Mediaboss Marketing

Ukraine is interested in humanitarian cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the National Committee of the Ukrainian Red Cross Society in the return of Ukrainian citizens from captivity and camps and their further rehabilitation, the presidential press service has reported.

According to the report, this issue was discussed at a meeting between Deputy Head of the Ukrainian President's Office Roman Mashovets, Deputy Head of the ICRC Delegation in Ukraine Daniel Bunnskog and Director General of the National Committee of the Ukrainian Red Cross Society Maksym Dotsenko.

The participants in the meeting discussed the prospects for and the ways of the further development and deepening of relations between Ukraine and the international humanitarian movement of the Red Cross, the report said.

"During the conversation, special attention was paid to humanitarian cooperation in the return of Ukrainian citizens held in captivity and in camps, and their further rehabilitation in Ukraine," the report reads.

Mashovets outlined further areas of cooperation and those responsible for working on practical aspects of humanitarian cooperation between Ukraine, the ICRC and the Ukrainian Red Cross Society.

Bunnskog stressed that the ICRC office in Ukraine has a positive experience of cooperation and is interested in further deepening relations in accordance with the basic principles of the Red Cross.

Dotsenko added that the Ukrainian Red Cross Society cooperates fruitfully with the executive authorities, especially noting the role of humanitarian projects that are being launched together with the Ministry for Veterans.

op

Read more from the original source:
Ukraine counts on cooperation with ICRC in return, rehabilitation of prisoners - Ukrinform. Ukraine and world news

ROBERT E. LEE AND ME A Southerners Reckoning With the Myth of the Lost Cause By Ty Seidule291 pp. St. Martins. $27.99.

Long before the alt-right circled the statue of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville in 2017, Seidule, a retired brigadier general and professor emeritus of military history at West Point, set out to understand why his academy continued to display a portrait of Lee, a graduate of the school who resigned his Army commission to fight against his country.

This investigation required that Seidule, a native Virginian and graduate of Washington and Lee University, examine his own reverence for Lee and the myth of the Lost Cause. The resulting book part autobiography, part history is a powerful and introspective look into white Americans continuing romance with the Confederacy, and the lasting damage that has done.

The chapters follow Seidules life, from his upbringing in Alexandria (which he later learned was a major slave-trading hub) and Monroe, Ga. (where a grisly 1946 quadruple lynching remains unsolved), to his Army career and years teaching at West Point. Along the way he explores Lost Cause ideology, which denies that slavery was the wars central motive; describes the pro-Confederate propaganda served to children in Southern schools in the 1960s and 70s; and illuminates the tortuous relationship between the U.S. Army and its greatest traitor.

The history of the Armys relationship to the Confederacy and Lee is fascinating, especially in light of current controversies over military bases named after Confederate commanders. After the Civil War, Seidule explains, West Point banished the Confederates from memory. The academys postwar motto, Duty, Honor, Country, was a rebuke to secession. Over the next century, however, Lee memorials began to appear. Seidule saw a pattern. Again and again, he says, progress toward integration and equal rights in the military was accompanied by Confederate memorialization.

The books epilogue sets out the reason for Lees treason: the protection of slavery. The evidence is clearly on Seidules side. It is long past time to break Lees grip on American Civil War memory. Seidule provides a blueprint for doing just that.

A SHOT IN THE MOONLIGHT How a Freed Slave and a Confederate Soldier Fought for Justice in the Jim Crow SouthBy Ben MontgomeryIllustrated. 285 pp. Little, Brown/Spark. $28.

The breathless title tells it all. The shot in the moonlight was fired by George Dinning, an emancipated slave, in defense of his home and family in Simpson County, Ky., in 1897. Dinnings target was a mob that had congregated at his home and accused him of theft; his shot killed a white farmer, the scion of a wealthy local family. Dinning was spirited away by a civic-minded sheriff determined to prevent a lynching. Denied that satisfaction, the mob burned Dinnings house to the ground.

Although Kentucky remained in the United States during the Civil War, it was rived politically and plagued by guerrilla violence long past 1865. By the turn of the century, the states white elite had grown impatient with mob violence, which marred its reputation and deterred investment. Kentuckys legislature passed an anti-lynching bill one month before Dinning stood trial for murder. Dinning could have been hanged, either by the mob or by the state. Instead, he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years in prison.

This sentence was too extreme for Gov. William Bradley, who pardoned Dinning, declaring that the fair name of Kentucky had been disgraced by mobs for too long. Noting that Dinnings conviction had been procured almost entirely on the evidence of his assailants, Bradley also affirmed Dinnings defense: that he had fired into the mob only after it had fired on him, and that he acted solely to protect his family.

Dinning, aided by his lawyer, Bennett Young a former Confederate soldier and humanitarian went on to sue members of the mob for the destruction of his home. They won a noteworthy victory in the Kentucky courts.

Montgomerys claim that a Black man in the South had sued his would-be lynchers and won is overstated. Its not clear that the men who congregated at Dinnings home intended to lynch him, and the lawsuit centered on the burned house, not on personal assault. Even so, its a good story, one that reveals the complicated history of the post-bellum South, a world that included brave freedmen, occasionally sympathetic white men and genuine commitment to law and order.

ECONOMY HALL The Hidden History of a Free Black Brotherhood By Fatima ShaikIllustrated. 525 pp. The Historic New Orleans Collection. $34.95.

Economy Hall is so inviting that the true depth of its scholarship is revealed only in its bibliography, which lists dozens of archival and other sources. Shaiks monumental book is anchored in 24 handwritten ledgers rescued from the trash by her father years ago. Her painstaking translation of the ledgers, and re-creation of the world that produced them, transports you to the orbit of the Socit dEconomie et dAssistance Mutuelle, a benevolent association and social club begun in 1836 by 15 French-speaking freemen of African descent in New Orleans. The book is simultaneously a history of the mens iconic meeting place, Economy Hall, and of the city they called home.

Alexis de Tocqueville, commenting on Americans propensity to form associations, called this art of joining the fundamental science of democracy. Shaik emphasizes the political activism of the New Orleans group. Whether refuting the claims of scientific racism, risking their lives for the right to vote or nurturing jazz and other forms of African-American culture, members of the Economie fought to participate in democratic life. Not all of their ventures achieved the desired outcome, as a coalition of New Orleans Black men that included a president of the Economie discovered in 1896, when the Supreme Court upheld Louisianas separate train car law in Plessy v. Ferguson.

After 1900, the Economie evolved from an elite to an inclusive society, Shaik writes. As segregation tightened across the South, the society was led by the son of a Black mother and a Jewish father and began to focus less on politics and more on culture, particularly jazz. Economie musicians shaped the new musical form, and Economy Hall became famous for its dance parties.

The book is organized around the life of Ludger Boguille, the groups long-serving secretary and a local leader of New Orleanss prosperous Creole community. A fierce advocate of Black suffrage, Boguille was nearly killed in 1866 when an armed mob led by police burst into a reconvened Louisiana constitutional convention. Boguille was also a teacher, who prescribed radical kindness for students and parents alike. The city of New Orleans is Boguilles co-star, and Shaiks rendition of her hometown is lyrical and mysterious and always captivating.

View original post here:
Puncturing the Allure of Robert E. Lee, and Other Civil War-Era Histories - The New York Times

The Maricopa County Attorneys Office and Phoenix police have designated a group of protesters as a criminal street gang.

The controversial decision has been blasted by community groups, defense attorneys, and legal organizations.

Politically Charged is an ongoing ABC15 investigation series. Click here to watch part one of the series and watch part two of the series in the player above.

While declining to provide specifics about the evidence, police and prosecutors have defended the charges.

POLITICALLY CHARGED: Officials create fictional gang to charge protesters

As I have stated numerous times, my office is committed to protecting the safety of everyone in this community, law enforcement and demonstrators alike," County Attorney Allister Adel said in a written statement. I fully support everyone in the exercise of their First Amendment rights, but I will not allow criminal conduct, disguised as protest activity, to harm our community.

ABC15 obtained the full grand jury transcript and video from an 85-minute bond hearing for one of the defendants.

Both pieces of testimony show the legal basis Phoenix officers and county prosecutors used to justify the gang designation and other charges against the group.

Below are excerpts from the grand jury transcript and a bond hearing related to key issues in the case.

ACAB GANG

Arizona statutes regarding criminal street gang classification are broad and only require two of the following criteria to be met: (1) Self proclamation; (2) Witness testimony or statements; (3) Written or electronic correspondence; (4) Paraphernalia or photographs; (5) Tattoos; (6) Clothing or colors; (7) Any other indicators.

Phoenix police Sgt. Doug McBride, a grenadier who manages the Tactical Response Unit and former gang detective, testified that all members of the group met the criteria for three reasons.

The first is the chanting of All Cops are Bastards, which he claimed is self-proclamation. The second was most of the group dressed in black, which meets the colors requirement. And the third was many of the group carried umbrellas, which McBride claimed was part of their uniform.

The following are exchanges between prosecutor April Sponsel and McBride during an October 30, 2020 bond hearing for defendant Suvarna Ratnam.

TIMECODE: 5:35SPONSEL: Were they yelling or saying anything?MCBRIDE: Yes, they were.SPONSEL: What were they yelling or saying?MCBRIDE: I believe it was ACAB. And then the group would respond, "All Cops are Bastards.SPONSEL: In regards to the ACAB, do you know where that came from?MCBRIDE: Weve been dealing with it since May, since these protests started. Its a specific group of individuals that identify themselves as being part of All Cops Are Bastards, or ACAB.

Heres how McBride testified before a grand jury when questioned by a MCAO prosecutor.

PAGES: 31, 34, 36Q: What is that name of this gang?A: It is called ACAB, A-C-A-B, and it stands for All Cops Are Bastards. We first came into contact with this group through graffiti, signage, ACAB written on the back of skateboards and different paraphernalia throughout our 150-plus day employment and mobilization and civil unrest in Phoenix.

Q: And what were those two other criteria where you were able to attribute the other individuals listed in the indictment?A: Both self-proclamation and the colors, the clothing.

Q: And through your training and experience of dealing with this ACAB group, what exactly color what color do they claim?A: Black.

Q: And are you finding that ACAB is following the exact same type of philosophy of lets say the Bloods and the Crips?A: Yes.

Q: And what about even maybe the same philosophy as the Hells Angels?A: Very similar, yes.

Q: And why would that be similar?A: I think because the tattoos, the intimidation factor, how they are directing their violent behavior very similar to the Hells Angel organization where they actually organize their violent behavior, and then they carry that out in a very organized fashion. Its not random with the Hells Angels.

Q: And are you finding thats exactly what this ACAB group is doing is they are organizing for the intent to create violence?A: Yes.

A judge who presided over the Oct. 30, 2020 bond hearing heard similar testimony from McBride.

The judge ruled that Ratnam could be released and said the court did not see evidence of violence the night of the groups arrest.

The court does not see that as a threat of violence, said the judge, discussing the groups actions that night.

A defense attorney at the hearing also cross-examined McBride about his claims about ACAB.

TIMECODE: 46:14DEFENSE: Now you said that this group was yelling all cops are bastards during this protest, correct?MCBRIDE: Yes.DEFENSE: I watched the video, didnt they say other things?MCBRIDE: Im sure they did.DEFENSE: Did you hear them say, black lives matter?MCBRIDE: Not personally no.DEFENSE: Did you watch the video with sound on it?MCBRIDE: I did.DEFENSE: And you didnt hear them save black lives matter at any point of time during this march?MCBRIDE: They may have, Im not saying they didnt. I just dont have an independent recollection.

In court motions, another defense attorney attacked the designation of ACAB as a gang, calling it fictional.

ACAB is not a gang at all but a political slogan, Christopher DuPont wrote in the motion to compel prosecutors to release more evidence. In a continuing affront to the First Amendment, most likely motivated by hatred for a group using such an impolite name (ACAB), state prosecutors abetted by Phoenix police alleged that the protesters had assaulted police officers with deadly weapons, including toy smoke bombs and collapsible umbrellas even insinuating, without foundation, that protesters had weaponized their fingernails.

ACAB is a common protest chant that originated almost a century ago and is used across the world.

DuPont further criticized the comparison to the Crips, Bloods, and Hells Angels.

The state called a witness to testify at grand jury that ACAB was just as dangerous and in many ways more dangerous than notorious gangs like the Crips and the Bloods, two gangs that have accounted for as many as 15,000 homicides in the United States during their 30-year run.

UMBRELLAS

One of the criteria used to file gang charges was that many members of the group carried umbrellas during the protest.

TIMECODE: 19:42; 29:15;SPONSEL: The umbrellas, have you seen this tactic used in the past?MCBRIDE: Yes.SPONSEL: And is this a tactic thats commonly used by this particular group?MCBRIDE: Yes it is.

SPONSEL: What are they doing with the umbrellas right there?MCBRIDE: They are keeping them between us and them, and theyre swinging them back and forth basically as a distraction, to conceal what theyre doing, just cause, theyre trying to prevent us from arresting them.

In testimony before the grand jury, McBride also discussed the umbrellas.

PAGE: 38Q: And what about the umbrella, is that part of their, I guess you could say their gang uniform?A: It is. Its an extension of what they are doing to disrupt us and to try and defeat our tactics which are pepper spray and different types of nonlethal munitions. The umbrella will provide a protective umbrella around them, to use the umbrella word, and then it will also conceal what they are doing. As this group moved on October 17th, they were able to conceal what each person was doing by draping umbrellas around the exterior of the group so we couldnt see inside.

Umbrellas are common at protests and have been seen in many cities across the country.

Its something the defense attorney emphasized in the hearing.

TIMECODE: 48:16DEFENSE: Would you agree those umbrellas are used for them to protect themselves from getting pepper sprayed?MCBRIDE: Thats one example of their use.

Members of the group told ABC15 the umbrellas are also to keep alt-right counter-protesters, who were following along next to police, from "doxxing" them.

PROTESTERS RIFLE

A member of the group, Britney Austin, was carrying a rifle during the protest.

McBride discussed the rifle during his grand jury testimony.

PAGE: 47A: I didnt mention earlier, but there is one individual that we noticed early on who has an AR-15 rifle slung. So they cover that person up as well so we cant see what they are doing either.

Q: Does that create a risk for you guys?A: Absolutely. Its a huge hazard for us.

Q: And even though that person is not pointing the gun at you guys in any way, shape, or form, by the mere fact they are covering it up does that put you guys in apprehension that something could happen?A: Absolutely.

In the bond hearing, the defense attorney questioned McBride about the AR-15.

TIMECODE: 39:30DEFENSE: You said there was an individual with an AR-15 at the scene that day?MCBRIDE: Yes sir.DEENSE: Alright, is there anything illegal about having an AR-15?MCBRIDE: NoDEFENSE: Was that person a prohibited possessor?MCBRIDE: Not to my knowledgeDEFENSE: Did that person ever point it at any officer or threaten to point it at any officer?MCBRIDE: Not to my knowledge.DEFENSE: So youd agree with me that that AR-15 did not calculate into your factors of rioting?MCBRIDE: Correct.

The judge at the hearing also said the gun and the groups other actions did not constitute violence or the threat of violence.

TIMECODE: 1:17:30The court has to look at whether that was a threatening use of force or violence. We are an open carry state, the judge said. You are free to carry a gun. That may be threatening to other people, but that is your right in Arizona.

Contact ABC15 Investigator Dave Biscobing at Dave@abc15.com.

Read more:
Inside the case: Watch testimony behind the Phoenix protest gang charges - ABC15 Arizona

If we were setting out to compile a list of groups that we condemn or disapprove of, a strong case could be made for the inclusion of the Proud Boys. But Canadas list of banned terrorist entities does not exist as a vehicle for expressing such sentiments and we should not be using it as such.

This past week, 13 additional groups were added to that list. Of those inclusions, 12 were relatively non-controversial. The inclusion of the Proud Boys, however, raises some legitimate questions and concerns.

Yes, the group holds radical political views and seem to have a thirst for violence (an alt-right fight club is how theyre described by one prominent anti-hate group), but the terrorism bar needs to be set higher than that. Politicizing this process seems both unwise and potentially counterproductive.

Story continues below advertisement

While a strong case exists for describing neo-Nazi groups like Atomwaffen Division and The Base as terrorist organizations, the Proud Boys were the only ones who were the subject of a motion in the House of Commons calling for such a designation (the NDP proposed the motion, which MPs passed unanimously).

Its encouraging that our elected representatives take a dim view of far-right organizations, but this is a highly unusual intrusion into what should otherwise be a sober and objective process. It should not be influenced by the prevailing political attitudes of the moment.

Loosening the definition of terrorism could set a troubling precedent, one that could be abused for political purposes.

The Proud Boys indeed appear to have been involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill insurrection. The events of that day certainly crystalize the threat posed by far-right political extremism. Again, though, thats not an excuse for political interference in this process. If anything, the rushed inclusion of the Proud Boys could prove embarrassing for the government.

Story continues below advertisement

While some Proud Boys members have been charged in connection with the insurrection, none of those charges have been proven in court. Absent any convictions, the case for listing the Proud Boys becomes much weaker.

Trending Stories

This rationale exposes two additional problems for the decision. The fact that those involved in the insurrection are now facing serious charges demonstrates how criminal law provides a means to deal with this sort of political extremism.

Furthermore, it exposes the arbitrary nature of the decision. For example, there are members of the far-right group known as the Oath Keepers who have also been charged in connection with the insurrection. Yet we have not listed the Oath Keepers as a terrorist organization, even though a similar case could be made.

Or, for that matter, why havent we listed the Three Percenters? Or the Soldiers of Odin? Or the Order of Nine Angles? Or the Boogaloo Bois? Or QAnon?

Some of these groups are more dangerous than others. Some are more organized that others (some may be considered more movements than actual groups). There are lone wolf actors who may subscribe to some or all of the beliefs of these groups. There is unquestionably a security threat that exists here, but a narrow counter-terrorism approach will leave many gaps.

Story continues below advertisement

Listing a group as a banned terrorist entity can provide some useful tools in targeting its leadership or disrupting its fundraising, but that has limited applications. The motion voted on in Parliament is rather vague with regard to these nuances as well as the broader question of how we deal with political extremism. It involves law enforcement, obviously, but also a broader de-radicalization approach. Ironically enough, it also involves political leaders.

The word terrorist is obviously a pejorative term, and so much of the conversation around the Proud Boys seems more about who can use the strongest language to denounce them than any sort of meaningful conversation about what these groups and movements represent and how we can counter them.

Politicizing counter-terrorism efforts only serves to erode public confidence in those efforts, as does making arbitrary decisions about which groups make the list and which do not. All of this may outweigh whatever marginal upside results from the listing of the Proud Boys.

This list is not a magic bullet and we not should rely on the listing process as our means of dealing with political extremism. Parliamentarians are right to be worried about groups like the Proud Boys, but their proposed solution which has now been acted upon misses the mark in many ways.

Rob Breakenridge is host of Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge on Global News Radio 770 Calgary and a commentator for Global News.

2021 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

See original here:
COMMENTARY: We can condemn and combat extremism without loosening the definition of terrorism - Global News

For these reasons, the labor-law professor Veena Dubal recently described Prop 22 as the most radical undoing of labor legislation since Taft-Hartley in 1947the Truman-era bill that curbed the power of unions and laid the groundwork for the adoption of so-called right-to-work laws across many states. If tech companies ultimately succeed in their quest to export the California model nationwide, they may hasten an even more profound transformation of Americas labor market. As The American Prospects Alexander Sammon has pointed out, Prop 22s almost immediate embrace by grocery chains is beginning to make companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash look more like traditional staffing agencies than innovative, high-tech products. Tantalized by the possibility of lower labor costs, businesses of every kind may convert to an independent workforce when laws allowpotentially cementing the gig economy and its ethos of precarity-enabled consumer convenience as the norm everywhere.

The ballot measures backstory is arguably as noteworthy as its contents. Although anti-worker policies have a storied history in relation to Republican governors and conservative ideology, the milieu that gave birth to Prop 22 was as blue as San Francisco Bay. Five Big Tech companies bankrolled the $200 million Yes on Prop. 22 campaign, but the idea has deep roots in the Democratic Party and in American liberalism as a whole.

Derek Thompson: Why big-city dominance is a problem for Democrats

Most obviously, its core concept (the need for a third category of worker alongside employees and independent contractors) comes from a 2015 policy paper co-authored by former Obama Acting Labor Secretary (and presidential-campaign adviser to Joe Biden) Seth Harris. Harris, who departed the Obama administration for a perch at the employer-side law firm Dentons, argued that the flexibility nominally associated with gig workers (particularly the fact that employers like Uber dont technically fix their hours) sets them apart from traditional employees. Tony West, another Obama alum and a senior vice president at Uber, helped write the tech companies legal strategy, and also co-chaired Kamala Harriss 2016 Senate transition team. (West is also the now vice presidents brother-in-law.)

Despite their ties to Silicon Valley, both Biden and Harris did officially come out against Prop 22as did other prominent national Democrats (Californias Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, revealingly, stayed silent). Not clear yet is how vocal theyll be on the issue in office, although the prominence of personnel from the likes of Uber, Lyft, and Amazon during the recent presidential transition was certainly less than encouraging.

However these tensions ultimately play out in the new administration, the Prop 22 debate, which pitted gig companies against a badly outgunned alliance of unions and labor-advocacy groups, was also in a sense a battle between an older incarnation of liberalism and the form its taken since the 1990s. Although the Democratic Party has never been a straightforwardly labor-based or social-democratic formation in the mold of Britains mid-century Labour Party, its greatest lasting achievements (notably the New Deal) inarguably came, to quote the Princeton historian Matthew Karp, because it was a party of workers.

Read the rest here:
Liberals Are Choosing Convenience Over Workers - The Atlantic