The debate on when it is relevant to apologize and pay reparations for misdeeds and human rights violations tells us that the past is never dead.
Omar Barghouti said his visa was revoked for ‘immigration reasons’ as some call it an attack on freedom of expression
A decision by the US government to deny entry to Omar Barghouti, a prominent Palestinian activist and the cofounder of the controversial Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, has drawn accusations that the move is an attack on freedom of expression.
While others spoke out in favor of the ban, Barghouti has condemned the decision as “politically motivated” and part of Israel’s “escalating repression against Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights defenders”.
In Instagram and Twitter replies to the attacks, Omar opponents called for her deportation or murder. Death threats are against Twitter and Instagram’s terms of service. But both sites, as well as other social media platforms, like Facebook and YouTube, have been criticized for allowing violence to proliferate in violation of their rules. Threats piled into the comments on those sites, including in response to anti-Omar comments by the leader of the Republican National Committee.
I would rather claw my eyes out with caviar forks than read these arguments again. But, then, the white-man gambit appears to be universal. Both Democratic frontrunners are working to shift the party’s ideological center to an imaginary “working-class white man” who is open to voting for progressive policies, but only as long as they don’t challenge any of his biases.
Sheriff deputies see themselves as law unto themselves against the community. Villanueva’s move has drawn criticism from a community activist and a member of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission, who say the symbol sends an insensitive message to the community.
In a vote death-penalty opponents praised as “historic,” a veto-proof supermajority of the New Hampshire legislature gave final approval to a bill that would repeal the state’s death penalty statute. By a vote of 17-6, the senators voted on April 11, 2019 to end capital prosecutions in the Granite State, exceeding the two-thirds majority necessary to override an anticipated veto by Governor Chris Sununu. In March, the state House of Representatives passed the same abolition bill, HB 455, by a veto-proof 279-88 supermajority. For the second consecutive year, the bill received bipartisan support, including sponsorship by seven Democratic and six Republican sponsors across both legislative houses. Twelve Democratic and five Republican senators voted in favor of repeal. An identical bill to repeal the death penalty passed the legislature in 2018, but was vetoed by Gov. Chris Sununu, and an attempt to override the veto fell two votes short in the Senate.
The Governor’s office issued a statement after the vote saying that Sununu “continues to stand with crime victims, members of the law enforcement community, and advocates for justice in opposing a repeal of the death penalty.” Repeal advocates quickly responded to that claim, noting that numerous retired prosecutors, members of law enforcement, and relatives of murder victims had testified in favor of repeal. Rep. Renny Cushing (D – Rockingham), whose father and brother-in-law were murdered in two separate incidents, was one of the leading proponents of the bill. Cushing has described the death penalty as a “ritualized killing” that does nothing to compensate for a victim’s family’s loss. “The governor has positioned himself as saying he’s vetoing the repeal of the death penalty because he cares about law enforcement and victims, but he’s refused to meet with murder victims’ family members who oppose the death penalty,” Cushing said. Sen. Ruth Ward (R – Stoddard), whose father was killed when she was 7 years old, spoke briefly before casting her vote: “He never saw us grow up. My mother forgave whoever it was, and I will vote in favor of this bill,” she said.
During the Senate debate, senators mentioned costs, racial inequities, and wrongful convictions among their reasons for supporting repeal. Senator John Reagan (R – Deerfield), a Republican who voted in favor of repeal, told The New York Times that he doesn’t trust the government with capital punishment. “The more and more experience I had with government, I concluded that the general incompetency of government didn’t make them the right people to decide life and death,” he said. The New Hampshire legislative vote reflects emerging bipartisanship in state legislative efforts to repeal the death penalty. “The vote to end New Hampshire’s death penalty included many conservative Republican lawmakers,” said Hannah Cox, national manager of Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. “They join a growing number of GOP state legislators around the country who feel strongly that capital punishment does not comport with their conservative beliefs, such as limited government, fiscal responsibility, and valuing life.” Republican-backed bills to abolish the death penalty or limit its use have been introduced in a number of states this year, including Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Wyoming.
The New Hampshire repeal bill applies only to future crimes, and does not address the fate of Michael Addison, the only person on New Hampshire’s death row. No one has been executed in New Hampshire since 1939. If the bill becomes law, New Hampshire will be the 21st state to abolish capital punishment and the ninth in the past 15 years.
(Dave Solomon, Death penalty repeal passes NH Senate with veto-proof majority, New Hampshire Union Leader, April 11, 2019; Kate Taylor and Richard A. Oppel Jr., With a Death Row of 1, New Hampshire Is Poised to End Capital Punishment, The New York Times, April 11, 2019; Mark Berman, New Hampshire, after failed attempts, looks poised to abolish the death penalty, Washington Post, April 11, 2019; Savannah Smith, New Hampshire lawmakers vote to repeal death penalty with veto-proof majority, NBC News, April 11, 2019; Holly Ramer, The New Hampshire Senate has voted to repeal the state’s death penalty, sending the bill to Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, Associated Press, April 12, 2019.) See Recent Legislative Activity.
- 174 reads
Por Manuel Ocaño
Un juez federal de California bloqueó temporalmente este lunes el programa del gobierno estadunidense que enviaba a centroamericanos a Tijuana y Mexicali a esperar resultados a solicitudes de asilo.
También ordenó que algunos de los migrantes ahora en México, lo que ya se presentaron a corte bajo ese proyecto, regresen a lo inmediato a Estados Unidos.
La medida entre en vigor este viernes 12 de abril a las 5 de la tarde, hora de San Diego, Tijuana, cuando los migrantes deberán comenzar a volver, de acuerdo con la decisión del juez Richard Seeborg.
La orden obliga a regresar a parte de 1,105 centroamericanos que se encuentran en Tijuana, Mexicali y Ciudad Juárez bajo el programa de Protocolos de Protección a Migrantes, más conocido como Permanecer en México.
El proyecto que inició unilateralmente en enero pasado fue aceptado por razones humanitarias por el gobierno del presidente André0s Manuel López Obrador.
Hasta esta semana el proyecto incluyó a 716 migrantes enviados a Tijuana, 188 a Mexicali y 201 a Ciudad Juárez. Muchos de ellos familias.
La corte falló a favor de organizaciones nacionales que desde San Diego documentaron el proyecto.
La abogada Judy Ravinovitz, de la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (Aclu), uno de los grupos demandantes, dijo que “la corte rechazó hoy enérgicamente la política sin precedentes del gobierno del presidente Donald Trump de obligar a los solicitantes de asilo a regresar México sin escuchar sus reclamos”.
Dijo que “el gobierno de Trump no puede simplemente ignorar nuestras leyes” de asilo y migración.
Según la Aclu, el Centro Legal Sureño para la Pobreza y el Centro de Estudios de Género y Refugiados — grupos que presentaron la demanda colectiva —, el proyecto era utilizado para obstaculizar que las personas busquen asilo en los Estados Unidos.
A los primeros migrantes que fueron enviados a Tijuana a esperar fechas para audiencias ante cortes de migración les cambió el calendario una corte en San Diego, adelantó seis días las audiencias sin poder informar a los migrantes, quienes al perder las audiencias enfrentaban demandas de deportación por parte de la fiscalía.
La demanda fue interpuesta en marzo a nombre de once solicitantes de asilo y organizacionales como el Laboratorio de Derecho de Innovación, Centro de Recursos Centroamericanos del Norte de California, Centro Legal de la Raza, la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de San Francisco Clínica de Defensa de Inmigración y Deportación, Al Otro Lado. y el Centro de Justicia de Tahirih.
La demanda menciona que el programa viola la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad, la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo, y recuerda a la corte que Estados Unidos está obligado por el derecho internacional y los derechos humanos a no expulsar o hacer regresar a las personas a condiciones peligrosas.
La casa Blanca reacción a través de la portavoz, Sarah Sanders, quien dijo que “Estados Unidos y México colaboran en ese programa”.
Lo cierto es que la cancillería mexicana y más tarde el director del Instituto Nacional de Migración, Tonatiuh Guillén, dijeron que es un programa unilateral del gobierno de Estados Unidos, y que, por razones humanitarias, México aceptaba que aguardaran en su territorio migrantes que envía la administración Trump sin un acuerdo.
Doctors Without Border (MSF), which has been critical of the WHO’s response, said today that the organization was still failing to control the outbreak. “Whatever the official status of this outbreak is, it is clear that the outbreak is not under control and therefore we need a better collective effort. The virus has not spread to neighboring countries so far, but the possibility exists,” said Gwenola Seroux, emergency manager at MSF in a press statement. Ron Klain, the United States Ebola response coordinator during the West African outbreak, took to Twitter to criticize the WHO. “The response is failing to get the disease under control,” Klain said. “This is particularly worrisome given that — unlike the Ebola response in 2014-15 — this effort has the benefit of a highly effective vaccine that can prevent the disease’s spread.” Klain called for the US government to step up its response efforts for this crisis, and quickly. The United States has not had feet on the ground in the DRC since September, when Trump administration officials removed personnel amid security concerns.
A new study shows how efforts to prevent migrating birds from flying into skyscrapers and other brightly lit buildings could be honed.