In honor of International Women’s Day, organizers of the Women’s March have declared March 8 “A Day Without a Woman.” Here’s what you need to know about the strike and how you can get involved.

How Can I Participate?

According to the organizers’ website, anyone, anywhere can participate in “A Day Without a Woman” in the following ways:

1. Women take the day off, from paid and unpaid labor
2. Avoid shopping for one day (with exceptions for small, women- and minority-owned businesses).
3. Wear RED in solidarity with A Day Without A Woman
4. Male allies lean into care giving on March 8, and use the day to call out decision-makers at the workplace and in the government to extend equal pay and adequate paid family leave for women.

According to the Huffington Post, all 16 public schools in Alexandria, Virginia, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools in North Carolina, and at least one preschool in Brooklyn, New York, have canceled classes Wednesday in anticipation of staff shortages since the vast majority of teachers are women.

Some businesses and organizations, like NARAL Pro-Choice America, have also chosen to close their doors in solidarity with the strike.

What Is the Goal of “A Day Without a Woman”?

The goal of A Day Without a Woman is to both oppose President Donald Trump and “highlight the economic power and significance that women have in the US and global economies, while calling attention to the economic injustices women and gender nonconforming people continue to face.” The strike hopes to promote awareness for women’s equality issues including: the gender pay gap, paid family leave, and reproductive rights.

Will It Work?

It’s hard to say. The only way a strike works is if people actually participate. As Quartz points out, privileged women are more likely to be the ones participating in the strike. A large number of working-class women are expected to abstain from the strike due to the potential repercussions they could face.

Put simply, many women can’t afford to take off an unpaid day of work, or lack any paid time off. Others fear losing their jobs if they strike. In February, a story about twelve employees at the I Don’t Car Bar & Grill in Catoosa, Oklahoma went viral after they were fired via text for staying home to participate in the Immigrant Strike.

The women strike organizers address the issue of privilege, writing:

We must be diligent and look out for each other, using our privilege on behalf of others when it is called for. Social activism is not a privilege. It is a necessity born out of a moral imperative and an imminent threat.

Given the historic number of participants who attended Women’s March events across the country, this strike has the potential to be extremely disruptive. But if even a mere fraction of paid and unpaid women stay home on Wednesday, the organizers will have proven their point–the world needs women!

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 What is the “Day Without A Woman” Strike? 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.

In January, almost half a million people joined the Women’s March in Washington, DC while tens of thousands more marched in smaller protests across the country. The Women’s March has been called the largest single day protest in recorded American history–and the organizers behind the march are not letting their momentum fade. This week, they announced plans for a “Day Without a Woman,” a general strike for women across the country and perhaps even around the globe.

Details on when the strike will take place have yet to be released but a surge of support is evident across social media platforms. The successful Women’s Strike on Inauguration Day, during which over 7,000 workers went on strike from “both paid and unpaid work,” could serve as a valuable template for organizers of a national strike. Those who marched in January seem ready and willing to strike so the challenge for the organizers may not be mass participation but instead efficacy.

Strikes often shut down a single sector of a single industry–a school, a factory, a mine–but they can also go city or district-wide, forcing local governments and employers to cave under pressure. Shutting down a company on a national level is a herculean task, but it can be done–however, the Women’s March organizers are not targeting a single company, or even a single industry. Their vision involves women (and men who would strike in solidarity) striking in the same vein as the Black Monday protests for women’s reproductive health that took place in Poland in 2016–a national day of strike in every industry, at every level, so large that it could not be represented by a single union or cause.

This type of strike could make for a second wave of impressive protests across the nation but it won’t necessarily cripple the economy of the country–strikers will take a vacation day or an unpaid day off and then return to work the next day. The strikers themselves will be the ones who will have to make a sacrifice, as their employers likely won’t lose any money from an employee being absent for a single day.

The Black Monday strikes were powerful but did not come close to stalling the economy of Poland. Unions have historically found strength in the length of their strikes–going without heat, teachers, or transport infuriates the public and makes a company or regulator cave to public demand for a return to usual service. However, when a strike is not concentrated on a single industry, public services and the general economy continue to operate as per usual. Another challenge for the strike will be laying out a concise set of demands. The Black Monday protests were targeted toward a single abortion bill, which ultimately did not pass, whereas the Women’s Strike would be working against a larger set of issues and legislation.

The Women’s Strike is only in its infancy, barely even a viable practice at the moment, yet it seems to be a largely symbolic act. That being said, a national strike can still open important dialogues, influence the opinions of elected officials, and engage citizens who may have been apathetic in the past. Ultimately, the strike will not disrupt the American economy but it will unite women in a common act of civil disobedience.

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 The Challenges of Building a National Women’s Strike appeared first on Law Street.

Groups of Canadians and Europeans headed to the Women’s March on Washington claim they were detained and denied entry at the U.S. border after disclosing plans to attend the protests. According to Joseph Decunha from Montreal, the first thing the border agent asked him was, “are you anti- or pro-Trump?” He was traveling on Thursday with two American citizens and they shared their plans to attend the march with the border agents. All of them were then required to be photographed and have their fingerprints stamped. In the end, the Americans could cross but Decunha wasn’t allowed. He said:

They told me I was being denied entry for administrative reasons. According to the agent, my traveling to the United States for the purpose of protesting didn’t constitute a valid reason to cross.

Decunha said that the border agent also asked him if he had travelled to the Middle East and if he believes in violence. “It’s concerning to see that at border crossings you’re being screened for what your political beliefs are,” he said. “It felt like, if we had been pro-Trump, we would have absolutely been allowed entry.”

US Border Patrol is asking people if they’re pro/anti-Trump, denying people entry if they’re attending the March https://t.co/75vaUPdVK9

— Kelly Hills (@rocza) January 21, 2017

Sasha Dyck was in another group of eight people—six Canadians, two French citizens—who traveled in two cars to the same border crossing as Decunha, located between St Bernard de Lacolle in Quebec and Champlain in New York. When they stated that they intended on attending the women’s march, the border agents reportedly told them to pull over and started a two-hour interrogation. They also had to provide their fingerprints and be photographed. Agents searched the contents of their phones, as well as their cars. France is a part of the Visa Waiver Program that lets foreign nationals enter the U.S. without a visa. But the agents told the French citizens they would need to apply for one if they wanted to enter the U.S. in the future.

And so it begins…Canadians, including a dual Cdn-US citizen, denied entry to USA. https://t.co/BtD0QPsJMD

— NutkinNB (@NutkinNB) January 20, 2017

Dyck said the agents told the rest of the group that they were “headed home today” without any reason given. The agents said that if they tried to cross the border again that weekend, they would be arrested. But Dyck also drove to the U.S. after Obama’s win in 2009, and says that was a very different experience: “I couldn’t even get in for this one, whereas at the other one, the guy at the border literally gave me a high five when I came in and everybody was just like, ‘welcome,’” he said. He holds dual citizenship, but didn’t have his American passport with him this time.

Yet another group of people was allegedly stopped at the same border crossing the same day. British man Joe Kroese was driving to Washington with one Canadian and two Americans to participate in the women’s march when they were stopped. They also went through the same steps of questioning, fingerprints, and photos, after which Kroese and his Canadian friend were denied entry and told to not try to travel to the U.S. for a couple of months.

Kroese, who is a student in Montreal, reports that he was told the same thing as the French citizens—that he would need a visa if traveling to the U.S. in the future. “They took my phone and started going through my texts,” he said. He also said there was another car with Canadians heading to the march, and the agents asked the driver of that car if he practiced Islam and if he spoke Arabic. “They wanted to spook us a bit. It felt like a kind of intimidation.”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has not responded to media’s requests for comment, but has said in statements that it can’t comment on individual cases for privacy reasons.

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 Canadians Traveling to the Protests Report Being Denied Entry to the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.