cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7704676

by Nyazsche

Dbzero Governance Vote Post https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/63525728

Ahoy mateys!

A few of our users have recently pointed out that a lot of the pro-Zionist accounts on the fediverse nowadays seem to come from the feddit.org instance.

But whatever the excuse happens to be, they need to do better imo. Israel is currently the most violent, fascist and genocidal nation state in the Middle East (if you exclude the US military bases there). And yet feddit.org seems to regard the Palestinians fighting against Israel’s ongoing illegal occupation of their land as the real terrorists. ....

More context

Our instance already voted to ban pro-Zionist accounts (see https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/60585441 for reference) and the rule that was implemented is here: Golden Rule #8.

As further context, you can find relevant comments and discussion in this post by a banned feddit admin in MoG (that fact they chose to post in MoG is in itself quite telling), and this post about their defederation from quokk.au over anti-semitism allegations has recently become active again. ...

Note 2: If you think feddit.org deserves a full instance ban instead, or have alternative suggestions, then please leave your comments below. If enough people think that’s the better option, then we’ll do that instead.

In the end the Post had around 70% of support by dbzer0 users, who in the comments also called for defederation.

Here is a Link to Dbzer0 instances tab https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/instances where if you go to blocked instances you can see fedddit.org is now defederated

i dont think feddit has made a post now, but when they do i will add it

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7681432

By earth liberation studios

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7691718

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29122

PBD Podcast

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

On Tuesday, the president of the billionaire-backed Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, appeared on the influential far-right PBD podcast to discuss gender-affirming care. During his appearance, he echoed usual far-right anti-transgender talking points, including linking being transgender to being inherently violent. Then, the conversation turned towards what the Heritage Foundation was working on when it comes to the future of transgender people. It was during this shift that Roberts darkly announced that his solution to being transgender was simple: "You outlaw it," and that the organization was working to ban gender-affirming care at all ages through an incremental process he described as "radical incrementalism."

"But where there continues to be disagreement is on what you do with adults. At Heritage, we believe that so-called transgender surgery is bad for anybody because of what you saw in Rhode Island yesterday," said Roberts, referencing a domestic violence shooting at a Rhode Island ice rink the day before. "There does seem to be a mounting body of evidence that suggests a correlation between that surgery at any age, mental health issues, and increasingly, although we're running the numbers on this at Heritage, acts of violence. We have to come to grips with that as a society, in a way that transcends left versus right, because this really is about the human condition." "How do you address this, though?" replied host Patrick Bet-David. "You outlaw it," Roberts responded.

Then, when asked if transgender adults should have their medication taken away, Roberts endorsed the idea, stating, "We like that idea, too. One of the reasons is that we not only work in coalitions, but we often work toward an ultimate goal via incremental steps—sometimes people will call us radical incrementalists. We're willing to take a quarter of the enchilada if we can keep working there. So if that's the kind of thing that policymakers can agree on left and right, Heritage would be fully supportive of that, knowing that ultimately we have an ideal position that would be much stronger than that."

See the clip here:

The Heritage Foundation is the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, which calls for cutting federal funding for gender-affirming care for both children and adults and equates being transgender to pornography. The organization has been a driving force behind anti-transgender legislation nationwide, with its staffers directly assisting in the drafting and promotion of state-level care bans and its analysts testifying in statehouses. Heritage is funded through a web of dark money networks, including DonorsTrust, which gave the foundation $365,000 specifically earmarked for "Going On Offense On Gender Ideology." Its board includes billionaire conservative megadonor Rebekah Mercer, while board member Sean Fieler has funneled at least $18 million since 2010 to anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ organizations, including a group that supported Uganda's law criminalizing homosexuality with the death penalty.

The organization's open call for gender-affirming care bans for all ages echoes earlier conversations among conservative legislators in places like Ohio and Michigan for similar policy goals. In a leaked Twitter Space from January 2024, legislators behind anti-trans bills, including Representative Gary Click of Ohio—the sponsor of the state's youth care ban—openly discussed how their plan was to end gender-affirming care for everyone. "In terms of endgame, why are we allowing these practices for anyone?" asked Michigan Representative Josh Schriver, in a conversation referring specifically to adults. Click, who has ties to the Heritage Foundation, confirmed the strategy: "We have to take one bite at a time, do it incrementally." Roberts' language on PBD is strikingly similar—his "radical incrementalism" and willingness to "take a quarter of the enchilada" mirrors Click's "small bites" almost word for word, suggesting a coordinated long-term strategy towards adult care bans.

It is significant that the conversation happened on the PBD podcast. Hosted by Patrick Bet-David, the show reaches millions through its combined YouTube channels. The podcast has provided a platform for far-right figures to promote conspiracy theories and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, including guests who have argued that homosexuality is a "worldview" being "inflicted" on children. That the head of the organization behind Project 2025 chose this venue to openly call for outlawing gender-affirming care for adults suggests a growing comfort by the organization to be more open about its plans.

Gender-affirming care bans have been increasingly targeting adults. In 2023, Florida's SB 254 banned nurse practitioners from providing gender-affirming care, resulting in 80% of trans adult care being eliminated overnight. That same year, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey issued an emergency rule targeting transgender people of all ages with requirements so onerous they amounted to a de facto ban; it was blocked in court and withdrawn after roughly three weeks. In 2025, Puerto Rico signed the most extreme care ban in the United States or its territories, criminalizing care for anyone under 21 with penalties of up to 15 years in prison. And of course, Trump’s recent executive orders ban gender affirming care to the age of 19.

One thing is clear: gender-affirming care bans have never been about science, despite attempts by far-right organizations to launder their lobbying efforts through pseudoscientific hate groups and overseas "reviews." Rather, it’s always been about hate. That much is made clear by the openly-stated agenda of a billionaire-funded political machine that has always been working towards one goal: the elimination of transgender people from public life. The only thing that has changed is that they are now saying it out loud.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

---

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7691718

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29122

PBD Podcast

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

On Tuesday, the president of the billionaire-backed Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, appeared on the influential far-right PBD podcast to discuss gender-affirming care. During his appearance, he echoed usual far-right anti-transgender talking points, including linking being transgender to being inherently violent. Then, the conversation turned towards what the Heritage Foundation was working on when it comes to the future of transgender people. It was during this shift that Roberts darkly announced that his solution to being transgender was simple: "You outlaw it," and that the organization was working to ban gender-affirming care at all ages through an incremental process he described as "radical incrementalism."

"But where there continues to be disagreement is on what you do with adults. At Heritage, we believe that so-called transgender surgery is bad for anybody because of what you saw in Rhode Island yesterday," said Roberts, referencing a domestic violence shooting at a Rhode Island ice rink the day before. "There does seem to be a mounting body of evidence that suggests a correlation between that surgery at any age, mental health issues, and increasingly, although we're running the numbers on this at Heritage, acts of violence. We have to come to grips with that as a society, in a way that transcends left versus right, because this really is about the human condition." "How do you address this, though?" replied host Patrick Bet-David. "You outlaw it," Roberts responded.

Then, when asked if transgender adults should have their medication taken away, Roberts endorsed the idea, stating, "We like that idea, too. One of the reasons is that we not only work in coalitions, but we often work toward an ultimate goal via incremental steps—sometimes people will call us radical incrementalists. We're willing to take a quarter of the enchilada if we can keep working there. So if that's the kind of thing that policymakers can agree on left and right, Heritage would be fully supportive of that, knowing that ultimately we have an ideal position that would be much stronger than that."

See the clip here:

The Heritage Foundation is the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, which calls for cutting federal funding for gender-affirming care for both children and adults and equates being transgender to pornography. The organization has been a driving force behind anti-transgender legislation nationwide, with its staffers directly assisting in the drafting and promotion of state-level care bans and its analysts testifying in statehouses. Heritage is funded through a web of dark money networks, including DonorsTrust, which gave the foundation $365,000 specifically earmarked for "Going On Offense On Gender Ideology." Its board includes billionaire conservative megadonor Rebekah Mercer, while board member Sean Fieler has funneled at least $18 million since 2010 to anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ organizations, including a group that supported Uganda's law criminalizing homosexuality with the death penalty.

The organization's open call for gender-affirming care bans for all ages echoes earlier conversations among conservative legislators in places like Ohio and Michigan for similar policy goals. In a leaked Twitter Space from January 2024, legislators behind anti-trans bills, including Representative Gary Click of Ohio—the sponsor of the state's youth care ban—openly discussed how their plan was to end gender-affirming care for everyone. "In terms of endgame, why are we allowing these practices for anyone?" asked Michigan Representative Josh Schriver, in a conversation referring specifically to adults. Click, who has ties to the Heritage Foundation, confirmed the strategy: "We have to take one bite at a time, do it incrementally." Roberts' language on PBD is strikingly similar—his "radical incrementalism" and willingness to "take a quarter of the enchilada" mirrors Click's "small bites" almost word for word, suggesting a coordinated long-term strategy towards adult care bans.

It is significant that the conversation happened on the PBD podcast. Hosted by Patrick Bet-David, the show reaches millions through its combined YouTube channels. The podcast has provided a platform for far-right figures to promote conspiracy theories and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, including guests who have argued that homosexuality is a "worldview" being "inflicted" on children. That the head of the organization behind Project 2025 chose this venue to openly call for outlawing gender-affirming care for adults suggests a growing comfort by the organization to be more open about its plans.

Gender-affirming care bans have been increasingly targeting adults. In 2023, Florida's SB 254 banned nurse practitioners from providing gender-affirming care, resulting in 80% of trans adult care being eliminated overnight. That same year, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey issued an emergency rule targeting transgender people of all ages with requirements so onerous they amounted to a de facto ban; it was blocked in court and withdrawn after roughly three weeks. In 2025, Puerto Rico signed the most extreme care ban in the United States or its territories, criminalizing care for anyone under 21 with penalties of up to 15 years in prison. And of course, Trump’s recent executive orders ban gender affirming care to the age of 19.

One thing is clear: gender-affirming care bans have never been about science, despite attempts by far-right organizations to launder their lobbying efforts through pseudoscientific hate groups and overseas "reviews." Rather, it’s always been about hate. That much is made clear by the openly-stated agenda of a billionaire-funded political machine that has always been working towards one goal: the elimination of transgender people from public life. The only thing that has changed is that they are now saying it out loud.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

---

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7691747

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29115

Big Tech firms are coming under greater scrutiny for the proliferation of child sexual abuse material generated by artificial intelligence-powered chatbots on their social media platforms.

Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) announced on Tuesday that it was invoking the European Union's data privacy regulations to open an investigation into Grok, the AI chatbot featured on Elon Musk's X platform, after it was used to generate nonconsensual deepfake images, including sexualized images of children.

In announcing the investigation, DPC Deputy Commissioner Graham Doyle said that the commission has been in contact with X for weeks after reports first emerged of Grok being used to generate child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Doyle said DPC has since decided to launch "a large-scale inquiry which will examine [X's] compliance with some of their fundamental obligations" under European privacy laws.

Spanish President Pedro Sánchez said on Tuesday that his government would ask Spain's Public Prosecution Service to "investigate the crimes that X, Meta, and TikTok may be committing through the creation and dissemination of child pornography by means of their AI."

"These platforms are attacking the mental health, dignity, and rights of our sons and daughters," Sánchez emphasized. "The state cannot allow it. The impunity of the giants must end."

The probes announced by Ireland and Spain mark just the latest actions by European governments against US-based tech giants. Earlier in February, law enforcement authorities in France raided the office of X in Paris, which the Paris prosecutor’s office said was part of an investigation aimed at "ensuring that the X platform complies with French laws, insofar as it operates on national territory."

The UK government's Information Commissioner's Office has also announced an investigation into X that the agency said encompasses "their processing of personal data in relation to the Grok artificial intelligence system and its potential to produce harmful sexualized image and video content."

---

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7691747

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29115

Big Tech firms are coming under greater scrutiny for the proliferation of child sexual abuse material generated by artificial intelligence-powered chatbots on their social media platforms.

Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) announced on Tuesday that it was invoking the European Union's data privacy regulations to open an investigation into Grok, the AI chatbot featured on Elon Musk's X platform, after it was used to generate nonconsensual deepfake images, including sexualized images of children.

In announcing the investigation, DPC Deputy Commissioner Graham Doyle said that the commission has been in contact with X for weeks after reports first emerged of Grok being used to generate child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Doyle said DPC has since decided to launch "a large-scale inquiry which will examine [X's] compliance with some of their fundamental obligations" under European privacy laws.

Spanish President Pedro Sánchez said on Tuesday that his government would ask Spain's Public Prosecution Service to "investigate the crimes that X, Meta, and TikTok may be committing through the creation and dissemination of child pornography by means of their AI."

"These platforms are attacking the mental health, dignity, and rights of our sons and daughters," Sánchez emphasized. "The state cannot allow it. The impunity of the giants must end."

The probes announced by Ireland and Spain mark just the latest actions by European governments against US-based tech giants. Earlier in February, law enforcement authorities in France raided the office of X in Paris, which the Paris prosecutor’s office said was part of an investigation aimed at "ensuring that the X platform complies with French laws, insofar as it operates on national territory."

The UK government's Information Commissioner's Office has also announced an investigation into X that the agency said encompasses "their processing of personal data in relation to the Grok artificial intelligence system and its potential to produce harmful sexualized image and video content."

---

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7691752

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29037

When two women knocked on the door of Jesus Emmanuel Flores-Aguilar, begging for help with their car, the father of six didn't hesitate to help. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ensured that his good deed would not go unpunished.

Minutes after Flores walked out of his home in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, on Thursday and got to work looking under the hood of the car, three unmarked SUVs sped toward him, tires screeching behind him.

A horde of officers hopped out, raced toward Flores, and tackled him to the ground, footage recorded by a neighbor shows.

By Friday, Flores was already in an ICE detention facility in Texas, awaiting deportation.

“They lied to my dad that they needed help with their car,” said Flores’ son Miguel, who—like his siblings—is a US citizen. “I mean, they figured out that he was a mechanic. You know, my dad’s a generous guy, he’s willing to help anybody.”

Though he is undocumented, Flores, who is from Mexico, has lived in the US for more than 15 years.

In a statement to the Independent, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), claimed that Flores was "a criminal illegal alien [from] Mexico and former Vatos Locos 13 gang member who was removed TWICE from this country, a felony." She added that "his criminal history includes an arrest for felony assault."

Fox 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul previously reported that when it searched for Flores' criminal history, it found only parking violations.

The vast majority of those who have been swept up in President Donald Trump's "mass deportation" campaign have not had any criminal records. According to data from DHS on January 25, just over 74% of those held in ICE detention have no criminal convictions.

"The main reason he came here to the United States and was willing to come back is to give us a better life, and that’s what he’s done. He’s sent me and my sister to college," Miguel told Fox 9. "There’s no other reason to deport my dad, he’s a hard-working individual."

Miguel’s father was the victim of the sort of deceptive tactics that have become a hallmark of ICE arrests and have often been deployed during Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis and the surrounding area.

As the Associated Press reported earlier this month, ICE has regularly relied on what the agency calls "ruses" to pursue targets.

According to Minnesota's large network of citizen observers, agents have shown up at construction sites in hard hats and yellow vests to lure laborers into their clutches. They've disguised themselves as delivery drivers or electricians to trick home and business owners into coming outside. They've been filmed leaving scenes with Mexican flag decals on their bumpers and stuffed animals on their dashboards. And in some cases, they've even posed as anti-ICE activists.

These tactics are not new. An agency memo from 2006 described them as "an effective law enforcement tool that enhances officer safety" and claims they are used "to prevent violators from fleeing and placing themselves, officers, and innocent bystanders in a potentially dangerous situation."

But Naureen Shah, the director of immigration advocacy at the ACLU, argues that they have only sown chaos.

“If you have people afraid that the electrical worker outside their house might be ICE, you’re inviting public distrust and confusion on a much more dangerous level,” she told the AP. “This is what you do if you’re trying to control a populace, not trying to do routine, professional law enforcement.”

These tactics became more common during Trump's first term, prompting a lawsuit from the ACLU, which claimed they violated the Fourth Amendment.

In August, a settlement banned agents from misrepresenting their identity and purpose in Los Angeles, but the practice continued elsewhere in the US.

Shah said ICE appears to be using these tactics in Minnesota to a "more extreme degree than we’ve seen in the past."

Jesus' arrest comes as Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, who was put in charge of Metro Surge, said the operation was drawing to a close, with thousands of agents leaving the Minneapolis area.

However, this and other incidents in recent days have left residents on edge.

During the operation, CBS News Minnesota reported that Flores had been hunkered down in his home for weeks, hoping to avoid arrest.

Miguel said his family fears they may never see their father again.

Flores had already been deported once, 15 years ago. Miguel said lawyers have told him that getting his father out of detention would be a long shot.

Because immigration offenses are handled in civil court, Flores is not entitled to a government-paid public defender, as in criminal cases.

Miguel said his family is in desperate need of money, not just to pay for a lawyer but also to cover the cost of living and his siblings' medical expenses. Flores' wife, Dionicia, has described her husband as the family's "lifeline."

"This unexpected situation has left our family shocked, scared, heartbroken, and searching for answers," Miguel wrote. "Jesus is leaving behind four children who depend on him every day. My older brother, who is 25 years old and was diagnosed with autism from a very young age, my little brother—9 years old—who was born with a whisper in the heart, my other little brother who is 6 years old is in therapy and requires extra care and support and was diagnosed with autism, and lastly my little sister who is 7, who is in need of multiple surgeries and ongoing medical care."

In just three days, the family's fundraising campaign has received more than $13,000.

---

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7691757

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/28994

"Late Show" host Stephen Colbert unloaded on higher-ups at CBS late Monday for refusing to air his interview with Texas US Senate candidate James Talarico, allegedly out of fear that the Federal Communications Commission—led by Trump lackey Brendan Carr—would retaliate against the network.

"We were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast," Colbert said of the Democratic candidate, whose 15-minute interview was aired on YouTube instead.

During an on-air segment late Monday, Colbert called attention to FCC Media Bureau guidance issued last month stating that daytime and late-night talk shows featuring interviews with political candidates must give equal time to opposing candidates, effectively dispensing with a decades-old exemption for the programs.

Colbert slammed CBS for "unilaterally enforcing" the FCC guidance, a decision he said was made for "purely financial reasons." CBS is owned by Paramount Skydance, whose chief executive, David Ellison, is the son of billionaire Trump ally and donor Larry Ellison.

Watch Colbert's segment:

CBS leadership's decision to block the airing of Colbert's interview with Talarico came days after the Republican-led FCC launched an investigation into whether ABC's "The View" violated equal time rules with its Talarico interview earlier this month. US Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who is running against Talarico in the Senate primary, appeared on "The View" in January.

Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic commissioner on the FCC, denounced the ABC investigation as a "sham."

“Let’s be clear on what this is. This is government intimidation, not a legitimate investigation," said Gomez. "Like many other so-called ‘investigations’ before it, the FCC will announce an investigation but never carry one out, reach a conclusion, or take any meaningful action."

"The real purpose is to weaponize the FCC’s regulatory authority to intimidate perceived critics of this administration and chill protected speech. That is not how a free society operates," she continued. "I urge broadcasters and their parent networks to stand strong against these unfounded attacks and continue exercising their constitutional rights without fear or favor."

By refusing to let the Talarico interview air on the televised broadcast, CBS opted to cave to the administration, according to Colbert.

"Let’s just call this what it is: Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV, OK? He’s like a toddler with too much screen time," said Colbert. "He gets cranky and then drops a load in his diaper."

Talarico, for his part, declared in a social media post that "this is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see," posting a clip of his appearance on "The Late Show."

Watch the full interview:

"I think that Donald Trump is worried that we're about to flip Texas," Talarico said during the interview. "This is the party that ran against cancel culture, and now they're trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read."

"They went after 'The View' because I went on there," he continued. "They went after Jimmy Kimmel for telling a joke they didn't like. They went after you for telling the truth about Paramount's bribe to Donald Trump. Corporate media executives are selling out the First Amendment to curry favor with corrupt politicians."

Other critics of the CBS decision said it's the latest example of media conglomerates bending to Trump's bullying.

"Big media self-censorship is real," warned Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications with the advocacy group Free Press.

---

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7691760

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/28960

US President Donald Trump's latest comments on his government's blockade on Cuba Monday evening amounted to "boasting of a war crime," one journalist said after the president told the press that the Caribbean island is a "failed nation" weeks after Trump himself cut off Cuba's main source of energy and threatened countries with tariffs if they provided the government with oil.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump listed some of the impacts of the blockade the White House imposed after invading Venezuela last month and pushing for control of its oil supply.

"They don't even have jet fuel to get their airplanes to take off. They're clogging up their runway. We're talking to Cuba right now... and they should absolutely make a deal, because it's really a humanitarian threat," said the president. "There's an embargo, there's no oil, there's no money, there's no anything."

Trump: Cuba and us are talking. In the meantime, there's an embargo. There's no oil. There's no money. There's no anything.

Reporter: If a deal isn't made, would you consider an operation like the one in Venezuela?

Trump: I don't want to answer that. pic.twitter.com/9bVhDtfqWV
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 17, 2026

Carlos F. de Cossio, Cuba's deputy minister of foreign affairs, pointed out that it has been "frequent for US officials and diplomats to claim that US aggression is not responsible for difficulties in Cuba," as the trade embargo maintained by the US for more than six decades has impeded medications, food, and other humanitarian assistance from reaching Cubans.

It seems those officials "don't listen to their president," said de Cossio.

Trump commented on the impact of his ramped-up blockade as Al Jazeera and Reuters reported that just 44 of Havana's 106 sanitation trucks have been able to operate in recent weeks due to the fuel shortage, leading waste to pile up on the Cuban capital's streets and raising fears of public health risks.

The lack of fuel has also caused blackouts in cities and rural areas, and one diplomat told The Guardian on Sunday that "it's a matter of weeks" before the blockade could cause extreme shortages of water and food.

While appearing to express concern for the Cuban public, Trump described how he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio "are overseeing a siege on Cuba... with no discernible foreign policy objective other than sadism," said Emma Vigeland of Majority Report.

"This is not an embargo. The US has had an embargo on Cuba for over 60 years, and it has failed" to force a regime change, said Vigeland.

The anti-war group Code Pink added: "If Cuba is a 'failed nation' then why has the U.S. spent 66 years trying and failing to destroy it?"

"Cuba isn’t failing, it’s being suffocated," said the group.

Trump repeated his demand that Cuban officials "make a deal," but Cuban officials have said they are open to coming to an agreement with the US. Meanwhile, Drop Site News reported last week that Rubio has been falsely claiming negotiations are taking place in an apparent bid to ultimately force regime change through other means.

One reporter asked the president Monday evening whether he would consider "an operation like the one in Venezuela," where US forces last month abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and killed dozens of people, including many Cuban soldiers and guards.

Trump did not confirm or deny whether he would take military action in Cuba, but issued a veiled threat: "It wouldn't be a very tough operation, as you can figure."

Also on Monday, over 100 Cuban artists signed on to a call for "international solidarity" against the blockade.

"The empire says that Cuba represents a threat to its national security, which is ridiculous and implausible. It has imposed an oil blockade, resulting in the paralysis of hospitals, schools, industries, and transportation. They try to prevent our doctors from saving lives; they try to paralyze our free and universal education system, to plunge us into famine, into a lack of energy to guarantee access to drinking water and cooking food; in short, they aim to slowly and bloodily extinguish a country," reads the open letter.

"Cuba resists and will resist this inhumane aggression, but it counts on the active solidarity of all honest, humanist, and good-willed men and women of the world," it continues. "It is about preventing a genocidal act and saving a heroic people whose only 'crime and threat' has been to defend their sovereignty."

---

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7691761

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29020

On February 10, Jacobin published an op-ed by contributing writer Liza Featherstone titled “Kathy Hochul Is a Good Problem for Zohran Mamdani to Have.” In the article, Featherstone — who frequently writes for Jacobin and has been a champion of the mayor since before his primary win in June — offers a pragmatic defense of his endorsement of Governor Hochul, claiming that such necessary concessions actually reveal the true power of Mamdani’s victory.

According to Featherstone, winning is hard, and the Left needs to learn to “govern with grace” and to strategically navigate the pitfalls of New York state politics so that the mayor can deliver on as many of his campaign promises as possible. And we mustn’t let any whining purists stand in the way.

As Featherstone explains:

The Hochul endorsement fulfills some leftists’ perpetual desire to feel betrayed and denounce whoever is in office. But it’s important to see the endorsement more clearly for what it is: a concession to a centrist governor who Mamdani needs to enact his agenda that is embedded in huge victories; a potential harbinger of more concessions that will also be embedded in more victories for the mayor and the city’s working class — a sign of how much power the Left has won suddenly, embedded in a rebuke that we haven’t yet won enough.

In other words, Mamdani’s endorsement, which came just days before the State Democratic Party Convention where Hochul trounced the left-leaning Lieutenant Governor Andrew Delgado, is just politics; and winning the game of politics requires concessions, strange bedfellows, and, it seems, lots of lobbying and electioneering. But, for Featherstone, it will all be worth it in the end (whenever that day comes) because the reforms that Mamdani plans to win as a consequence of these concessions will spur further enthusiasm for his politics, more organization, and supposedly lead to even greater victories, securing the future of municipal socialism in NYC and beyond.

Setting aside for the time being the fallacious and rather simplistic suggestion — that Mamdani’s mayoralty is just going to be (as Phillip Larkin put it) one “long slide to happiness,” building victory upon victory — there are several other serious problems with Featherstone’s arguments and the arguments of those that share her view of how Mamdani should lead and the larger strategy of municipal socialism he represents. People like Featherstone, who are apologizing for Mamdani’s endorsement, are either unwilling to admit or simply willing to accept  that such political maneuvering can lead to real negative material consequences for the working class and oppressed they claim to support. Their arguments for the necessity of such compromises also downplay the degree to which they undermine the very kind of principled organization that has helped to make socialism a household name and brought self-proclaimed socialist politicians like Mamdani into office. But most importantly, and worst of all, they fundamentally misrepresent and misunderstand the real purpose of working class socialist politics, which is not merely to win elections or a few watered down demands, but to organize for real class power, without which every victory is temporary and every gain subject to the whims of the market and attacks from establishment Democrats and the reactionary Right.

Sleeping With the Enemy

Contrary to Featherstone’s rather pollyannaish analysis, endorsing Governor Hochul, whom everyone knows is a corporate Democrat and staunch Zionist, is not merely a political maneuver. It will have, and already has had, real consequences for working people and the Left. Even as Mamdani was penning his op-ed for the Nation, Hochul was actively working to undermine the massive nurses strikes in New York City by making it easier for hospitals to hire unqualified scabs to replace striking nurses. And she seems to have succeeded. Just days after Mamdani’s endorsement, the bureaucratic leadership of the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) successfully forced and passed a vote at four hospitals on a tentative agreement that failed to address any of the major demands of the striking nurses. While nurses at New York Presbyterian are continuing the fight for safer staffing ratios, higher wages, and guaranteed protections for immigrants, the settled contracts represent a real defeat that Mamdani could have fought to avoid. Rather than endorsing Hochul and allowing the New York Police Department (NYPD) to arrest striking nurses, Mamdani could have instead used his position and his bully pulpit to defend nurses against the police and to organize New Yorkers to demand that the Governor stop allowing hospitals to use scab labor.

It is also telling that Featherstone overlooks the fact that Mamdani, whose campaign was unabashedly pro-Palestine and anti-genocide, wound up endorsing one of the most pro-Israel governors in the country. Indeed, Featherstone’s article doesn’t mention Palestine once. Hochul has not only threatened to withhold state funds from institutions and organizations that support divesting from Israel, she dedicated $75 millon in new NYPD funding to repress those protesting Israel’s genocide at Columbia. She also forced CUNY to increase surveillance of students who support Palestine or are critical of Israel — a move that has also opened the door to attacks on CUNY faculty, whom Mamdani promised to defend, but has yet done nothing to address.

And of course Hochul has made it clear many times that she has no interest in significantly raising taxes on corporations or the state’s wealthiest residents to fund necessary programs for working people and the poor, and it’s unlikely that Mamdani’s endorsement will change that. This means that any money that is negotiated with Mamdani for social services will have to come from cuts to the state’s already existing budget, effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Allowing the continuation of such attacks on working people and students in exchange for potentially greater access to childcare or free buses is not a victory, it’s a Faustian bargain with dire long-term consequences. And yet this is precisely one of the central problems with municipal socialism, which pragmatically seeks to win a raft of narrow populist reforms that do nothing to address the underlying problems of exploitation and oppression, without ever challenging or threatening the stability of the state that reproduces those problems.

Whither the “Insurgent” Left

While the DSA’s strategy of endorsing left populists like Bernie Sanders or using the Democratic ballot line to promote so-called socialist candidates is fundamentally flawed, and ultimately weakens the Left, it at least had the virtue of helping to elect some left-wing candidates and helped to expose a whole generation to the idea that socialism is an acceptable alternative to the liberal status quo. But now that Mamdani is in office, he and his supporters seem more than happy to close the door on those who want to follow in his footsteps.

Featherstone’s argument that Mamdani’s endorsement is somehow part of a long game of three dimensional chess overlooks the fact that his endorsement is also part of a broader pattern of protecting some of the worst Democratic politicians by undermining the campaigns of fellow Leftists. Mamdani’s and Alexandria Ocasio Cortes’s endorsements after all seem to have been pivotal to helping Hochul defeat Lieutenant Governor Delgado and his running mate and DSA member, India Walton, who were waging an insurgent campaign much like Mamdani’s own primary campaign against Andrew Cuomo. While Delgado seemed to have had little chance of winning the official backing of the New York State Democratic Party, an endorsement from Mamdani might have given him the boost he needed to wage an insurgent primary campaign that, even had it failed, could have raised a whole host of debates about the priorities of the state and the shortcomings of Hochul and the state Democratic Party, mobilizing New Yorkers to demand more and potentially pushing her to the left on key positions.

And this is not the first time that Mayor Mamdani has used his influence to protect Democratic politicians and throw fellow left-wing contenders under the bus. In November, just weeks after winning the election, Mamdani endorsed anti-socialist genocide apologist Hakeem Jeffries for House Minority Leader. At the same time, Mamdani played a pivotal role in ending DSA member Chi Ossé‘s primary campaign against Jeffries by ensuring that he did not receive the DSA’s endorsement. Even from the perspective of those who support an inside/outside strategy in the Democratic Party, providing cover for the worst Democrats while undermining leftist challengers is a demonstrably terrible way to build socialist power.

Socialist Power and Working Class Independence

But of all the things that municipal socialists like Featherstone get wrong, it is their fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of socialist politics that is the biggest obstacle to working class power. For Featherstone and many Jacobin writers, politics is primarily about winning seats in Congress to achieve reforms, usually very limited reforms, where workers are merely voters rather than subjects of their own political agency. But politics is not just a program; it must also involve the laying out of a real strategy for power beyond elections. And for socialists this means the power of the working class to rule themselves free of the outsized influence and control of capital over production and the institutions of bourgeois society. Winning such power can’t be achieved solely with elections, or through alliances with representatives of capitalist stability like Hochul, but only through the independent organization of the working class and its true representatives as a class for itself, a situation that no amount of elections or reforms can achieve.

It is clear already that Mamdani has no interest in building such power. When he ran on the Democratic ticket, his supporters argued time and again, that this was merely a practical maneuver to win the election and that he would govern not as a Democrat but as a socialist. We have seen that this is not true. Rather than confronting the system head on, rather than convincing the millions who voted for him of the necessity of building working class power by directly challenging the power of capital, he has taken every step possible to defend, endorse, and prop up the worst Democrats in the hopes of winning some good favor for a limited and shrinking agenda of reforms. And now he is leading those same voters right back into the dead end of a lobbying strategy grounded in supporting the Democratic Party.

Lobbying Albany for higher taxes on the very wealthy is all fine and well but such tactics only sow illusions in the idea that the state can ever be a fair arbiter of class conflict. Hochul may pivot and eventually agree to some minor increases in taxes on the very wealthy just as she changed her position on immigration (Hochul used to be a staunch supporter of ICE after all), but any such policy changes are going to come with their own set of unaccountable problems and contradictions. Such political shifts, however, work both ways, and Mamdani is already coming up against the reality of the NYC budget and, right on cue, is shamelessly pivoting away from some of his core campaign promises, including his promise to expand housing vouchers for families at risk of eviction who would otherwise wind up on the street or in city shelters.

Real socialist legislators, on the other hand, such as Myriam Bregman and Nicolás del Caño in the socialist workers party (PTS) in Argentina, who wish to actually overthrow and transform the capitalist system, not merely tinker with it, do not lead like this. They do not backtrack on the needs of the working class or make excuses for why basic common sense programs are impossible. They do not apologize for the system by conforming to its limits and its logic. Instead, they use their positions to point out the contradictions and the absurdities of the capitalist system and seek to undermine and weaken it with independent working class power. These socialists don’t arrest striking workers; they don’t turn their backs on homeless families because of budget constraints; and they don’t endorse liberal politicians who are sworn to uphold the very system of exploitation and oppression that socialism seeks to destroy.

This is why working people need a party of our own completely independent of the influence of capitalist interests; a party built, formed, and led by workers and the oppressed, whose candidates are tribunes and organic representatives of the most important struggles, from the fight against ICE to the struggles for better working conditions, such as the fight by nurses in NYC. The DSA has the potential to be such a party, but only if it is able to develop a program beyond the limits of municipal socialism, and commits to completely breaking with the Democrats, including the ones in their own organization.

The post The Problem with Municipal Socialism: A Response to Liza Featherstone appeared first on Left Voice.

---

From Left Voice via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7691761

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29020

On February 10, Jacobin published an op-ed by contributing writer Liza Featherstone titled “Kathy Hochul Is a Good Problem for Zohran Mamdani to Have.” In the article, Featherstone — who frequently writes for Jacobin and has been a champion of the mayor since before his primary win in June — offers a pragmatic defense of his endorsement of Governor Hochul, claiming that such necessary concessions actually reveal the true power of Mamdani’s victory.

According to Featherstone, winning is hard, and the Left needs to learn to “govern with grace” and to strategically navigate the pitfalls of New York state politics so that the mayor can deliver on as many of his campaign promises as possible. And we mustn’t let any whining purists stand in the way.

As Featherstone explains:

The Hochul endorsement fulfills some leftists’ perpetual desire to feel betrayed and denounce whoever is in office. But it’s important to see the endorsement more clearly for what it is: a concession to a centrist governor who Mamdani needs to enact his agenda that is embedded in huge victories; a potential harbinger of more concessions that will also be embedded in more victories for the mayor and the city’s working class — a sign of how much power the Left has won suddenly, embedded in a rebuke that we haven’t yet won enough.

In other words, Mamdani’s endorsement, which came just days before the State Democratic Party Convention where Hochul trounced the left-leaning Lieutenant Governor Andrew Delgado, is just politics; and winning the game of politics requires concessions, strange bedfellows, and, it seems, lots of lobbying and electioneering. But, for Featherstone, it will all be worth it in the end (whenever that day comes) because the reforms that Mamdani plans to win as a consequence of these concessions will spur further enthusiasm for his politics, more organization, and supposedly lead to even greater victories, securing the future of municipal socialism in NYC and beyond.

Setting aside for the time being the fallacious and rather simplistic suggestion — that Mamdani’s mayoralty is just going to be (as Phillip Larkin put it) one “long slide to happiness,” building victory upon victory — there are several other serious problems with Featherstone’s arguments and the arguments of those that share her view of how Mamdani should lead and the larger strategy of municipal socialism he represents. People like Featherstone, who are apologizing for Mamdani’s endorsement, are either unwilling to admit or simply willing to accept  that such political maneuvering can lead to real negative material consequences for the working class and oppressed they claim to support. Their arguments for the necessity of such compromises also downplay the degree to which they undermine the very kind of principled organization that has helped to make socialism a household name and brought self-proclaimed socialist politicians like Mamdani into office. But most importantly, and worst of all, they fundamentally misrepresent and misunderstand the real purpose of working class socialist politics, which is not merely to win elections or a few watered down demands, but to organize for real class power, without which every victory is temporary and every gain subject to the whims of the market and attacks from establishment Democrats and the reactionary Right.

Sleeping With the Enemy

Contrary to Featherstone’s rather pollyannaish analysis, endorsing Governor Hochul, whom everyone knows is a corporate Democrat and staunch Zionist, is not merely a political maneuver. It will have, and already has had, real consequences for working people and the Left. Even as Mamdani was penning his op-ed for the Nation, Hochul was actively working to undermine the massive nurses strikes in New York City by making it easier for hospitals to hire unqualified scabs to replace striking nurses. And she seems to have succeeded. Just days after Mamdani’s endorsement, the bureaucratic leadership of the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) successfully forced and passed a vote at four hospitals on a tentative agreement that failed to address any of the major demands of the striking nurses. While nurses at New York Presbyterian are continuing the fight for safer staffing ratios, higher wages, and guaranteed protections for immigrants, the settled contracts represent a real defeat that Mamdani could have fought to avoid. Rather than endorsing Hochul and allowing the New York Police Department (NYPD) to arrest striking nurses, Mamdani could have instead used his position and his bully pulpit to defend nurses against the police and to organize New Yorkers to demand that the Governor stop allowing hospitals to use scab labor.

It is also telling that Featherstone overlooks the fact that Mamdani, whose campaign was unabashedly pro-Palestine and anti-genocide, wound up endorsing one of the most pro-Israel governors in the country. Indeed, Featherstone’s article doesn’t mention Palestine once. Hochul has not only threatened to withhold state funds from institutions and organizations that support divesting from Israel, she dedicated $75 millon in new NYPD funding to repress those protesting Israel’s genocide at Columbia. She also forced CUNY to increase surveillance of students who support Palestine or are critical of Israel — a move that has also opened the door to attacks on CUNY faculty, whom Mamdani promised to defend, but has yet done nothing to address.

And of course Hochul has made it clear many times that she has no interest in significantly raising taxes on corporations or the state’s wealthiest residents to fund necessary programs for working people and the poor, and it’s unlikely that Mamdani’s endorsement will change that. This means that any money that is negotiated with Mamdani for social services will have to come from cuts to the state’s already existing budget, effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Allowing the continuation of such attacks on working people and students in exchange for potentially greater access to childcare or free buses is not a victory, it’s a Faustian bargain with dire long-term consequences. And yet this is precisely one of the central problems with municipal socialism, which pragmatically seeks to win a raft of narrow populist reforms that do nothing to address the underlying problems of exploitation and oppression, without ever challenging or threatening the stability of the state that reproduces those problems.

Whither the “Insurgent” Left

While the DSA’s strategy of endorsing left populists like Bernie Sanders or using the Democratic ballot line to promote so-called socialist candidates is fundamentally flawed, and ultimately weakens the Left, it at least had the virtue of helping to elect some left-wing candidates and helped to expose a whole generation to the idea that socialism is an acceptable alternative to the liberal status quo. But now that Mamdani is in office, he and his supporters seem more than happy to close the door on those who want to follow in his footsteps.

Featherstone’s argument that Mamdani’s endorsement is somehow part of a long game of three dimensional chess overlooks the fact that his endorsement is also part of a broader pattern of protecting some of the worst Democratic politicians by undermining the campaigns of fellow Leftists. Mamdani’s and Alexandria Ocasio Cortes’s endorsements after all seem to have been pivotal to helping Hochul defeat Lieutenant Governor Delgado and his running mate and DSA member, India Walton, who were waging an insurgent campaign much like Mamdani’s own primary campaign against Andrew Cuomo. While Delgado seemed to have had little chance of winning the official backing of the New York State Democratic Party, an endorsement from Mamdani might have given him the boost he needed to wage an insurgent primary campaign that, even had it failed, could have raised a whole host of debates about the priorities of the state and the shortcomings of Hochul and the state Democratic Party, mobilizing New Yorkers to demand more and potentially pushing her to the left on key positions.

And this is not the first time that Mayor Mamdani has used his influence to protect Democratic politicians and throw fellow left-wing contenders under the bus. In November, just weeks after winning the election, Mamdani endorsed anti-socialist genocide apologist Hakeem Jeffries for House Minority Leader. At the same time, Mamdani played a pivotal role in ending DSA member Chi Ossé‘s primary campaign against Jeffries by ensuring that he did not receive the DSA’s endorsement. Even from the perspective of those who support an inside/outside strategy in the Democratic Party, providing cover for the worst Democrats while undermining leftist challengers is a demonstrably terrible way to build socialist power.

Socialist Power and Working Class Independence

But of all the things that municipal socialists like Featherstone get wrong, it is their fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of socialist politics that is the biggest obstacle to working class power. For Featherstone and many Jacobin writers, politics is primarily about winning seats in Congress to achieve reforms, usually very limited reforms, where workers are merely voters rather than subjects of their own political agency. But politics is not just a program; it must also involve the laying out of a real strategy for power beyond elections. And for socialists this means the power of the working class to rule themselves free of the outsized influence and control of capital over production and the institutions of bourgeois society. Winning such power can’t be achieved solely with elections, or through alliances with representatives of capitalist stability like Hochul, but only through the independent organization of the working class and its true representatives as a class for itself, a situation that no amount of elections or reforms can achieve.

It is clear already that Mamdani has no interest in building such power. When he ran on the Democratic ticket, his supporters argued time and again, that this was merely a practical maneuver to win the election and that he would govern not as a Democrat but as a socialist. We have seen that this is not true. Rather than confronting the system head on, rather than convincing the millions who voted for him of the necessity of building working class power by directly challenging the power of capital, he has taken every step possible to defend, endorse, and prop up the worst Democrats in the hopes of winning some good favor for a limited and shrinking agenda of reforms. And now he is leading those same voters right back into the dead end of a lobbying strategy grounded in supporting the Democratic Party.

Lobbying Albany for higher taxes on the very wealthy is all fine and well but such tactics only sow illusions in the idea that the state can ever be a fair arbiter of class conflict. Hochul may pivot and eventually agree to some minor increases in taxes on the very wealthy just as she changed her position on immigration (Hochul used to be a staunch supporter of ICE after all), but any such policy changes are going to come with their own set of unaccountable problems and contradictions. Such political shifts, however, work both ways, and Mamdani is already coming up against the reality of the NYC budget and, right on cue, is shamelessly pivoting away from some of his core campaign promises, including his promise to expand housing vouchers for families at risk of eviction who would otherwise wind up on the street or in city shelters.

Real socialist legislators, on the other hand, such as Myriam Bregman and Nicolás del Caño in the socialist workers party (PTS) in Argentina, who wish to actually overthrow and transform the capitalist system, not merely tinker with it, do not lead like this. They do not backtrack on the needs of the working class or make excuses for why basic common sense programs are impossible. They do not apologize for the system by conforming to its limits and its logic. Instead, they use their positions to point out the contradictions and the absurdities of the capitalist system and seek to undermine and weaken it with independent working class power. These socialists don’t arrest striking workers; they don’t turn their backs on homeless families because of budget constraints; and they don’t endorse liberal politicians who are sworn to uphold the very system of exploitation and oppression that socialism seeks to destroy.

This is why working people need a party of our own completely independent of the influence of capitalist interests; a party built, formed, and led by workers and the oppressed, whose candidates are tribunes and organic representatives of the most important struggles, from the fight against ICE to the struggles for better working conditions, such as the fight by nurses in NYC. The DSA has the potential to be such a party, but only if it is able to develop a program beyond the limits of municipal socialism, and commits to completely breaking with the Democrats, including the ones in their own organization.

The post The Problem with Municipal Socialism: A Response to Liza Featherstone appeared first on Left Voice.

---

From Left Voice via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7693060

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29138

The number of people who have faced criminal charges related to their pregnancies has soared since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and now, a sheriff's office in South Carolina is investigating a fetus found at a water treatment plant.

The Sumter County Sheriff's Office announced Friday that deputies were called to the plant on Edgehill Road after workers found the fetus, which was sent to the Medical University of South Carolina, according to The State. County Coroner Robbie Baker said that "it was a small fetus. Probably not more than 6 inches long. It was somewhat developed."

Baker shared the findings from the autopsy on Monday: The fetus was just 13-15 weeks, male, and showed no signs of trauma. ABC News 4 reported that he also said this was being ruled a stillborn death—even though a stillbirth is generally defined as a pregnancy loss after 20 weeks, and a loss before that is a miscarriage.

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is "testing tissue samples to determine the race and locate the mother," according to WIS News 10. "The coroner said the race could not be immediately determined due to how long the fetus had been sitting in sewer chemicals."

As Kylie Cheung wrote Monday at Jessica Valenti's newsletter Abortion, Every Day: "Our immediate questions: Why are pregnancy remains being investigated by law enforcement at all? How can 14-week fetal remains be ruled a 'stillborn death'? And why are state authorities trying to determine the race of these pregnancy remains? This is particularly concerning given that women of color are overrepresented among criminal cases involving pregnancy."

Such probes have become "all too routine," Laura Huss, a senior researcher at If/When/How, told Cheung. "Pregnancy losses aren't crimes... No one should have to live with the fear that their miscarriage or stillbirth could result in cops showing up at their door, which is what investigations and media stories like this create."

The advocacy group Pregnancy Justice said last year that "from June 2022 to June 2024—the first two years after the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade—prosecutors initiated at least 412 cases across the country charging individuals with crimes related to their pregnancy, pregnancy loss, or birth."

"So what is the point of this investigation, beyond terrorizing women through control and surveillance of their bodies?"

Since Roe's reversal, far-right politicians and anti-choice organizations have ramped up their push for more state and federal restrictions on reproductive freedom. South Carolina groups that fight for such policies—from abortion bans based on gestational age to fetal personhood legislation—are now using the fetus found there to advocate for new state laws.

One proposal would "require the Department of Environmental Services to conduct testing for urinary metabolites in certain wastewater treatment facilities," Fox Carolina reported. Another would prohibit the "mailing, shipping, or prescribing of abortifacients, including from out-of-state sources," as well as "classify committing or attempting to commit an abortion using an abortifacient on a mother as a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment or a fine of up to $100k."

Almost every action after pregnancy loss has come under scrutiny. Many of these laws, like the crime of “concealing a birth,” date back to the 1600s, used to criminalize unwed women who were thought to be more likely to hide & end their pregnancies, fearing intense societal shame and repercussions.

[image or embed]
— Pregnancy Justice (@pregnancyjust.bsky.social) January 29, 2026 at 11:42 AM

Last month, Pregnancy Justice released a report that "maps the matrix of laws and policies that can be used to criminalize postpartum people for how they respond to their own pregnancy loss in every state." Its section on South Carolina says:

Although South Carolina does not have a broad prenatal personhood law, criminal or otherwise, its state Supreme Court establishes broad criminal prenatal personhood with the harmful proposition that criminal statutes apply to "viable fetuses" unless the Legislature expressly says otherwise. A former attorney general also noted his position that prenatal personhood applies broadly to South Carolina's laws. By extension, an attempt to criminalize the "destruction or desecration" or transportation without a permit of viable fetal remains could be made.

Separately, people are also required to report "stillbirth[s] when unattended by a physician."

Pregnancy Justice legal director Karen Thompson told Cheung that criminal charges shouldn't be applicable in the case of the fetus found in South Carolina, whether it was a miscarriage or an abortion, because of the "viability" requirement in state law. She added, "So what is the point of this investigation, beyond terrorizing women through control and surveillance of their bodies?"

The South Carolina investigation follows last week's arrest of a Kentucky couple, Deann and Charles Bennett, after she was taken to a hospital following a reported miscarriage in November 2024. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, they were each charged with reckless homicide, and she also faces charges of abuse of a corpse, concealing the birth of an infant, and tampering with physical evidence.

Reporting on that case last week, Valenti and Cheung pointed out that "right now, all of the available information is coming from cops and law enforcement—so take it all with a grain of salt. Again and again, Abortion, Every Day has found police lying about these arrests, or misrepresenting what really happened. Too often, local media will parrot those facts' uncritically and destroy people's lives in the process."

"Already, Deann and Charles' mugshots have been splashed across Kentucky crime pages," the pair added. "Deann is seen sobbing in hers."

According to Pregnancy Justice's January report: "Although Kentucky's broad prenatal personhood law is enjoined, the state Supreme Court provides that a viable fetus is a human being within the meaning of the penal code. By extension, an attempt to criminalize the nonreporting and disposal of viable fetal remains could be made. Separately, Kentucky has a statute that prohibits 'concealing [a] birth' to 'prevent a determination of whether it was born dead or alive.'"

---

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7693060

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29138

The number of people who have faced criminal charges related to their pregnancies has soared since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and now, a sheriff's office in South Carolina is investigating a fetus found at a water treatment plant.

The Sumter County Sheriff's Office announced Friday that deputies were called to the plant on Edgehill Road after workers found the fetus, which was sent to the Medical University of South Carolina, according to The State. County Coroner Robbie Baker said that "it was a small fetus. Probably not more than 6 inches long. It was somewhat developed."

Baker shared the findings from the autopsy on Monday: The fetus was just 13-15 weeks, male, and showed no signs of trauma. ABC News 4 reported that he also said this was being ruled a stillborn death—even though a stillbirth is generally defined as a pregnancy loss after 20 weeks, and a loss before that is a miscarriage.

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is "testing tissue samples to determine the race and locate the mother," according to WIS News 10. "The coroner said the race could not be immediately determined due to how long the fetus had been sitting in sewer chemicals."

As Kylie Cheung wrote Monday at Jessica Valenti's newsletter Abortion, Every Day: "Our immediate questions: Why are pregnancy remains being investigated by law enforcement at all? How can 14-week fetal remains be ruled a 'stillborn death'? And why are state authorities trying to determine the race of these pregnancy remains? This is particularly concerning given that women of color are overrepresented among criminal cases involving pregnancy."

Such probes have become "all too routine," Laura Huss, a senior researcher at If/When/How, told Cheung. "Pregnancy losses aren't crimes... No one should have to live with the fear that their miscarriage or stillbirth could result in cops showing up at their door, which is what investigations and media stories like this create."

The advocacy group Pregnancy Justice said last year that "from June 2022 to June 2024—the first two years after the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade—prosecutors initiated at least 412 cases across the country charging individuals with crimes related to their pregnancy, pregnancy loss, or birth."

"So what is the point of this investigation, beyond terrorizing women through control and surveillance of their bodies?"

Since Roe's reversal, far-right politicians and anti-choice organizations have ramped up their push for more state and federal restrictions on reproductive freedom. South Carolina groups that fight for such policies—from abortion bans based on gestational age to fetal personhood legislation—are now using the fetus found there to advocate for new state laws.

One proposal would "require the Department of Environmental Services to conduct testing for urinary metabolites in certain wastewater treatment facilities," Fox Carolina reported. Another would prohibit the "mailing, shipping, or prescribing of abortifacients, including from out-of-state sources," as well as "classify committing or attempting to commit an abortion using an abortifacient on a mother as a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment or a fine of up to $100k."

Almost every action after pregnancy loss has come under scrutiny. Many of these laws, like the crime of “concealing a birth,” date back to the 1600s, used to criminalize unwed women who were thought to be more likely to hide & end their pregnancies, fearing intense societal shame and repercussions.

[image or embed]
— Pregnancy Justice (@pregnancyjust.bsky.social) January 29, 2026 at 11:42 AM

Last month, Pregnancy Justice released a report that "maps the matrix of laws and policies that can be used to criminalize postpartum people for how they respond to their own pregnancy loss in every state." Its section on South Carolina says:

Although South Carolina does not have a broad prenatal personhood law, criminal or otherwise, its state Supreme Court establishes broad criminal prenatal personhood with the harmful proposition that criminal statutes apply to "viable fetuses" unless the Legislature expressly says otherwise. A former attorney general also noted his position that prenatal personhood applies broadly to South Carolina's laws. By extension, an attempt to criminalize the "destruction or desecration" or transportation without a permit of viable fetal remains could be made.

Separately, people are also required to report "stillbirth[s] when unattended by a physician."

Pregnancy Justice legal director Karen Thompson told Cheung that criminal charges shouldn't be applicable in the case of the fetus found in South Carolina, whether it was a miscarriage or an abortion, because of the "viability" requirement in state law. She added, "So what is the point of this investigation, beyond terrorizing women through control and surveillance of their bodies?"

The South Carolina investigation follows last week's arrest of a Kentucky couple, Deann and Charles Bennett, after she was taken to a hospital following a reported miscarriage in November 2024. According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, they were each charged with reckless homicide, and she also faces charges of abuse of a corpse, concealing the birth of an infant, and tampering with physical evidence.

Reporting on that case last week, Valenti and Cheung pointed out that "right now, all of the available information is coming from cops and law enforcement—so take it all with a grain of salt. Again and again, Abortion, Every Day has found police lying about these arrests, or misrepresenting what really happened. Too often, local media will parrot those facts' uncritically and destroy people's lives in the process."

"Already, Deann and Charles' mugshots have been splashed across Kentucky crime pages," the pair added. "Deann is seen sobbing in hers."

According to Pregnancy Justice's January report: "Although Kentucky's broad prenatal personhood law is enjoined, the state Supreme Court provides that a viable fetus is a human being within the meaning of the penal code. By extension, an attempt to criminalize the nonreporting and disposal of viable fetal remains could be made. Separately, Kentucky has a statute that prohibits 'concealing [a] birth' to 'prevent a determination of whether it was born dead or alive.'"

---

From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7693062

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29132

The Yaaku Indigenous People of Mukogodo Forest, a 30,000-hectare national forest reserve, are facing a major crisis. In late January 2026, a wave of coordinated armed attacks, livestock theft, killings, and forced displacement tore through Yaaku settlements in and around Mukogodo Forest.

A pattern of violence

Between January 21 and 29, 2026, the Yaaku community experienced repeated and escalating attacks by armed groups operating with organization, mobility, and heavy weaponry. On January 21, attackers raided the National Police Reserve camp at Wakumbé, reportedly stealing over 1,200 livestock, a clear indication of how heavily armed they are.

On January 27, a widely reported raid resulted in the murder of two Yaaku community members and the theft of approximately 1,500 livestock. The violence intensified the following day when attackers returned, killing eight people and stealing dozens more animals. On January 29, further livestock theft from four families triggered a retaliatory recovery attempt by Yaaku community members, after which one young Yaaku man was killed by the armed attackers.

These events, condemned by the East Africa Indigenous Women Led Assembly (EAIWA), reveal a sustained campaign of terror rather than just sporadic criminal activity. But official narratives and media reporting have consistently reduced the perpetrators to “bandits”, which is obscuring the reality of what appears to be organized, well-resourced paramilitary formations operating with impunity.

State failure and the criminalization community

Despite credible warnings and escalating attacks, Kenyan security forces failed to provide meaningful protection to the Yaaku community. The state did not act decisively when threats were known, yet moved swiftly after the violence to issue eviction ultimatums against people already traumatized by murder, displacement, and dispossession.

On February 3, 2026, the Ministry of Interior and National Administration issued a 48-hour ultimatum ordering all people “living in the forest” to vacate. On the same day, as per the East Africa Indigenous Women Led Assembly (EAIWA) statement, inflammatory public remarks by political elites framed Mukogodo as a criminal zone, effectively casting Indigenous residents as threats rather than rights-holders.

This response represents a dangerous inversion of state responsibility. Instead of protecting an endangered community, the state has chosen to discipline, displace, and delegitimize it. Such actions echo a familiar historical pattern in Kenya, where Indigenous and pastoralist communities are routinely framed as obstacles to security, conservation, or development, only to be forcibly removed in favor of more powerful political and economic interests.

Displacement and land

The violence in Mukogodo cannot be separated from long-standing land disputes. Mukogodo Forest, ancestral Yaaku land, is a site of competing claims involving conservation, private interests, and elite accumulation. In this context, armed attacks, forced displacement, and eviction threats take on a more sinister character.

As the EAIWA warned, the organization, scale, and targeting of the violence, combined with state threats of eviction, raise serious concerns that the attacks may be strategic and displacement driven. Under international law, such patterns may amount to ethnic cleansing, particularly where violence is used to forcibly remove a distinct community from its ancestral lands.

The Yaaku have historically protected Mukogodo Forest through Indigenous ecological knowledge and sustainable land use. Their removal would not only violate their rights but also undermine long-term environmental stewardship, exposing the hypocrisy of conservation policies that erase the very communities that have preserved these ecosystems for generations.

Solidarity from the social justice movement

In response to the unfolding crisis, the Social Justice Centers Nairobi Chapter issued a solidarity statement on February 9, 2026, fully endorsing the EAIWA’s concerns and demands. The movement condemned the state’s failure to act on early warnings, rejected narratives that criminalize Indigenous communities, and warned against the normalization of violence as a tool of land dispossession.

The statement situates Mukogodo within a broader national crisis of policing, land governance, and elite impunity, where insecurity is selectively addressed and often instrumentalized against the poor. As the movement affirmed, there can be no security without justice, and no justice without land rights.

Speaking to Peoples Dispatch, Gerald Kamau from the Social Justice Movement said:

“We can no longer afford to fight separately. The urban movement against IMF-backed bills is the same fight as the Indigenous struggle for land. The fight for public spaces is the same fight against forest evictions. The demand for clean rivers and an end to pollution is inseparable from the demand for Indigenous sovereignty over ancestral lands.

When they steal land in the countryside, they steal our food sovereignty. When they poison rivers in the city, they poison the water that flows to rural communities. When they slash healthcare budgets, they kill our elders, the memory keepers of our resistance. When they grab public spaces, they erase our ability to gather, to organize, to rise.”

Demands for justice and protection

Civil society and EAIWA voices have articulated clear and reasonable demands, including:

• An immediate shift from eviction and militarization to community protection
• An independent inquiry into the size, financing, and political protection of armed groups operating in Mukogodo
• The safe return of all forcibly displaced Yaaku families
• Independent human rights monitoring of any security operations in the region
• Full recognition of Yaaku ancestral lands under the Community Land Act (2016)

These are constitutional obligations. The Yaaku Indigenous People have survived centuries of marginalization, erasure, and dispossession. What is at stake in Mukogodo is their future.

The post An Indigenous community in Kenya’s Mukogodo Forest faces violence, forced displacement appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.

---

From Peoples Dispatch via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7693062

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29132

The Yaaku Indigenous People of Mukogodo Forest, a 30,000-hectare national forest reserve, are facing a major crisis. In late January 2026, a wave of coordinated armed attacks, livestock theft, killings, and forced displacement tore through Yaaku settlements in and around Mukogodo Forest.

A pattern of violence

Between January 21 and 29, 2026, the Yaaku community experienced repeated and escalating attacks by armed groups operating with organization, mobility, and heavy weaponry. On January 21, attackers raided the National Police Reserve camp at Wakumbé, reportedly stealing over 1,200 livestock, a clear indication of how heavily armed they are.

On January 27, a widely reported raid resulted in the murder of two Yaaku community members and the theft of approximately 1,500 livestock. The violence intensified the following day when attackers returned, killing eight people and stealing dozens more animals. On January 29, further livestock theft from four families triggered a retaliatory recovery attempt by Yaaku community members, after which one young Yaaku man was killed by the armed attackers.

These events, condemned by the East Africa Indigenous Women Led Assembly (EAIWA), reveal a sustained campaign of terror rather than just sporadic criminal activity. But official narratives and media reporting have consistently reduced the perpetrators to “bandits”, which is obscuring the reality of what appears to be organized, well-resourced paramilitary formations operating with impunity.

State failure and the criminalization community

Despite credible warnings and escalating attacks, Kenyan security forces failed to provide meaningful protection to the Yaaku community. The state did not act decisively when threats were known, yet moved swiftly after the violence to issue eviction ultimatums against people already traumatized by murder, displacement, and dispossession.

On February 3, 2026, the Ministry of Interior and National Administration issued a 48-hour ultimatum ordering all people “living in the forest” to vacate. On the same day, as per the East Africa Indigenous Women Led Assembly (EAIWA) statement, inflammatory public remarks by political elites framed Mukogodo as a criminal zone, effectively casting Indigenous residents as threats rather than rights-holders.

This response represents a dangerous inversion of state responsibility. Instead of protecting an endangered community, the state has chosen to discipline, displace, and delegitimize it. Such actions echo a familiar historical pattern in Kenya, where Indigenous and pastoralist communities are routinely framed as obstacles to security, conservation, or development, only to be forcibly removed in favor of more powerful political and economic interests.

Displacement and land

The violence in Mukogodo cannot be separated from long-standing land disputes. Mukogodo Forest, ancestral Yaaku land, is a site of competing claims involving conservation, private interests, and elite accumulation. In this context, armed attacks, forced displacement, and eviction threats take on a more sinister character.

As the EAIWA warned, the organization, scale, and targeting of the violence, combined with state threats of eviction, raise serious concerns that the attacks may be strategic and displacement driven. Under international law, such patterns may amount to ethnic cleansing, particularly where violence is used to forcibly remove a distinct community from its ancestral lands.

The Yaaku have historically protected Mukogodo Forest through Indigenous ecological knowledge and sustainable land use. Their removal would not only violate their rights but also undermine long-term environmental stewardship, exposing the hypocrisy of conservation policies that erase the very communities that have preserved these ecosystems for generations.

Solidarity from the social justice movement

In response to the unfolding crisis, the Social Justice Centers Nairobi Chapter issued a solidarity statement on February 9, 2026, fully endorsing the EAIWA’s concerns and demands. The movement condemned the state’s failure to act on early warnings, rejected narratives that criminalize Indigenous communities, and warned against the normalization of violence as a tool of land dispossession.

The statement situates Mukogodo within a broader national crisis of policing, land governance, and elite impunity, where insecurity is selectively addressed and often instrumentalized against the poor. As the movement affirmed, there can be no security without justice, and no justice without land rights.

Speaking to Peoples Dispatch, Gerald Kamau from the Social Justice Movement said:

“We can no longer afford to fight separately. The urban movement against IMF-backed bills is the same fight as the Indigenous struggle for land. The fight for public spaces is the same fight against forest evictions. The demand for clean rivers and an end to pollution is inseparable from the demand for Indigenous sovereignty over ancestral lands.

When they steal land in the countryside, they steal our food sovereignty. When they poison rivers in the city, they poison the water that flows to rural communities. When they slash healthcare budgets, they kill our elders, the memory keepers of our resistance. When they grab public spaces, they erase our ability to gather, to organize, to rise.”

Demands for justice and protection

Civil society and EAIWA voices have articulated clear and reasonable demands, including:

• An immediate shift from eviction and militarization to community protection
• An independent inquiry into the size, financing, and political protection of armed groups operating in Mukogodo
• The safe return of all forcibly displaced Yaaku families
• Independent human rights monitoring of any security operations in the region
• Full recognition of Yaaku ancestral lands under the Community Land Act (2016)

These are constitutional obligations. The Yaaku Indigenous People have survived centuries of marginalization, erasure, and dispossession. What is at stake in Mukogodo is their future.

The post An Indigenous community in Kenya’s Mukogodo Forest faces violence, forced displacement appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.

---

From Peoples Dispatch via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7699401

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29285

A fossil on display at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies reveals how dinosaurs in the Tyrannosaurus genus may have subdued prey, and the specimen is the focus of a new collaborative research publication between scientists at MSU and the University of Alberta in Canada. The giant carnivorous dinosaur Tyrannosaurus roamed the region that is now Montana at the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, about 66 million years ago. It lived alongside other large dinosaurs, including plant-eaters like Triceratops and the duck-billed Edmontosaurus.

In 2005, a nearly complete Edmontosaurus skull was found in the Hell Creek Formation of eastern Montana on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The skull is now housed in the paleontology collection at Museum of the Rockies, and it contains a telling detail: lodged inside its face is the tooth of a tyrannosaur.

Now on display in the museum's Hall of Horns and Teeth, the skull became the focus of a collaboration between University of Alberta doctoral student Taia Wyenberg-Henzler and Museum of the Rockies' Curator of Paleontology John Scannella. The results of their research are published in the journal PeerJ.

"Although bite marks on bones are relatively common, finding an embedded tooth is extremely rare," said Wyenberg-Henzler. "The great thing about an embedded tooth, particularly in a skull, is it gives you the identity of not only who was bitten but also who did the biting. This allowed us to paint a picture of what happened to this Edmontosaurus, kind of like Cretaceous crime scene investigators."

---

From Biology News - Evolution, Cell theory, Gene theory, Microbiology, Biotechnology via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7663764

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/28136

Photo by JALAA MAREY/AFP via Getty Images.

The world is witnessing yet another manufactured humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in plain sight in Cuba. This crisis is not the result of any internal collapse or mismanagement. It is the deliberate outcome of United States policy, a policy of collective punishment designed to impose economic suffocation on an entire population to extract political change. President Donald Trump has openly declared his intention to overthrow the Cuban government by year’s end, meaning Washington is transforming its decades-old blockade into a full-scale siege. The Trump administration has absurdly designated the small, peaceful Caribbean nation as “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States, weaponizing tariffs and economic coercion against any country that dares to sell oil to Cuba.

CODEPINK Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The consequences are immediate and impossible to ignore. Cuban authorities have announced that jet fuel will be unavailable at airports across the country starting this week, disrupting airport operations and grounding both domestic and international carriers. Canadian airlines have already announced contingency plans for flights to and from Cuba, assessing reroutes, suspensions, and assistance for stranded travelers. But aviation is only the most visible edge of a far deeper collapse. If Cuba’s energy infrastructure fails, people will die. This is not a metaphor. It is inevitable. Without electricity, food cannot be grown, preserved, or transported. Medicines cannot be produced, refrigerated, or administered. Hospitals cannot operate. Ambulances, incubators, and ventilators will stop.

This deprivation is not at all incidental. It is intentional. Administration officials and the extreme right Cuban American political establishment have been explicit: the goal is to inflict suffering, to manufacture hunger, medicine shortages, and nationwide blackouts as instruments of regime change. Washington’s intentions could not be clearer. The United States is attempting to strangle an entire nation into submission.

While the U.S. pursues this deliberate campaign of suffering, Ottawa has once again chosen the path of procedural dithering, offering words instead of action. Canada’s response, to no one’s surprise, has been another Kafkaesque exercise in bureaucratic evasion. When Senator Yuen Pau Woo asked officials from the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade what Canada is doing to prevent this potentially catastrophic humanitarian disaster in Cuba, the exchange exposed more absence than action. Pressed for specifics, the response was: “There are no specifics.” The officials further conceded that “there is no humanitarian response plan for Cuba that I’m aware of,” explaining that Canada’s engagement has been framed as “more looking at the development context and not the humanitarian context.” In practice, this distinction functions as a delay mechanism. The government is “looking into the matter,” as it so often does, deferring urgency behind the process while conditions deteriorate. The latency appears less accidental than structural. And, as usual, no timeline has been offered, no indication of when this period of observation will end, or when statements will give way to action.

This pattern is not all new, nor is it confined to Cuba. It is, in fact, a continuation of a long record of calibrated restraint and strategic silence. Canada’s response over the past few years has been consistent, predictable, and deeply inadequate. By now, Canada has perfected the art of tactful bystanding, present in language, absent in consequence. Ottawa has expressed concern, called for de-escalation, and urged all parties to respect international law, but it has avoided naming responsibility and evaded confronting its closest ally. Canada criticizes outcomes while refusing to challenge the very system that produces them. This is simply appeasement dressed up as diplomacy. While statements are issued, the systems that produce these horrors remain untouched, leaving ordinary people, Palestinians, Venezuelans, Iranians, and now Cubans, to bear the consequences.

For the past two years, the United States has funded and enabled genocide in Gaza, where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed with U.S. weapons, under U.S. protection, with full knowledge that no meaningful consequences will follow. A recent Al Jazeera investigation revealed that U.S. supplied thermal and thermobaric munitions, burning at 3,500 degrees Celsius, effectively evaporated nearly 3,000 Palestinians, leaving no trace of their bodies, a stark illustration of unchecked barbarism. And as we speak, Israeli authorities are reportedly preparing to execute Palestinian prisoners under mandatory death penalties in military courts for vaguely defined “terrorism” offenses, laws applied only to Palestinians. And yet Canada, despite claiming to have imposed an arms embargo, continues to supply ammunition and weapons parts that fuel this violence. Canadian factories produce fighter jet components, explosives, and munitions that flow through U.S. channels directly into the assault, sustaining the machinery of death while Ottawa issues carefully worded statements of concern.

This silence is not confined to Gaza. After the United States launched strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Ottawa responded with bland calls for calm and diplomacy. Still, it deliberately refrained from directly condemning Washington’s military action, instead echoing cautious G7 language about negotiation without even naming the U.S. role in the escalation.

And when the U.S. carried out large‑scale strikes in Venezuela and captured its president, Canada’s official statement did not even bother to mention the United States. And, instead offered abstract calls for all parties to “uphold international law” while leaving Washington’s unilateral intervention unchallenged.

In each case, Ottawa paid lip service to restraint while leaving raw power untouched, exposing how Ottawa’s posture has consistently privileged diplomatic caution over moral accountability.

Although recently, it did seem that Canada’s posture might be shifting, tellingly, not because of mass civilian deaths abroad. The change came only when U.S. military adventurism edged closer to home. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s warnings about a collapsing rules-based international order only came after the U.S. threatened Greenland, a territory tied to NATO allies and Arctic stability. Only then did Canada speak clearly about sovereignty, coercion, and the dangers of unchecked power. The timing is telling. It suggests Canada perceives the risks of impunity only when they threaten Western interests or its own proximity, while the devastation inflicted on others remains effectively invisible.

Even then, the response has remained largely rhetorical.

And now, as the humanitarian catastrophe looms in Cuba, Canada appears to be relying on verbal gymnastics to maintain political correctness while avoiding meaningful action. Even though, on paper, Ottawa opposes U.S. sanctions and the blockade, in practice, it offers no condemnation, no advocacy, and no protection for ordinary Cubans facing hunger, blackouts, and collapsing hospitals. Suffice it to say, Canada has by now perfected the role of silent bystander to nearly an art form.

Today, the mechanisms that enable atrocity, impunity, exceptionalism, and allied silence are on full display and fully operational, and Cuba is simply the latest victim. To call the United States’ behavior “outside the spirit of international law” would be a grotesque understatement. Washington treats international law as optional, shielding mass civilian slaughter through diplomatic vetoes, launching unilateral strikes with impunity, and sustaining devastation through overwhelming military support.

Canada is not responsible for U.S. actions. But it is responsible for its response to them. Ottawa has deliberately hidden behind bureaucratic loopholes while allowing Canadian-made weapons components and ammunition to move through U.S. supply chains and into Israel, insulating itself from accountability while profiting from the machinery of war. Carney’s government has offered no clear or urgent plan on Bill C-233, legislation intended to curb Canadian arms exports where there is a risk of war crimes. The bill continues to hang in limbo, while Canada remains embedded in U.S. military supply chains. Canadian-made F-35 components and ammunition continue to flow to the United States, where end-use accountability effectively disappears. Simultaneously, Canada continues to export armoured vehicles and security equipment to U.S. agencies, including ICE, an institution that has detained Canadian citizens without explanation, due process, or urgency.

When Canada’s response to ICE’s documented brutalities of its own citizens is so plainly inadequate, it comes as no surprise that its response to U.S. aggression abroad is equally hollow and insufficient. None of the countries affected by the U.S. aggression, Palestinians, Iranians, Venezuelans, Cubans, or others subjected to unilateral force, believe that Canada is in their corner in any meaningful way. None. Canada’s response serves no protective function at all. It is a calculated performance of concern, engineered to evade moral obligation without disrupting U.S. power.

If Canada genuinely wants to make a difference, it can start with something simple and immediate: sell essential goods to Cuba, food, fuel, and medicine. Not statements. Not carefully worded press releases. Tangible relief that keeps lights on, shelves stocked, and patients alive. Yet, as so often before, Ottawa may retreat behind another polished, empty statement while taking no meaningful action.

Ottawa’s approach is built on a reckless assumption that Trump’s chaos is governed by strategy, that U.S. volatility is calculable, and that Canada will somehow remain exempt. That illusion has already collapsed. The same contempt for international law has now extended to Greenland, with explicit annexation threats aimed at allies. If Canada continues to hedge, appease, and delay rather than act on principle, it should not expect any support when its own sovereignty is challenged. Silence does not buy safety. It only invites escalation. If Canada does not adjust its course, it may find that when threats strike closer to home, there will be no one left willing to stand alongside it.

Take action for Cuba!

Take action for Palestine!

---

Anne Kamath an activist from Windsor, Ontario, whose work began over 20 years ago in opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Currently, she serves as one of the organizers of CODEPINK Ontario, where a central focus of her advocacy is supporting the Land Back movement and Indigenous sovereignty. Her two decades of organizing reflect a sustained commitment to peace, justice, and decolonization.

Umer Azad is a software engineer by profession and a volunteer with CODEPINK and the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM). He previously served as the Regional Social Media Expert for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), where he worked on digital outreach, exposing voter fraud, and documenting human rights violations.

---

From CODEPINK Substack via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7663764

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/28136

Photo by JALAA MAREY/AFP via Getty Images.

The world is witnessing yet another manufactured humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in plain sight in Cuba. This crisis is not the result of any internal collapse or mismanagement. It is the deliberate outcome of United States policy, a policy of collective punishment designed to impose economic suffocation on an entire population to extract political change. President Donald Trump has openly declared his intention to overthrow the Cuban government by year’s end, meaning Washington is transforming its decades-old blockade into a full-scale siege. The Trump administration has absurdly designated the small, peaceful Caribbean nation as “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to the United States, weaponizing tariffs and economic coercion against any country that dares to sell oil to Cuba.

CODEPINK Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The consequences are immediate and impossible to ignore. Cuban authorities have announced that jet fuel will be unavailable at airports across the country starting this week, disrupting airport operations and grounding both domestic and international carriers. Canadian airlines have already announced contingency plans for flights to and from Cuba, assessing reroutes, suspensions, and assistance for stranded travelers. But aviation is only the most visible edge of a far deeper collapse. If Cuba’s energy infrastructure fails, people will die. This is not a metaphor. It is inevitable. Without electricity, food cannot be grown, preserved, or transported. Medicines cannot be produced, refrigerated, or administered. Hospitals cannot operate. Ambulances, incubators, and ventilators will stop.

This deprivation is not at all incidental. It is intentional. Administration officials and the extreme right Cuban American political establishment have been explicit: the goal is to inflict suffering, to manufacture hunger, medicine shortages, and nationwide blackouts as instruments of regime change. Washington’s intentions could not be clearer. The United States is attempting to strangle an entire nation into submission.

While the U.S. pursues this deliberate campaign of suffering, Ottawa has once again chosen the path of procedural dithering, offering words instead of action. Canada’s response, to no one’s surprise, has been another Kafkaesque exercise in bureaucratic evasion. When Senator Yuen Pau Woo asked officials from the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade what Canada is doing to prevent this potentially catastrophic humanitarian disaster in Cuba, the exchange exposed more absence than action. Pressed for specifics, the response was: “There are no specifics.” The officials further conceded that “there is no humanitarian response plan for Cuba that I’m aware of,” explaining that Canada’s engagement has been framed as “more looking at the development context and not the humanitarian context.” In practice, this distinction functions as a delay mechanism. The government is “looking into the matter,” as it so often does, deferring urgency behind the process while conditions deteriorate. The latency appears less accidental than structural. And, as usual, no timeline has been offered, no indication of when this period of observation will end, or when statements will give way to action.

This pattern is not all new, nor is it confined to Cuba. It is, in fact, a continuation of a long record of calibrated restraint and strategic silence. Canada’s response over the past few years has been consistent, predictable, and deeply inadequate. By now, Canada has perfected the art of tactful bystanding, present in language, absent in consequence. Ottawa has expressed concern, called for de-escalation, and urged all parties to respect international law, but it has avoided naming responsibility and evaded confronting its closest ally. Canada criticizes outcomes while refusing to challenge the very system that produces them. This is simply appeasement dressed up as diplomacy. While statements are issued, the systems that produce these horrors remain untouched, leaving ordinary people, Palestinians, Venezuelans, Iranians, and now Cubans, to bear the consequences.

For the past two years, the United States has funded and enabled genocide in Gaza, where tens of thousands of civilians have been killed with U.S. weapons, under U.S. protection, with full knowledge that no meaningful consequences will follow. A recent Al Jazeera investigation revealed that U.S. supplied thermal and thermobaric munitions, burning at 3,500 degrees Celsius, effectively evaporated nearly 3,000 Palestinians, leaving no trace of their bodies, a stark illustration of unchecked barbarism. And as we speak, Israeli authorities are reportedly preparing to execute Palestinian prisoners under mandatory death penalties in military courts for vaguely defined “terrorism” offenses, laws applied only to Palestinians. And yet Canada, despite claiming to have imposed an arms embargo, continues to supply ammunition and weapons parts that fuel this violence. Canadian factories produce fighter jet components, explosives, and munitions that flow through U.S. channels directly into the assault, sustaining the machinery of death while Ottawa issues carefully worded statements of concern.

This silence is not confined to Gaza. After the United States launched strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Ottawa responded with bland calls for calm and diplomacy. Still, it deliberately refrained from directly condemning Washington’s military action, instead echoing cautious G7 language about negotiation without even naming the U.S. role in the escalation.

And when the U.S. carried out large‑scale strikes in Venezuela and captured its president, Canada’s official statement did not even bother to mention the United States. And, instead offered abstract calls for all parties to “uphold international law” while leaving Washington’s unilateral intervention unchallenged.

In each case, Ottawa paid lip service to restraint while leaving raw power untouched, exposing how Ottawa’s posture has consistently privileged diplomatic caution over moral accountability.

Although recently, it did seem that Canada’s posture might be shifting, tellingly, not because of mass civilian deaths abroad. The change came only when U.S. military adventurism edged closer to home. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s warnings about a collapsing rules-based international order only came after the U.S. threatened Greenland, a territory tied to NATO allies and Arctic stability. Only then did Canada speak clearly about sovereignty, coercion, and the dangers of unchecked power. The timing is telling. It suggests Canada perceives the risks of impunity only when they threaten Western interests or its own proximity, while the devastation inflicted on others remains effectively invisible.

Even then, the response has remained largely rhetorical.

And now, as the humanitarian catastrophe looms in Cuba, Canada appears to be relying on verbal gymnastics to maintain political correctness while avoiding meaningful action. Even though, on paper, Ottawa opposes U.S. sanctions and the blockade, in practice, it offers no condemnation, no advocacy, and no protection for ordinary Cubans facing hunger, blackouts, and collapsing hospitals. Suffice it to say, Canada has by now perfected the role of silent bystander to nearly an art form.

Today, the mechanisms that enable atrocity, impunity, exceptionalism, and allied silence are on full display and fully operational, and Cuba is simply the latest victim. To call the United States’ behavior “outside the spirit of international law” would be a grotesque understatement. Washington treats international law as optional, shielding mass civilian slaughter through diplomatic vetoes, launching unilateral strikes with impunity, and sustaining devastation through overwhelming military support.

Canada is not responsible for U.S. actions. But it is responsible for its response to them. Ottawa has deliberately hidden behind bureaucratic loopholes while allowing Canadian-made weapons components and ammunition to move through U.S. supply chains and into Israel, insulating itself from accountability while profiting from the machinery of war. Carney’s government has offered no clear or urgent plan on Bill C-233, legislation intended to curb Canadian arms exports where there is a risk of war crimes. The bill continues to hang in limbo, while Canada remains embedded in U.S. military supply chains. Canadian-made F-35 components and ammunition continue to flow to the United States, where end-use accountability effectively disappears. Simultaneously, Canada continues to export armoured vehicles and security equipment to U.S. agencies, including ICE, an institution that has detained Canadian citizens without explanation, due process, or urgency.

When Canada’s response to ICE’s documented brutalities of its own citizens is so plainly inadequate, it comes as no surprise that its response to U.S. aggression abroad is equally hollow and insufficient. None of the countries affected by the U.S. aggression, Palestinians, Iranians, Venezuelans, Cubans, or others subjected to unilateral force, believe that Canada is in their corner in any meaningful way. None. Canada’s response serves no protective function at all. It is a calculated performance of concern, engineered to evade moral obligation without disrupting U.S. power.

If Canada genuinely wants to make a difference, it can start with something simple and immediate: sell essential goods to Cuba, food, fuel, and medicine. Not statements. Not carefully worded press releases. Tangible relief that keeps lights on, shelves stocked, and patients alive. Yet, as so often before, Ottawa may retreat behind another polished, empty statement while taking no meaningful action.

Ottawa’s approach is built on a reckless assumption that Trump’s chaos is governed by strategy, that U.S. volatility is calculable, and that Canada will somehow remain exempt. That illusion has already collapsed. The same contempt for international law has now extended to Greenland, with explicit annexation threats aimed at allies. If Canada continues to hedge, appease, and delay rather than act on principle, it should not expect any support when its own sovereignty is challenged. Silence does not buy safety. It only invites escalation. If Canada does not adjust its course, it may find that when threats strike closer to home, there will be no one left willing to stand alongside it.

Take action for Cuba!

Take action for Palestine!

---

Anne Kamath an activist from Windsor, Ontario, whose work began over 20 years ago in opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Currently, she serves as one of the organizers of CODEPINK Ontario, where a central focus of her advocacy is supporting the Land Back movement and Indigenous sovereignty. Her two decades of organizing reflect a sustained commitment to peace, justice, and decolonization.

Umer Azad is a software engineer by profession and a volunteer with CODEPINK and the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM). He previously served as the Regional Social Media Expert for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), where he worked on digital outreach, exposing voter fraud, and documenting human rights violations.

---

From CODEPINK Substack via This RSS Feed.