Mediaboss Marketing

Protest leader Joshua Wong leaves Hong Kongs high court in a prison van after his sentencing. Photograph: STRINGER/Reuters

For Hong Kongs embattled democracy movement the 20th anniversary of the UKs handover to China has been nothing short of an annus horribilis.

But on Thursday afternoon, just minutes after the former British colonys high court had transformed him into one of the citys first prisoners of conscience, Joshua Wong struck a decidedly an upbeat tone.

See you soon, the 20-year-old protest leader tweeted after he and two friends, Nathan Law and Alex Chow, were jailed for their role in launching 2014s umbrella movement, a historic 79-day occupation that drew hundreds of thousands of young people out on to the streets.

For Wong, who was sentenced to six months behind bars, the ruling is a particularly heavy blow. The student activist, who found fame as Hong Kongs teenage face of protest during the 2014 demonstrations, had hoped to run for political office after turning 21 in October. This weeks sentence has scuppered those dreams for at least five years.

It has also delivered a body blow to Hong Kongs wider democracy movement, already reeling from the disqualification of four its lawmakers from parliament and the growing sense that the international community has abandoned it for fear of upsetting Beijing.

Many supporters in the court were crying because we didnt want to accept this result, said Ray Chan, a pro-democracy politician and Hong Kongs first openly gay legislator, who was among those to turn out in support of Wong, Law and Chow.

The sentences constituted an attempt to intimidate young Hong Kongers who were considering taking to the streets to protest against Beijings refusal to grand them genuine democracy.

But for Chan, and many others within the pro-democracy camp, the message is: we will not be cowed.

It cannot make all of us keep quiet, Chan vowed. We still have hope because we have so many young people who are prepared to sacrifice their freedom to fight for democracy for our society.

I want to make it more positive - a few months is not too long a period, Chan said of his jailed friends. Never give up!

Benedict Rogers, a British human rights activist who knows all three of the campaigners, said he could also see a silver-lining to the storm clouds that have been gathering over Hong Kongs democracy movement.

Rogers decried the trios imprisonment as a travesty of justice. They are absolutely delightful, he said. All three of them are among the most intelligent, bright, thoughtful and fun people that I can think of and the idea that they are guilty of a criminal act is absurd.

[But] if anything is to galvanise the international community into realising that Hong Kongs basic freedoms and one country, two systems are now really on a knife edge if not already dead then it is the sentencing of three young men who have committed no crime apart from a political crime.

In a statement, Wongs party, Demosist, accused Chinas president, Xi Jinping, of eroding the civil and political freedoms that Hong Kong was promised after its return to Beijings control and lamented the immense humiliation the government had inflicted upon their struggle for change.

But Rogers said that by turning the three men into political prisoners, authorities were giving them even greater legitimacy and boosting the very cause they were trying to undermine. When you look throughout history at people who have become iconic figures, theyve often done so because of spending periods of time in prison, he said. One only has to think of Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi, and countless others.

Eddie Chu, a pro-democracy legislator, was another who refused to be downbeat. Chu accused the Communist party of attempting to wipe out a generation of potential candidates by having those who might seek election to oppose its rule thrown in jail.

But he insisted the tactic would fail: Hong Kong people will not be defeated.

View original post here:
Hong Kong jailings could lend democracy cause greater legitimacy - The Guardian

Democratic process should continue. Democracy should not be derailed. A common statement that every political party utter thousands of times. But not all stand with this statement in testing time. Stances change when personal interests clash with this saying. This is something which is observed after the Supreme Court historic verdict in the Panama Case. The deliberate effort is made to make the judgment and the honourable judges of the Supreme Court controversial. Even though everyone knows that an independent judiciary is part and parcel in a democratically ruled country.

Last month, Nawaz Sharif was politically eliminated by an independent and transparent judicial process. The decision was widely criticised especially by the ruling party but one thing is for sure that the whole process and action were within the limits of the constitution of Pakistan and no undemocratic force was behind this case. The unanimous and unprecedented judgment against the sitting prime minister altered the political landscape in our country. It was a watershed moment for the country`s democratic evaluation and has been described as a step forward in efforts towards establishing the rule of law. It signifies a milestone in the development of an independent judiciary, not subservient to the executive. Many independent and credible jurists have regarded the decision as setting a good precedent that will survive the test of time.

Significantly it is a victory for the PTI, a political truth that must be acknowledged. If it were not for the relentless campaign of Imran Khan and his party, the accountability of elected officials would not have been possible. After Mr Sharif`s disqualification, Mr Khan sensibly distanced himself from the perception of a personal war against Mr Sharif. But the ousted prime minister, instead of accepting the judgment, as he and his party affirmed during the proceedings of the case, adopted a collision course. He changed his stance and labelled the decision a conspiracy and directed the partys canons towards the honourable judges. Mr Sharif is not willing to accept his lower political profile.

After the verdict, every political leader stated categorically that democracy is not in danger. But the ouster PM described the event as a setback to democracy. His narration that no prime minister in the country`s 70-year history had been allowed to complete his or her term is beyond comprehension. The fact is that it is the term of parliament that is enshrined in the Constitution and not of the prime minister. It is so apparent that all his talk about democracy and civilian supremacy is about personal political survival. Mr Sharif, unfortunately, directed the anger of his dismissal from the office in an unfortunate direction. He is now trying to present himself as a revolutionary but no one knows what sort of revolution he is talking about.

In order to defend his position, Mr Sharif is appearing to contradict many of his own statements and actions. For example, before setting on his GT Road journey he had to accept that ex-PM Yousaf Raza Gallani should not have been disqualified. But for that he created pressure to make him leave the office. Similarly, the ouster PM and his party had been taking the credit that they made the judiciary an independent institution but during his journey back to Lahore he made fiery speeches against the verdict and termed the decision as conspiracy. One finds it even more contradictory when they express their intentions to file a review petition before the same judiciary which they tried to malign.

The Supreme Court had given more than ample time to the Sharif family to prove their innocence against the charges. But unfortunately they could not produce any credible documents in the court and to the JIT, rather created more complications for themselves by presenting forged documents. Had they given the proofs in the court, they would not have to clarify themselves on roads.

Mr Sharif should also understand that it is decision within the constitution. He was trying to build a narrative that a representative of 20 million people was ousted by five people. The reality is that the constitution which made him the representative of the 20 million people, the same constitution has empowered the honourable judges to disqualify any MNA who is not honest.

While the gloves are already off as political parties run a sordid campaign against each other, post-Panama matters are becoming dirtier. The present political scenario in the country reminds us of the political period of 1990s, when the Sharifs and the Bhuttos attacked each other politically in very personal and aggressive terms. Whatever the judicial fate of Mr Sharif, it has always been clear that the overall democratic stakes are greater than any individual`s political future. The PML-N should continue to act honourably and protect the overall democratic process.

The decision of the Supreme Court is not a blow to democracy but a blow to dynastic politics that has been the biggest deterrent to the development of democratic institutions and values in the country. Most importantly, democracy is the rule of people by the people. It must not become a means to perpetuate dynastic rule. The people`s mandate does not make someone above the law. Democracy will further thrive when our electorate will gain more trust of the people.

See the original post:
Democracy should move forward - The Nation

KING 5's Lili Tan reports.

LiLi Tan, KING 12:04 AM. PDT August 21, 2017

In the Fremont neighborhood, a statue of Vladimir Lenin has sat at North 36th Street and Fremont Place North since the mid-1990s. (Photo: KING)

Art and injustice: its heated topic of debate across the United States. Seattles quirky Fremont neighborhood, which is home to a seven-ton statue of Vladimir Lenin, is now also home to controversy.

Some are demanding the statues removal, including Mayor Ed Murray.

I think hed say they've got it wrong. That maybe their intentions are good, but they're seeing it in the same terms of the confederate statues, which are used to oppress people. There's no comparison. It is apples and oranges, Fran Dodson said.

Dodson is the former wife of Lewis Carpenter, who bought and shipped the statue from Slovakia.

You might say I helped him buy it, Dodson said. If you ask Lew why he did it, he'd say, for cookies, which for him meant for fun. He thought he was going to make a killing on it.

The Issaquah man never flipped it for profit, but the couple did become good friends with artist Emil Venkov, who Dodson says was forced to forge the statue by the Communist Regime.

He was commissioned, but he wanted to do it his way. They tried to argue with him, tell him how to do it, but he did it anyway. This was his silent protest against communism because it was oppressive, Dodson said, explaining the statue has hidden messages intended by the artist to be symbols of resistance.

What it does is it shows Lenin as not a benevolent dictator, but an aggressive dictator: stepping forward in an aggressive manner whereas in other artworks he is often shown with children and abstract rifles and flames shooting up from behind him, showing he was a violent man, Dodson said.

Blood on the hands came at a later date and by someone other than Venkov.

I look at the red paint that someone's added to his hand, posters on his backside. I've seen him in a tutu. I don't think he's respected here. I think he's ridiculed, Dodson said, explaining her husband would love the protests and controversy happening today.

After all, controversy sometimes spurs capitalism, which could potentially raising the statues resale value Carpenters lifelong American Dream.

I could see that happening, Dodson said joking. I think he could also enjoy the value of how its making people think.

She hopes the statue will not be sold or moved because the family uses the statue to pay their respects to Carpenter, who died in a car crash in 1994.

Instead, Dodson hopes the smaller plaque can be placed next to the statue, explaining the artists intensions.

2017 KING-TV

Read the original post:
Lenin statue 'silent protest against communism,' says family member ... - KING5.com

Fighting Nazis is a good thing, but fighting Nazis doesnt necessarily make you or your cause good. By my lights this is simply an obvious fact.

The greatest Nazi-killer of the 20th century was Josef Stalin. He also killed millions of his own people and terrorized, oppressed, enslaved or brutalized tens of millions more. The fact that he killed Nazis during World War II (out of self-preservation, not principle) doesnt dilute his evil one bit.

This should settle the issue as far as Im concerned. Nazism was evil. Soviet communism was evil. Its fine to believe that Nazism was more evil than communism. That doesnt make communism good.

Alas, it doesnt settle the issue. Confusion on this point poisoned politics in America and abroad for generations.

Part of the problem is psychological. Theres a natural tendency to think that when people, or movements, hate each other, it must be because theyre opposites. This assumption overlooks the fact that many indeed, most of the great conflicts and hatreds in human history are derived from what Sigmund Freud called the narcissism of minor differences.

Most tribal hatreds are between very similar groups. The European wars of religion were between peoples who often shared the same language and culture but differed on the correct way to practice the Christian faith. The Sunni-Shia split in the Muslim world is the source of great animosity between very similar peoples.

The young communists and fascists fighting for power in the streets of 1920s Germany had far more in common with each other than they had with decent liberals or conservatives, as we understand those terms today. Thats always true of violent radicals and would-be totalitarians.

The second part of the problem wasnt innocent confusion, but sinister propaganda. As Hitler solidified power and effectively outlawed the Communist Party of Germany, The Communist International (Comintern) abandoned its position that socialist and progressive groups that were disloyal to Moscow were fascist and instead encouraged communists everywhere to build popular fronts against the common enemy of Nazism.

These alliances of convenience with social democrats and other progressives were a great propaganda victory for communists around the world because they bolstered the myth that communists were just members of the left coalition in the fight against Hitler, bigotry, fascism, etc.

This obscured the fact that whenever the communists had a chance to seize power, they did so. And often, the first people they killed, jailed or exiled were their former allies. Thats what happened in Eastern Europe, Cuba and other places where communists succeeded in taking over the government.

If you havent figured it out yet, this seemingly ancient history is relevant today because of the depressingly idiotic argument about whether its OK to equate antifa antifascist left-wing radicals with the neo-Nazi and white supremacist rabble that recently descended on Charlottesville, Va. The president wants to claim that there were very fine people on both sides of the protest and that the antifascist radicals are equally blameworthy. He borrowed from Fox News Channels Sean Hannity the bogus term alt-left to describe the antifa radicals.

The term is bogus for the simple reason that, unlike the alt-right, nobody calls themselves the alt-left. And thats too bad. One of the only nice things about the alt-right is that its leaders are honest about the fact that they want nothing to do with traditional American conservatism. Like the original Nazis, they seek to replace the traditional right with their racial hogwash.

The antifa crowd has a very similar agenda with regard to traditional American liberalism. These goons and thugs oppose free speech, celebrate violence, despise dissent and have little use for anything else in the American political tradition. But many liberals, particularly in the media, are victims of the same kind of confusion that vexed so much of American liberalism in the 20th century. Because antifa suddenly has the (alt-)right enemies, they must be the good guys. Theyre not.

And thats why this debate is so toxically stupid. Fine, antifa isnt as bad as the KKK. Who cares? Since when is being less bad than the Klan a major moral accomplishment?

In these tribal times, the impulse to support anyone who shares your enemies is powerful. But it is a morally stunted reflex. This is America. Youre free to denounce totalitarians wherever you find them even if they might hate the right people.

2017 Tribune Content Agency LLC

Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review. Email: goldbergcolumn@gmail.com Twitter: @JonahNRO

Excerpt from:
'Antifa' radicals aren't good because they fight Nazis - San Francisco Chronicle

The sign caught my attention. Attached to a fence in Pastora, a Caracas neighborhood and former bastion of the Hugo Chvez revolution, it read: If not now, when? If not us, who? That was the Spanish version of the same Czech message that I saw displayed in my hometown, Prague, during the Velvet Revolution of 1989.

While covering the revolt against Venezuelan president Nicols Maduro and his government, Ive encountered many such echoes. I still vividly recall the exhilarating and scary times in the fight against Communist rule 28 years ago.

In Caracas, I witness the same propaganda as I did in Prague, where smiling officials exploited the so-called achievements of the revolution while threatening and ridiculing their opponents. Vclav Havel, who would become the first democratically elected Czech president in 40 years, endured assassination attempts on his character. On national television, the Communist regime portrayed him as a filthy scoundrel, a drifter, an imbecile.

To demonize him further, the government footage of Havel was always black-and-white, in contrast to the bright, colorful views of the socialist country under the guidance of Communist leaders. The propagandists liked to use joyful, Mozart-style violins to accompany video showing life under Communist rule, while the soundtrack to the images of Havel was of sharp, warped electronic tones.

Today in Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, the second in command of the Maduro regime, attacks his opponents on national television, his favorite target being Freddy Guevara, the former vice president of the National Assembly, which the Maduro regime eliminated just days ago. Guevara is a little bird who likes to smoke his marijuana, Cabello said some weeks ago on his regular Wednesday show Con el Mazo Dando. Maduro weighed in by calling Guevara, well, an imbecile. Cabello and Maduro often use the black-and-white propaganda technique whenever they show images of opposition figures.

Then there are the government thugs.

When I was 13 years old, walking home one day I saw a Soviet flag hanging pretty low above a door frame in Prague, prompting the childs idea of trying to reach it with one mighty jump. I made it and touched the flag! Immediately, two members of the Peoples Militia who were standing nearby in their ugly Mao-style uniforms grabbed me and slapped me around for showing disrespect to the Soviet Union.

That afternoon, the culture of fear that prevented many from criticizing the government was instilled in me. Anybody can come for you and do you harm, I thought, as my adolescent brain was consumed by panic. Today in Venezuela, that job is done by the so-called colectivos for the Maduro regime. They are a truly scary band of criminals roaming the streets of Caracas and other cities, carrying rifles, ready to unload on anybody.

Even under that oppression, the best of the human spirit often shines through in Venezuela, as it did in Prague. People here rise above their fear, standing up to tyranny and openly challenging flagrant violations of human rights. Venezuelans walk through the streets, defying the possibility that they will be hit by a rubber bullet, choked by tear-gas bombs, or killed. Ive seen protesters return to challenge Maduros troops a few seconds after a tear-gas attack clears. Mostly they confront the thugs only with their physical presence, unarmed. People from all walks of life show this bravery.

But bravery might not be enough. The resistance against the Maduro regime could fail, a soul-crushing prospect for many Venezuelans. Maduro has shown himself to be nakedly dictatorial, disregarding the division of powers, freely lying to the citizens.

Days before the so-called election on July 30 for the Constituent Assembly, an alternative legislative body stacked with Maduros allies, many who oppose his regime told me that the government would claim that the total number of votes for the assembly would be 8 million and it was. Why? That was just enough to edge out the 7.6 million votes cast in the July 16 plebiscite organized by the opposition. There, an overwhelming majority of Venezuelans rejected the Constituent Assembly. Many opponents of the government now fear that this newly created rubber-stamp Constituent Assembly will cement the Maduro dictatorship.

If their fear is realized, Venezuela might end up following the Czechoslovakia not of 1989 but of 1968. During the Prague Spring, as it was called, many of my countrymen believed that the regime was soon to fall. Their revolt was crushed, however, by overwhelming military force in the form of invading Soviet tanks.

Of course, Eastern European Communism and Maduros are different in many respects. But the hope and the vitality that are crushed are universal. Many Venezuelans and I, too, fear that Maduro will send this country to a condition resembling that of Cuba in the dark days of Fidel Castro.

Back in the 1990s, Cuba suffered a severe economic crisis following the fall of the Soviet Union. That so-called Special Period was marked by widespread starvation and the collapse of infrastructure including transportation, electricity, and water supplies.

Cubans were reduced to a life in dark, humid apartments while going hungry. Through propaganda, the state hammered away at them and threatened anyone who would dare to stand up against the Castro regime. Alina Fernndez, Fidels daughter, told me some years ago that sitting in such a desolate apartment, feeling paralyzed and depressed, is what finally moved her to flee her country.

For months now, Venezuelans have been enduring unprecedented economic hardship. They are still far from the depths of misery recently suffered by Cubans, as the water and electricity still run. And although some staples eggs, bread, milk, cooking oil can be hard to find, other foods are still available. And Maduro-regime minders are not stationed on every block, as their counterparts are in Cuba. The Cuban government collaborates closely with a network of snitches who write damaging reports on anyone who would rebel or even criticize the Castro regime.

In recent months, many Venezuelans have opted to leave the country. Others have vowed to stay and fight for freedom and democracy, which the Maduro government has been systematically dismantling. Those fighting back in Caracas and throughout Venezuela deserve better than the grayness and repression of the Communism of former Czechoslovakia, stripped of self-expression, diversity of thought, physical and mental safety, and democracy. They deserve the spirit of the Velvet Revolution and its freedom.

Eduard Freisler, a Czech reporter based in New York, writes this from Caracas.

Link:
Venezuela and the Gray Shades of Communist Czechoslovakia - National Review