Sex based rights, which used to be taken for granted, and are fundamental to women’s dignity, privacy, and freedom, are being undone at an alarming pace. This book helps explain why that is, and what can be done to help women and children regain their rights, and steer us on a better course in the future.

https://womensdeclarationusa.com/how-we-decked-the-halls-of-congress/ In the Senate, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla of California received the most citizen dedications (followed closely by Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York). In the House, Representative Pramila Jayapal of the Seattle area had the most messages, edging out Representative Earl Blumenauer of the Portland area by just one constituent. Supporters around the country wrote clearly and forcefully in support of sex-based rights. Some anonymized highlights: Sex based rights, which used to be taken for granted, and are fundamental to women’s dignity, privacy, and freedom, are being undone at an alarming pace. This book helps explain why that is, and what can be done to help women and children regain their rights, and steer us on a better course in the future. Every member of Congress needs to read Kara Dansky’s book and understand that this is not a conservative or liberal issue—or just a women’s issue, even though it harms women and girls disproportionately. Gender ideology is an attack on reality itself. Please protect women’s sex-based spaces! Being a woman is NOT a feeling. It is a biological reality! Please, please read this yourself and see what we women are facing. I’m a former Democrat (as of 2018) who has been appalled and flabbergasted at how callously and contemptuously women’s rights, protections, and even the very language to describe ourselves are being thrown away and overwritten. Placing male rapists and murderers in women’s prisons because they ‘identify’ as women is beyond cruel to female inmates. Telling girls that they must share their locker rooms and undress alongside any boy who says he feels like a girl against their will is not ‘inclusion’, it’s abuse of girls. Forcing women who have been raped and battered by men to share communal bedrooms in crisis shelters with male strangers who self-identify as female is shockingly callous. Pretending that you don’t know male athletes are faster and stronger than females and taking fair, safe sports away from women and girls, who fought decades to get them, is misogyny. Replacing ‘sex’ with ‘gender identity’ in the law does all of this and much more that harms women and girls. I am gutted to see how little the party that I have voted, campaigned and bled for cares for me and other female voters now. Trans people should be free to think of themselves however they like but they are not the opposite sex, and it is not a human right to force the entire world to pretend that one’s subjective beliefs are real.

Republicans have a tiger by the tail; dammed if they let go and damned if they dont

Nancy :Yes, people need to speak about transgender men taking over women’s sports. They are not women!!

Nancy :Yes, people need to speak about transgender men taking over women’s sports. They are not women!!

CB: Exactly! Or in women’s bathrooms and showers

Nancy:I don’t know why the women’s movement is backing these very dangerous and destructive issues targeted at women!



CB: It’s complicated. Basically some feminists brought lgb into the woman’s movement; and then added trans. Actually, homosexual men , so-called gay, “g” in lgb, shouldn’t be in the woman’s movement because they are not women ! duhhhhhh !

Nancy : That’s for sure!! Get them out!!

CB: Right on !

2015 article :After six decades, China's five principles of peaceful co-existence still key to global peace

News Analysis: After six decades, China's five principles of peaceful co-existence still key to global peace

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-04/22/c_134174857.htm https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/marxism-thaxis/2015-04/msg00028.html

English.news.cn 2015-04-22 18:18:49 by Jamal Hashim

BAGHDAD, April 22 (Xinhua) -- Sixty years ago China put forward its five principles of peaceful co-existence between all countries. Today, the calling still remains the major pillar of its foreign policy.

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday urged Asian and African nations to carry forward the Bandung Spirit and work together to promote the building of a community of common destiny for all mankind.

Speaking at an Asian-African summit in Jakarta, Xi brought forth a three-point proposal on realizing that grand vision in line with the time-honored Bandung Spirit of solidarity, friendship and cooperation, which he said remains relevant and potent today.

Political experts, here in Iraq, see that China's move in 1955 was a monumental event in the history of international relations, which signaled the beginning of efforts by developing countries to safeguard their national independence and sovereignty and establish a new model of international relations.

"Today, 60 years after Bandung Conference, we find the spirit of the five principles of harmonious coexistence and mutual support submitted by China are still not outdated, but it seems more suitable for the current international situation," Ibrahim al-Ameri, a political analyst and lecturer of politics at Baghdad University told Xinhua.

"At the time of Bandung Conference, the Asian and African countries lack experience about how to tackle such relations, and because of the constraints put in the world which was monopolized by the bipolar structure at the time," Ameri explained.

In the post Cold War era, the world has been facing U.S. unilateralism that tries to impose its values on the international community. Ameri believes that adopting the five principles is essential to build respectable relations among the world countries.

"The principles would certainly yield great deal of cooperation and development and will maintain peace and stability by forging a tightly-knit community of common destiny among the world nations," Ameri said.

"Such new relations would produce workable and practical initiatives, and this is clear in the current China's initiative of Silk Road Economic Belt, and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road," Ameri said.

Sabah al-Sheikh, a professor in politics at Baghdad University, believes that the five principles and China's "Belt and Road" initiatives are great chance for Iraq to deal with terrorism and to rebuild its devastating economy.

Iraq has been facing the deadly threat of terrorism by the Islamic State (IS) militant group, which is also a challenge for world peace. Therefore, it is urgent for the international community to have a new approach of common security to handle spillover of any elements that could trigger instability and insecurity.

"The concept of common security would enhance common trust among the world countries through cooperation that would build peaceful atmosphere which is essential for any economic and social development in the world," Sheikh said.

Sheikh believes that the world kept on strengthening of military alliances usually targeted a specific third parties. Such alliances have caused growing tensions and have done nothing to bring peace and stability in the region and across the world.

"The five principles of cooperation would give a new concept of common security. We need to take the security concerns of all nations into account, respect the equal rights of all nations to participate in regional and global security affairs," Sheikh said.

"Global issues such as terrorism, energy and resource security, climate change, transnational crime, and major natural disasters have risen unprecedentedly. These problems could spill-over to every country in the world. Therefore, we need to establish a global cooperation network to address such global problems," he added.

Ameri cautioned that because of the continued unrest in the Middle East and the Arab region, it would be quite difficult for countries here to promote their infrastructure and attract foreign investment.

"My advice for the Iraqi government, and to the governments of the Arab region; it is for our benefit to consolidate cooperation among our governments by adopting the five principles in order to promote cooperation with neighbors and friendly countries and then to open the door wide to allow the Silk Road to pass through Arab lands," Ameri concluded.

Ameri said Iraq needs the world to help "address both the symptoms and the root causes of terrorism, extremism, and sectarianism in order to crack down on these activities."

Sheikh also said that Iraq is fighting terrorism on behalf of the world, and that the country needs the world's cooperation.

Basically the idea that gender is not based on objective physical characteristics, but subjective feelings is absurd. It’s patent that since human origins(!) gender is defined by sex. To say otherwise is profoundly ignorant of human history.

Basically the idea that gender is not based on objective physical characteristics, but subjective feelings is absurd. It’s patent that since human origins(!) gender is defined by sex. To say otherwise is profoundly ignorant of human history.

White Supremacy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XUhbDZ4jwCQ

Preamble

Recalling the commitment to the equal rights and inherent human dignity of women and men and other purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and domestic violence (“Istanbul Convention’’), the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (“Maputo Protocol’’), and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (“Belem do Para Convention’’).

Re-affirming a commitment to ensuring the full implementation of the human rights of women and of girls as an inalienable, integral and indivisible part of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Acknowledging the consensus and progress made at previous United Nations world conferences and summits, including the International Women’s Year in Mexico City in 1975, the United Nations Decade for Women in Copenhagen in 1980, the United Nations Decade for Women in Nairobi in 1985, the World Summit on Children in New York in 1990, the Earth Summit on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993, the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994, the World Summit on Social Development in Copenhagen in 1995, and the World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, with the objective of achieving equality, development and peace. Recognising that in the first decades of the United Nations human rights approach there was a clear understanding that discrimination against women was based upon sex.

Noting that United Nations human rights agreements, policies, strategies, actions and documents recognize that sex role stereotypes, now more commonly called ‘gender stereotypes’, are harmful to women and girls.

Recognising that the clear concept of sex role stereotyping has now been confused through the use of the language of gender. Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’, has been incorporated into many influential, but non-binding, international human rights documents.

Noting that use of the language of ‘gender’ rather than sex, has enabled the development of a concept of ‘gender identity’ in which sex stereotypes are seen as innate and essential, which in turn has formed the basis of an erosion of the gains in women’s and girls’ human rights. Concerned that men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ assert in law, policies and practice that they are members of the category of women, and that this results in the erosion of the human rights of women. Concerned that men who claim a female ’gender identity’ assert in law, policies and practice that sexual orientation is based upon ‘gender identity’ rather than sex, and seek to be included in the category of lesbian; and that this results in the erosion of the sex-based human rights of lesbians.

Concerned that some men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ make claims to be included in the legal category of mother in law, policies and practice, and that such inclusion erodes the social significance of maternity, and undermines maternal rights. Concerned at the exploitation and commodification of women’s reproductive capacity which underpins ‘surrogate’ motherhood.

Concerned at the exploitation and commodification of women’s reproductive capacity which underpins medical research aimed at enabling men to gestate and give birth to children.

Concerned that organizations that promote the concept of ‘gender identity’ attempt to limit the right to hold and express opinions about ‘gender identity’ by promoting attempts by state agencies, public bodies and private organizations to use sanctions and punishment to compel persons to identify individuals on the basis of ‘gender identity’ rather than sex. Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to undermine the right of women and girls to assemble and associate as women and girls based upon their sex, and without including men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’.

Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to undermine the right of lesbians to define their sexual orientation on the basis of sex, and to assemble and associate on the basis of their common sexual orientation, and without including men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’.

Concerned that the inclusion of men and boys who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ into competitions and prizes set aside for women and girls, including competitive sports and scholarships, constitutes discrimination against women and girls.

Concerned that the conflation of sex and ‘gender identity’ is leading to the recording of inaccurate and misleading data used when planning for laws, policies and actions relating to employment, equal pay, political participation, and distribution of state funds, inter alia, thereby hindering effective measures aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination against women and girls, and at promoting the advancement of women and girls in society.

Concerned that policies based on the concept of ‘gender identity’ are being used by state agencies, public bodies and private organizations in ways which threaten the survival of women only service provisions, including victim support and health care services.

Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to justify the intrusion of men and boys into single-sex spaces aimed at protecting the safety, privacy and dignity of women and girls, and at supporting women and girls who have been subject to violence.

Concerned that the conflation of sex and ‘gender identity’ is leading to the recording of inaccurate and misleading data about violence against women and girls, thereby hindering the development of effective measures aimed at eliminating such violence.

Concerned that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to obscure the sex of perpetrators of sex-specific crimes, such as rape and other sexual offences, thereby hindering effective measures aimed at reducing such crimes.

Concerned that the erasure of sex-specific actions, strategies and policies for women and girls will undermine decades of United Nations work to recognize the importance of women only services in disaster zones, refugee camps, and prisons, and in any context where the use of mixed-sex facilities would be a threat to the safety, dignity and protection of women and girls, and particularly vulnerable women and girls.

Emphasising that the concept of ‘gender identity’ was developed specifically out of a body of postmodern and ‘queer theory’ in the West and is being disseminated through powerful organizations internationally, including in countries where the term ‘gender’ does not exist in local languages and cannot easily be understood. Recognising that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that, for the purposes of the Convention, a child is every human being below the age of 18 years; and that the Declaration of the Rights of the Child 1959 states that,

“the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection.’’

Recognising that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 3) states that, in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Noting that the concept of ‘gender identity’ is increasingly used to ‘gender reassign’ children who do not conform to sex role stereotypes or who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and that medical interventions that carry a high risk of long-term adverse consequences on the physical and psychological health of a child, such as the use of puberty suppressing hormones, cross-sex hormones, and surgery are used on children. Children are not developmentally competent to give full, free and informed consent to such interventions, which may lead to permanent adverse consequences, including sterility. Recognising that the use of puberty supressing drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgery on children are emerging harmful practices as defined by Part V of the Joint General Recommendation No. 31 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women/General Comment No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices. Noting that the use of puberty supressing drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgery on children meet the four criteria for determining harmful practices in that: (a) These practices constitute a denial of the dignity and integrity of the individual child and a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the two Conventions, in that they involve medical interventions that carry a high risk of long-term adverse consequences on the physical and psychological health of children who are not developmentally competent to give full, free and informed consent to such medical interventions. (b) These practices constitute discrimination against children and are harmful in so far as they result in negative consequences for them as individuals, including physical, psychological, economic or social harm and/or violence and limitations on their capacity to participate fully in society or develop and reach their true potential. Such negative consequences may include long-term physical and psychological health problems, permanent adverse health consequences such as sterility, and long-term dependence on pharmaceutical products such as synthetic hormones. (c) These are emerging practices that are prescribed or kept in place by social norms that perpetuate male dominance and inequality of women and children, on the basis of sex, gender, age and other intersecting factors, in that they arise from a concept of ‘gender identity’ which is based upon sex role stereotypes. (d) These practices are imposed on children by family members, community members or society at large, regardless of whether the victim provides, or is able to provide, full, free and informed consent. Concerned that some non-binding international documents claim that children have innate ‘gender identities’ which require protection under Article 8 of the UNCRC in the same way as national identity, as a matter of the child’s human rights. This claim is based on the assertion that children are born ‘transgender’, for which there is no objective scientific evidence. 📑 To the Table of contents

Article 1 Reaffirming that the rights of women are based upon the category of sex States should maintain the centrality of the category of sex, and not ‘gender identity’, in relation to women’s and girls’ right to be free from discrimination.

(a) For the purposes of this Declaration, the term “discrimination against women’’ shall mean “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field’’. (CEDAW, Article 1). States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ into the category of women in law, policies and practice constitutes discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of women’s sex-based human rights. States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ in the category of women results in their inclusion in the category of lesbian, which constitutes a form of discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of the sex-based human rights of lesbians.

(b) States ‘‘shall take in all fields, in particular in the political, social, economic and cultural fields, all appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men’’. (CEDAW, Article 3).

This should include the retention in law, policies and practice of the category of woman to mean adult human female, the category of lesbian to mean an adult human female whose sexual orientation is towards other adult human females, and the category of mother to mean a female parent; and the exclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ from these categories. (c) States should “condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women’’. (CEDAW, Article 2).

This should include the elimination of that act and practice of discrimination against women which comprises the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ in the category of women. Such inclusion erodes women’s rights to safety, dignity and equality.

(d) States should ensure that the words ‘woman’, the word ‘girl’, and the terms traditionally used to refer to women’s body parts and bodily functions on the basis of sex continue to be those used in constitutional acts, legislation, in the provision of services, and in policy documents when referring to persons of the female sex. The meaning of the word ‘woman’ shall not be changed to include men. 📑 To the Table of contents

Article 2 Reaffirming the nature of motherhood as an exclusively female status (a) The CEDAW emphasises the “social significance of maternity’’, and Article 12 (2) states that ‘‘States Parties shall ensure to women the appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period’’.

(b) Maternal rights and services are based on women’s unique capacity to gestate and give birth to children. The physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males and females mean that women’s reproductive capacity cannot be shared by men who claim a female ‘gender identity’. States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ into the legal category of mother in law, policies and practice, and the corresponding inclusion of women who claim a male ‘gender identity’ into the category of father, constitute discrimination against women by seeking to eliminate women’s unique status and sex-based rights as mothers.

(c) States should ensure that the word ‘mother’, and other words traditionally used to refer to women’s reproductive capacities on the basis of sex, continue to be used in constitutional acts, legislation, in the provision of maternal services, and in policy documents when referring to mothers and motherhood. The meaning of the word ‘mother’ shall not be changed to include men.

📑 To the Table of contents Article 3 Reaffirming the rights of women and girls to physical and reproductive integrity (a) States should ensure that the full reproductive rights of women and girls, and unhindered access to comprehensive reproductive services, are upheld. (b) States should recognize that harmful practices such as forced pregnancies, and the commercial or altruistic exploitation of women’s reproductive capacities involved in ‘surrogate’ motherhood, are violations of the physical and reproductive integrity of girls and women, and are to be eliminated as forms of sex-based discrimination.

(c) States should recognize that medical research which is aimed at enabling men to gestate and give birth to children is a violation of the physical and reproductive integrity of girls and women, and is to be eliminated as a form of sex-based discrimination.

📑 To the Table of contents Article 4 Reaffirming women’s rights to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression (a) States should ensure that women have the right to “hold opinions without interference’’. (ICCPR, Article 19 (1)). This should include the right to hold and express opinions about ‘gender identity’ without being subject to harassment, prosecution or punishment. (b) States should uphold women’s right to freedom of expression, including the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media’’. (ICCPR, Article 19 (2)). This should include the freedom to communicate ideas about ‘gender identity’ without being subject to harassment, prosecution or punishment. (c) States should uphold the right of everyone to describe others on the basis of their sex rather than their ‘gender identity’, in all contexts. States should recognize that attempts by state agencies, public bodies and private organizations to compel individuals to use terms related to ‘gender identity’ rather than sex are a form of discrimination against women, and shall take measures to eliminate this form of discrimination. (d) States should prohibit any form of sanctioning, prosecution or punishment of persons who reject attempts to compel them to identify others on the basis of ‘gender identity’ rather than sex. 📑 To the Table of contents Article 5 Reaffirming women’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association States should uphold women’s rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others. (ICCPR, Articles 21 and 22). This should include the right of women and girls to assemble and associate as women or girls based upon their sex, and the rights of lesbians to assemble and associate on the basis of their common sexual orientation, without including men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’. 📑 To the Table of contents Article 6 Reaffirming women’s rights to political participation on the basis of sex (a) States “shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country’’. (CEDAW, Article 7). This should include forms of discrimination against women which consist of the inclusion in the category of women of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’. All measures taken specifically to improve women’s access to voting rights, eligibility for election, participation in the formulation of government policy and its implementation, the holding of public office, performance of all public functions, and participation in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with public and political life, should be based upon sex and not discriminate against women by the inclusion of men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’. (b) States should ensure that the ‘‘Adoption by States Parties of temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women’’ (CEDAW Article 4) shall apply only to persons of the female sex and shall not discriminate against women through the inclusion of men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’. 📑 To the Table of contents Article 7 Reaffirming women’s rights to the same opportunities as men to participate actively in sports and physical education Article 10 (g) of the CEDAW provides that States Parties shall ensure ‘‘[t]he same Opportunities to participate actively in sports and physical education’’ for girls and women as for boys and men. This should include the provision of opportunities for girls and women to participate in sports and physical education on a single-sex basis. To ensure fairness and safety for women and girls, the entry of boys and men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’ into teams, competitions, facilities, or changing rooms, inter alia, set aside for women and girls should be prohibited as a form of sex discrimination. 📑 To the Table of contents Article 8 Reaffirming the need for the elimination of violence against women (a) States should ‘‘[w]ork to ensure, to the maximum extent feasible in the light of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international cooperation, that women subjected to violence and, where appropriate, their children have specialized assistance, such as rehabilitation, assistance in child care and maintenance, treatment, counselling, and health and social services, facilities and programmes, as well as support structures, and should take all other appropriate measures to promote their safety and physical and psychological rehabilitation.’’ (UNDEVW, Article 4 (g)). These measures should include the provision of single-sex services and physical spaces for women and girls to provide them with safety, privacy, and dignity. Whether provided by public or private entities, such single sex provisions should be allocated on the basis of sex and not ‘gender identity’, and should be staffed by women on the basis of their sex and not ‘gender identity’. (b) Single sex provision should include, inter alia, specialized services for women and girls subject to violence, such as rape support services, specialist health facilities, specialist police investigation facilities, and shelters for women and children fleeing domestic abuse or other violence. It should also include all other services within which single sex provisions promote the physical safety, privacy, and dignity of women and girls. These include prisons, health services and hospital wards, substance misuse rehabilitation centres, accommodation for the homeless, toilets, showers and changing rooms, and any other enclosed space where individuals reside or may be in a state of undress. Single sex facilities designed to meet the needs of women and girls should be at least equal in availability and quality to those provided to men and boys. These facilities should not include men who claim to have female ‘gender identities’. (c) States should “[p]romote research, collect data and compile statistics, especially concerning domestic violence, relating to the prevalence of different forms of violence against women and encourage research on the causes, nature, seriousness and consequences of violence against women and on the effectiveness of measures implemented to prevent and redress violence against women; those statistics and findings of the research will be made public.’’ (UNDEVW, Article 4 (k)). This should include recognition that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women as a sex are forced into a subordinate position compared with men as a sex, and that accurate research and data collection relating to violence against women and girls requires that the identification of both the perpetrators and victims of such violence must be based on sex and not ‘gender identity’. “Sex-disaggregated data is data that is cross-classified by sex, presenting information separately for men and women, boys and girls. Sex-disaggregated data reflect roles, real situations, general conditions of women and men, girls and boys in every aspect of society. … When data is not disaggregated by sex, it is more difficult to identify real and potential inequalities.’’ (UN Women, Gender Equality Glossary). (d) States should ‘‘[i]nclude in analyses prepared by organizations and bodies of the United Nations system of social trends and problems, such as the periodic reports on the world social situation, examination of trends in violence against women.’’ (UNDEVW Article 5 (d)). This should require states to ensure that the identities of perpetrators and victims of violence against women and girls are recorded on the basis of sex and not ‘gender identity’ by all public bodies, including the police, state prosecutors, and the courts. (e) States should “[d]evelop penal, civil, labour and administrative sanctions in domestic legislation to punish and redress the wrongs caused to women who are subjected to violence; women who are subjected to violence should be provided with access to the mechanisms of justice and, as provided for by national legislation, to just and effective remedies for the harm that they have suffered; States should also inform women of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.’’ (UNDEVW, Article 4 (d)). This should include the recognition of the right of women and girls to accurately describe the sex of those who have perpetrated violence against them. Public bodies such as the police, state prosecutors, and the courts should not impose an obligation on victims of violence to describe their assailants according to their ‘gender identity’ rather than their sex. 📑 To the Table of contents Article 9 Reaffirming the need for the protection of the rights of the child (a) “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.’’ (Article 3 (1) UNCRC). States should recognize that medical interventions aimed at the ‘gender reassignment’ of children by the use of puberty supressing drugs, cross-sex hormones and surgery do not serve the best interests of children. Children are not developmentally competent to give full, free and informed consent to such medical interventions, which carry a high risk of long-term adverse consequences to the physical and psychological health of the child, and which may result in permanent adverse consequences, such as sterility. States should prohibit the use of such medical interventions upon children. (b) States should recognize that medical interventions aimed at the ‘gender reassignment’ of children by the use of drugs and surgery are emerging harmful practices as defined by Part V of the Joint General Recommendation No.31 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women/General Comment No. 18 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on harmful practices. (c) States should establish data collection and monitoring processes in relation to these practices, and enact and implement legislation aimed at eliminating them. States’ provisions should include legal protection and appropriate care for children harmed by such practices, and the availability of redress and reparations. (d) States should ‘‘recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health.’’ (UNCRC, Article 24). This should include protection of the healthy body of the child from the use of drugs or surgery to effect ‘gender reassignment’ treatment. (e) States should “ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety and health.’’ (UNCRC, Article 3). This should include preventing organizations that promote the concept of ‘gender identity’, or constituencies that have no clinical expertise or child psychology background, from influencing health services for children. (f) States should ‘‘respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.’’ (UNCRC, Article 5). States should prohibit state agencies, public and private bodies, medical practitioners, and other child welfare professionals from taking any action which seeks to compel parents to consent to medical or other interventions aimed at changing the ‘gender identities’ of their children. (g) States should ‘‘recognize the right of the child to education, with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity.’’ (UNCRC, Article 28). This should include the right of the child to the development of school curricula which are materially accurate about human biology and reproduction, and include information about the human rights of people of diverse sexual orientations, taking into account the evolving capacity and psychological developmental stages of the child. (h) States should ensure inclusion in teacher training and continuing professional development programmes of accurate material about human biology and reproduction, and information about the human rights of people of diverse sexual orientations, which should include the challenging of sex stereotypes and of homophobia. (i) States ‘‘agree that the education of the child shall be directed to [t]he preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, and equality of sexes.’’ (UNCRC, Article 29). This should include measures to ensure that organizations are not allocated state funding to promote sex stereotyping and the concept of ‘gender identity’ in educational institutions, as this constitutes the promotion of discrimination against women and girls. (j) States ‘‘shall protect the child against all forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child's welfare.’’ (UNCRC, Article 36). This should include effective and appropriate legal measures with a view to abolishing: traditional and emerging practices which enforce sex role stereotypes on girls and boys; diagnosing and treating children as having been ‘born in the wrong body’ when they do not conform to traditional sex role stereotypes; identifying young people who are same sex attracted as suffering from gender dysphoria; and using medical interventions on children which may result in their sterilization or other permanent harms. 📑 To the Table of contents — — Sign the Declaration We will send you an email to confirm your email address. (If you do not see the email, try checking your spam folder.) After the confirmation, your name will be added to the public list of signatories. By signing, you agree to our Privacy Policy. Name: Your first and last name Email: Your email Subscribe to emails? Organization: Your affiliated group or company (optional) Sign for organization? Country: What is your country? Sent from my iPhone

https://womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-full-text/ Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights On the re-affirmation of women’s sex-based rights, including women’s rights to physical and reproductive integrity, and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls that result from the replacement of the category of sex with that of ‘gender identity’, and from ‘surrogate’ motherhood and related practices.

https://womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-based-rights-full-text/
Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights On the re-affirmation of women’s sex-based rights, including women’s rights to physical and reproductive integrity, and the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls that result from the replacement of the category of sex with that of ‘gender identity’, and from ‘surrogate’ motherhood and related practices.

Table of Contents Introduction Preamble

Article 1: Reaffirming that the rights of women are based upon the category of sex

Article 2: Reaffirming the nature of motherhood as an exclusively female status

Article 3: Reaffirming the rights of women and girls to physical and reproductive integrity

Article 4: Reaffirming women’s rights to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression

Article 5: Reaffirming women’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association

Article 6: Reaffirming women’s rights to political participation on the basis of sex

Article 7: Reaffirming women’s rights to the same opportunities as men to participate actively in sports and physical education

Article 8: Reaffirming the need for the elimination of violence against women

Article 9: Reaffirming the need for the protection of the rights of the child

Introduction This Declaration reaffirms the sex-based rights of women which are set out in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979 (CEDAW), further developed in the CEDAW Committee General Recommendations, and adopted, inter alia, in the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women 1993 (UNDEVW).

Article 1 of the CEDAW defines discrimination against women to mean, “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.’’

Sex is defined by the United Nations as “the physical and biological characteristics that distinguish males from females.’’ (Gender Equality Glossary, UN Women)

The CEDAW places obligations on States Parties to ‘‘take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women.’’ (Article 2 (f)); and to take, in all fields, “appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men.’’ (Article 3).

It has long been understood in the area of human rights that the stereotyped sex roles of men and women are a fundamental aspect of women’s inequality and must be eliminated.

Article 5 of the CEDAW states, “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures:

1. To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.’’​

2. Gender refers to “the roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society at a given time considers appropriate for men and women… These attributes, opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned through socialization processes.’’ (Gender Equality Glossary, UN Women). Recent changes replacing references to the category of sex, which is biological, with the language of ’gender’, which refers to stereotyped sex roles, in United Nations documents, strategies, and actions, has led to confusion which ultimately risks undermining the protection of women’s human rights. The confusion between sex and ‘gender’ has contributed to the increasing acceptability of the idea of innate ‘gender identities’, and has led to the promotion of a right to the protection of such ‘identities’, ultimately leading to the erosion of the gains made by women over decades. Women’s rights, which have been achieved on the basis of sex, are now being undermined by the incorporation into international documents of concepts such as ’gender identity’ and ‘Sexual Orientations and Gender Identities (SOGIES)’. Sexual orientation rights are necessary in eliminating discrimination against those who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Rights relating to sexual orientation are compatible with women’s sex-based rights, and are necessary to enable lesbians, whose sexual orientation is towards other women, to fully exercise their sex-based rights.

However, the concept of ‘gender identity’ makes socially constructed stereotypes, which organize and maintain women’s inequality, into essential and innate conditions, thereby undermining women’s sex-based rights.

For example, the Yogyakarta Principles state that, “Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.’’ (Yogyakarta Principles: Principles on the application of internationals human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, March 2007).

The right of individuals to dress and present themselves as they choose is compatible with women’s sex-based rights. However, the concept of ‘gender identity’ has enabled men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ to assert, in law, policies, and practice, that they are members of the category of women, which is a category based upon sex.

The CEDAW General Recommendation No. 35 notes that, “General recommendation No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention as well as general recommendation No. 33 on women’s access to justice confirms that discrimination against women is inextricably linked to other factors that affect their lives. The Committee’s jurisprudence highlights that these may include…being lesbian.” (II, 12). The concept of ‘gender identity’ is used to challenge individuals’ rights to define their sexual orientation on the basis of sex rather than ‘gender identity’, enabling men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ to seek to be included in the category of lesbian, which is a category based upon sex. This undermines the sex-based rights of lesbians, and is a form of discrimination against women.

Some men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ seek to be included in the legal category of mother. The CEDAW emphasises maternal rights and the “social significance of maternity’’. Maternal rights and services are based on women’s unique capacity to gestate and give birth to children. The inclusion of men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ within the legal category of mother erodes the social significance of maternity, and undermines the maternal rights for which the CEDAW provides.

The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) states that, “The explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment’’. (Annex 1, 17) This right is undermined by the use of ‘surrogate’ motherhood, which exploits and commodifies women’s reproductive capacity. The exploitation and commodification of women’s reproductive capacity also underpins medical research which is aimed at enabling men to gestate and give birth to children. The inclusion of men who claim a female ‘gender identity’ within the legal categories of woman, of lesbian, and of mother threatens to remove all meaning from these categories, as it constitutes a denial of the biological realities on which the status of being a woman, being a lesbian, and being a mother are based. Organizations that promote the concept of ‘gender identity’ challenge the right of women and girls to define themselves on the basis of sex, and to assemble and organize on the basis of their common interests as a sex. This includes challenging the rights of lesbians to define their sexual orientation on the basis of sex rather than ‘gender identity’, and to assemble and organize on the basis of their common sexual orientation. In many countries state agencies, public bodies and private organizations are attempting to compel persons to identify and refer to individuals on the basis of ‘gender identity’ rather than sex. These developments constitute forms of discrimination against women, and undermine women’s rights to freedom of expression, freedom of belief, and freedom of assembly. Men who claim a female ’gender identity’ are being enabled to access opportunities and protections set aside for women. This constitutes a form of discrimination against women, and endangers women’s fundamental rights to safety, dignity and equality. Article 7 of the CEDAW affirms the importance of measures to eliminate discrimination against women in political and public life, and Article 4 affirms the importance of temporary special measures to accelerate de facto equality between men and women. When men claiming female ‘gender identities’ are admitted to women’s participation quotas and other special measures designed to increase women’s participation in political and public life, the purpose of such special measures in achieving equality for women is undermined. Article 10 (g) of the CEDAW calls on States Parties to ensure that women have the same opportunities as men to participate actively in sports and physical education. Due to the physiological differences between women and men, the exercise of this right by women requires that certain sporting activities are single-sex. When men claiming female ‘gender identities’ are enabled to participate in women’s single-sex sporting activities, women are placed at an unfair competitive disadvantage, and may be placed at increased risk of physical injury. This undermines women’s and girls’ ability to have the same opportunities as men to participate in sports, and therefore constitutes a form of discrimination against women and girls, which should be eliminated. It has long been understood in the area of human rights that violence against women and girls is universally endemic, and is one of the crucial social mechanism by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men. The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women recognizes that, “Violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men.’’ This domination and discrimination is based on sex and not on ‘gender identity’. The conflation of the category of sex with the category of ‘gender identity’ hinders the protection of women and girls from violence perpetrated against them by men and boys. It increasingly enables men who consider that they have a female ‘gender identity’ to claim access to female single sex victim support services and spaces, as both service users and as service providers. This includes specialist single-sex provisions for women and girls who have been subject to violence, such as shelters and health care facilities. It also includes other services in which single-sex provision is crucial to the promotion of the physical safety, health, privacy, and dignity of women and girls. The presence of men in female single-sex spaces and services undermines the role of these services in protecting women and girls, and could make women and girls vulnerable to violent men who may claim a female ‘gender identity’. The CEDAW Committee in its General Recommendation 35 underlines the importance of collecting data and compiling statistics relating to the prevalence of different forms of violence against women in relation to developing effective measures to prevent and redress such violence. “Sex-disaggregated data is data that is cross-classified by sex, presenting information separately for men and women, boys and girls. Sex-disaggregated data reflect roles, real situations, general conditions of women and men, girls and boys in every aspect of society. … When data is not disaggregated by sex, it is more difficult to identify real and potential inequalities.’’ (UN Women, Gender Equality Glossary). The conflation of sex with ‘gender identity’ leads to the collection of data on violence against women and girls which is inaccurate and misleading because it identifies perpetrators of violence on the basis of their ‘gender identity’ rather than their sex. This creates a significant impediment to the development of effective laws, policies, strategies and actions aimed at the elimination of violence against women and girls. The concept of ‘gender identity’ is increasingly used to ‘gender reassign’ children who do not conform to sex stereotypes, or who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Medical interventions that carry a high risk of long-term adverse consequences on the physical or psychological health of a child, such as the use of puberty suppressing hormones, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, are used on children who are not developmentally competent to give full, free and informed consent. Such medical interventions can cause a range of permanent adverse physical health effects, including sterility, as well as negative effects on psychological health. 📑 To the Table of contents Preamble

We have re-evaluated the post titled "" against Community Guidelines https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy. Upon review, the post has been reinstated. You may access the post at http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/07/written-evidence-submitted-by-sex_24.html.

Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2022 Subject: Your post titled "" has been reinstated To:

Hello,

We have re-evaluated the post titled "" against Community Guidelines https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy. Upon review, the post has been reinstated. You may access the post at http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/07/written-evidence-submitted-by-sex_24.html.

Sincerely, The Blogger Team

Republican mass murder against lives of the mother

https://www.aol.com/women-race-political-clock-cross-050717607-200629099.html Abortion Two Clinics Monica Eberhart sits outside her home Thursday, Aug. 25, 2022, in Columbus, Ohio. Eberhart had to travel to Indianapolis, Ind., for an abortion after Ohio imposed a ban on abortions once fetal heart activity could be detected. (AP Photo/Jay LaPrete) ASSOCIATED PRESS DAYTON, OHIO (AP) — In the dim light of a clinic ultrasound room, Monica Eberhart reclines on an exam table as a nurse moves a probe across her belly. Waves of fetal cardiac activity ripple across the screen. “The heartbeat,” the nurse says. “About 10 weeks and two days.” Eberhart exhales. It’s good news. “That means I’m just under,” she says, raising her hands and crossing her fingers. The 23-year-old mother of three is racing a political clock. When she learned she was pregnant again, she decided abortion was her best choice — even if it meant navigating a patchwork of state laws enacted since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Hours after the ruling in late June, Ohio imposed a ban on abortions once cardiac activity can be detected, at about six weeks of pregnancy. Since then, Women’s Med clinic in Dayton has been referring hundreds of patients like Eberhart to its sister facility of the same name in Indiana, 120 miles away. There, in-clinic abortions are allowed until 13 weeks and six days of pregnancy — for now. Indiana lawmakers recently approved a ban on almost all abortions, after weeks of debate in the Statehouse. The law takes effect Sept. 15. At just over 10 weeks into her pregnancy, Eberhart will need to travel to Indianapolis for an abortion. It's disruptive, an inconvenience — but she's more than ready. With new state laws and court challenges popping up on what seems like a daily basis, she doesn’t want to wait any longer. “I have to get it done, I can’t really wait. I’ve put everything on hold just to get this one thing handled,” Eberhart says. “I absolutely cannot afford another baby, whether that be financially or mentally.” Women’s Med has performed few abortions in Ohio since the state ban was enacted; most women don’t learn they’re pregnant until after six weeks. The Dayton clinic, a two-story building that blends into its leafy suburban surroundings, has been in business for almost 40 years. Recent days have become increasingly chaotic, workers say. They see desperate patients — a teenager who was raped, women with ectopic pregnancies, families unfamiliar with Ohio law. Some workers have left. Those who remain say they’re determined to keep helping patients, even when it means sending them out of state. “We are going to see as many people and do as much for these people as we can until we close down,’’ says Dr. Jeanne Corwin, who works at both clinics. The Ohio clinic closes next month; Indiana’s is likely to follow. Until then, Corwin focuses on preparing her Ohio patients to travel. During Eberhart’s visit, she and Corwin sit in her office. States have various requirements on what patients must be told — procedure details, after-care instructions, birth control methods. But Indiana, Corwin explains, requires her to give what she derides as false information about fetal pain, and to discuss medical cremation. It is, she says, a bureaucratic process aimed at dissuading abortions. Eberhart listens. Like most women at the clinic, she is undeterred. The Indiana clinic can squeeze her in the next day, despite the influx of patients. The appointment gives her just enough time to meet Indiana’s requirement for an 18-hour waiting period after the in-person education and counseling session. Anti-abortion advocates hope some women will decide against the procedure in that window, but Eberhart knows what she wants. A manager for a beauty supply store, she lives paycheck to paycheck, and she struggles with post-partum depression from the birth of her youngest. She relies on her parents to help care for all three kids — ages 4, 3 and 10 months. “Love my kids to death, and they’re everything I would ever want in my life,” she says. “But if I, rationally speaking, could choose to do it over … no kids at 18. "Wait till I’m like 35. Wait till I have a whole house, a pension, a 401(k), a savings, three cars. Like, wait till you are financially able and stable.'' Her children are staying with her parents for a few days; Eberhart wants them to know nothing of her plans. That night, at her unusually quiet house, Eberhart plays video games and watches TV. She doesn’t feel scared or worried. Still, she struggles to sleep. In the morning, the father, a friend who’s been supportive of Eberhart’s decision to seek an abortion, arrives to pick her up. “I’m finally on my way,” she tells herself. She manages to nap during the 2.5-hour drive, hoping to stave off pregnancy-induced nausea. They arrive about noon at the Indianapolis clinic — a low-slung, nondescript building in a modest neighborhood. As at the Ohio facility, anti-abortion demonstrators gather here nearly every day, and an armed security guard is posted at the door. Opponents believe unrestricted abortions disregard human life and argue that strict limits or bans are needed to protect the unborn. For Eberhart, the demonstrators are a nonfactor in her decision. Adoption was never an option for her — she spent time in foster care herself and says she knows the system is overflowing with children. She wants to move forward with the abortion; then, as she'll later say, “no more unplanned babies.” Eberhart and a steady stream of other patients file into the clinic. They sit, some fidgeting on padded waiting-room chairs, staring at pastel walls and a droning soap opera on the TV. Each feels the urgency brought on by looming legislation. There’s the nurse who got pregnant when her IUD failed. The 27-year-old is still breastfeeding her 5-month-old and recovering from ovarian-cyst surgery. She and her partner worry that another pregnancy is too dangerous. At 11 weeks pregnant, she, too, traveled from Ohio. A retail worker in Louisville got a ride from a friend when her appointment was abruptly canceled over a new state ban there. Indiana’s waiting period means she’ll have to make the two-hour drive again, another day. The 27-year-old was on birth control when she got pregnant. A factory worker from southern Indiana says her strict, Catholic father would disown her over an abortion. She’s certain she’s going to hell. But as a 28-year-old single mom, she knows she can’t raise another child. A high school honor student got pregnant when her boyfriend’s condom broke. She told her mom, who revealed a secret she’d kept even from her husband — she had two abortions long ago, before marriage, when any notion that Roe v. Wade could be overturned seemed remote. All these women — who spoke to AP on condition of anonymity, over fears that family and friends would learn of their abortion plans — will see Dr. Katie McHugh. She and the other staff in Indianapolis are performing twice as many abortions as they did before the Supreme Court ruling. In July, 474 patients had abortions there, compared with just over 200 in May. At least half come from other states. McHugh sees more fear in her patients these days, and she tries to extend extra kindness. “There’s a sense of desperation,” she says. “They feel so lucky that they got in just under the wire.” Depending on laws in patients’ home states, the clinic offers abortion by procedure or pills, with women taking two prescription medicines days apart. It’s the preferred and most common method to terminate pregnancy in the country, typically for women up to 70 days into pregnancy. Eberhart is barely past that limit — but even if she qualified, she’d still need to have the more invasive medical procedure to empty her womb. The clinic won’t risk the legal liability of patients using the pills back home, in more restrictive states. Over an hour after arrival, it’s time for Eberhart’s procedure. The doctor tells her, “I’m sorry you had to come all the way here, but we’re glad we can help.’’ Eberhart lies down on the exam table in a cramped procedure room and places her feet in the stirrups, a paper sheet covering her legs — much like an ordinary gynecological exam. McHugh talks Eberhart through each step — feeling for the uterus, applying a numbing medication. Eberhart winces as she feels a pinch, then relaxes. She makes a bit of small talk, telling the doctor about her kids. McHugh inserts a thin, hollow tube. It's attached to larger tubing and a suctioning pump. McHugh uses it to remove the pregnancy. The procedure is over in five minutes. Eberhart feels little pain. McHugh tells her to take care. Eberhart moves to a recovery area, rests on a reclining chair and snacks on a small bag of chips. “I’m generally in good spirts,” she says. “I knew what I signed up for.” Over the next few days, she has minor cramps, some hormonal moodiness — but no regrets. Mostly, she feels an overwhelming sense of relief — that she was able to find a clinic to give her the care she wanted, that the fast-closing window for abortion had remained open long enough. “I just want to do what’s right for my body and my life,” she said. ___ Tanner reported from Indianapolis. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

The Rainbow Coalition was an antiracist, anticlass[1] multicultural movement founded April 4, 1969 in Chicago, Illinois by Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party, along with William "Preacherman" Fesperman of the Young Patriots Organization and José Cha Cha Jiménez, founder of the Young Lords. It was the first of several 20th century black-led organizations to use the "rainbow coalition" concept.[2]

The Rainbow Coalition was an antiracist, anticlass[1] multicultural movement founded April 4, 1969 in Chicago, Illinois by Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party, along with William "Preacherman" Fesperman of the Young Patriots Organization and José Cha Cha Jiménez, founder of the Young Lords. It was the first of several 20th century black-led organizations to use the "rainbow coalition" concept.[2] Rainbow Coalition Formation 1969 Type Civil rights Headquarters Chicago, Illinois Location United States Founder Fred Hampton Key people Fred Hampton José Cha Cha Jiménez William "Preacherman" Fesperman Some members of the Young Patriots included Jack (Junebug) Boykin, Bobby Joe Mcginnis and Hy Thurman who worked with Field Marshall Bobby Lee of the Black Panthers. The founder of the coalition, Fred Hampton, first met Jose Cha Cha Jimenez of the Young Lords in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood the day after the Young Lords were in the news, after they had occupied the police community workshop meeting of the 18th District Police Station. Fred Hampton was arrested twice in February 1969 with Jose Cha Cha Jimenez at the Wicker Park Welfare Office. Both were charged with Mob Action during peaceful pickets of the welfare office protesting mistreatment of the patrons. The Rainbow Coalition soon included various radical socialist community groups like the Lincoln Park Poor People's Coalition,[3] later, the coalition was joined nationwide by the Students for a Democratic Society ("SDS"), the Brown Berets, the American Indian Movement and the Red Guard Party. In April 1969, Hampton called several press conferences to announce that this "Rainbow Coalition" had formed. Some of the things the coalition engaged in joint action against was poverty, corruption, racism, police brutality, and substandard housing.[4] The participating groups supported each other at protests, strikes, and demonstrations where they had a common cause.[5][6] The coalition later included many other local groups like Rising Up Angry, and Mothers and Others. The Coalition also brokered treaties to end crime and gang violence. Hampton, Jimenez and their colleagues believed that the Richard J. Daley Democratic Party machine in Chicago used gang wars to consolidate their own political positions by gaining funding for law enforcement and dramatizing crime rather than underlying social issues.[citation needed] The coalition eventually collapsed under duress from constant harassment by local and federal law enforcement, including the murder of Fred Hampton.[6] Legacy Edit The phrase "rainbow coalition" was co-opted over the years by Reverend Jesse Jackson, who eventually appropriated the name in forming his own, more moderate coalition, Rainbow/PUSH. Some scholars, including Peniel Joseph, assert that the original rainbow coalition concept was a prerequisite for the multicultural coalition that Barack Obama built his political career upon.[7] Jeffrey Haas, a lawyer who represented the BPP after Hampton's assassination, praised some of Hampton's politics, stating that his work in unifying movements are things one can learn from him.[8] However, Haas was critical towards the way Hampton ran the BPP hierarchical organization. Haas praised the horizontal structure of Black Lives Matter stating: "They may also have picked up on the vulnerability of a hierarchal movement where you have one leader, which makes the movement very vulnerable if that leader is imprisoned, killed, or otherwise compromised. I think the fact that Black Lives Matter says, 'We're leader-full, not leaderless,' perhaps makes them less vulnerable to this kind of government assault."[8]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r3uz-KMq_Z0

The Spirit of Fred Hampton and Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition stands still on the Shoulders of the Old Left slogan - " Red, Yellow, Brown , Black and White/ Unite and Fight the Bourgeosie !! That Spirit lives in the Obama/Biden All People's Democratic Party .

The Spirit of Fred Hampton and Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition stands still on the Shoulders of the Old Left slogan - " Red, Yellow, Brown , Black and White/ Unite and Fight the Bourgeosie !! That Spirit lives in the Obama/Biden All People's Democratic Party .

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-d-rather-have-roosevelt-in-wheelchair.html

"I 'd rather have Roosevelt in a wheelchair than Reagan on a horse." RAINBOW COALITION PREFIGURED OBAMA'S WINNING COALITION By Charlie Brown "I 'd rather have Roosevelt in a wheelchair than Reagan on a horse." - Jesse Jackson Rainbow Coalition Presidential Candidate Barack Obama's national electoral coalition majority, his winning Presidential mass of voters, is essentially an actualization of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition idea from the 1984 and 1988 Presidential Campaign. Listen to the speeches linked below. They are politically prophetic in articulating themes that became winners for Obama in 2008 and 2012. From this historical fact, progressive activists in 2014 can take heart that the long term grind of building from the grassroots can succeed , can make winning combinations. Our day-to-day struggles on behalf of the 99% executed with voting consciousness can gain election victories, and make change from the bottom up. Obama himself was a community organizer, like many of us political activists, social workers, legal services workers, union organizers, women's groups, environmentalists, food activists etc. Jackson garnered a sizable number of votes in primaries , though less than a majority, for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988. 24 years later Jackson's constituency, with community organizing and politicizing, became the majority that elected an African American, to most people's amazement. What a giant step forward for White Americans ! I felt such pride in my fellow Americans who are White, when they smashed the historical scourge of racism by voting in large numbers for Barack Obama for President in 2008 and 2012. Both the Jackson Rainbow and the Obama Rainbow had to be anti-white supremacist at their cores as their candidates were Black. No racists gonna vote for Jackson or Obama. Of course, by the name Jackson gave his Coalition , Rainbow, he attracted multi-racial support. Obama's winning majorities were the same : all colors of the Rainbow, and heavy Black, Brown , Yellow and Red support. In 1984 and 1988 , we knew in our hearts that not enough white people were ready to vote for a Black person , for Jackson to win. Twenty-four years later, White America took a giant step toward Martin Luther King's dream of an integrated, prejudice-free society, by voting in a large enough minority , a majority in combination with the whole Rainbow , to elect a Person of Color President of the United States of America. We had taken a leap over that last barrier to Jackson's winning in 1984 and 1988. Jackson explicitly included Lesbian and Gay liberation in the Rainbow, at a time when that movement was relatively small compared to today. Interestingly, LGBT activists now have the Rainbow as a symbol. Perhaps , Jackson's most memorable line in his speeches is a shout-out for the rights of the disabled: "I 'd rather have FDR in a wheelchair than Reagan on a horse." Jackson's speeches are a fairly thorough critique of Reaganism at its roots, the ideology still at the core of today's tea Republican lies and demagogy. Jackson outlines ,way back then, the program for us to reverse Reaganism and the tea Party's unAmericanism today. Obama's victories mean we can build majorities to reverse Reagan and the tea Party all the way to the America of Martin Luther King's dream. And the Obama Rainbow Coalition is a bigger majority than reflected in the elected representation in the States and Congress, as the Snakely Republicans have Gerrymandered to beat the band. When we get around that they are really in electoral trouble

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Coalition_(Fred_Hampton)

The Rainbow Coalition was an antiracist, anticlass[1] multicultural movement founded April 4, 1969 in Chicago, Illinois by Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party, along with William "Preacherman" Fesperman of the Young Patriots Organization and José Cha Cha Jiménez, founder of the Young Lords. It was the first of several 20th century black-led organizations to use the "rainbow coalition" concept.[2] Rainbow Coalition Formation 1969 Type Civil rights Headquarters Chicago, Illinois Location United States Founder Fred Hampton Key people Fred Hampton José Cha Cha Jiménez William "Preacherman" Fesperman Some members of the Young Patriots included Jack (Junebug) Boykin, Bobby Joe Mcginnis and Hy Thurman who worked with Field Marshall Bobby Lee of the Black Panthers. The founder of the coalition, Fred Hampton, first met Jose Cha Cha Jimenez of the Young Lords in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood the day after the Young Lords were in the news, after they had occupied the police community workshop meeting of the 18th District Police Station. Fred Hampton was arrested twice in February 1969 with Jose Cha Cha Jimenez at the Wicker Park Welfare Office. Both were charged with Mob Action during peaceful pickets of the welfare office protesting mistreatment of the patrons. The Rainbow Coalition soon included various radical socialist community groups like the Lincoln Park Poor People's Coalition,[3] later, the coalition was joined nationwide by the Students for a Democratic Society ("SDS"), the Brown Berets, the American Indian Movement and the Red Guard Party. In April 1969, Hampton called several press conferences to announce that this "Rainbow Coalition" had formed. Some of the things the coalition engaged in joint action against was poverty, corruption, racism, police brutality, and substandard housing.[4] The participating groups supported each other at protests, strikes, and demonstrations where they had a common cause.[5][6] The coalition later included many other local groups like Rising Up Angry, and Mothers and Others. The Coalition also brokered treaties to end crime and gang violence. Hampton, Jimenez and their colleagues believed that the Richard J. Daley Democratic Party machine in Chicago used gang wars to consolidate their own political positions by gaining funding for law enforcement and dramatizing crime rather than underlying social issues.[citation needed] The coalition eventually collapsed under duress from constant harassment by local and federal law enforcement, including the murder of Fred Hampton.[6] Legacy Edit The phrase "rainbow coalition" was co-opted over the years by Reverend Jesse Jackson, who eventually appropriated the name in forming his own, more moderate coalition, Rainbow/PUSH. Some scholars, including Peniel Joseph, assert that the original rainbow coalition concept was a prerequisite for the multicultural coalition that Barack Obama built his political career upon.[7] Jeffrey Haas, a lawyer who represented the BPP after Hampton's assassination, praised some of Hampton's politics, stating that his work in unifying movements are things one can learn from him.[8] However, Haas was critical towards the way Hampton ran the BPP hierarchical organization. Haas praised the horizontal structure of Black Lives Matter stating: "They may also have picked up on the vulnerability of a hierarchal movement where you have one leader, which makes the movement very vulnerable if that leader is imprisoned, killed, or otherwise compromised. I think the fact that Black Lives Matter says, 'We're leader-full, not leaderless,' perhaps makes them less vulnerable to this kind of government assault."[8]

Researchers have now shed light on this conundrum by analyzing ancient DNA samples across the Near East. An international team, including Harvard University’s Iosif Lazaridis, Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg, Ron Pinhasi, and David Reich, published a paper in Science. It was determined that the early farmers did not come from pure local populations. Early Neolithic migrations to Anatolia occurred in several waves.

There was a distinct migration into Anatolia during the Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic periods based on ancient DNA from Mesopotamia. But there was also another migration. The evolution of humankind is complex and full of mystery. While it is claimed that around 10,000 years ago, there were no advanced civilizations on Earth, ancient sites such as those in Anatolia, like Gobekli Tepe, suggest otherwise. Gobekli Tepe is one of the oldest, most massive ancient sites discovered to date, and it changes everything we thought we knew about humankind’s history and origin. To better understand this specific period in history, we look back at certain traits like the transition from a hunter-gatherer, nomadic life to a more stationary one. In the past 10,000 years, for instance, humanity changed drastically. The primary subsistence method was agriculture and animal husbandry (with some hunting and gathering). Neolithic revolutions began at different times around the world. They never reached Australia, where farming did not begin until the 19th century. Different areas of the Holocene developed agriculture and animal husbandry independently. The region of Anatolia-Mesopotamia was the first place where agriculture and captive herbivore breeding emerged, excluding China. The Neolithic revolution changed human history, but who exactly were the Anatolian farmers in the early days? Did the locals develop a new lifestyle, or were they long-term residents? How exactly did this evolution play out?

A new (2016)report released on Monday looks at the country’s racial wealth gap, finding that if current public policies stay the same, it will take more than two centuries for black families to accumulate the same amount of wealth that white families have today. For the average Latino family, it’ll take 84 years.


https://www.marketplace.org/2016/08/09/wealth-divide/

The study, entitled “The Ever-Growing Gap: Without Change, African-American and Latino Families Won’t Match White Wealth for Centuries,” gives suggestions to close that divide. Some of these policy recommendations include expanding eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit, removing barriers to retirement savings, and ensuring every child in the country has a Children’s Savings Account.

Dedrick Asante-Muhammed, the director of the Racial Wealth Divide Initiative at the Corporation for Enterprise Development, and Chuck Collins, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, were two of the report’s authors. They joined us to discuss the study’s findings.

Collins on why wealth is used as a measure of racial inequality:

Well, in a way, wealth is where the past shows up in the present. And it’s where we see the legacy of racism in asset building. The French economist Thomas Piketty kind of warned us that we’re moving toward a sort of aristocracy of wealth, but he doesn’t say we’re heading toward essentially a white aristocracy of wealth. So I think that’s the concern we’re trying to raise: Is this really where we want to be heading? Dedrick Asante-Muhammed on how housing policy influenced the racial wealth gap: People forget that…the majority of the country didn’t just become homeowners just by accident or just by working hard. It was a federal policy in the ’40s in particular that created homeownership as an opportunity for the majority of Americans, and it was specifically targeted for white Americans. And barriers were put up for minorities, particularly African-Americans, so we have to have some policy focused on bridging this racial wealth inequality. Click the above audio player to hear the full interview.

[lbo-talk] Trump is a fascist 2017

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20170807/000143.html

Charles Brown



"Alt-right" is a euphemism for "fascist." Trump has Bannon , fascist leader , as a main White House staff member . Breitbart is a fascist media. The struggle against the Republicans is an anti-fascist struggle . Wake up , comrades.

Why I no longer hate ‘TERFs’ by PENNY WHITE

Why I no longer hate ‘TERFs’ by PENNY WHITE When all else fails, call your opponents TERFs. Regardless of the subject matter of the disagreement. TERF = Witch. pic.twitter.com/x4sLBhlOZZ

— Becca Reilly-Cooper (@boodleoops) November 8, 2015 I used to hate so-called TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). I thought they were mean, vicious, horrible people — an affront to feminism, to social justice, and to political purity. They were no better than puppy-kickers and kitten-killers in my mind. But, while I continue to fully embrace my transgender sisters in the fight against patriarchy, I will no longer vilify my feminist sisters who don’t. And beyond its convenience in writing this article, I will no longer use the word “TERF.”

Women are socialized to be caretakers. We learn to put everyone else’s needs before our own and, likewise, we are socialized to believe that everyone else’s oppression is more important than ours — especially the oppression of biological males. The oppression of men of colour by whites, for example, has always been taken more seriously than the oppression of women of colour. Police violence against women of colour receives far less coverage than police violence against men of colour.

In a recent interview, Fay Blaney criticized male leaders in Indigenous communities for failing to address the violence that happens against women in these communities. The most marginalized people in the world are poor women of color, yet progressives seem more concerned with the rights of gay men to marry than they are with confronting the trafficking and exploitation of these women by the multi-billion dollar sex industry. Lesbians were front and center supporting gay men during the AIDS crisis, but gay men could hardly be called “front and centre” when it comes to fighting for reproductive justice for women. Men on the left have a long history of ignoring women’s issues, seeing feminism as “bourgeois” and women’s concerns as unimportant — personal, not political.

Recently Caitlin Jenner was honoured at Glamour’s “Woman of the Year” awards, but Chaz Bono has yet to be nominated as “Man of the Year” by his brothers. The closest he got was a “Person of the Year” award at LA’s gay pride festival. I can only imagine how enthusiastically men would embrace an Esquire or GQ cover proclaiming Chaz Bono “Man of the Year…”

Yet Bruce Jenner, a conservative Republican and deadbeat dad, who used to hang out at the Playboy Mansion and who can’t even be bothered to support gay marriage (because it’s not “traditional”), is championed by women. We celebrate her even though she supports a political party that seeks to systematically eliminate the reproductive rights of women. But because Jenner is transgender, understood to be a member of an oppressed group (despite her wealth and whiteness), we must consider her feelings and needs above our own. Because that’s what women are socialized to do. Is it impossible to understand why some women might be angry about this?

Females have never been the “default” human — that honor has always gone to males. And now we don’t even get to be the default woman. We are now labeled non-trans or “cis” women. Some trans activists are even claiming it is “cissexist” or “transmisogynist” just to refer to pregnant women as women. The Midwives Association of North America (MANA) will no longer use the term “pregnant woman” because they have been informed this is transphobic. Instead, they will use the term “pregnant person,” because it is now considered bigoted to imply a direct connection between women and pregnancy. So “womanhood” has been erased from the language of midwives in order to protect the feelings of a tiny percentage of the trans community.

It isn’t uncommon for transactivists to take offence to the acknowledgement of us breeders and bleeders. Author and trans activist, Julia Serano, tweeted that “contraception-centric feminism” has been “alienating” for her. Yeah, well, that tweet is pretty alienating to the hundreds of thousands of women who have lost access (or are in danger of losing access) to reproductive freedom over the past few years in the U.S. and to those still struggling for basic rights. I mean, what’s more important? That women have access to abortion and contraceptives or that people who aren’t female don’t feel “alienated?” Another popular genderqueer activist, Laurie Penny, wrote an article for Buzzfeed complaining that feminism’s “focus on women” was “alienating” to the queer community. We are talking about the women’s movement here, aren’t we?

…but I have to say that as an infertile woman, all this contraception-centric feminism over the last month has been alienating for me…

— Julia Serano (@JuliaSerano) March 3, 2012 Is it really so unreasonable that many women are offended by their own erasure? What equivalent erasure are men asked to accept in deference to the trans or queer community’s feelings? I can’t think of a single one.

Yes, transwomen deserve to be protected from employment and housing discrimination. Yes, they deserve to be protected from transphobic workplace harassment and referred to by their preferred pronouns ( do they ?). Yes, they deserve to be protected from street harassment and violence. But do they really have the right to demand access to every safe space reserved for women? Should a non-trans woman in prison really be forced to share a prison cell with a pre-op transwoman? (Or vice versa — the danger of having a penis in a women’s prison cuts both ways…) Whose needs come first and why?

Transwomen are not the same as biological women. So what? That’s why they’re called transwomen. Acknowledging that transwomen are different from females does not mean they are less than. What feminists who acknowledge that difference are asking is that the oppression of transwomen not be made more important than the oppression of women-born-women and that we not be asked, yet again, to sit down and shut up.

When cis people start getting murdered for being cis maybe I'll give a fuck about how hurtful my insults are, until then shut up & sit down

— Cosmo (@CosN0) October 25, 2015

2016: struggle against trans male chauvinism

[lbo-talk] "Why I no longer hate Trans Exclusionary Feminists (TERFs’)"

Charles Brown says :

What I said is true. You have the horseshit position . But sure. You all can censor, but you can't censor everywhere this crushing critique of your horseshit , biological ignorance , male supremacism and anti-Marxism. We'll win in the end. Better get phobic of us ha ha ha. You biology-phobes.

Doug Henwood wrote: >

> >> Charles Brown wrote: >> >> Why I no longer hate ‘TERFs’ > > Take this horseshit somewhere else please. > ___________________________________ > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk Why I no longer hate ‘TERFs’ by PENNY WHITE When all else fails, call your opponents TERFs. Regardless of the subject matter of the disagreement. TERF = Witch. pic.twitter.com/x4sLBhlOZZ — Becca Reilly-Cooper (@boodleoops) November 8, 2015 I used to hate so-called TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). I thought they were mean, vicious, horrible people — an affront to feminism, to social justice, and to political purity. They were no better than puppy-kickers and kitten-killers in my mind. But, while I continue to fully embrace my transgender sisters in the fight against patriarchy, I will no longer vilify my feminist sisters who don’t. And beyond its convenience in writing this article, I will no longer use the word “TERF.” Women are socialized to be caretakers. We learn to put everyone else’s needs before our own and, likewise, we are socialized to believe that everyone else’s oppression is more important than ours — especially the oppression of biological males. The oppression of men of colour by whites, for example, has always been taken more seriously than the oppression of women of colour. Police violence against women of colour receives far less coverage than police violence against men of colour. In a recent interview, Fay Blaney criticized male leaders in Indigenous communities for failing to address the violence that happens against women in these communities. The most marginalized people in the world are poor women of color, yet progressives seem more concerned with the rights of gay men to marry than they are with confronting the trafficking and exploitation of these women by the multi-billion dollar sex industry. Lesbians were front and center supporting gay men during the AIDS crisis, but gay men could hardly be called “front and centre” when it comes to fighting for reproductive justice for women. Men on the left have a long history of ignoring women’s issues, seeing feminism as “bourgeois” and women’s concerns as unimportant — personal, not political. Recently Caitlin Jenner was honoured at Glamour’s “Woman of the Year” awards, but Chaz Bono has yet to be nominated as “Man of the Year” by his brothers. The closest he got was a “Person of the Year” award at LA’s gay pride festival. I can only imagine how enthusiastically men would embrace an Esquire or GQ cover proclaiming Chaz Bono “Man of the Year…” Yet Caitlin Jenner, a conservative Republican and deadbeat dad, who used to hang out at the Playboy Mansion and who can’t even be bothered to support gay marriage (because it’s not “traditional”), is championed by women. We celebrate her even though she supports a political party that seeks to systematically eliminate the reproductive rights of women. But because Jenner is transgender, understood to be a member of an oppressed group (despite her wealth and whiteness), we must consider her feelings and needs above our own. Because that’s what women are socialized to do. Is it impossible to understand why some women might be angry about this? Females have never been the “default” human — that honor has always gone to males. And now we don’t even get to be the default woman. We are now labeled non-trans or “cis” women. Some trans activists are even claiming it is “cissexist” or “transmisogynist” just to refer to pregnant women as women. The Midwives Association of North America (MANA) will no longer use the term “pregnant woman” because they have been informed this is transphobic. Instead, they will use the term “pregnant person,” because it is now considered bigoted to imply a direct connection between women and pregnancy. So “womanhood” has been erased from the language of midwives in order to protect the feelings of a tiny percentage of the trans community. It isn’t uncommon for transactivists to take offence to the acknowledgement of us breeders and bleeders. Author and trans activist, Julia Serano, tweeted that “contraception-centric feminism” has been “alienating” for her. Yeah, well, that tweet is pretty alienating to the hundreds of thousands of women who have lost access (or are in danger of losing access) to reproductive freedom over the past few years in the U.S. and to those still struggling for basic rights. I mean, what’s more important? That women have access to abortion and contraceptives or that people who aren’t female don’t feel “alienated?” Another popular genderqueer activist, Laurie Penny, wrote an article for Buzzfeed complaining that feminism’s “focus on women” was “alienating” to the queer community. We are talking about the women’s movement here, aren’t we? …but I have to say that as an infertile woman, all this contraception-centric feminism over the last month has been alienating for me… — Julia Serano (@JuliaSerano) March 3, 2012 Is it really so unreasonable that many women are offended by their own erasure? What equivalent erasure are men asked to accept in deference to the trans or queer community’s feelings? I can’t think of a single one. Yes, transwomen deserve to be protected from employment and housing discrimination. Yes, they deserve to be protected from transphobic workplace harassment and referred to by their preferred pronouns. Yes, they deserve to be protected from street harassment and violence. But do they really have the right to demand access to every safe space reserved for women? Should a non-trans woman in prison really be forced to share a prison cell with a pre-op transwoman? (Or vice versa — the danger of having a penis in a women’s prison cuts both ways…) Whose needs come first and why? Transwomen are not the same as biological women. So what? That’s why they’re called transwomen. Acknowledging that transwomen are different from females does not mean they are less than. What feminists who acknowledge that difference are asking is that the oppression of transwomen not be made more important than the oppression of women-born-women and that we not be asked, yet again, to sit down and shut up. When cis people start getting murdered for being cis maybe I'll give a fuck about how hurtful my insults are, until then shut up & sit down — Cosmo (@CosN0) October 25, 2015

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/08/a-riposte-to-good-law-projects.html

History turns into its opposite; FBI arresting the racist-fascists ; J. Edgar Hoover spinning in his grave

https://www.aol.com/series-online-threats-against-fbi-194252400.html

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice announced the arrest of a Pennsylvania man charged with threatening to kill FBI personnel after federal agents executed a search warrant at the Florida home of former President Donald Trump. The suspect, Adam Bies, had allegedly posted a series of threats on the far-right social media platform Gab, in which he compared the FBI to Nazi- and Soviet-era secret police, discussed wanting to “slaughter” agents and wrote, among other things, “I sincerely believe that if you work at the FBI you deserve to die.” He’s been charged with interstate threats and influencing or retaliating against a federal officer.

The FBI seal The FBI has come under intense criticism on the right for executing a search warrant on Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in Florida. For some extremists, the criticism is leading to physical threats. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images) More

Bies’s alleged posts were part of a deluge of violent and vulgar content that spread quickly across pro-Trump segments of social media in response to the Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, which stemmed from an investigation into the possible mishandling of classified documents that were taken from the White House after Trump’s term in office.

Outraged Trump supporters called for civil war and circulated personal information about the federal judge who approved the warrant authorizing the search, along with antisemitic threats. But the bulk of the vitriol was directed at the FBI.

On Aug. 11, one day before Bies was arrested at his home in Mercer, Pa., a man in Ohio was killed by police after he allegedly attempted to attack an FBI field office in Cincinnati with a nail gun and an AR-15. He appears to have posted a call to arms against the FBI on Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform, prior to the attempted attack.

For extremism experts and federal law enforcement alike, the Cincinnati incident highlighted how this kind of rhetoric can inspire real-world violence. But intercepting such threats can be complicated.

The Bies case offers a glimpse of how law enforcement identifies legitimate threats of violence online, and what the difference is between criminal threats and the rest of the hateful, vile and often violent — yet protected — speech that has become commonplace across social media.

Why Michigan matters so much this year

Charles, Michigan is always a battleground state, but this year it will be especially crucial for three reasons: A state constitutionall amendment to protect abortion rights will be on the ballot. Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, if this ammendment does not pass, an abortion ban that Michigan passed in 1931 would go back into effect. Michigan is one of the only states this year where we have a real shot at flipping the Republican state legislature blue, if Democratic voters turn out in droves. Perhaps most importantly, if Republican Tudor Dixon, who has repeatedly said that the 2020 election was stolen, is able to win the governor's race, she will be able to certify Michigan's electoral votes in the 2024 presidential election. To protect reproductive rights, flip a state legislature blue, and preserve the integrity of the 2024 presidential election, we have identified six community groups in Michigan who know how to mobilize and get out the vote in frontline communities targeted by Republican voter suppression efforts.