” Spicer added: “They should get with the program or they should go.”

Trump’s divisive order led to protests across the country, as people rushed to show support for the Muslim community and for refugees around the globe who will be denied entry into the U.S. for at least four months. In his first statement since leaving office, Obama expressed support for the protests, and criticized his successor’s order.

“Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake,” the statement from Obama’s office said, adding that the former president “fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Over 100 State Department Officials Sign Memo Condemning Trump’s Refugee Ban appeared first on Law Street.

Today, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States. Trump’s bruising, baffling, and bludgeoning journey to this moment left many with a sour taste in their mouths. He had an unprecedented journey–a billionaire with no political experience securing the highest office in the land. Along the way, Trump torched a litany of people, from his admonishing of Mexicans as “rapists” to his dismissal of the country’s intelligence organizations in their conclusion that Russia propped him up.

And so, as thousands hit the National Mall to cheer “Trump!” thousands more have stormed the nation’s capital to proclaim “not my president!” Law enforcement officials said they expect 63 protests around the city on Friday, with more to come, including the Woman’s March, on Saturday. Protesters camped out at checkpoints around the city on Friday morning. Some danced. Some walked arm in arm. And some smashed windows. But all had something to say.

Before the ceremony began, protesters with #DisruptJ20 streamed past police officers, some of whom tried to disperse the crowd with tear gas:

#BREAKING: Tear gas deployed towards anti-Trump protesters in Washington D.C #DisruptJ20 #TrumpProtest #Inauguration pic.twitter.com/EsphpsCoSl

— Kris Cruz (@rc_kris) January 20, 2017

Other protesters expressed their disapproval of Trump in a more aggressive manner. In the downtown sections of the city, some protesters, calling themselves “anti-fascist, anti-capitalist,” chucked bricks at windows–including this limousine:

Peaceful Protest #DisruptJ20 pic.twitter.com/WppLa815kv

— imwithMAGA (@imwithMAGA) January 20, 2017

Chaos ensued in other parts of the city, far away from the peaceful transfer of power on the steps of the U.S. Capitol:

BREAKING NEWS: Protests have turned violent, Riot police respond. #Inauguration pic.twitter.com/gTQLbDozhN

— TheAnonMessage (@TheAnonnMessage) January 20, 2017

One group of protesters even included a certain arctic-dwelling bear:

One of many roving protests at #TrumpInauguration outside checkpoint at US District Courthouse. #McPherson #DisruptJ20 pic.twitter.com/yoeHISzQOM

— DCMediaGroup (@DCMediaGroup) January 20, 2017

President Barack Obama, for one, added his voice to the of millions of others who wish to be heard today and tomorrow:

I won’t stop; I’ll be right there with you as a citizen, inspired by your voices of truth and justice, good humor, and love.

— President Obama (@POTUS44) January 20, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Inauguration Day Protests Erupt Throughout Washington D.C. appeared first on Law Street.

Brentley Vinson, the Charlotte police officer who shot and killed Keith Lamont Scott in September, will not face charges, a county district attorney said on Wednesday. “Officer Vinson acted lawfully when he shot Mr. Scott,” Mecklenburg County District Attorney Andrew Murray said in an hour-long press conference. He said the evidence points to Scott possessing a firearm during the incident–which officers at the scene said at the time, but some witnesses refuted–and that Vinson acted in self defense.

“A police officer or any other person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believed, and in fact believed, that he or another person was in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death,” Murray wrote in his report of the investigation. Fifteen total prosectors unanimously agreed to not press charges on Vinson.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, which spurred impassioned protests in Charlotte, officers, witnesses, and enraged protestors debated about whether Scott had a gun on him. Officers said he had a loaded .380 semiautomatic handgun, and a holster strapped to his ankle. In his report, Murray listed the evidence that supported that claim: Scott’s DNA was found on the grip of the handgun; the person who (illegally) sold Scott the gun admitted to doing so; and convenience store footage preceding the incident shows Scott with a bulge on his ankle.

BREAKING: Officer who shot and killed #KeithLamontScott acted lawfully, district attorney says https://t.co/ZShJiEFGR1 pic.twitter.com/9BC3zrk4el

— CNN (@CNN) November 30, 2016

On the afternoon of September 20, officers pulled into the parking lot of an apartment complex in Charlotte’s University City neighborhood, searching for someone with an outstanding warrant. Scott was sitting in his car, holding a gun and a marijuana blunt, according to the officers’ accounts. He exited the car, repeatedly ignored demands to drop his gun, and Vinson opened fire. A video recorded by his wife Rakeyia did not clearly show Scott with a weapon.

Scott’s family was “gracious,” when they were briefed about the prosecutor’s decision, Murray said. In a statement, they said: “While we understand that many in the Charlotte area share our frustration and pain, we ask that everyone work together to fix the system that allowed this tragedy to happen in the first place.” They also addressed the sometimes violent protests that erupted following Scott’s death in their statement: “Responding to violence with violence is never an appropriate response.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Charges for Charlotte Officer Who Shot and Killed Keith Lamont Scott appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday many big cities saw thousands of low-wage workers taking to the streets, protesting in favor of a $15 minimum wage. Union activists, politicians, and church members joined the nationwide demonstrations and almost 200 people were arrested across the U.S.

Workers joined the cause in airports, travel hubs, and highways by walking off their jobs or blocking traffic. About 500 employees at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago took part in a strike, alleging unfair labor practices. Hundreds of people chanted slogans outside of the terminals while police officers had to put up gates to make room for travelers to walk past. “We’re not asking for special treatment, we’re asking for decent treatment. We’re asking for decent wages,” said Kisha Rivera, an airplane cabin cleaner at O’Hare.

Thousands of people planned to walk out from their jobs at different McDonald’s restaurants, according to organizers, and one of the chain’s restaurants in St Louis had its drive-through blocked by people for half an hour. A state senator in Massachusetts who sat down with protesters in the middle of a street in Cambridge was arrested. In North Carolina a reverend was arrested, and in Manhattan four local and state officials were arrested as well, after 200 protesters blocked traffic in the Financial District. By Wednesday morning, arrests were up to 26 in New York City, 36 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 39 in Detroit, and 40 in Los Angeles.

#Durham police have arrested NAACP NC President Rev. William Barber II #Fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/lPN0KRpOHz

— Derrick Lewis (@DerrickQLewis) November 29, 2016

We’re here and we can’t be moved! #Fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/0CMJScioco

— ATLRaiseUp (@ATLRaiseUp) November 29, 2016

Whether or not to raise the minimum wage is always a hot political topic. Liberal think tank Economic Policy Institute says that raising the minimum wage from the current $7.25 per hour to $12 per hour would affect 35 million workers across the nation and help them get off government assistant programs. But conservative organization Employment Policies Institute argues that the raised costs of a higher minimum wage would result in fewer jobs and the closure of businesses.

President-elect Donald Trump has not been very clear on his stance on the minimum wage. At a Fox Business debate last year he said that wages are too high, but later denied having said that, and claimed he only meant that there’s no need to raise the minimum wage. And then this summer he said at a press conference that the federal “minimum wage has to go up” to at least $10, but only a few months earlier he said it should be up to each state to decide. At this point it’s unclear if he’s made up his mind on minimum wage policy.

If someone in America works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty. #Fightfor15

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 29, 2016

Politicians among 26 arrested this morning in Zuccotti Park #Fightfor15 protest, NYPD says: https://t.co/8pEoK3S2KY pic.twitter.com/di1Se39JH5

— DNAinfo New York (@DNAinfoNY) November 29, 2016

The main organizer behind the nationwide protests was the Fight for $15 movement, which is supported by many labor unions. Organizers said that they wanted to draw attention to more areas than just traditional low-wage jobs like fast-food restaurants, by focusing on all kinds of working class Americans. The tactic of protesting at places like airports rather than outside of restaurants, and trying to appeal to people in other fields, seemed to be successful. Workers from childcare facilities, individuals who work in healthcare, and even Uber drivers joined the cause. The question is whether Trump (and other politicians) will listen.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hundreds Arrested at Multiple Minimum Wage Protests appeared first on Law Street.

Protests have erupted in major cosmopolitan cities across America since Tuesday, when Donald Trump shocked the nation with his upset victory. Streams of people crammed the streets of Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Portland, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. over the weekend, many coalescing around Trump properties, chanting and holding signs, and some, clashing with police.

The most violent and contentious protests–deemed riots by the local police–occurred in Portland, Oregon on Saturday evening. People wearing Guy Fawkes masks–now a favored motif of the hacker group Anonymous–and others holding signs, many of which read “Not my President,” flooded the streets. According to media reports from the scene as well as reports from the Portland police, some protesters hurled road flares and rocks at riot police, who were equipped with shields and batons.

Seventy-one people were arrested in Portland. One man was shot at the Morrison Bridge and was later treated at a hospital. Portland police said two 18-year-old men were arrested and charged with attempted murder and unlawful use of a weapon in connection with the shooting. Protests elsewhere, many of which drew thousands of people, were largely peaceful, with people silently walking with encouraging signs preaching empathy for many of the groups that Trump mocked or targeted during his unusual campaign that upended political protocol yet still managed to hand him the White House.

Los Angeles stands with #NeverTrump & #calexit in an **INCREDIBLE** show of solidary on Wilshire Blvd#TrumpProtest pic.twitter.com/wAPa6ied6y

— #CalExit NaphiSoc (@NaphiSoc) November 13, 2016

The protests highlight one of the major fault lines of the bruising 2016 campaign: the disparate worlds of rural and urban America. Most major cosmopolitan cities–Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Washington, D.C.–and many mid-sized ones as well, went blue on Election Day. Smaller towns that are rural and mostly white went to Trump. His divisive rhetoric left deep scars for many who opposed his message and others belonging to groups that were consistently berated by Trump over the past year.

Those scars left a burning desire to protest since Trump’s message won out, and the “not my president” tagline can likely be applied to many liberal pockets on the coasts. But for others, a shred less than a majority of voters, as Hillary Clinton won the popular vote yet lost the Electoral College, Trump is the president they elected and the man they hope will live up to his ubiquitous campaign motto.

For his part, President-elect Trump, in an interview that aired on 60 Minutes Sunday night, said to those who were fearful of his time in office: “Don’t be afraid.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Major Cities Erupt in Protest Over Donald Trump’s Win appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month Polish nationals fought for their reproductive rights after the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) tried to pass a bill designed to criminalize abortions. The proposed statute, which was originally brought forth by an anti-abortion citizens’ initiative and encouraged by the Catholic church, aimed to completely outlaw abortions unless the mother’s life was threatened. Prison sentences for illegal procedures would have also increased from two to five years, in addition to penalizing surgeons who perform unlawful operations.

In the wake of such a proposition, a series of protests dubbed “Black Monday” disrupted the ordinance from gaining further momentum in the predominately Catholic country. Three days after these events unfolded, the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish parliament) overturned the bill in a 352-58 vote–proving the power of an active citizenry. Considering how successful these protests were in persuading the government to discard the bill, Poland nonetheless has an array of political and cultural challenges to overcome before women achieve total self-autonomy. The following article delves into some of these obstacles.

The Magnitude of “Black Monday”

On a conceptual level, these historic actions were inspired by an Icelandic strike in 1975, where 90 percent of the country’s female population abandoned their jobs and domestic duties to denounce rampant workplace discrimination. Propelled by this example, protests were held throughout Poland and other surrounding countries on Monday October 3, 2016. Solidarity events took place in Berlin, Dusseldorf, London, and Paris, although the largest of these assemblies occurred in the Polish capital of Warsaw where approximately 30,000 individuals (clad in black clothing) gathered to rebuke the religious-based injunction. Such an outpouring of support surprised many, considering people only had a day’s notice to prepare for the event. Some even boycotted school and work to show their commitment to the cause.

“The protest was bigger than anyone expected. People were astonished,” said one activist, Agnieszka Graff. “Warsaw was swarming with women in black. It was amazing to feel the energy and the anger, the emotional intensity was incredible.”

During an interview with NPR, Reuters staff member and Polish citizen, Justyna Pawlak, also explained how the protests caught on like wild fire, despite the lack of initial planning:

There wasn’t a real kind of serious organization committee. And what’s interesting is, you know, Poland, as you said, is a very conservative country still, even though the power of the church and the – kind of the sway of the church over the heart and soul of churchgoers has been waning, bishops still have a lot of – a lot of influence over how people vote and how they think. There’s still quite a lot of opposition for abortion on demand in Poland, but many women felt that these new proposed restrictions just simply went too far.

An Unforeseen Political Response

Following these nationwide protests, the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the Polish parliament urged the PiS to reconsider the ordinance. PiS Chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski surprised many by taking this suggestion to heart after witnessing the intensity of the Black Monday demonstrations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the right-wing politician realized that a total ban could potentially have adverse effects later down the road. From his perspective, a complete ban would only embolden future efforts among liberal politicians to ensure unabated access to abortions someday. In the end, Kacynski’s remarks resonated among other senior politicians and even the Catholic clergy, who couldn’t endorse prison sentences for women seeking abortions.

“What you’re proposing isn’t the right course of action,” said Kaczynski. “Considering the situation in the society, what you’re proposing will be a factor that will start processes whose effect will be exactly opposite to what you’re talking about.”

Poland’s Strong Catholic Roots

Compared to other countries in the European Union, Poland’s pre-existing reproductive laws were already among the most restrictive because of the nation’s Catholic roots. Last year approximately 1,000 women received legal abortions, which could only be fulfilled if the fetus was severely damaged, if the mother’s life was jeopardized, or if the pregnancy was caused by incest or rape. Although the recently initiated bill was not ratified, these stipulations still exist today. Faced with such barriers at home and fear of stigmatization, an estimated 150,000 illegal abortions are performed every year in facilities with questionable sanitary conditions. Keeping this in mind, thousands of Polish women also travel abroad to receive abortions, especially in nearby countries such as Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia–termed “abortion tourism.”

These aforementioned policies began in 1993 as a means to replace Poland’s communist-era policies where abortions were once easily obtainable. With 95 percent of the country identifying as Catholic, it is widely acknowledged that the church yields profound “moral authority” over the population and influences people’s political decisions. Some doctors are reluctant to even facilitate abortions, even if the mother’s survival is in peril or if a pregnancy is a result of rape. There have been noted cases where doctors deliberately delayed approving abortions until the twelfth week when it’s too late to remove the fetus. Back in 2012, for example, officials tried to persuade a 14-year-old from opting out of an abortion after being raped. Another problematic incident transpired when a vision-impaired mother, Alicja Tysiąc, was forced to follow through with her pregnancy regardless of the dangers it presented to her eyesight. This brings up the question of human rights and whether or not Poland’s reproductive policies are disregarding Polish women’s wellbeing.

Interest groups such as the Stop Abortion coalition and think-tank Ordo Iuris are still actively trying to enact prohibitive laws against abortions. After all, they are the lobbyists responsible for presenting the Polish parliament with more than 400,000 signatures to start the bill in the first place. At first these groups’ endeavors were backed by the Catholic church. In the long run, though, the clergy could not promote a law allowing for the imprisonment of women and health practitioners. 

Conclusion

Public opinion over abortion appeared to drastically change once the protests materialized. Recent polls indicate that the majority of Poles now disapprove of the ban, not to mention desire the existing set of reproductive laws to become more liberalized. The Economist says that today only 14 percent of Poles condone the original ban (in hindsight), making it highly unpopular among today’s general populace.

The participants of Black Monday may have set a new precedent for other countries with restrictive abortion laws, but pro-choice activists still have a lot of work cut out for them. Certain political parties are currently drafting their own anti-abortion bills and trying to push them into legislation. For example, it is reported that PiS is pushing for a “eugenic abortions” bill that would criminalize abortions for fetuses with abnormalities–meaning that the three existing stipulations for abortions would be dwindled down to only two. So far in PiS’s tenure in Polish parliament, the group has also cut state funding for in-vitro fertilization as well as drafted legislation to ban and criminalize the morning-after pill.

To prevent further “medieval regulations” from being placed on the agenda, Poland’s opposition party, Nowoczesna (meaning “modern” in Polish), have pledged to provide women with more reproductive freedom. The liberal party partnered with the Save the Women group to plan the Black Monday protests. According to them, illegal abortions could cease to exist if the Polish government decided to introduce sex education into the classroom, allocate state-funded contraception, as well as provide wider access to qualified doctors.

Resources

BBC News: Poland Abortion: Parliament Rejects Near-Total Ban

CBC News: Poland’s Proposed Ban on Abortion Part of Broader Push to Turn Back History

Center for Reproductive Rights: Tysiąc v. Poland: Ensuring Effective Access to Legal Abortion

The Conversation: The Battle Over Abortion Rights in Poland is Not Over

Economist: Polish Women Skip Work to Protest Against an Abortion Ban

The Guardian: Poland’s Abortion Plan Near Collapse After Mass Protests

New York Times: Poland Steps Back from Stricter Anti-Abortion Law

NPR: Poland Backs Down on Abortion Plan After Extraordinary Protests

Reuters: Abortion Protests Rattle Polish Ruling Party, May Prompt Rethink

Reuters: Europe Rights Court Condemns Poland in Abortion Rape Case

Reuters: More Polish Women Seen Seeking Abortions Abroad

Vox: Poland Votes Down an Extreme Abortion Ban After Thousands of Women Go on Strike

Wall Street Journal: Poland Rejects Abortion Ban After Protests

Washington Post: Why Would Poland Make its Already Strict Abortion Law Draconian?

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Poland’s Abortion Protests: What was “Black Monday?” appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

History Teacher Stomps on an American Flag

You know it’s going to be an effed up day when you’re sitting in class, learning about freedom of speech and your teacher pulls down the American flag and stomps on it. Lee Francis, a teacher at Massey Hill Classical High School in Fayetteville, N.C., said he took down the flag, took two steps, and almost immediately students left the classroom.

Mr. Francis at Massey Hill Classical HS in Fayetteville stomped all over the American flag…”it was teaching first amendment rights” pic.twitter.com/f8dAR0zPlc

— (@TheMrsH_) September 20, 2016

Residents of Fayetteville have since called him unpatriotic and one observer said that he could stomp on the flag on his own time, but not in the classroom.

Francis maintains that he was simply teaching a lesson and didn’t mean any disrespect. In fact, he’s pretty shocked by the backlash.

He said: “Just because I step on the flag doesn’t mean I step on their graves. It doesn’t mean I step on their bodies as they return from overseas. It means I step on a piece of fabric.”

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota turned violent over the weekend, with Native American protesters from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe facing off against security staff from the oil company building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners. Now, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says it does not oppose a temporary break in the construction.

When the protesters approached construction workers on Saturday, security guards unleashed dogs on them. Six people were bitten, including a young child, according to Standing Rock Sioux Tribe spokesman Steve Sitting Bear. He also said at least 30 people were pepper-sprayed. The spokeswoman for the Morton County Sheriff’s Office, Donnell Presky, said they didn’t have any records of protesters being injured, but that four security guards and two dogs received injuries. She also said the Energy Transfer Partner’s helicopter filmed the protests and handed the footage over to the police.

Pictures on social media do indicate injuries for the American Indian protesters.

Guard dogs & pepper spray were used on #NoDAPL activists resisting construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. pic.twitter.com/siJSXL8AUr

— AJ+ (@ajplus) September 5, 2016

Democracy Now! documented some of the clashes.

The pipeline is estimated to cost $3.8 billion and run through four states. The tribe filed a complaint earlier this summer since it believed the Army Corps didn’t follow proper procedure when it approved Energy Transfer Partners to start building the pipeline. The tribe said the construction would destroy sacred places and burial grounds, and may affect the drinking water in the community.

After the construction started anyways and resulted in violence on Saturday, the tribe filed an emergency motion on Sunday, in which its representative Tim Mentz Sr., wrote that the construction team seemed to have targeted the burial grounds on purpose, starting the digging right where he had asked them not to. This happened even though the actual construction work was going on 20 miles away. He also described the guards with dogs and a helicopter accompanying the digging, as if they expected protests and controversy.

The Army Corps replied to the tribe’s motion by saying it does not oppose a halt in the construction, since the tribe is unlikely to succeed with its lawsuit. However, it did acknowledge that the protests during Labor Day weekend were violent and that it would be in the public interest to preserve peace. According to NPR, it said:

The Corps acknowledges that the public interest would be served by preserving peace near Lake Oahe until the Court can render its well-considered opinion on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Corps therefore does not oppose this short and discrete temporary restraining order.

On the energy company’s website it says it would listen to the opinions of locals to minimize disruptions of the land:

We will listen to and address questions from the community, landowners and other interested stakeholders about the project, proposed routes, landowner communications and more. It is our intent to live up to our promises of openness, honesty and responsiveness before, during and after construction and throughout operations.

The opposite seems to be true when it comes to the Sioux Tribe. But hopefully peace will be maintained during the interruption to construction.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Temporary Halt to Dakota Access Pipeline After Protests Turn Violent appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Law Street Media is attending both the RNC and DNC conventions, and bringing Law Street readers the inside scoop. We’ll be doing day-by-day rundowns and exclusive features. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

Here’s a look at the fourth day of the festivities, courtesy of Law Street reporters Kevin Rizzo and Alec Siegel:

Still Not Many Protesters, But Those Who Came Out Weren’t Messing Around

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

Peter Thiel Talked About Gay Rights

Businessman Peter Thiel took the stage and spoke about his identity as a gay man. He made history, stating: “Every American has a unique identity. I am proud to be gay. I am proud to be a Republican, but most of all I am proud to be an American.”

While Thiel’s speech applauded Trump for not getting distracted with social issues, the GOP platform runs contrary to that message. We’ll have to see if the Republicans heed Thiel’s advice come fall.

Donald Trump Finally Took to the Stage

Check out a look at the facts (and the not-so-true) facts in Trump’s speech here.

We Got Really Excited About Balloons

At the end of Trump’s terrifying speech, a bunch of balloons were released from the ceiling. This was a highlight.

I think I just took more than 50 pictures of balloons

— Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) July 22, 2016

But the balloons also felt a little out of place after Trump’s long and serious acceptance speech. In total Trump spoke for over an hour, giving prepared remarks on topics ranging from crime and lawlessness to trade deals.

Bernie Was Watching too

#RNCwithBerniepic.twitter.com/x5nuSI6AuN

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 22, 2016

Sanders live-Tweeted Trump’s acceptance speech and laid down some pretty strong criticism. Here’s his most popular Tweet:

Trump: “I alone can fix this.”
Is this guy running for president or dictator? #RNCwithBernie

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 22, 2016

He even reached across the aisle to bash Trump:

Looks like Ted Cruz was right about one thing. Trump does not understand what the Constitution is about. #RNCwithBernie

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) July 22, 2016

In the End, We’ve Got Our Matchup

Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo for Law Street Media

As the RNC comes to a close we turn our heads to Philadelphia, which hosts the Democratic National Convention next week. Hillary Clinton is expected to announce her running mate as early as today, at which point the tickets for both major parties will be established. Check back here for more of Law Street’s convention coverage next week.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s up at the RNC?: Law Street’s Day 4 Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Law Street Media is attending both the RNC and DNC conventions, and bringing Law Street readers the inside scoop. We’ll be doing day-by-day rundowns and exclusive features. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

Here’s a look at the third day of the festivities, courtesy of Law Street reporters Kevin Rizzo and Alec Siegel:

The big story of the evening, of course, was Ted Cruz’s speech…

Maybe His Nickname Should Be ‘Stubborn Ted’?

Wednesday evening’s theme was “Make American First Again.” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, in one of the more anticipated speeches of the convention, struck that chord, but mainly just ruffled delegates’ feathers as he glazed over Donald Trump, his eyes dead set on a 2020 run. Cruz spent most of his speech expounding on freedom and American values, and the role of limited government:

America is more than just a land mass between two oceans, America is an ideal. A simple, yet powerful ideal. Freedom matters. For much of human history government power has been the unavoidable constant in life. Government decrees and the people obey, but not here. We have no king or queen, we have no dictator, we the people constrain government. Our nation is exceptional because it was built on the five most beautiful and powerful words in the English language, ‘I want to be free.’

And while he did congratulate the man who christened him ‘Lyin’ Ted’ during the bruising spring campaign season, Cruz did not explicitly endorse Trump. According to media outlets who received advanced transcripts of Cruz’s speech, Trump knew about the non-endorsement as early as Monday. The NYT reported that Trump called Cruz Monday evening in an attempt to secure his support.

Now that we’ve seen Trump’s negotiating skills with Cruz’s convention speech I can’t wait to see our new trade deals #TheArtOfTheDeal

— Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) July 21, 2016

Delegates on the floor showered Cruz with boos and chants of “Say it!” and “Trump!” as it became clear he would not endorse the man who–after an emphatic roll call on Tuesday–will be the official Republican torchbearer come November. As Cruz spoke, the interior of Quicken Loans Arena seemingly shook with the near unanimous discontent from delegates. “I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation,” Cruz cracked. But it seemed like all 50 states and U.S. territories jeered in unison.

WATCH: Ted Cruz doubles down on not explicitly endorsing Donald Trump at #RNCinCLEhttps://t.co/HrVIVjljlkhttps://t.co/qF83Q6ASEK

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) July 21, 2016

And of course, this quote garnered quite a few boos for Cruz: 

.@tedcruz met with boos after saying “vote your conscience” instead of saying Trump’s name https://t.co/yTgdsGVcSx

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) July 21, 2016

The Crowd Seemed to Enjoy the Music Selections

We Met Some Festively-Dressed Delegates

The conventions have long been known as spots for delegates to show off their patriotic fashion choices.

Here are delegates from the American Virgin Islands (left) and Hawaii (right).

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

Police Officers Everywhere you Turn

Police officers from all over the country have a large presence in downtown Cleveland this week. I’ve spotted officers from bordering states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania as well as from states as far as Montana and California. While it’s hard to tell if this event is different from other conventions, the number of officers is particularly striking. There are officers everywhere you look, and so far, they have taken an active approach to maintaining law and order.

Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media

As is the case when a city hosts any major event, outside law enforcement officers are called in to help maintain order and respond to potential disruptions. But in the wake of high-profile and highly polarizing shootings, both of and by police officers, the tone is decidedly different. I’ve seen many people stop to thank police officers and when groups of officers walk down the street or around the convention area many have even been met with applause. That message is prominent in many of this week’s speeches, with frequent references to Blue Lives matter and some offering a full-throated defense of police officers.

A Few Protests But Nothing Big Yet

Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo via Law Street Media

There were two incidents in particular when I noticed the overwhelming number of police officers. On Tuesday afternoon, competing protests drew large crowds in Cleveland’s Public Square. Before things escalated further police officers blocked off the square’s perimeter and filled the interior. They allowed protesters to leave but didn’t let anyone pass the barrier. Over time the situation diffused and police officers outnumbered protesters in the square.

Image courtesy of Kevin Rizzo for Law Street Media

On Wednesday, news broke that protesters were planning a flag burning on East 4th Street, right outside of the entrance to Quicken Loans Arena, drawing large crowds. Officers again flooded the area and blocked more people from entering while police riding horses helped disperse the crowd. Ultimately 17 people were arrested, but the situation never escalated.

Police officers have repeatedly stood in between different competing protests this week. The problem may be that not only are people protesting, but that both sides of a protest are represented and often engaging with each other. There are a number of people protesting at each other, which is what police appear to be most concerned with.  For example, there were anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT protests looking right at each other with a line of officers right in between.

Yet, People Seem Happy?

You could tell during roll call vote yesterday. Even states that didn’t vote Trump proudly announced their delegates for him

— Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) July 21, 2016

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s up at the RNC?: Law Street’s Day 3 Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Protests erupted throughout the nation last week after a California judge sentenced former Stanford University freshman Brock Turner to a six month jail sentence for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster.

People are mad, and there are currently six Change.org petitions protesting Turner’s sentence. If you’re new to the case, here are five reasons why people are outraged:

1. The Judge Was Extremely Lenient

On March 30, Turner was found guilty of three felonies: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.

Then on June 2, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in county jail, which is less than the state’s recommended sentence, followed by three years of formal probation. Turner must also register as a sex offender and participate in a sex offender rehabilitation program. However, with good behavior Turner may only have to serve three months of the prison sentence.

Since the charges carried a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison, Turner’s six months came across as extremely lenient. Apparently the judge worried that a stiffer sentence would have a “severe impact” on the 20-year-old star swimmer.

Many people theorized that the judge offered Turner “special treatment” because he was a Stanford alum as well as a former college athlete. The judge is now facing public demands to resign from office.

2. The Father’s Letter to the Judge

Before sentencing, Turner’s father wrote a letter arguing that his son should receive probation instead of jail time. In the letter Dan A. Turner writes, “He will never be his happy go lucky self with that easy going personality and welcoming smile.”

Turner added, “His life will never be the one that he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life.”

Brock Turner’s father criticized for statement he read to court in sexual assault case: https://t.co/ELMMkUfQtu pic.twitter.com/A9CcKvBiWu

— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) June 7, 2016

At no point did the letter acknowledge that Brock committed the assault, instead the letter focused entirely on Brock’s pain and suffering rather than his victim’s. Eventually Dan A. Turner apologized for his “20 minutes of action” comment, which he claims was “misinterpreted by people.”

3. Biased Media Coverage

Mugshot Double Standard

For weeks, whenever the media reported on Turner, this photo was used:

Brock Turner’s friend blames his felony sexual-assault conviction on political correctness: https://t.co/GGXH6VcwjR pic.twitter.com/TO3KQ1k8cP

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) June 6, 2016

After a while this photo of a suited Turner smiling for his yearbook photo began to drum up its own controversy. Many people wondered why Turner’s booking photo wasn’t being used instead. It wasn’t until recently that Turner’s mugshot from the night he was arrested was finally released to the public.

The mugshot taken of Brock Turner the night of his arrest https://t.co/NVU6ZmXTqe pic.twitter.com/3lKGu9W7Sl

— deathandtaxes (@DeathAndTaxes) June 7, 2016

These photos illustrate a double standard in the way the media treats young, white criminals versus young, black victims of violence.  For an excellent explainer on this double standard, read this think piece by Mic.

Washington Post Coverage

The Washington Post was also criticized for its coverage of Turner’s verdict. In an article titled “All-American swimmer found guilty of sexually assaulting unconscious woman on Stanford campus,” the paper dedicated several paragraphs to Turner’s swimming career and squashed Olympic dreams.

Even though Turner had already been convicted, the paper showed him preferential treatment by focusing on his accomplishments and the impact the sentence would have on his once-promising future, rather than the severity of his crimes.

4. The Victim’s Powerful Letter

After the sentencing, the victim, whose identity has been protected, wrote a heart wrenching 12-page letter addressed to Turner that has since gone viral. In the letter, she discusses learning about her assault, reliving that night in court, and struggling to move forward after everything that happened to her.

She writes,

If you think I was spared, came out unscathed, that today I ride off into sunset, while you suffer the greatest blow, you are mistaken. Nobody wins. We have all been devastated, we have all been trying to find some meaning in all of this suffering. Your damage was concrete; stripped of titles, degrees, enrollment. My damage was internal, unseen, I carry it with me. You took away my worth, my privacy, my energy, my time, my safety, my intimacy, my confidence, my own voice, until today.

Unfortunately, the victim’s emotional message had no real effect of the outcome of Turner’s sentencing.

You can read the victim’s powerful letter in full here.

5. We Can’t Even Call Him a Rapist

It’s important to note that the reason I haven’t used the word “rapist” to define Turner throughout this article is not due to personal bias, but California law.

According to New York Magazine,

In California, rape is defined as someone using “physical force, intimidation, duress, or threats to persuade the victim to engage in sexual intercourse.” In the case of Turner’s rape of an unconscious woman, witnesses and testimony determined that Turner penetrated his victim with a foreign object, not a sexual organ.

So in other words California is telling me and the rest of the world that Turner was able to rip the clothes from his victim’s body, insert his fingers inside of her, grope her breasts, and hump her half naked body, but we can’t call him a rapist?

Like almost everything else involving this case, it simply doesn’t seem fair.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Reasons Why People Are Protesting Brock Turner’s Sentence appeared first on Law Street.

Campaign season is upon us, and that means plenty of rallies and debates…and hilarious protest signs. Each of the candidates is bound to have someone show up to a rally donned in a creative outfit or holding an angry sign to expose the candidates’ supposed wrong doings (or in one case, their secret acting career in “The Office”). Nonetheless, protesters never cease to amaze us with their bizarre connections and the unique ideas for protests. Here are some of our favorites from this year’s election cycle so far:

Ted Cruz likes Nickelback

NICKELBACK Employee of the Month. January 2016.#Election2016#Nickelback4Presidentpic.twitter.com/L4j2Y7hKbX

— Nickelback (@Nickelback) January 12, 2016

Obviously, if Ted Cruz likes Nickelback, that disqualifies him as a legitimate candidate for the presidency. Will he really be taken seriously by other world leaders? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves now.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Best Campaign Rally Protest Signs of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

While Iran has a parliament and president, like many western nations, its political structure is far more opaque. From the Supreme Leader to influential religious councils, understanding Iran’s leadership presents a challenge in and of itself. This challenge has been highlighted by a number of high profile events where it was unclear who had the final say in important Iranian policy decisions. Read on to learn how the Iran leadership was developed, how it is currently structured, and how that leadership defines itself both domestically and abroad.

The Revolution and Aftermath

The Iranian Revolution that occurred in 1979 was years in the making; its origins go back to at least to 1953. During that year, the CIA helped overthrow the recently elected prime minister in favor of the Shah, who had Western leanings and was an opponent of Soviet-style communism. While the Shah honored his loyalty to the United States, he was less kind to his own people, frequently imprisoning and even torturing those opposing him.

This set the stage for the revolution of 1979. This movement was led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who returned from Paris where he had been exiled during the Shah’s rise. In place of the Shah’s one-party government, the Ayatollah installed his own based on Islamic teachings, placing himself as the country’s Supreme Leader. The new emphasis on strict adherence to Islam meant a rollback on the Shah’s few, more liberal reforms concerning the economy and women’s rights.

The following video details the specifics of the Iranian Revolution:

The Shah, who had come to power following World War II, ruled as the head of a constitutional monarchy with himself as the final arbiter. When he was deposed by Khomeini the democratic institutions that had existed were kept, however, any power they had was drained. In the new system, Khomeini ruled as the unquestioned leader of his own government which focused heavily on instilling Islamic concepts and resisting interaction with Western nations he viewed as corrupting Iran. The next sections will detail the unelected and elected elements of Khomeini’s Iran and how they are structured so that his power is virtually unchallenged.

Unelected Officials

Similar to the U.S. government, part of Iran’s government is appointed, independent of any elections. In the Iranian case, however, this aspect of the government is unquestionably the most powerful part, including many important institutions.

The Supreme Leader

As the final decision maker, the Supreme Leader has either direct or indirect control over nearly the entire government because his primary responsibility is to maintain the continued existence of the Islamic State of Iran. To ensure this, the Ayatollah has power over all three branches of government, the military, and even the state-run media. He also has power or influence on virtually every other political institution, the economy, and major policy decisions. In other words then, the Supreme Leader is the undisputed power in the Iranian regime.

The person who spearheaded the 1979 revolution and the first to hold this all important office was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini founded the state and defined his role in it by championing four key characteristics, “justice, independence, self-sufficiency, and Islamic Piety.” Khomeini also offered a religious justification for the office, believing he held the place on earth of a 12th Imam, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammed who has since gone into hiding. Khomeini died in 1989 with no appointed successor.

The man who succeeded him and the current supreme leader of Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has served in this position since 1989 making him the second longest current ruler in the Middle East. Khamenei was a longtime loyalist to Khomeini and also served two terms as Iran’s president before outmaneuvering rivals for the coveted Supreme Leader position.

The Guardian Council

Next in Iran’s unelected hierarchy is the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council is arguably the most important Iranian institution aside from the Supreme Leader. The council has the final say on legislation passed by the parliament and maintains the ability to determine which candidates are eligible to run for public office in the parliament, presidency, and the Assembly of Experts. There are 12 members, six chosen by the Supreme Leader and six chosen by the judiciary and confirmed by parliament. The members of this group serve six-year terms. This group’s ability to evaluate legislation is part of its role that is similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court evaluates laws based on their adherence to the U.S. Constitution, the Guardian Council determines whether laws are compliant with both Iran’s constitution and Islamic law.

The Expediency Council

The Expediency Council serves as advisors to the Supreme Leader, much as the cabinet does to the president. This assembly is directly appointed by the Supreme Leader and consists of highly regarded political, social, and religious authorities. Aside from advising the Supreme Leader, this body’s main responsibility is to act as the final arbiter in disputes between the Parliament and Guardian Council. In 2005, it was also granted sweeping powers by the Supreme Leader over all branches of the government.

The Judiciary

Iran’s judiciary is a multi-tiered system of courts tasked with overseeing the enforcement of the law and settling grievances among Iranian citizens. The Supreme Leader has a considerable amount of control over the judiciary as he appoints its leader, who then appoints the head of the Supreme Court and the top public prosecutor. There are three main branches of the judiciary, the public courts, the revolutionary courts, and the special clerical court. While the public court deals with criminal and civil matters, the latter two courts deal with everything else.

Based the structure of the judiciary and its position beneath the Supreme Leader, many believe that it is often used as a political tool to squash dissent and maintain strict control over the people of Iran. Critics also note that the trial process in Iran is often very opaque and restrictive, allowing greater government influence.

The Revolutionary Guard

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is yet another body whose leadership is appointed by the Supreme Leader, along with the regular army. This group was created following the revolution to defend its key figures and fight its opponents. Unsurprisingly, this group only answers to the Supreme Leader. Aside from being in charge of militia branches in every town in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard has widespread influence throughout Iranian life.

The Revolutionary Guard’s special place both within the military and within Iran itself comes from its initial purpose of serving as an armed body loyal to the revolution as the regular army that had been loyal to the departed Shah. Since its inception, the guard has acquired billions of dollars from a variety of activities such as shipping, construction, defense contracts, and oil production. The group uses many of these assets to fund militant or extremist groups abroad such as Hezbollah. The Revolutionary Guard is so powerful, in fact, that some of the American and E.U. sanctions have targeted the IRGC specifically.

The two other major components of Iran’s defense forces are the army and the ministry of intelligence and security, which is essentially the Iranian CIA. All three of these groups are under the direction of the Supreme National Security Council. While this agency is again tentatively under the control of the president, in reality, the Supreme Leader possesses most of the control.

Elected Officials

Also similar to the United States, a portion of the Iranian government is elected by the people. Anyone over 18, including women, is eligible to vote. Also like in the American system, the different branches have some checks on one another.

The President and Cabinet

The presidency in Iran shares some of the characteristics of the same position in the United States. Namely, the presidential term is four years, and a president can only be elected for two consecutive terms. However, while the president, in theory, is the second most powerful person in Iran behind the supreme leader, reality suggests that the office’s power is drastically curtailed by unelected leaders. Not only does the president answer to the Guardian Council, which chooses who can run for the position in the first place, but the Supreme Leader retains final authority over most major political decisions. In fact, the President of Iran is the only executive in the world to not have control over the country’s military.

Parliament

Iran’s parliament has 290 members and is similar to most western legislatures. Notably, this body has its membership determined through popular elections. Once elected, members have the power to introduce and pass laws as well as summon and impeach cabinet ministers and the president. Once again, though, Parliament’s power and even who is eligible to run for office is determined by the Guardian Council. Unlike in the United States, the Iranian legislature is a unicameral body whose members serve four-year terms. The Iranian parliament’s sessions and its minutes are open to the public.

Assembly of Experts

The final part of Iran’s leadership that is directly elected is the Assembly of Experts. There are 86 members of this body and each one is elected to an eight-year term. To be considered, each member must be a cleric or religious leader. This group has the critical responsibility of appointing and subsequently monitoring the Supreme Leader. Members of this group are vetted first by the Guardian Council, the primary check on its influence. This group meets for only one week each year and although it has the power to depose the Supreme Leader it has never challenged any of his decisions since the Islamic Republic of Iran formed. The accompanying video gives a concise explanation of how the Iranian government is organized:

Major Challenges Facing Iran’s Leadership

Domestic Dissent

Protests in Iran became particularly significant in the 20th century, as Iranian citizens frequently spoke out against the government. For the first half of the century, this was aimed at the decadent dynastic government and later colonial masters. The resistance then focused on the Shah, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution. Following the revolution, discontent emerged in 2009 when people took to the streets to dispute then President Ahmadinejad’s reelection. In 2011, another flare-up of protests occurred concurrently with the Arab Spring revolts in nearby countries. Much of the protest again focused on the contentious 2009 elections and were led by the Green Movement.

International Relations

Political decisions in Iran are often the result of a complex process that is typically driven by the Supreme Leader. Given the nature of the Iranian government, several international concerns have significant implications for the country and how its government responds.

Possibly the most pressing concern facing Iran is its proxy war with Saudi Arabia. The two countries have effectively positioned themselves as the defenders and standard bearers of Islam, but champion different denominations. This is especially true of the Supreme Leader who feels it is his mission to lead Islam and who also views Saudi Arabia as an obstacle in the way of that. This proxy conflict threatens to turn into more direct action if Iran reneges on its nuclear deal. The video below details the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia:

The recent nuclear deal between Iran and the United States brings up another important challenge for the country. While the two groups have worked together to finalize the deal, a conflict remains. Aside from the history of distrust between both countries, Iran’s support for a number of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas–which are considered terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department–and its anti-Israel policy remain hurdles.

Conclusion

Iran has a large and complex leadership structure, which originated in the aftermath of the revolution in 1979. On one hand are democratic institutions such as the president and parliament, which are similar to American and Western models. On the other are a series of appointed offices that wield a significant portion of political power in the country. At the heart of this system lies the Supreme Leader who has control over many of the appointments and final say over virtually all of the country’s affairs. This system itself is a reaction to the previous secular regime of the Shah, which was founded upon a greater emphasis on Islamic law as well as inherent animosity toward the United States.

Iran is a mixture of theocracy and democracy, and understanding how Iran is governed and run is critical to understanding how to effectively deal with it. As history has shown, many countries, particularly the United States, have misinterpreted or misjudged the nation’s leadership.

Resources

The New York Times: 1979: Iran’s Islamic Revolution

United States Institute of Peace: The Supreme Leader

BBC News: Guide: How Iran is Ruled

Your Middle East: Iran’s Century of Protest

Global Security.org: Pasdaran: Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)

The Guardian: Iran Protests See Reinvigorated Activists Take to the Streets in Thousands

Politico: The Hidden Consequences of the Oil Crash

The New York Times: U.S. and Iran Both Conflict and Converge

Encyclopedia Britannica: Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi

United States Institute of Peace: The Oil and Gas Industry

PBS: The Structure of Power in Iran

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran’s Leadership: Inside the Complex Regime appeared first on Law Street.

Activism in some form dates back to the beginning of politics. The United States itself was founded on the back of a series of protests that incited a rebellion and created a nation. Protesting or, more generally, activism are ancient practices that have persisted to the current day. However, while speaking out is nothing new, the platform people use has evolved from face to face, to written, to social media. Protests were once announced through picket lines; now they are championed through hashtags, while the same constant goal of seeking to correct an injustice has remained. Read on to see the history of protests in the United States, how they have changed, and if they have staying power in a rapid-fire digital age.

 A History of Discontent

The United States has been a hotbed for activism even before its inception. Multiple protests in a number of states set off the Revolutionary War and led to an American nation. Protests against the powers that be did not stop there, in fact, they continued on almost immediately starting with Shay’s Rebellion. In this case, farmers in Massachusetts organized and fought against the government over taxes and penalties for debt. Although the rebellion was quickly crushed, the threat it personified hastened the end of the Articles of Confederation and the creation of the Constitution.

Protests diversified as well, with a shift from farmers to the issues of slavery and labor rights. In 1831, Nat Turner launched his infamous slave rebellion which claimed the lives of 60 white people in Southampton County, Virginia. That rebellion, along with many other events, laid the groundwork for the ultimate litmus test on slavery, the Civil War.

Even after the Civil War, race remained a contentious issue, but the battle over labor also took center stage. One of the most infamous examples was the Pullman strike of 1884. This strike over declining wages involved a mass worker walkout, nearly crippling the nation’s rail industry. However, the strike ended when President Grover Cleveland sent federal troops in to help local security forces root out the protesters.

The next century had many of the same issues, with frequent protests over race or labor grievances. It also saw several other groups assert their rights as well. One such group was women seeking suffrage. While the seminal Seneca Falls Convention was held the century before, women still found themselves unable to vote at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, after trying a variety of tactics of varying effectiveness, highlighted most publicly by protests at the White House gates during WWI as well as women’s service during the war, the government eventually granted women the right to vote in 1920.

LGBT individuals also began asserting their rights publicly with a major turning point coming at the Stonewall Inn in 1969 where protesters clashed with police. Native American protestors particularly reemerged during this time too. In 1973, at Wounded Knee, South Dakota the American Indian Movement seized the town and engaged police and law enforcement in a 71-day standoff where no one was allowed to come or go. The area had been the site of one of the most gruesome massacres in history the century before, when in 1890 between 250 and 300 people, including many women and children were killed without reason.

The major movement of the 20th century, though, was the fight by Black Americans to receive the rights they were granted following the Civil War. Along with the right to vote and an end to segregation, among many other concerns, this movement was distinct in its scale and use of non-violent means. The civil rights effort also became tied to other concerns of the era, including the fight against poverty and protests over Vietnam. While the protests organized by Martin Luther King as well as many against the Vietnam War preached peace, they were often met with force. One of the most infamous examples is the killing of four Kent State students in 1970 by National Guard troops. The video below looks at one of the most prominent moments of activism the Civil Rights movement:

The activism that characterized the first 200 years of American history was a ground-up affair that was often very violent. In the beginning, violence was used as means for both sides, although even then the authorities often acted as instigators. But beginning in the 20th century and taking focus during Martin Luther King’s Civil Rights movement, the notion of non-violent resistance came to the forefront. While this certainly did not lead to the end of physical confrontations between protesters and those they protested against, it signaled a shift in the tactics used by protest groups. But with the rise of personal computers and the internet, protests have shifted again, with protestors moving from the physical world to the virtual.

Going Virtual

Unsurprisingly, as technology has permeated the world, activism has shifted from grassroots to the internet. Like other types of activism, the digital movement goes by a variety of names depending on the means used; perhaps the most all-encompassing is virtual activism. As the name implies, virtual activism uses a variety of digital mediums to get its message out including: the internet, cell phones, proxy servers, blogs, online petitioners, and most especially social media.

While this type of activism has only recently come to the forefront, it has been around for several decades. It was not until the 1990s, though, that it started gaining traction through new platforms like the launch of MoveOn.org and the use of email by protesters to organize during protests in Seattle against the WTO in 1999. Virtual activism continued and increased during the decade of the 2000s with protests against immigration policies, terrorist groups, education cuts, and authoritarianism.

This type of activism really hit the mainstream in 2011 with the Arab Spring. In this case, protesters used social media to coordinate demonstrations, denounce authority figures, and circumvent government influence. In more recent years, protests and movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter have continued to articulate their concerns over the internet expanding the medium as a tool. The following video looks at the potential of virtual activism:

Effectiveness

For all of the internet and social media’s ability to reach unprecedented audiences and provide up to the minute information, one question continues to linger: is this form of activism actually effective, or is it quickly forgotten from one day to the next? Online activism certainly has its limitations, which generally can be divided into two groups: first are the technical limitations like access to the internet, computer literacy, and government censorship, to name a few. An example of this is Iran’s censorship of the internet following riots stemming from an election in 2009 dubbed the Green Revolution.

The second type of limitation is highlighted well by another Law Street Media explainer about Hashtag Activism: can it be effective without a physical presence? As the piece explains, the main criticism of this new age of activism is that it lacks traditional aspects such as a leader and the requirement that people put themselves in literal harm’s way, so it may not carry the same weight as traditional forms of protest. This argument certainly has some substance to it, but even some of the hardest fought-for gains have lost their impact over the years despite being earned the old fashion way. From successful movements like the abortion and voting rights efforts, countervailing forces have removed many gains. Whether or not that is a good thing depends on your views, but the point is that traditional protests can also struggle to become or remain effective as well.

The accompanying video looks at how social media can play a role in activism:

Conclusion

When people look at protests or activism, everyone wants to point to the seminal moments–when someone stood up to armed police officers or stared down a tank. However, these moments are few and far between. In the meantime, there is a lot of suffering that goes unreported, speeches that go unheard, and a great amount of effort that ultimately may not lead to anything. In some cases even when circumstances appear to change, another incident shows they have not or previous gains are repealed or reduced.

While the manner of protests may have changed, the nature of them has not. At the core of each is a feeling by a person, a group or even a nation of an injustice that simply must be corrected. This started with people in the streets, continued through television and has now arrived in individual homes and workspaces via the internet and social media. Does this change in medium make these movements any less effective or any less righteous? Ultimately, it seems like only time will tell.

Until that time, however, what is vital is maintaining a spirit of questioning, of dissenting when something is wrong. Dissent is not always bad–it often moves the conversation, opens minds and paves the way for action. After all, it was Shay’s Rebellion that prompted Thomas Jefferson to write his friend James Madison saying, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.”

Resources

History: Shay’s Rebellion

History Matters: The Nat Turner Rebellion

Encyclopedia of Chicago: Pullman Strike

History: Seneca Falls Convention Begins

Civil Rights: Stonewall Riots

The Atlantic: Occupy Wounded Knee

Britannica: American Civil Rights Movement

New York Times: 4 Kent State Students Killed by Troops

Reset: Digital and Online Activism

Mashable: History of Internet Activism

TeleSur: What Became of Occupy Wall Street

Think Progress: Forty-two years after Roe v. Wade, The Sad State of Abortion Rights in the United States

Early America: Jefferson Letters to Madison

History Channel: The Fight for Women’s Suffrage

Encyclopedia of the Great Plains: Wounded Knee Massacre

Law Street Media: Hashtag Activism: Is It #Effective?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Evolution of Activism: From the Streets to Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

In June of 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office cancelled six federal trademark registrations for the Washington Redskins, declaring the team name “disparaging to Native Americans.”  This ruling was reinforced earlier today and while owner Dan Snyder is scrambling to defend the trademark, this ruling will unfortunately not actually force Snyder to change the name of the team.

Stripping the team of the trademark is an important first step, but there has been no other legal action leveled against the team that will result in an official name change. Snyder and team President Bruce Allen have doubled down on preserving the team name, finding allies in presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Despite overwhelming protest from the Native American community (and the American populace in general), it seems like the leadership of the team is determined to retain the name by any means necessary. In 2013, Snyder released a letter claiming that:

After 81 years, the team name ‘Redskins’ continues to hold the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to be in the years to come.  We are Redskins Nation and we owe it to our fans and coaches and players, past and present, to preserve that heritage.

In a nation where there are infinite loopholes that let teams retain offensive names, the Redskins are an omnipresent reminder of exactly how far we still have to go to create and protect racial equality. Snyder’s disconnect from the reality of the American political landscape and the importance of inclusive language is nothing short of disturbing. Eighty-one years of ignoring organized protest against a racial slur isn’t a legacy, it’s a travesty. Snyder “owes” nothing to the “nation”–football fans turn up to games because they want to see their favorite players win, not because they are demonstrating solidarity with the management’s decision to stay on the wrong side of history. His decision to retain the name is purely financial, which is exactly why he has fought so hard to retain the trademarks.

Snyder appears to be fully aware of the nonsensical nature of his claim, as evidenced by his establishment of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation in 2014, which is dedicated to providing resources to Native communities across the country.  If the term “Redskins” is truly a term full of memories and heritage, why would he use the term “Original Americans” when establishing his foundation?  The contradictory nature of the Foundation’s name reveals that Snyder is not ignorant of the offensive nature of the slur. The Foundation is a transparent attempt to assuage his guilt and pacify Native American activists. Despite Snyder’s efforts to build a positive PR strategy, a new generation of Native youth is growing up surrounded by the slur–seeing it on television screens, t-shirts, and toys across the country. Constant use of the slur is not only frustrating for this generation, it endangers their perception of safety and their ability to learn. If Snyder truly wants to clear his conscience and make peace with the protesters, he’ll need to put in more than minimal effort. This is not a minor gaffe or an honest mistake. The use of a racial slur in the team’s name is a conscious action, which prioritizes profit over equality and inclusion.

Not everyone subscribes to the idea of karma, but if there ever was a case for its existence, it is the Washington Redskins. Since Dan Snyder purchased the team, the team has lost spectacularly and consistently. There are dozens of reasons to change the team’s name, but seeing as none of them have yet swayed management, I’d like to put forward a new one:

Snyder, perhaps if you took a racial slur off of your helmets, your jerseys, your field and your merchandise, the stars would align in your favor and you would be able to win a game.

I hate to think that such an insane idea could actually impact Snyder’s attitude, but at this point, it’s not a stretch to think that a man this deluded about the reality of the world believes that stars can control his fate.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Changing The Redskins Mascot: Washington, D.C.’s Greatest Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

Logic tells us that if two wrongs don’t make a right, then many, many wrongs can’t possibly make any sort of right either. That’s all I could think about when I saw the coverage of the shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri Wednesday night.

It’s the latest event in a saga that in some ways began this August with the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, and in some ways has been happening for years. It’s sparked conversations on police brutality and militarization, racism, systemic biases against young black men in our society, the justice system, and so much more. But even though those conversations are happening on a national level, what’s happening on the ground isn’t quite as academic or theoretical. It’s real, it’s scary, and honestly, last night’s events show that it probably isn’t going to get better anytime soon.

Ferguson’s police chief Tom Jackson resigned. That was probably inevitable after the release of a pretty damning Department of Justice report that highlighted serious racial biases and constitutional breaks in Ferguson. For a more extensive look at the main takeaways of that report, check out fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans’ article here.

After Jackson resigned, a rally started at the Ferguson police department. While the protesters were obviously pleased that the head of the Ferguson police department had resigned, they didn’t think it was enough to stem clear instances of racial profiling, bias, and intimidation within the force. Protesters actually advocated for the mayor of Ferguson, James Knowles III, to step down as well. Around midnight, those protests took a turn when gunshots rang out. Witnesses say there were four in all. Two found targets–one in the shoulder of a 41-year-old St. Louis County officer, and another in the face of a 32-year-old officer from the nearby town of Webster Groves. Both were in serious condition, but were recently released from the hospital.

Details of who exactly fired those shots remain a little fuzzy. Police have stated that they came from the cluster of protesters, but the protesters themselves are saying that they came from further away on a nearby hill. Police are saying that they have leads, but other than that, what will happen seems up in the air.

In light of the incident, St. Louis County Police and the Mississippi Highway Patrol are going to be taking over controlling the protests in the hopes that things don’t become more violent.

Many around the country have condemned the actions of the shooter. Attorney General Eric Holder, for example, stated:

This heinous assault on two brave law enforcement officers was inexcusable and repugnant. I condemn violence against any public safety officials in the strongest terms, and the Department of Justice will never accept any threats or violence directed at those who serve and protect our communities. … Such senseless acts of violence threaten the very reforms that nonviolent protesters in Ferguson and around the country have been working towards for the past several months.

Despite the fact that new forces are being brought in, I’m not sure it’s safe to say that issues in Ferguson are going to get any better. This is turmoil that has been stewing for years, and Michael Brown’s death just set it boiling. While the protesters have been mostly peaceful, there are always people who do bad things–people who commit those wrongs that can never add up to a right. Hopefully, real dialogue and reform will start happening soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Police Officers Shot in Ferguson Show Tensions Haven’t Abated appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, December 20, Ismaaiyl Brinsley shot and killed two NYPD officers in their patrol car, then proceeded to commit suicide with the same gun on the platform of a nearby subway station. The officers, Wenjian Liu, 32, and Rafael Ramos, 40, were shot in the head and upper body by Brinsley’s semiautomatic handgun. Although this shooting occurred outside of recent protests in the city, which have been almost completely nonviolent, tensions between the NYPD, protesters, local communities, and politicians continue to grow.

Brinsley boarded a bus from Baltimore to New York on Saturday morning with the intention to kill police officers, an intention that he expressed on social media that morning.  He posted a picture of a silver handgun on Instagram with the caption, “I’m Putting Wings On Pigs Today. They Take 1 Of Ours…Let’s Take 2 of Theirs.” He also referenced the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner in the same post.

After arriving in Manhattan, he made his way to Brooklyn where he ambushed Liu and Ramos.  In a press conference with Mayor de Blasio, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton responded to the murders saying, “quite simply they were assassinated.”

Earlier that morning Brinsley got into a fight with his ex-girlfriend, Shaneka Nicole Thompson, in Baltimore. The argument ended after Brinsley shot Thompson in the stomach, stole her phone, and fled the scene according to Baltimore County Police. As of Sunday, Thomson was in critical, but stable, condition in a local Baltimore hospital. A friend of Thompson’s notified Baltimore police later that day after seeing Brinsley’s Instagram photo, and an alert was sent to the NYPD shortly before the Brinsley killed Liu and Ramos.

Acting Alone

It is important to realize that Brinsley was not a participant in recent protests in New York, and his actions do not represent a departure from the peaceful methods employed up to this point. Instead, Brinsley was a man with a long history of arrests and a record of mental issues. He was arrested 19 times for various minor offenses, many of which included firearms, the Washington Post reported. In 2011, he received a two-year sentence in a Georgia prison for felony gun possession, though his actual release date is difficult to determine.

According to relatives, Ismaaiyl Brinsley was on medication for a brief period and he admitted to being under the care of a psychiatrist or in a mental institution during a court hearing. His family further noted that he likely had some undiagnosed mental issues and according to his sister, he was “an emotionally troubled kid. He needed help and didn’t get it.” The police have identified an increasingly aggressive social media history, which became particularly antigovernment and antipolice in recent weeks. Relatives also told authorities that Brinsley attempted to hang himself a year ago.

Tensions Mount

The murders of Officers Liu and Ramos have intensified the debate between protesters, the police, and city officials. The president of the NYPD’s largest union, Patrick Lynch, said that the murders are the result of the recent protests and Mayor de Blasio’s response. According to Lynch, “there is blood on many hands, from those that incited violence under the guise of protest to try to tear down what police officers did every day.”

Supporters of the police argue that since Eric Garner decision, Mayor de Blasio has not sufficiently assisted police officers. From meeting with protest groups to taking a hard line against police misconduct and brutality, many disagree with the mayor’s treatment of the police. In fact, a group of officers publicly turned their backs on the mayor before a press conference on Saturday night.

Whether or not you agree with the protesters or the police, arguing that recent nonviolent protests caused the deaths of two police officers is completely off base. The evidence revealed so far indicates that the shooter acted alone. Brinsley, who had a long arrest record and a troubled history, was not compelled to kill two police officers by peaceful activism. While recent events may have created tension between police officers and communities, connecting them to an unwarranted act of violence is simply unjustified.

Instead, we should see the recent shooting for what it is–the act of a man with a long criminal history and mental health problems. Arguing that Brinsley shot two police officers because of protests fails to explain why he also shot his ex-girlfriend that same morning. Brinsley was clearly a troubled man, and while that does not come close to justifying his actions, it does indicate that what he did does not extend beyond himself. Recent protests may have brought the issue to public consciousness as they intended to do–they represent one response to a set of events. Other reactions, specifically violent ones, represent an unrelated and unjustified response.

Recent protests in New York raise opposition to a legitimate issue–police violence–and attempt to open up a dialogue with the police and local officials. Both supporters and critics alike should at least acknowledge the movement’s nonviolent nature. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but conflating violence with recent protests will only serve to make matters worse. Civil rights leaders have already denounced the killings. While some may disagree with their decision not to heed Mayor de Blasio’s call to pause demonstrations until after the officers’ funerals, the fact is that this shooting was an unrelated event.

The deaths of officers Liu and Ramos truly are tragedies. Regardless of context, any act of such unwarranted violence can never be condoned. Americans should be able to mourn their deaths as well as the death of Eric Garner at the same time without feeling any tension between the two. Being opposed to police misconduct is not the same as being antipolice, and supporting the police does not mean you should ignore their mistakes.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Deaths Escalate Tensions in New York appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

There are some things that I have a hard time understanding and this is one of those instances. Columbia Law School has announced that it will allow its students to postpone their exams.

Why, you ask? Well my lovelies “the law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period,” reads interim dean Robert Scott’s message to students this weekend. “In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled,” Scott continued. Scott is referencing the recent non-indictment decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.

I understand that there are some differences of opinion in both cases over the grand juries’ decisions, but for a law school to concede to the notion that its own law students have been traumatized by them is just baffling. These students are literally spending entire months learning about the law but somehow may not be able to handle the outcomes of our justice system? Where is the logic in that? Columbia Law School just basically said that its law students do not understand the very thing they are learning.

Should a student have his own opinion and perspective on a subject? Absolutely! But should he be allowed to take advantage of the situation and get away with postponing his exams? Absolutely NOT!

If students cannot handle the decision of a grand jury, and fully understand that process, then they should drop out of school and find a new profession. Not everyone is indicted. Not everyone wins their case This should be the perfect time to teach students about the process, not coddle them. Plus, let’s be realistic: some of these students will take full advantage of a situation to buy themselves a little more time to study or do things they otherwise would not be able to do if they actually took their finals on the dates already scheduled.

Interim Dean Scott also states that “for some law students, particularly, though not only, students of color, this chain of events is all the more profound as it threatens to undermine a sense that the law is a fundamental pillar of society designed to protect fairness, due process and equality.” So, what it seems that he’s saying is that law students could very well have lost their respect and passion for the law because the grand jury’s made a decision based off of facts and testimony? I’m more miffed by the fact that this man thinks that law students will lose respect for the law because the grand jury did its job!

Laws are not perfect, people are not perfect and things don’t always go the way that you want, but to not be able to handle that reality is concerning.

I can appreciate that Columbia Law School is trying to take care of its students but this is not the way to go. Embrace the controversy and make this a learning moment for all.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia Law Students Can Postpone Exams in Light of Grand Jury Decisions appeared first on Law Street.

Writing about technology and its many uses has never been more important to me than today.  The civil disobedience, sadness, and anger expressed in Ferguson, Missouri by its residents and sympathizers would most likely have gone unnoticed by the majority of the nation if it weren’t for social media outlets like Youtube, Twitter, Vine, and Facebook.  To attribute the proper value to these technologies, we must first identify the root cause of the demonstrations which have led to a militarized police force and the enforcement of pseudo-martial law.  This post in no way condones, encourages, or repudiates any of the methods used by law enforcement or protesters, nor does it seek to pass judgment on the incomplete police investigation concerning the death of Michael Brown.  Instead, this post will point out what has happened, and highlight the use of technology to keep the public informed when formal media outlets were unable to.

On August 9th, a recent high school graduate and prospective college student by the name of Michael Brown was killed by a member of the Ferguson Police Department.  There is much speculation surrounding the death, including the order of events leading to it.  Because an official investigation is ongoing, the only thing we know for certain is that Michael Brown, although unarmed, was shot and killed by a Ferguson Police officer.  The people of Ferguson, left heartbroken and mourning, decided to commemorate Michael’s death with a candlelight vigil in the same neighborhood where Mr. Brown was killed.  However, the Ferguson police made an appearance at the vigil, bringing with them police dogs and brandishing high powered assault weapons. In response, the crowds’ emotions turned from grief, to outrage, and escalated to protest as documented by Vine and Youtube uploads as well as Tweets and Facebook posts.

In the midst of the protests, a handful of opportunists taking advantage of high emotions and tension destroyed the property of privately owned businesses by looting, vandalizing, and setting said businesses on fire.  This small group of criminals turned a peaceful protest into a riot, causing the St. Louis County Police Department to take over law enforcement in the area by using a strategy of militarized policing.  Characterizing the entire group of protesters as looters and rioters led to the denigration of the entire protest. This allowed the looters to become scapegoats, which subsequently justified militarized police aggression.  The denigration of a group of people and scapegoating resulting in justified aggression are all characteristic of systemic oppression.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, St. Louis County PD increased tension when it informed Ferguson residents that neither the autopsy nor the identity of the officer involved in the killing of Michael Brown, would be released to the public.  As protests continued, the peaceful crowds were met with heavily armored trucks and tanks, high powered assault rifles, snipers perched ready and waiting, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The protesters were told by police standing in front of tanks and using loudspeakers, that their right to peacefully assemble was not being denied.  Although a curfew was not set, police made it clear that they wanted protesters off of the streets by nightfall and used tear gas and rubber bullets to push non-compliant protesters back. In some cases, as documented by Vine videos, police shot tear gas canisters into residential areas, including the fenced in backyard of a protester that refused to go inside his home, although he was protesting on his own property.

Police detained journalists and shot tear gas at a news crew they saw filming them.  After the news crew ran away from their van and equipment to escape the tear gas, police were photographed removing their cameras and pointing them toward the ground so they could no longer record police activity.  This is where the pseudo-martial law comes into play. To be clear, martial law was at no time officially declared, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Disallowing the press to report activity; intimidating protesters with visuals of military-like riot gear; requiring protesters that are peacefully assembling to return to their homes by nightfall; detaining reporters without cause; and the use of militarized police enforcement are all characteristics of martial law.

The use of militarized law enforcement has been noted and called into question by government officials on both sides of the political spectrum.  Outrage by people following the activity in Ferguson on social media forums was voiced both nationally and internationally.  Photos, Vine and Youtube videos, as well as tweets and Facebook posts were the source of the outrage that led to protests in major cities throughout the country and internationally in cities like London.  There was even advice given in the form of Youtube videos to protesters in Ferguson by Palestinians on how to stay protected from tear gas.  As a result of public backlash against militarized policing, the Governor of Missouri, Mr. Jay Nixon, announced that Missouri Highway Patrol would take over law enforcement in Ferguson, and try to set a different tone.

The tone set by Missouri Highway Patrol was one of peace and understanding. Captain Ronald Johnson described his personal connection to not only Ferguson but to the killing of Michael Brown. The change in police technique was noted by formal media outlets as well as social media postings which reported MHP officers walking with protesters instead of standing against them. These officers were not dressed in riot gear nor did they use methods such as tear gas or rubber bullets in their interactions with Ferguson protesters.  In addition, the Ferguson Police Chief has announced they will comply with one of the requests of the protesters, to release the identity of the police officer who shot Michael Brown. That identity was released earlier today.

Not only did social media keep the public informed of minute by minute occurrences in Ferguson, but social media users also pointed out what they believed to be disparities in formal media coverage with hashtags on Twitter and Instagram like #IfIWasGunnedDown.  This particular hashtag was used to show ways in which news coverage portrays black victims by displaying unflattering images as opposed to more positive looking images to influence character assassination of the victims.  Other hashtags like #Ferguson were used to allow social media users to quickly find information related to the Ferguson protests.  While social media is an amazing platform that can be used to inform the public, it also showed differing public opinions.  Some users voiced support for the use of military-like force against protesters and used the incident of looting as evidence for its need.  Others voiced disapproval that such force was being used and accused militarized police enforcement of inciting more anger among peaceful protesters.

It’s unclear what will happen in Ferguson but it should be appreciated that people were able to inform the public, voice their opinions, and urge a public discussion on topics such as race relations, militarized policing, civil liberties, police brutality, and what people consider to be justice or injustice.  Social media opened up the problems of a town with a population of 21,000 to the world, causing people to come together in solidarity and peaceful protest.  If it weren’t for the openness of the Internet here in the US, we may have never known what was happening in Ferguson.  Whether you agree or disagree with what is going on in Ferguson, we can all take heart in knowing we were all able to use social media and technology to be informed and come to our own conclusions.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Ferguson: How Social Media Kept America Informed appeared first on Law Street.

“According to the mural, soccer is the opium of the masses, the bread and circuses of today’s Brazil: let them eat football!”
-The Guardian

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 police clad in riot gear and wielding clubs fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and noise bombs into crowds of protesters in São Paulo, about 10 km away from the Corinthians arena where the first game of the 2014 FIFA World Cup took place. Six people were injured, and three protesters arrested. This is only a sample of the protests surrounding the soccer tournament over the past year. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, the country’s first female leader of the so-called Workers’ Party, has subsequently deployed 100,000 police and 57,000 military to guard stadiums, teams’ hotels, and training grounds for the duration of the World Cup.

Such incendiary scenes of social protest in Brazil might conjure images of France in 1789 at the eve of revolution. Parallels abound: the people demand basic services in a grossly unequal society, and their government responds flippantly with gestures of added luxury for the wealthy; ‘Let them Eat Football.’ Brazil hosts the FIFA World Cup at an estimated cost of $11.5 billion in preparations, dolled out from public coffers, not to mention the lives of eight workers who died while constructing grandiose stadiums across the country. The expenditures for the most expensive World Cup in history are well documented (here, here and here) as are the nefarious practices of FIFA (here and here); an additional $12 billion is being spent on projects to host the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio De Janeiro. Meanwhile, the Brazilian people lack basic healthcare services, affordable public transportation and education, adequate housing and security, while suffering from trenchant institutionalized racial and economic discrimination.

According to President Rousseff, anti-FIFA demonstrations across the county are part of a “systemic campaign” against the Brazilian government, yet protesters do not see their plight as one isolated to the country. “The crisis is worldwide,” an anonymous member of the Brazilian anarchist Black Bloc group told the Global Post. “People are seeing that representative democracy doesn’t represent anyone — here in Brazil, in London, in Greece or anywhere.” And political graffiti is the undercurrent of this global cacophony of dissent.

Graffiti that reads “FIFA go home” or “Fuck the World Cup” have appeared on walls from São Paul to Rio De Janeiro, distilling the disdain of the Brazilian people into iconic slogans that they repeat during protests. Murals that celebrate the World Cup have been vandalized; a mural in Rio de Janeiro depicting Neymar da Silva Santos was painted over so the figure wore a hood used iconically by the anarchist Black Bloc. The most pervasive political graffiti, however, are murals that explicitly illustrate the concerns of protesters: One piece by Brazilian artist Cranio depicts a man flushing money down the toilet bowl; in another, the 2014 World Cup mascot points a rifle at a message that reads, ‘We Want Education’ and ‘Not Repression’. Protests iterated at demonstrations physically are thus represented on walls throughout the country.

“People already have the feeling and that image condensed this feeling,” São Paulo-based graffiti artist Paulo Ito told Slate in May when photos of his mural in Rio de Janeiro began circulating through social media. The piece shows a weeping, emaciated Brazilian boy, fork and knife in hand, being served a football on a silver plate. “The message of this painting is powerful,” the Guardian interpreted. “Amid the sporting hysteria, poverty not only goes on, but the lives of the marginalized have arguably been made worse.” The image has since gone viral accumulating 3,310 likes and 4,749 shares on Ito’s Facebook account alone; on the popular Facebook page TV Revolta it has been shared and liked more than 40,000 times. Graffiti is a “good way to expose the country’s problems,” Paulo Ito explained. “If the government doesn’t want to expose these things it’s because they feel ashamed. If they feel ashamed by this they might take it more seriously – at least, that’s our intention.”

Artists B. Shanti and A. Signl of Captain Broderline, an international graffiti collective that was outlawed in Egypt last year, share this aim, producing their own political art in Brazil. “We just want to support the people on the street and give them like a voice that when all the people come here and look at the nice World Cup they also see the resistance movement.” Their mural, organized with Amnesty International Brazil, stands across from a police headquarters in Rio de Janeiro, displaying construction shovels attached to a giant soccer ball demolishing favelas along a regal red carpet — it is dedicated to all Brazilians evicted during the preparations of the World Cup.

But can such graffiti be harbingers of revolution? “Look at these images from far enough back – from the point of view of world television, with its cameras aimed at the football pitch – and they become a sideshow to the spectacle in the stadiums,” said Jonathon Jones in the Guardian. “But perhaps this is one of those moments when the images break open, the dreams and nightmares of society spill from fantasy into reality, and the hungry kid gets fed. In that case, these paintings will become icons of a revolution started by sport. It is, however, more likely they are simply adding a bit of a sting to the usual, overfamiliar opiate.” In the case of Brazil, we cannot hold up graffiti’s illegality as an indication of its political effectiveness. Graffiti has been legal in Rio de Janeiro since 2009, when the Brazilian government passed Law 706/07; today, artists can mark public buildings, including columns, walls, and construction siding, as well as private property if done with the consent of the owners. As compared to Egypt, where the government has banned political graffiti, Brazil has a relatively liberal policy regarding street art, and why not? — public art has been statistically proven to increase the value of real estate.

There is, however, definite political meaning in the graffiti critiquing the government and the World Cup; and what is more significant, in my opinion, is the solidarity that this graffiti has given to the disparate protests in Brazil. All voices rally behind the slogans echoed by the graffiti in the street — eg, “FIFA go home.” The inclusion of international graffiti collectives like Captain Borderline, moreover, aligns Brazilian dissidents with those around the world. Allusions to the French Revolution are not overstated. “When people go on the street and create pressure they become political actors,” said an anonymous Brazilian anarchist, this “new generation is very radical.” And graffiti plays a fundamental role in making it so.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Jordi Bernabeu Farrus via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Cup Brazil: ‘Let Them Eat Football!’ appeared first on Law Street.

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi won the Egyptian presidential election last Wednesday with 96 percent of the vote, according to Aljazeera. This landslide comes as no surprise, since Egypt’s largest media outlets — namely Egypt’s largest state-owned newspaper, Al Gomhuria, and Al Kahera Wal Nas TV Network — have backed El-Sisi since July 2013 when, as Minister of Defense, he led the ousting of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi. Nonetheless, El-Sisi’s election does not change much in Egypt as repressive authoritarian policies, instituted after the ousting of Morsi, continue to plague the Egyptian people.

One measure, proposed in November 2013, banned “abusive graffiti” on buildings in Egypt, and organized government committees in cities to monitor political street art. Violators could end up with four years in prison or EGP 100,000 in fines, according to Egyptian Independent. On the road to Democracy, El-Sisi has promised to restore stability to the State, vowing to “care for the interests of the people,” and build a stronger Egypt. Apparently this means arresting and executing political dissidents, maintaining a tight state-propaganda machine, and setting loose the military as a police force among the Egyptian people. But banning graffiti?

Since 2011, protests swelled into riots that would topple former President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian graffiti has surged. “Almost every event that happened was mirrored on the streets with art,” according to Basama Hamdy, co-author Walls of Freedom, which chronicles the rise of political graffiti since January 25, 2011. It was the “people’s newspaper,” said Hamdy, with a subversive edge. “Some messages were really dangerous,” said co-author and German graffiti artist Don “Stone” Karl, “they told stories that the state, the military or the police wanted to cover up…Graffiti was never more powerful as it is in Egypt today…Where have you seen mothers cry in front of the graffiti murals of their sons? Where have you seen men pray in front of the portraits of their friends?” Graffiti art has since become a devisive political weapon, and a key target for El-Sisi’s repressive regime.

Graffiti artist Mohamed Fahmy, who goes by the name Ganzeer, is the face of El-Sisi’s recent crackdown on political graffiti. On May 9, 2014, Egyptian news anchor Osama Kamal on his show Al Raees Wel Nas (“The President and The People”) labeled the artist a “terrorist” supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a serious accusation since the El-Sisi regime sentenced ten Muslim Brotherhood supporters to death last Saturday for inciting violence and political protest. Ganzeer, who was arrested for this political art in 2011, is now in hiding, although he and his cohorts, Finnish street artist Sampsa and the German-based art collective Captain Borderline, refuse to be silenced. In the summer of 2013, Sampsa and Ganzeer collaborated on a poster critiquing aggressive military crackdowns ordered by El-Sisi, then Minister of Defense; “The Army Above All” depicts a bloodthirsty soldier standing triumphant.

“Ganzeer” courtesy of Gigi Ibrahim via Flickr

Sampsa and Ganzeer have used social media, particularly the hashtag #SisiWarCrimes, to publicize their graffiti and call attention to military abuses. On August 14, 2013, news broke of the worst mass killing in modern Egyptian history, during the military suppression of encampments of pro-Morsi supporters. “We sat watching YouTube clips of Egyptians getting murdered,” Sampsa recalled. “What Sisi needs to begin to understand is that a larger audience is now watching his every move.”

Egyptian street artists like Ganzeer and Sampsa see “a clear progression in Sisi’s silencing of opposition from the NGOs, the Muslim Brotherhood, the youth movement, non-compliant journalists,” writes Bob Duggan of Bigthink.com, “and now, at the bottom of the food chain, street artists.” It is a disgrace that artists would be targeted in such a “Stalin-ish way,” Sampsa exclaimed. “This is the democracy that Sisi is offering in Egypt — absolute rule — absolute oppression of dissent.” In a blog post responding to the recent defamation, Ganzeer sees political graffiti as a source of information to the State, rather than a threat: “By paying attention to what we do, perhaps the State can better understand popular grievances and adjust its policies and governance accordingly, rather than invest so many resources into trying to shut us up.”

As El-Sisi assumes the presidency, though, we can expect more of the same repressive tactics used against the Egyptian people; the military will continue to arrest, and execute political dissidents, while State propaganda will discredit and censor contrarian voices in media. It is much more difficult, however, to control the decentralized protest of graffiti artists. “People forget that the streets belong to the people,” said Ganzeer in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor. “They think that they’re some kind of official government-controlled entity. I think it’s important to remind people that they’re not.” Going forward, political graffiti will remain a voice of democracy in Egypt.

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Defining Egyptian Democracy Through Graffiti appeared first on Law Street.

Ukraine is a country in turmoil. There’s no other way around it. Protests have flared up in the nation’s capitol, and other cities in the northwest region of Ukraine. The movement is being called Euromaiden, and these protests are fiery, violent, and for at least five protesters at this point, deadly. The images coming out are powerful, moving, and frankly, horrifying. This one below is of a protester in Kiev with the fire that has been set by his compatriots to prevent government forces from breaching the barricade line. This is what’s happening in Ukraine right now.

So what’s going on? What we know is that the catalyst for the protests appears to be a decision made by Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych. For years, the Ukranian government has been attempting to move closer to the European Union. The proposed political and economic association pact would allow Ukrainian citizens to travel through the other EU nations without visas, leading to significantly more opportunities. The EU would gain an ally, and Ukraine would have to institute new laws as mandated by the EU. It truly seemed like a win-win by both sides.

But in November, Yanukovych backed out of the agreement. This was just the tip of the iceberg, because since then, things have gotten dramatically worse in Ukraine. The government has begun to pass laws that are being described by the protesters as draconian and dictatorial in nature. Protests have been outlawed, and protesters are being tracked. The government is using satellites to pinpoint the phone of everyone who visits the square in Kiev where dissenters are the thickest. Those numbers are being recorded, monitored, and being sent messages from the government condemning the actions of the phones’ owners. Other laws include but are no means limited to: participation in “mass disruptions” will incur 10-15 years imprisonment; it’s illegal to drive a car in a column more than 5 cars long; it’s illegal to set up a sound system without permission; setting up a tent is punishable by 15 days in prison; and the government can disable the internet at will.

This is not just a shallow protest based on the EU situation, but rather a grand debate about the future of Ukraine and the cultural ties that split the country in two. The Washington Post’s Max Fisher made an incredibly interesting infographic map that illustrates this perfectly.

This map shows the divide in Ukraine. The country is literally split in two. The northwest area is predominantly Ukrainian-speaking, has close ties to Europe, tends to have mostly Roman Catholics, and did not vote for Yanukovych. They are instead being led by a few main opposition leaders, Vladmir Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleg Tyagnybok. The southeast area is mostly Russian-speaking, is economically and culturally linked to Russia.

And that right there is the crux of this issue. Ukraine is a nation that’s facing an identity crisis. It’s pretty clear that Yanukovych caved on the EU deal because of the pressure from the Russians–Yanukovych has admitted that himself. After all, Russia has cut off gas exports and other important economic ties when Ukraine’s actions have moved outside of their interests.

This is a big international political issue for a lot of reasons. Obviously, Ukraine is not the only country to face severe protests, civil strife, and dictatorial policies this year and it would be disingenuous not to recognize that. But the reason that this situation, in particular, has caught my attention is because it is symbolic of a larger conflict. The Cold War is over but there’s still a fundamental struggle between Russia and Western Europe. There’s still a systemic distrust.

I majored in international affairs, specifically, security. That means that I have taken way too many classes on war, genocide, and civil conflict. And while, I can by no means call myself any sort of expert, I do have a background in the topic. The thing is, every theorist will tell you differently, but we don’t know why outbreaks like these happen. Theorists will weigh grievance vs. greed, identity issues, systemic issues, and external issues, such as the interplay between Europe and Russia. And the international affairs student in me wants to digest all of that, and give you a reason why this is happening. But I can’t. And that’s not just because this entire situation has yet to play out. It’s because I want to respect the protesters who are risking their lives in the name of something in which they believe so strongly. What happens in Ukraine has the potential to fundamentally transform Eastern Europe, and by extension, global politics. Again.

Editor’s Update:

Ukraine’s president accepted the resignation of his Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, and cabinet of ministers, today, in concession to the opposition leaders and demonstrators who are currently protesting his rule. Additionally, parliament voted to scrap the laws previously mentioned above that have provoked the violent escalation in the country’s political crisis.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Mstyslav Chernov via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No End in Sight for Ukraine appeared first on Law Street.

After five years the Turkish court issued 17 life sentences to prominent figures among the government, military and media on Monday.  However, the final sentencing of the Ergenekon trial is only part of its significance for the government and the Turkish people.  In a country with a long history of military coups, this trial may represent the decline in the military’s influence in the political sphere.  Others contend that the trial is an example of government suppression of its opposition.  During the past five years there has been a significant change in people’s opinion of the ruling Justice and Development Party, with harsh responses to protests causing it to be perceived as increasingly more authoritarian.

The Egenekon trial is also perceived to be part of an emerging trend in the Turkish judicial system where people have frequently been prosecuted based on wide reaching anti-terrorism laws.  The government has been facing an increasing amount of criticism as free speech and expression has been significantly limited in recent years.  It is also important to note that government opposition has not been limited to one specific group within the Turkish populace, rather it has been spread throughout a never before seen mixture of people.  This trial marks another step towards authority consolidation within the government and has caused a dramatic backlash from the people.  As dissatisfaction continues, how far the Turkish protests will go remains to be seen, however an end to the demonstrations does not appear to be coming any time soon.

[BBC]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Dawid Krawczyk via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unrest Continues in Turkey After Verdict in Five-Year Corruption Trial appeared first on Law Street.

Detroit’s bankruptcy case will continue without legal challenges. The decision by Judge Steven Rhodes of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court halts all litigation against the city, its emergency manager and Gov. Rick Snyder.

Protests by retired city employees over potential pension cuts and a potential challenge to the city’s Chapter 9 filings will be addressed in upcoming hearings. Judge Rhodes said the Federal Bankruptcy Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over this case.

Protesters gathered around the downtown Detroit courthouse while the Judge reviewed arguments on whether or not Mr. Snyder had crossed his authoritative boundaries when forcing the city into the largest municipal bankruptcy case in American History.

[NYTimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ian Freimuth via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Clears Way for Detroit Bankruptcy Case appeared first on Law Street.