Mediaboss Marketing

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights pronounced the following keynote speech at the Solemn Hearing of the European Court of Human Rights on 25 June 2022.

President Spano,President of the Hellenic Republic,Distinguished Judges, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

As Commissioner for Human Rights, I attach crucial importance to dialogue with the Court. There have been many occasions on which I have had the honour to come to this room (but also to address this Court remotely by taking part in the first digital hearing in the history of this institution). It is always a special feeling to be present in the place where decisions are taken on matters which not only bear great importance for the individuals concerned but also reflect topical issues with which democratic societies are confronted, and that is why it is an immense honour to have been invited to deliver an address at todays Solemn Hearing. I see this invitation as a sign of particular attention to the current human rights challenges, but also as a result of the continuous dialogue that has been established between our institutions. I consider it a good example of synergies that, each within its own mandate, contribute to the good functioning and sustainability of the Convention system.

It is perhaps not an exaggeration to say that the need for this system today is as pressing as it was when it was established more than 70 years ago. Back then, the leaders of European countries took the foresighted decision to create a system for the collective enforcement of human rights with the aim of safeguarding individuals from state abuse and newly established democracies from the risks of backsliding into totalitarianism. We should not forget this.

When the Convention was adopted, our continent looked very different. The death penalty was widely legal and operative. Hundreds of thousands of Europeans were still waiting to be repatriated or resettled after WWII, while thousands of new refugees were escaping through the Iron Curtain. In several countries homosexuality was criminalised.

If todays picture looks much better, it is largely thanks to the Convention system and the Courts dynamic and evolutive interpretation doctrine that has been instrumental in applying a text adopted in 1950 in light of major societal changes which happened along the past seven decades. No wonder then that the Convention, its Protocols, the Court and the whole human rights protection system that the Council of Europe has established have become a lodestar for those pursuing justice, dignity and equality.

But success stories, too, come with obstacles to overcome: the Convention system has been repeatedly attacked and delegitimised in some European countries; key judgments of this Court have still not been implemented; and states often fail or do not even try to address the structural problems that deprive people of their Convention rights.

In the long run, the non-enforcement of the Convention rights and the disregard of basic principles of international law can lead to deleterious consequences.

The case of the Russian Federation stands out in Europe as one of the worst examples of disregard for human rights. Todays hearing takes place in extraordinary circumstances for the values our Organisation represents. Exactly four months ago, Russia started a brutal military attack on Ukraine, which has caused terrible human suffering to millions of people. Many thousands were ruthlessly killed, including hundreds of children, and millions of people saw their lives turned upside down.

I could see for myself the traces of the atrocities committed in Ukraine during my visit at the beginning of May. In Kyiv, Irpin, Bucha and Borodyanka I listened to shocking stories of extrajudicial executions, violence and destruction.

The current situation is the tragic epilogue of years of departing from agreed human rights standards. For years, the government of the Russian Federation has ignored judgments of this Court and recommendations from our Organisation, including my Office. The unresolved impunity for the grave human rights violations stemming from the war in Chechnya, the brutal internal repression of dissent and free expression and now this ruthless aggression against Ukraine and its people are painful illustrations of what can happen when a state disregards international law and order and ignores human rights standards and the common rules established to guarantee international peace.

It is an extreme case, hardly comparable with other situations in our member states. There are, however, signs of an increasing lack of compliance with the most basic human rights standards of our Organisation in member states, which requires serious attention and more resolute action on the part of states within the collective system of our Organisation.

One worrying trend I have observed during my mandate as Commissioner is the erosion of the rule of law in a growing number of our member states. I think we all agree that without full respect of the rule of law, it is not possible to protect human rights.

The erosion of the rule of law manifests itself when governments refuse to abide by court decisions, undermine public confidence in the judiciary, violate judicial independence, weaken judicial bodies, pressure individual judges, and reduce parliaments to a rubber-stamp.

Invariably, it goes hand in hand with a hardening of governments against the standards set in the Convention and by the institutions of the Council of Europe.

Standards on freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly are a case in point. As part of my mandate, I work constantly with human rights defenders, civil society and the press. Their reality is far from reassuring.

The case of Osman Kavala is emblematic. He has been in detention in Trkiye for almost the past 56 months despite a judgment of this Court from 2019, as well as nine decisions and one interim resolution by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. His case shows the wrongs and unfair treatment that individuals may face when the judiciary provides tools for repression instead of remedies against it. It also shows the limits of what an international system can achieve. In the end, the ultimate responsibility for upholding human rights norms lies with states.

Just last week this Court issued its judgment in the case of Ecodefence and Others v. Russia -- a long awaited one which is also very important for civil society.

Non-execution of judgments sometimes affects not only individual applicants, including human rights defenders, but also the broader democratic fabric of a society. For almost thirteen years now, the judgment of this Court in the case of Sejdic and Finci against Bosnia and Herzegovina has remained a dead letter, mainly because of a lack of political will. The non-implementation of that judgment and of others like Zorni, laku and Pilav dealing with the discriminatory nature of the countrys electoral system is one of the factors that sustain a status quo based on the ethnic divisions that represent a constant threat to peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Judgments of this Court on individual complaints as well as more broadly those which reveal systemic problems set the record straight and give visibility and recognition to victims. These judgments are also an authoritative counterweight to the forces that seek to evade justice by discrediting the international system of human rights protection and by adopting laws that stifle dissent as well as individual and associative rights.

I have observed other systemic problems that illustrate the hardening of certain governments against the spirit and the letter of the Convention: fixing these problems is primarily the member states responsibility. Everyone should be able to seek and receive justice at home, in line with the subsidiarity principle. Recourse to an international court should be seen for what it is essentially a failure by a state to provide proper national remedies.

But we all have our role to play. As an institution enshrined in the Convention since the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 in 2010, I share the responsibility to help make Convention rights a reality for all.

The Convention has been a permanent reference point in my work, be it in my country monitoring, thematic work or third-party interventions before this Court. As amicus curiae, my role is obviously not to provide this Court with a specific assessment of a case before it. However, as stressed in the explanatory report to Protocol No. 14, the Commissioners work and experience may help enlighten the Court on certain questions, particularly in cases which highlight structural or systemic weaknesses in the respondent or other High Contracting Parties. These elements, and the protection of the general interest to which the explanatory report to Protocol No. 14 also refers, are my compass while selecting the cases on which, as a friend of this Court, I submit observations. So far, I have made 16 amicus curiae interventions. Most of them have dealt with harassment of human rights defenders, the denial of migrants rights, gender inequality and limitations to womens rights. They have also covered several countries, including Azerbaijan, Croatia, Denmark, France, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden and Trkiye.

Much has been said about the Convention as a living instrument. Therefore, I will not dwell on this aspect. Suffice here to say that this Courts dynamic and evolutive interpretation has made the Convention system a source of inspiration within Europe and beyond.

Such a dynamic and evolutive interpretation has brought a contemporary reading of the rights protected and of the obligations of the High Contracting Parties, also in the face of new challenges emerging in society. Particularly noteworthy in this context is the role of this Court in assessing the compliance of measures adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic by several High Contracting Parties which was discussed at your seminar this afternoon.

If new challenges in society put the evolutive interpretation of the Convention to the test, old ones pose a more existential threat to the Convention system. I refer here to situations in which a High Contracting Party violates the right to individual applications or refuses to recognise the binding nature of judgments and the obligation to execute them.

Here too the Court has been able to adapt and defend foundational principles. I consider of particular importance for example the Courts principled case-law in terrorism-related cases where it reaffirmed the duty states have to comply with their Convention obligations even when this may lead to unpopular decisions. In the same line, the Courts role in the protracted non-compliance of its judgments by states represents a bulwark against arbitrariness.

The Court has also been innovative in addressing emerging challenges and exploring new avenues, like the reinforcement of the dialogue between courts, including the Supreme Courts Network, and in giving a voice to NGOs and civil society, which are often the first in bringing human rights violations to light.

This is all important and has already been stressed.

What I think should be stressed more is the role of the Convention as a life-saving instrument. Here I would like to provide a few examples from my field work that show the impact that the Convention system can have on peoples lives.

In November 2021 I was in Poland to assess the human rights situation of asylum-seekers and migrants on the border with Belarus. Late one night, I accompanied human rights defenders in the border areas and witnessed how a group of asylum-seekers, who had been stranded in the cold and wet woods for many weeks and pushed back to Belarus many times, could finally safely leave the woods thanks to the protective guarantee of the Courts interim measures. It is evident to me and has also been stressed by many activists and lawyers helping asylum-seekers that I have spoken with that for many of these people, the Courts interim measures were the only protection from an immediate return across the border. These people would have otherwise been left in freezing conditions and without access to even the most basic humanitarian assistance, and possibly subjected to severe ill-treatment at the hands of the Belarusian authorities.

Several of the interim measures addressed to the Government of Greece urging the protection of the health, life and physical integrity of asylum seekers held in several reception facilities were equally life-saving. Having been in such reception facilities in Lesvos, Samos, and Corinth, I cannot but attest to the importance of your decisions.

I do not have the slightest doubt that interim measures have saved many human lives across our continent.

These are some examples that speak for the ability of this Court to interpret the Convention in the light of emerging problems and the potential of the Convention system to remain a life-saving instrument. These aspects must be protected. We all have a role in that: the Court, monitoring bodies, my Office. But the primary responsibility rests on the shoulders of all state Parties institutions: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary.

I think this message resonates with the President of the Republic of Greece, Ms Katerina Sakellaropoulou, whom I am happy to see among us today. Madam President, you took a clear stance on several occasions on the need to protect human rights and the rule of law to ensure a healthy democracy. Such messages coming from high level state officials are crucial to influence the commitment of state authorities to render the Convention rights practical and effective at national level. Because for all the international mechanisms that we may have to protect human rights, the reality is that the best human rights protection is one which happens at national level.

To their credit, member states have been foresighted in establishing the Convention and its mechanisms over the past 73 years. They have enriched the Convention with additional Protocols, they have created a unique mechanism in the world where individuals, NGOs or groups of individuals can hold states accountable. Thanks to Protocol 14 and the adoption of Rule 9 by the Committee of Ministers, states gave my office motu proprio access to the Court and the possibility to intervene in the process of the execution of judgments. With Protocol 16, they laid down the basis for a more harmonised integration of human rights law at national level through the possibility for the Court to give advisory opinions to the highest courts and tribunals of Contracting Parties. This has a huge potential to reinforce both the principle of subsidiarity and the role of national judges in protecting the rights of the Convention.

The challenge now is how to enforce this unique system of collective responsibility to improve human rights protection. I think that one of the main steps that member states should take is to remove obstacles which impede or slow down the implementation of judgments.

The problem of non-implementation or cherry-picking Court judgments is one stark illustration of the faltering commitment to upholding human rights standards in many of our member states. The failure to implement some of the interim measures ordered by this Court is also part of this trend. At the root of this problem lies a misplaced belief by politicians that they enjoy a higher democratic legitimacy than the judiciary. This often results in the adoption of legislation which is not aligned with international or even national jurisprudence, the dismantling or the control of democratic institutions and the subordination of human rights standards to a states interest. Such trends undermine the democratic fabric of our societies, and must be reversed.

I have said this on other occasions, and I think it is worth repeating it in this room of justice: states should no longer procrastinate in realising human rights for all.

They should recommit to the values and norms of our Organisation. State authorities - and I include here the three branches of power should become more robust defenders of human rights and of the collective system put in place to protect, promote and fulfil them.

I see in particular four areas where states should intervene.

One crucial step is to embed the standards of our Organisation and the case-law of this Court into national legislation, jurisprudence and practice.

The prevention of violations and the provision of effective remedies at national level is another key area of intervention. To this end, the independence and impartiality of the judiciary should be respected and reinforced and cooperation with National Human Rights Institutions, NGOs and civil society improved.

National judges should be frontline actors in giving effect to Convention rights. They should be supported not constrained in this endeavour. In this sense, following the tabling of the Bill of Rights Bill by the United Kingdom government earlier this week, I cannot but feel concerned at the restrictions it appears to entail on the national judges ability to interpret the Convention rights as ordinary judges, and to take this Courts case-law fully into account while preserving it as a living instrument. The adverse impact of this on individual access to Convention rights, and on the principle of subsidiarity must also be mentioned in this context.

Third, I see the need for increased awareness and education about the standards of the Convention system, both among the public and legal practitioners. This is particularly important at the present juncture because the shorter time available to lodge a complaint introduced by Protocol 15 may complicate the exercise of the right to individual applications, which carries the risk of reducing the effectiveness of the Convention system.

Lastly, I think that member states should make better use of the tools of the Organisation to exert the necessary pressure to ensure respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law by their peers.

Mr President,

Reaching the conclusion of my intervention, I would like to quote you when, in a recent speech given in Oslo, you said that: Bringing rights home is an integral part of the system itself and we should embrace it and attempt to make this transformative change as smooth as possible.

This is the key to giving effective meaning to the Convention system.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

The key principles of the Convention system, in particular respect for human rights for all and the guarantees provided by a solid rule of law, are the lifeblood of our democracy. They are not an abstract concept, but indispensable nutrients of just and thriving societies.

The Council of Europe and its Court are the main protectors and promoters of this system. It is therefore necessary that member states, both within their borders and as part of a community, strengthen their commitment to the founding values and institutions of our Organisation and to the universal protection of human rights.

The Convention system stems from the vision and courage of leaders who understood that defining common European norms and applying them at national level was the best antidote for oppression.

The times of those leaders were not easier than ours. Our task is not bigger than theirs. It is now our turn to give renewed impetus to the ambition of safeguarding a system based upon justice and international co-operation.

Read more:
At the crossroads Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law - Council of Europe

At what point can the United States and other countries no longer afford the massive transfer of weapons to the Ukrainians, lest they jeopardize the readiness of their own militaries? When does the arsenal of democracy shift to the arsenal for self? These are questions that are starting to be raised as the demand for weapons becomes clear in what is now a protracted war in Ukraine.

The contributions by the U.S. and Ukraines other supporters have been immense. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley said that as of mid-April approximately60,000 antitank weapons and 25,000 anti-aircraft weaponswent to Ukraine.

Javelins, Switchblades, and Stingers have been deployed regularly by Ukraine in its struggle against Russian invaders. Images ofburning tanks, often with their turrets blown off, are a testament to the effectiveness of these weapons.

There is more on the way. Already, Ukrainessupportershave begun sending in artillery, armored personnel carriers, anti-aircraft systems, and other heavier weapons that allow the Ukrainians to successfully push back against a Russian invasion.

Calls to limit Western largesse are being voiced, because, asHal Brandswrites inThe Washington Post, This is presenting Western countries with a stark choice between pouring more supplies into Ukraine or husbanding finite capabilities they may need for their own defense.

This is not unlike the pushback to President Franklin Roosevelts March 1941 Lend Lease policy that rushed U.S. materiel support to Great Britain and the Soviet Union, including aircraft and warships. Arguably, this assistance kept the besieged British in the war.

In the euphoria of the Allied victory in 1945, the contentiousness of the debate in the United States about providing this support when the United States was not in the warislargely forgotten to history.This division is perhaps best seen in two close votes in Congress. Conscription to begin preparing the U.S. Armed Forces for the warwas extendedby only 1 vote in the House; the vote in the same body onLend Leasewas not as close262 for to 16o againstbut still reflected concerns about a widening American role in the European War. The victors justice imposed by the Allies on Germany after the Great War, particularly their dividing up the spoils to add to their own colonial empires, still angered many.

The wartimeoutputof Americas arsenal of democracy was astounding: 197,760 combat aircraft, 88,410 tanks and self-propelled artillery, 257,390 towed artillery, 2,382,311 military trucks, 137 large and small (jeep) aircraft carriers, 349 destroyers, 203 submarines, and 2,710 Liberty cargo ships.

Roosevelt, however, facedoppositionto Lend Lease from an unexpected quarter: his own military. The generals and admirals were concerned that the President was giving away the very weapons and materiel they needed to equip Americas own mobilizing military. The demands were significant. When General George Marshall became Army Chief of Staff in September 1939, theArmy had only 200,000 officers and enlisted in its ranks; in 1945 its ranks numbered nearly 8,300,000. At the most basic level, each soldier had to be provided boots, uniforms, and a weapon that were not in existing stocks.

American industry, particularly in the days before Pearl Harbor, was struggling to equip U.S. forces. To the alarm of the generals, the President was giving away what they believed they so desperately needed.

What FDR realized is that any weapon used against Nazis was well given. Similarly, every Russian tank killed by a Javelin or Switchblade and every aircraft downed by a Stinger supports Secretary of Defense LloydAustinsApril statement that: We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it cant do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.These weapons are, after all, built to destroy enemy weapons. When they do it, and by whom they are fired, is irrelevant. The United States may have to restock its inventories, but the Russians will have to rebuild their Army.

One of the central lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian War could be that the prevailing view that future wars will be short and decisive needs rethinking. If this conflict is any harbinger, the United States and its allies and partners may need to be prepared for protracted wars that have insatiable appetites for materiel, munitions, and, tragically, people. If that is true, then the American arsenal of democracy, as well as those of its allies and partners, may have to be rejuvenated.

Furthermore, the challenge may not be only the demand shown by confronting Russian aggression. The National Security Strategy identifies China as the principal long-term U.S. challenge. If the United States is indeed serious about preparing for competition and potential conflict with China as well as Russia in the future, the demands could be significant given Chinas enormous capabilities.

Consequently, the ongoing war in Ukraine could lead to a rethinking of what a 21stcentury American arsenal of democracy will have to be to meet the challenges of the future.

DavidJohnsonis a retiredArmy colonel. He is a principal researcher at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation and an adjunct scholar at the Modern War Institute at West Point. He is the author ofFast Tanks and Heavy Bombers: Innovation in the U.S. Army, 1917-1945. From 2012-2014 he founded and directed the Chief of Staff of the Army Strategic Studies Group for General Raymond T. Odierno.

Follow this link:
What Better Way to Use the Arsenal of Democracy? - RealClearDefense

Dr. James W. Thomasson

So, patient readers, where to begin: how about this land is my land or no one here is from here? It is always difficult for educators to know how to broach this subject, unless current regional culture dictates it. Just today, for example, I received a national survey in the mail, wanting my opinion on a left leaning that threatens an honest and balanced (read right-leaning) account of American history. Well, I have always challenged my students to an honest and balanced account, that is an open-minded, objective critical inquiry.

If a little humor can be allowed, I would like to tell you a story about a former colleague and honored scientist, Dr. David Robinson. After an initial period teaching biology as George-town University, he made his way to the National Institutes of Health, and in his latter years was Director of the Human Genome Project, yes, where we all came from. David knew origin was a difficult issue to address with persons with little scientific training and much religion-formed versions. Me he liked to tease with this version: Great grandma to the 2,008th power came off the Serengety looking more like Opray Winfrey than Erik the Red, then slowly moved north through Italy and Greece through eastern Europe, picking up red hair from the Fressian soldiers, then on up to Scandinavia, along the way spreading east, northeast, southeast across that continent to Asia and southeast Asia, then eventually here. This story, of course, avoided an discussion of how those 3.6 million years ago Neanderthals gave us that Great Grandma!

Let me start with scientific and historical objectivity: no one here is from here. Here, of course, means this Continent. Well, unless I missed some scientific discovery that a version of homo sapiens originated on this continent, the first human beings here came from southeast Asia across the Bering Strait some 13 thousand years ago. Of course, they were the come heres, but their immediate offspring are from here, as are any subsequent new born. That is why histor-ical literature calls them native Americans (though that latter word got attached centuries later). Now history gets very complex, because so many more came here after that from else-where through explorations and trading ventures from Alaska, Europe, far northwest Canada, Mexico, etc.

Ironically, as we explore the history of the tribes and their territorial possession of the land, we have to also note that white explorers and traders, mostly from Spain, France, Portugal, England, and northeastern Scandinavia, were present on the Continent (for familiar references: new Mexico, California, Florida, Newfoundland) as early as the 1420s. You can find the lost extensive and trustworthy account of this early history in a thoroughly objective history by a unilaterally informed Native American, Angie Debo, A History of the Indians of the United States, University of Oklahoma Press.

Not surprisingly, once the white man arrived, all the relevant categories of classifi-cation changed: (1) who lives on this land?; (2) who owns this land?; (3) who governs this land? On his first visit, passing down the coast from Newfoundland on his way back to Spain, Colum-bus discovered this native inhabited land. (1490) On his second visit, landing on Hispaniola in 1492, Columbus launched a trafficking of gold from there back to Spain, therewith, as Debo des-cribes, beginning the Spaniards century of exploitation. By 1513 Juan Ponce de Leon, a mem-ber of Columbus first Hispaniola colony, returned back from Puerto Rico, carrying in hand a royal patent to settle new lands and distribute the natives among the colonists. Time moved quickly! Those who lived on the land (that royal patent was a land grant), like the land itself, were now owned and in servitude to the Spanish. This harsh punishment of braves, assault on women, and seizure of wealth continued until 1605, when the French expanded their reach. As Debo denotes, the French learned their languages, mar ried their women, adopted their ways, and converted them (referring to religion) without subjecting them to alien rule.

Oddly, in 1607, the johnny come lately British arrived and things began to change rapidly. The English, given their sustained aggression in various parts of the globe, looked to the developing colonies from New England to Virginia and the Carolinas, south to Florida, and west to the Ohio Valley, and far west in Arizona and California as footholds of a new nation under British authority. The wars between native tribes, as they sought to preserve their lands by opening a new friendship with French, Spanish, and slowly developing colonies of mixed national origin along the eastern coast to the Ohio Valley, were slowly part of a developing new nation. As the colonies worked to free themselves from British authority by forming states and seeking united actions, they also looked to ways to shrink the land mass held by native tribes. The temporary culmination of that effort is captured in President Andrew Jacksons seventh annual address to Congress on December 7, 1835. Noting that all the tribes on the east side of the Mississippi, stretching from Michigan to Florida had been engaged for transplantation, he notes: The plan for their removal and reestablishment is founded upon the knowledge we have gained of their character and habits and has been dictated by a spirit of enlarged liberality. Indeed, as Jackson notes: A territory exceeding in extent that relinquished has been granted to each tribe.

Our third question, who owns this land, is also the answer to the second question. The natives land is replaced by new land assigned. The action is carried forth by the ones who have authority and practical ownership over all the land by Constitutional decree! Though we started with no one here is from here, we have arrived at everyone here is under the authority of those who govern all the land here. Now we must move on to that other question: In what sense is this land my land?

View post:
Thomasson Series on Education and American Democracy 'Go West, Young Man' Reconsidered: No One Here is from Here' Crookston Times - Crookston Daily...

Teaching citizenship values can help promote active participation among Europeans, but it still often relies on the initiative and motivation of individual teachers. Meanwhile, education remains fragmented across the EU, with each member state implementing their own policies.

Changes to competence in this field remain unlikely for the time being, despite citizens and decision-makers increasingly calling for a more harmonised European approach and more EU support for citizenship educators.

Meanwhile, recent crises have pushed schools to quickly adapt to new learning environments. The influx of Ukrainian refugees in EU countries has shown the need for a cross-border approach to face educational challenges, while the COVID-19 pandemic has definitively pushed teachers and classrooms toward the digital sphere.

In this special report, we look at the role of teachers and educators in making young Europeans active citizens, the challenges they currently face in their work and the role the EU could play in supporting them.

See original here:
Citizens of tomorrow: education's role in strengthening EU democracy - EURACTIV

The American people understand that their democracy and their society are in deep trouble.But they do not agree on who or what is the cause of the problem, and do not share a common understanding of basic facts. To make matters worse there is a kind of sinister synergy between America's democracy crisis and other serious problems facing the country, which risks creating a state of collective paralysis.

During his prepared comments before the House Jan. 6 committee last Thursday, retired judgeJ. Michael Luttig, a lifelong conservative Republican who advised former Vice President Mike Pence before and during Donald Trump's coup attempt, issued this dire warning:

A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on Jan. 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knife's edge.

America was at war on that fateful day, but not against a foreign power. She was at war against herself. We Americans were at war with each other over our democracy.

Jan. 6 was but the next, foreseeable battle in a war that had been raging in America for years, though that day was the most consequential battle of that war even to date. In fact, Jan. 6 was a separate war unto itself, a war for America's democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters. Both wars are raging to this day. America is now the stake in these unholy wars. America is adrift. We pray that it is only for this fleeting moment that she has lost her way, until we Americans can once again come to our senses.

In response to a question from committee chairman Bennie Thompson about the danger to the republic still represented by Trump and his supporters, Luttig elaborated further:

Almost two years after that fateful day Donald Trumpand his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.

That's not because of what happened on Jan. 6. It is because, to this very day, the former president and his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican party presidential candidate were to lose that election, they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020.

If there are any reasonable and intelligent Americans who continue to doubt that this country is in the midst of an existential crisis, facing the dangers of Trumpism and a growing white supremacist authoritarian movement, Luttig's words should shock them back into reality.

A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll adds even more weight to Luttig's warnings about American democracy as it teeters on the precipice of irrecoverable disaster. The lead finding is that more than half of those surveyed, across the political spectrum 55% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans believe it is "likely" that the United States will "cease to be a democracy in the future."

RELATED:Global forecaster on "another bad year for democracy": Is the world near a dire tipping point?

Further findings in that poll are arguably even more troubling given the events of Jan. 6 and the Republican-fascist movement's increasing embrace of violence and terrorism:

This new poll also demonstrates that negative partisanship and other forms of extreme political polarization now appear to be permanent features of American political life.Andrew Romano summarizes this at Yahoo News:

When asked to choose the phrase that best "describes most people on the other side of the political aisle from you," a majority of Republicans pick extreme negatives such as "out of touch with reality" (30%), a "threat to America" (25%), "immoral" (8%) and a "threat to me personally" (4%). A tiny fraction select more sympathetic phrases such as "well-meaning" (4%) or "not that different from me" (6%).

The results among Democrats are nearly identical, with negatives such as "out of touch with reality" (27%), a "threat to America" (23%), "immoral" (7%) and a "threat to me personally" (4%) vastly outnumbering positives such as "well-meaning" (7%) or "not that different from me" (5%).

These findings offer further evidence that the U.S. in the Age of Trump and beyond is what political scientists call an "anocracy," a system that combines features of dictatorship and democracy. The coup against democracy and the rule of law did not end when Trump's insurrectionists left the Capitol on Jan. 6. The Republican-fascists and the larger white right continue to advance a strategy whose ultimate goal is a Christian fascist plutocracy, one modeled on a system of competitive authoritarianism in which political parties still exist and elections occur, but where outcomes are manipulated as in Russia, Hungary or Turkey.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

This dystopia made real will be a combination of such books and films as "The Handmaid's Tale," "Atlas Shrugged," "Brazil," "Idiocracy," "Robocop," "CSA: The Confederate States of America" and "1984."

Donald Trump and his acolytes continue to threaten political violence against their "enemies," meaning liberals and progressives, nonwhite people, Muslims, immigrants, LGBTQ people and any other groups or individuals they deem insufficiently "American" and not part of the MAGA faithful.

The Republican Party, its propaganda machine and other opinion leaders continue to amplify Trump's Big Lie and its inherent conclusion that further violence may be necessary to return Trump (or a successor) to the White House and, more generally, to prevent Democrats from winning or holding power by any means necessary.

The core tenets of the "great replacement" conspiracy theory which a white supremacist terrorist recently claimed as the motive for murdering 10 Black people last month at a Buffalo supermarket have been embraced by a majority of Republicans, and an even larger majority of Trump followers.

National security experts on terrorism and armed conflict have continued to warn that Trump's coup attempt and the Capitol attack are further evidence that the U.S. may face a period of sustained right-wing violent insurgency. Robert Pape, director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats, has estimated that more than 20 million Americansbelieve that using political violence to return Trump to power is justified.

In a widely read December 2021 essay in the Globe and Mail, Canadian political scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon offered a memorably grim prognosis of America's future. He predicted that "American democracy could collapse" by 2025 that is, following the next presidential election and that by 2030, the U.S. "could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship":

We mustn't dismiss these possibilities just because they seem ludicrous or too horrible to imagine. In 2014, the suggestion that Donald Trump would become president would also have struck nearly everyone as absurd. But today we live in a world where the absurd regularly becomes real and the horrible commonplace.

Mr. Trump's electoral loss has energized the Republican base and further radicalized young party members. Even without their concerted efforts to torque the machinery of the electoral system, Republicans will probably take control of both the House of Representatives and Senate this coming November, because the incumbent party generally fares poorly in mid-term elections. Republicans could easily score a massive victory, with voters ground down by the pandemic, angry about inflation, and tired of President Joe Biden bumbling from one crisis to another. Voters who identify as Independents are already migrating toward Republican candidates.

Once Republicans control Congress, Democrats will lose control of the national political agenda, giving Mr. Trump a clear shot at recapturing the presidency in 2024. And once in office, he will have only two objectives: vindication and vengeance.

Homer-Dixon then drew the this parallel between the current state of the U.S. and the collapse of the Weimar Republic in the early 1930s:

The situation in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s was of course sui generis; in particular, the country had experienced staggering traumas defeat in war, internal revolution and hyperinflation while the country's commitment to liberal democracy was weakly rooted in its culture. But as I read a history of the doomed republic this past summer, I tallied no fewer than five unnerving parallels with the current U.S. situation.

America's future stability is so much in doubt that even global rivals or enemies are concerned about the destructive forces unleashed by the Age of Trump. In a series of phone calls before and after the 2020 election, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sought to reassure his Chinese counterpart, saying, "The American government is stable and everything is going to be OK. ... Everything's fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes."

An ambush is always disorienting, and intentionally so, but the best option is always to fight back. That's where we are right now.

This situation is undeniably bewildering, and deliberately so. But for pro-democracy Americans, inaction is not an option. That will inevitably lead to defeat. In military terms, a successful ambush is almost always disorienting, but the best option is always to fight back, not hunker down. The Republican-fascists and their allies want the American people to feel so confused and overwhelmed by their unending attack on democracy, the rule of law, the common good and basic human decency that they essentially turn away, close their eyes and surrender.In essence, the Republican-fascist movement is using their own version of a political "shock and awe" strategy here at home against the American people.

The Lincoln Project recently offered this evaluation of America's democracy crisis:

After three [Jan. 6 committee] hearings we know for certain the nation is at one of the most dangerous moments in its history. These revelations will not change the true MAGA believers mind but will cause them to double and triple down on the "Big Lie" making them more dangerous and perhaps more violent. Every single American needs to decide if they are the side of the seditionists who tried to tear down a free and fair election, or do they support our Republic and its democratic principles?

In short, the American people must act with deliberate purpose and speed if they hope to save their democracy and society. Voting is of course necessary, but by itself is insufficient. "Hashtag activism," with its "likes" and "shares" and memes, is for the most part symbolic or performative politics that accomplishes little or nothing in the long run, and may actually be counterproductive if people mistake it for real action. In the long-term struggle, substantive movement-building and organizing will be required to defeat fascism in America and around the world.

Voting is necessary, but not sufficient. "Hashtag activism" accomplishes little or nothing, and may even be counterproductive. What we need is movement-building.

Supporters of democracy must engage in grassroots organizing. They need to join, establish, and grow a range of civil society organizations. They must raise and donate money in effective ways, not by giving it to doomed Democratic candidates in hopeless races. Ultimately, they must be willing to engage in corporeal politics, including general strikes, street protests, civil disobedience and other forms of direct action where they can confront the Republican-fascists and their allies with overwhelming numbers.

Right now, almost all the momentum is with the Republican-fascists and their broad-spectrum attack on American democracy and society. They are in revolutionary mode, and they are are winning. They will press onward to total victory, unless and until they are stopped. This will require people of conscience to take a personal inventory and ask themselves, "How much am I willing to sacrifice to save my country, my family and future generations from this nightmare?" The future of American democracy and society largely hinges on how many of us can answer that question honorably and rise to the challenge.

Read more on America's crisis of democracy:

See the original post here:
Is American democracy already lost? Half of us think so but the future remains unwritten - Salon