Alternatives International

The Violence of Intolerance: Bangladeshi LGBT Activist Murdered

Katrina Gibbs — 2016-06-02T16:54:31Z

The latest in a series of chilling murders in Bangladesh has been the death of Xulhaz Mannan on April 25 in Dhaka. The murder of Xulhaz Mannan and his friend and fellow activist Tonoy Mahbub marks the ninth brutal murder of activists and progressive writers in Bangladesh in 2016 alone. The series of violent attacks signals growing intolerance, and has led many to fear the rise of fundamentalism.

Mannan was one of the founders of Roopbaan, the only magazine in Bangladesh geared towards LGBT communities. He also worked for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Mannan was murdered by a gang of half a dozen men who gained access to his apartment by posing as couriers. Reports say that Mannan and Mahbub were both hacked to death, while two others were left seriously injured by the attack.

Mannan had received death threats due to his activism in both Roopbaan and the Rainbow Rally. Roopbaan, which was launched with the intention of promoting greater acceptance of LGBT communities in Bangladesh, is responsible for organizing the Rainbow Rally.

The Rainbow Rally has occurred annually in Dhaka on April 14, the beginning of the Bengali new year, since 2014, but it was cancelled this year on police instruction after violent opposition threatened to beat up participants.

Though the event was cancelled, four people were arrested on the morning of April 14 and were accused of attempting to stage the rally despite police orders. Mannan spent the day working for their release.

Ansar al-Islam, the Bangladeshi division of al Qaeda, has claimed responsibility for the killings of the LGBT activists. ISIS has claimed responsibility of the murder of Rezaul Karim Saddique, an English teacher at Rajshahi University who promoted cultural enrichment in the musical arts. Saddique was murdered just two days before Mannan.

The deaths of Mannan and Mahbub mark the first time that LGBT activists have been targeted by Islamic militants in Bangladesh. A reporter from The Wall Street Journal noted that these recent killings may signal that “the assailants may be expanding their range of targets. Previously, the grisly attacks have focused on atheists and bloggers critical of Islam.”

So far no one has been held accountable for the killings. The Bangladeshi government has remained silent in the wake of these tragic deaths. This continues a trend of inaction on the part of the Bangladeshi government, as the government not only refuses to condemn the brutal murders of activists and writers, but also refuses to protect those in danger.

USAID released a statement on April 25 stating, “we condemn this cruel and inhumane act of violence and add our voices among those calling to bring his cowardly attackers to justice.”

According to a fellow member of Roopbaan, people in the LGBT community do not feel protected by the Bangladeshi government, police, or law.

The government has proven apathetic about protecting those vulnerable to targeted attacks. Homosexual relations are criminalized under the Bangladesh Penal Code, and many LGBT activists have been forced into exile.

In a recent survey, the Dhaka Tribune reported that 751 self-identified homosexuals live in constant fear for their security. Stigma aside, homosexuality is a criminal offense in Bangladesh, punishable by life imprisonment. The survey also reported that 25.8 per cent of respondents faced discrimination and were unable to find legal support.

One of Mannan's fellow activists in Dhaka remarked, “the LGBT community of Bangladesh has just lost their very dedicated guardians”. In a country where the marginalized members of society feel targeted by their society and unprotected by the government, the loss of two prominent voices actively seeking to protect them is devastating.

A fellow Roopbaan activist has expressed their hope that increased pressure from the international community on the Bangladeshi government. There is a need in Bangladesh to continue to find space for dissent, however, it is increasingly difficult to find pockets of resistance in the face of such brutal violence.

Resisting Modi: In Conversation with Noor Zaheer

Katrina Gibbs — 2016-06-02T16:47:39Z

In the midst of the Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) elections in India, activist Noor Zaheer gave a talk at Alternatives on May 12 entitled ‘Nationalism and Intolerance in India Today'. Zaheer is a feminist, journalist, author, and militant activist who has long struggled for women's equality, workers' rights, and for a secular and socialist India.

During her talk, Zaheer expressed concerns about the rise of “fascist nationalism” promoted by the Sangh Parivar. The Sangh Parivar is the umbrella term used for the family of Hindu nationalist organizations in India, which includes the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other parties.

Zaheer noted that post-Independence India had moved toward strengthening democratic institutions. This trend has stagnated in the past 65 years. After Narendra Modi was elected as Prime Minister in 2014, Indian politics grew increasingly intolerant.

After Modi's election, any criticism of the Modi government is interpreted as an attack on the nation. Violence carried out by Hindutva fringe groups has increased since Modi's rise to power, and not only have there been attacks on Muslims, but there have also been violent attacks against proponents of secularism.

2002 Gujarat riots

Most notable for Zaheer in the rise of fascist nationalism in India were the Gujarat riots of 2002. What was so big about 2002 and moving on from it?

In 2002, from February 27 through June, mass-scale killings of Muslims were carried out in Gujarat under the guise of Hindu-Muslim riots. Members of the BJP, under the leadership of Chief Minister Narendra Modi, were involved in promoting violent attacks on Muslims throughout this period in 2002. More than 2,000 Muslims were murdered in the riots.

According to scholar Paul Brass, all available evidence indicates that the Sangh Parivar planned, prepared, and promoted the brutal violence that was carried out against Muslims in 2002. By mid-April that year, there were nearly 150,000 Muslims in relief camps.

What has been most striking for Zaheer is that “there has been no sign of regret.” Rather, members of the BJP, Modi included, boast prideful attitudes about the attacks and the mass bloodshed of Muslims.

Shifting popular opinion, grassroots resistance

The BJP actively promotes the belief that India is essentially a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu nation, and mocks the secular nature of the Indian constitution, leaving religious minorities incredibly vulnerable.

Amidst the intolerance and violence of the Modi government, however, Zaheer expressed a hopeful attitude for the future of Indian politics, as she has observed a decline in support for Modi. Zaheer recounted that even devout Hindus have expressed a desire to practice their religion freely. She recounts the popular sentiment: “I am a good Hindu, I love my religion, but I do not want anyone to tell me how to practice it”.

Resistance to the intolerance of the Modi government has not only come in the form of a shift in popular opinion, but also in the form of protests. Zaheer expressed her support for the student hunger strike at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

According to Zaheer, the student hunger strike has been more than just a student movement. The JNU students have been supported by their educators, and this support has expanded beyond the university gates.

On May Day, Zaheer witnessed how the contract workers of JNU—involved in their own struggle—ended their demonstration by joining in solidarity with the students on hunger strike at Freedom Square. Zaheer recounted that the workers stated, “the students have always stood by us, it is time now that we stand by them”.

In Kerala, Hindu, Muslim, and Christian women also united together in order to gain political representation, after both their trade union and their company failed to address grievances of sexual harassment in the workplace and poor working conditions. Employees of Kaylan Silks in Kerala banded together in order to gain the right to sit and to be given toilet breaks during their 10-12 hour long shifts.

In another powerful movement in Kerala, 6, 000 women from lower-caste backgrounds united under the name “Pempilai Orumai” or “Women's Unity” and took to the streets to protest the poor working conditions they experience. After a nine-day protest, the women won their rights to bring their 20% bonus back.

These movements demonstrate the capacity for women to mobilize without the support of trade unions and how religious difference cannot stop people from unifying behind a common cause.

Towards the 2019 elections

This resistance and unity demonstrated by these movements have occurred despite the repression of the Modi government and its attempts to divide Indian society along religious lines. For the upcoming elections, it is important to question the BJP's 31% majority and struggle to challenge it.

So far, the elections in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal have revealed staggering support for the BJP, except in Assam where the BJP won a total of 86 seats. Despite boasting a majority, the stronghold of the BJP seems to be in the midst of losing its grip.

However, Zaheer expressed her simultaneous hope and concern if the BJP continues to lose seats. She noted that in the wake of loses in Bihar and Delhi, there have been surges of violence. Will there be more organized violence to attack minorities in the aftermath of the BJP's probable losses in the upcoming elections? As Zaheer stated, “This is not a government that when it loses an election will go away quietly”.

According to Zaheer, the response must be a united challenge to fascism. Little unions must be formed wherever there is support, in order to work towards defeat the Modi in the 2019 general elections. There must be more grassroots movements like those of the students, workers, and women, in order to lead organized parties on the Left into a position that not only represents the people without repression, but defeats the fascist nationalism of the Sangh Parivar. The battle that India faces is not between temples and mosques, but it is the fight between democracy and fascism.

Bernie Sanders and the Awakening of the American Left

Katrina Gibbs — 2016-05-06T17:49:52Z

On Thursday, April 14th, a conference was held by Donald Cuccioletta on Bernie Sanders: Le Réveil de la Gauche Américaine. The talk focused on an analysis of the phenomenon of Bernie Sanders and the emergence of global changes in democratic parties over the last three years (Jeremy Corbin in the U.K. and Bernie Sanders in the U.S.). Are we witnessing a new generation of the Left?

Mr. Cuccioletta began the talk by citing the long tradition of a minority of Americans who define themselves as socialists, dating back to Eugene V. Debs. Part of this tradition has been what Cuccioletta calls the “militants de la gauche” taking control of municipal positions in cities.

Sanders took control of a municipal position, beginning with his election as Mayor of Burlington in 1981. He then served for 16 years as Vermont's sole congressman in the House of Representatives, and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. For the past 36 years, Bernie Sanders has remained true to the same message.

Despite the difficulties of the political landscape in the United States, Sanders has brought progressive, socialist ideas into the political discussion and created a network beyond Vermont and beyond Washington DC. He has sought to foster a new generation that is in touch with progressive, socialist ideals.

Cuccioletta goes on to describe Bernard Sanders as, “un socialist avec un visage humain” (“a socialist with a human face”) and iterates how two agricultural workers from Iowa expressed their support for Sanders, saying that “he speaks for us”.

In response to criticisms that Sanders isn't truly a socialist, because Sanders is running as a Democrat, Mr. Cuccioletta explains:

“Il est devenu démocrat, pourquoi? Parce qu'il veut changer à parti démocrat? Absolument pas. Sinon, il ne prend pas la peine de parler au peuple d'une révolution politique. Quand il dit je veux une révolution politique, il parle à la population, vis-à-vis les deux partis en place qui sont controllés par Wall Street. Les Clintons sont payés par Wall Street. Bill Clinton est l'ami personnel de Michael Bloomberg. Et la classe politique à Washington traditionnelle, c'est les Clintons et le reste qui font l'affaire avec Wall Street, ces sont des amis. Donc lui prépare une révolution politique, ça veut dire qu'il fait peine à la population de prendre en mains ou reprendre en mains telle que le veut le mythe américaine que les États-Unis sont controllés par sa propre population. On dit c'est un mythe, mais néamoins c'est un mythe qui a circulé longtemps aux États-Unis. Puis, il y a beaucoup de monde, particulièrement maintenant cette nouvelle poussé d'une gauche progressiste et même socialiste, qui croient. Qu'est-ce que ça voulait dire dans l'avenir, qu'est-ce qu'il arrive après Sanders? Qu'est-ce qu'il va rester?”

So what will the legacy of the “Sanders effect” be? So far, he has changed the conversation within the Democratic, among others like Senator Warren. Sanders has brought the issues of free state university education, “equal work, equal pay”, the $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare, and breaking up banks to the forefront of American politics.

As Mr. Cuccioletta explains, when someone like Sanders speaks, it gives energy and hope to progressives in America. It gives them the invention of an American Dream of the Left, not the Right. He has created and unified a new group within the United States, and we see that his discourse has awakened progressive discussion.

Sanders has brought the contradictions of “fake progressives” into the limelight. These “fake progressives” represent the democrats who are not, in fact, democratic—those who pretend to support the middle class while using the money of the people to save Wall Street.

Despite his support for Sanders, Mr. Cuccioletta remained doubtful that Sanders will actually win the Democratic nomination, due to Hillary Clinton's support from superdelegates. He cautioned that democracy is in danger in the United States, citing the hypocrisy of democrats and the rise of a wave of neo-fascism in the Republican party.

Yet the long-term “Sanders effect” remains significant amidst these dangers. Sanders has shown a light on the hypocrisy in American politics, revealing the “fake progressives” and the elites who do not serve the interests of the people. He has garnered a reprise of populism and created a new political basis in the U.S.A., while helping to push towards long-term change using inclusive discourse.

Rifts, Racism, and Refugees: The German Elections and the Syrian Refugee Crisis

Katrina Gibbs — 2016-04-02T02:29:42Z

Reactions to the refugee crisis have varied throughout Europe, and have led to a particularly polarized political landscape in Germany. As is well known, Germany has become one of the epicenters for the dispossessed amidst the chaos of the refugee crisis. Chancellor Angela Merkel had embraced an open-door policy with regard to refugees seeking asylum, and Germany opened its arms to over a million refugees, primarily from Syria and Iraq.

Yet attempts to foster and encourage Wilkommenskultur (‘welcoming culture') have not been without political backlash. As the pressure of the refugee crisis throughout Europe continues to build, more and more countries have opted to close their borders. While Merkel's open door policy has been publicly criticized by Hungarian president Orbán, Merkel is simultaneously praised as progressive and compassionate by others in the international community.

The political rift over the migration issue continues to widen—both internationally and domestically. Within Germany, anti-immigrant political movements like Pegida have risen in Dresden, while anti-Pegida movements have responded to stand in solidarity against European Islamaphobia. This rift between pro- and anti-Pegida movements seems to encapsulate the increasingly polarized political landscape of Germany, as the refugee crisis has taken center stage in Europe.

Many Pegida supporters have declared their open hostility towards German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and this new political wave has had significant electoral consequences as well. With over 1.1 million refugees entering the country in the past year, the devastating terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, and mass sexual assault on New Year's Eve in Cologne, the political landscape in Germany has shifted.

A new party called Alternative for Germany (AfD), founded in 2013, has gained much traction. Though the party was originally founded by an economics professor, Bernd Lucke, with a focus on opposing a single EU currency, the AfD has recently risen in the polls after both its leader and ideology changed. The AfD is now led by Frauke Petry, who won public support with anti-immigrant rhetoric. The party has emerged as a strong opposition party to Merkel's Christian Democrat Party (CDU) and as a strong critic of Merkel's open-door policy. The AfD has campaigned under the slogans “secure the borders” and “stop the asylum chaos”.

The rise of the AfD is largely due to the emergence and mobilization of new voters, rather than a result of disillusioned voters switching parties; this trend reveals growing political polarisation in Germany. The AfD primarily focuses on campaigning against the government's refugee policy, as the parties call for the reintroduction of border checks, a referendum on Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and immediate suspension of sanctions towards Russia.

The AfD's focus clearly aligns with certain aspects of the Pegida movement, since the Pegida movement also calls for stricter enforcement of asylum and deportation laws in Germany. As pro-Pegida demonstrators have chanted “we don't want Mosques in Dresden” during rallies, an extreme branch of the AfD party in Lower Bavaria has recently proposed a new policy document that calls for the closure of all mosques in Germany, expressing that mosques promote the spread of Islamic teachings directed towards the removal of “German legal order”. Though not all members of the AfD party publicly support this extremely controversial document, the proposal of the document itself and its demonization of Islam reveals how intense and dangerous the anti-immigrant and anti-Islam sentiments of both the party and its supporters truly are.

The intensity of Islamaphobia in Germany cannot be understated or overlooked, as the AfD continues to gain serious momentum. The party's electoral success in the federal state parliaments has tested the continued standing of Merkel and her progressive policy toward refugees. In Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD secured 24.2 per cent of the vote and is now the second largest party. While still trailing behind Merkel's CDU that won 29.8 per cent, the AfD has taken the lead over the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in both Saxony-Anhalt and Baden-Wurttemberg.

However, both the SPD and the CDU have won major successes in Rhineland-Palatinate, and the CDU and Green Party have both had success in Baden-Wurttemberg. Some of the recent success of the Green Party over CDU can also be attributed to Merkel's refugee policy. Thirty per cent of voters who switched their vote from CDU to the Green Party said that their decision was based on the refugee crisis. Moreover, according to a survey conducted in February, 81 per cent of Germans feel that the refugee crisis is “out of control” under Chancellor Merkel's leadership.

Despite political polarization over the refugee issue, Merkel has remained firm on her stance with regard to the refugee crisis. Many believe that Chancellor Merkel is failing to administer the crisis, though her supporters claim she has stood by the EU principle of freedom of movement and remained strong in the face of increasing political resistance to the influx of refugees. As with any crisis, administration is tricky and volunteers are stretched on resources; however, the open-door policy is a testament to how we must not turn our backs on those displaced by conflict, imperialism, and civil war.

The political backlash to the refugee crisis has polarised the political landscape in Germany, as Germans simultaneously rally for and against Merkel's open-door policy. The recent EU-Turkey deal, which paves the way for countries to close borders and illegally force refugees to return to Syria combined with the xenophobic, Islamophobic European reaction to the refugee crisis has created a political space in which parties like the AfD have found electoral success. In the wake of these developments, civil society and political leaders across Europe must continue to stand in solidarity with refugees and to pressure their governments to welcome refugees seeking asylum.

It is in times of crisis and massive shifts in political, economic, and social landscapes that the strength of democracies to uphold their own values are most tested, and the strength of racist political rhetoric must be confronted. Though political polarisation continues to increase, it is important to remember that closing borders and building walls does not open doors for the future of the globe.

Sources:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/13/anti-refugee-party-makes-big-gains-in-german-state-elections
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30694252/why-are-thousands-of-germans-protesting-and-who-are-pegida
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-to-reintroduce-border-controls-with-austria-as-thousands-of-refugees-arrive-in-munich-10498880.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2016/03/germany-refugee-crisis-160302135618356.html
https://www.rt.com/news/335527-frauke-petry-germany-elections/
https://www.rt.com/news/337809-afd-bavaria-close-mosques/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/14/german-election-results-polarised-voters-choose-pro-refugee-stance

The Protection of Net Neutrality in India: Who Benefits from Free Basics?

Katrina Gibbs — 2016-03-02T20:14:33Z

As the Internet grows increasingly essential, governments must face decisions about if and how the government should regulate the Internet. Growing monopolization amongst the ‘Internet Giants' like Google and Facebook threatens to destroy the open architecture of the Internet. Countries like India, Egypt, South Africa, and others have been grappling with the question of net neutrality, as their markets continue to expand and in light of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's attempt to expand his influence in these emerging markets by offering a service called ‘Free Basic'. The aim of Free Basic is to offer access to basic websites by providing mobile data for free for specific sites. Free Basic, at first glance, permits those unable to afford cellular data with access to basic sites for free. India is Facebook's second largest potential market after the U.S.A., due to expansive mobile use and immense population. India also suffers from the fact that 30 percent of Indians live below the poverty. Mark Zuckerberg has expressed that Free Basic was designed to bring more Indians online by offering Reliance customers complimentary access to a range of Internet sites. So why did the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) pass an order that included the ban of Free Basic on February 8, 2016?

The TRAI order addressed concerns about the regulation of zero-rated services—that is, the practice where certain content providers and service providers enter into an agreement to provide subsidized access to certain content. Net neutrality activists in India mobilized against Free Basic, in order to protect plurality and neutrality with regard to Internet content. The ‘Save the Internet' movement taken up by Indian activists demonstrates a deep concern for internet freedom, and further reveals the need for net neutrality in order to develop the potential for mobilization through social media outlets.

The TRAI responded to the net neutrality activists with support by ordering that service providers should not charge different rates for accessing different types of content on the Internet and maintained that the protection of net neutrality principles are an integral part of keeping the internet as a public resource. The TRAI expressed that, “In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users' internet experience”.

What this means is that Free Basic would be able to design the knowledge and outlook of its users by limiting their access to the sites selected by the provider. The content that would be privileged under Free Basic by Facebook includes Bing, Wikipedia, ESPN, Accuweather, BBC News, and dictionary.com; however, major sites like YouTube, Google, Amazon, LinkedIn, and Twitter are excluded from the service. Unsurprisingly, Google and Amazon are some of Facebook's biggest rivals as far as the ‘Internet Giants' go. As Mumbai-based venture capitalist Mahesh Murthy points out, “[Free Basic] primarily serves Facebook's interests rather than upholding the idea of connectivity as a basic human right”.

According to advocates for net neutrality and critics of the service, the motivations and effects of Free Basic will turn service providers into “gatekeepers” of the Internet—transforming the open architecture of the Internet into a private venture, in which certain content is privileged over others, and certain content is privileged for others. Zuckerberg contends that the service is meant to fulfill his goal of universal digital access. While activists for net neutrality argue that all Internet content should be treated equally, rather than privileging certain types of content over others. While a service like Free Basic provides poorer people access to low cost content, allowing differential rates perpetuates monopolies in the Internet, thereby largely benefitting Internet giants like Facebook and Google and negatively affecting smaller content providers. In this way, while Free Basic would open up access to users, it would simultaneously limit the access that those users have.

Facebook clearly has an interest in profiting from Free Basic far beyond providing universal digital access. Free Basic is a step toward homogenization of the Internet. Allowing for differential pricing, rather than protecting the principle of network neutrality, would significantly limit the different ways in which people use the Internet. Monopolization of Internet space leads to an asymmetry of information between service providers and users, and depletes the internet of a diversity of content that users have access to when the principle of net neutrality is protected.

Some have theorized that Free Basic is Facebook's economic strategy in so-called emerging markets. Tech analysts agree that gaining new users is essential for Facebook's business plan in emerging markets—and, given that India has such a large population and that China has already closed its doors to Facebook, the decision by the TRAI to protect network neutrality might mean that Zuckerberg will have to continue to work to gain millions of new Facebook users through other means than providing the service of Free Basic. Though the Free Basics model has been implemented in Colombia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Mexico, India isn't the only country that has demonstrated a desire to protect the principle of network neutrality. Egypt has also suspended the Free Basic program, and similar questions regarding the importance of maintaining net neutrality are being asked in South Africa.

Though questions about internet connectivity and access are important considerations, offering Facebook a way to expand its monopoly beyond the massive framework of Facebook itself is not the answer. The internet must be safeguarded as a space in which an endless variety of content can be accessed, and the principle of net neutrality should not be sacrificed in order to smoke screen the furthering of Facebook's monopolization. However, both sides of these issues raise important questions for the present and the future of the role of the internet in everyday society at large. How can we expand affordable access to the internet without sacrificing diversity of content and without allowing the private sector to design a public resource for its profit?

Sources:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/25/facebook-struggles-to-lift-ban-on-free-basics-in-india.html

http://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/NewsDetail/index/1/6795/FB-Eats-Crow-TRAI-Listens-to-the-People-Upholds-Net-Neutrality

http://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-view/it-s-not-over-yet-let-s-keep-the-gears-of-net-neutrality-moving/story-iUBNBBCKLidrRnBG3lCi3L.html
http://qz.com/612159/why-trai-backed-net-neutrality-and-killed-facebooks-free-basics-in-india/

The Fight for $15: A National Cry for Workers' Rights in the United States

Katrina Gibbs, Sophia Reuss — 2016-02-02T16:29:13Z

As Iowans gathered on February 1st to endorse party nominees for the American presidential election, thousands of fast-food, home-care and child workers in Des Moines staged Iowa's first fast-food labour strike to voice their demands for a $15 per hour minimum-wage and the right to unionize.

The Iowan fast-food labour strike is no isolated protest — an American social movement dubbed the ‘Fight for 15' has grown steadily since 2012, when fast-food workers in New York striked in what became one of the first mass-scale labour actions in 21st century America. The New York workers called for some of America's largest corporations, fast-food chains, to pay workers $15 per hour, and insisted corporations begin conversations with labour unions to improve job safety, security, and sustainability.

All this against the bleak Midwest backdrop: since the early to mid-2000s, state legislation in the American Midwest has sought to squash labour unions and workers' rights movements. Republican leaders have slashed collective bargaining rights for public sector workers (such as Wisconsin's 2011 freedom-to-work bill), considered passing state legislation against unions (in Missouri, New Mexico, Kentucky, Illinois and numerous other states), and issued executive orders unions barring non-union workers from paying union fees (in Illinois, for example). Federal law already permits workers to opt out of unions, and the American right-wing continues to bolster state-level anti-labour policies.

The Fight for 15, which began in New York in 2012 with the “Fast Food Forward” worker's campaign (backed by the Service Employees International Union) and quickly gained traction in states throughout the United States, is based on a simple yet systemic issue: American workers just cannot survive on the current minimum-wage standards. The National Employment Law Project reports that over four in ten American workers earn less than $15 per hour. American food services make up the vast majority, that is, 96 per cent, of ultra- low wage earners. $15/hour is the bare minimum needed to live decently anywhere in the country. Even the most enticing meritocracy-myth (read: the American Dream) cannot compete with the stark inequity of the statistics.

Since the initial strikes in 2012, social movements have sprung up across the United States calling for labour reform to the tune of $15/hour. And to a degree, these grassroots movements have been heard. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo approved state-level policies to raise minimum wage to $15/hour by 2018, Seattle's Mayor Ed Murray pushed a proposal to raise minimum wage to $15/hour through city council, San Francisco voted for a $15/hour minimum wage in a ballot initiative, and the Los Angeles city council voted to increase minimum wage to $15/hour by 2020. Indeed, the movement has scored numerous policy victories in the past two years.

The movement has also garnered support in Canada — Canadian solidarity movements in the Fight for 15 reveal the broader scope of issues regarding wages and labor standards, as the movement has sought to reach global support. The spread of solidarity for the movement demonstrates how mass communication in the age of the Internet can prove to be a powerful tool in the fight for grassroots social justice movements, especially regarding issues that impact large portions of the population. President of SEIU Local 1, Sharleen Stewart, has expressed that the union focuses on corporations like McDonald's that offer little to their low-level employees. The SEIU has organized the McDonald's protests, which have taken place outside of several McDonald's restaurants across Canada, as well as the McDonald's Canada headquarters in Toronto.

As with the Fight for $15 in the United States, the Canadian movements have expanded to represent other low-wage laborers. The success of direct action initiatives in the United States and Canada reveal the power of civil disobedience for urging politicians to change their policies to represent the needs of the people. In Canada, the Fight for Fairness and 15 has drawn attention to much needed legislative changes, as the Ontario government has launched the Employment Standards and Labour Relations review in order to amend loopholes in the Employment Standards Act.

Despite the relative success of these movements in North America to put pressure on legislative reform, political activists have warned against construing the North American Fight for 15 as distinct from calls for broader socio-economic change. The success of the movement is rooted in its ability to impact policy, however, the Fight for 15 cannot be won simply by passing legislation that balances workers' wages with the cost of living.

According to an article published by National Employment Law Project (NELP), the low wages driving the movement point to the structural oppression built into the labour force, and while “policies to raise hourly pay have drawn populist energy, they will not directly improve the lot of workers stuck in the informal economy, undocumented laborers, people who are part-time and erratically employed, or those trapped in jobs where wage theft and overtime violations are rife.”

In short, raising the minimum wage will not solve the numerous other issues that exacerbate income inequality in the United States. Moreover, raising the minimum wage is not enough to confront complex, overlapping systems of oppression: the Fight for 15 must be part of a broader call for social, economic, and political alternatives to neoliberalism. And the movement, though it has a long way to go, has made the effort to link the labour movement to other social-justice issues in America.

NELP reports that American women and people of colour are overrepresented in jobs that pay less than $15/hour. More than half of African American workers and over 60 percent of Latino workers make substantially less than $15/hour, and while female workers represent less than half of the American workforce, they comprise more than half (54.7 per cent) of American workers making less than $15/hour. The issue of wage inequality necessarily intersects with racial injustice and gender inequality; the Fight for 15, as a social movement, will therefore only succeed in bringing about systemic change if it organizes alongside social movements oriented around race, gender, and other social issues.

The Fight for 15 must align with other social-justice issues not only in content, but in form. The movement must certainly wage its fight in formal political and legislative arenas, but if labour is to generate systemic economic change, workers must continue to channel their energy in direct action initiatives and civil disobedience.

When cries can be heard through the streets, the voices can be unified under a common cause that might otherwise get sifted through the holes of convoluted bureaucracy. The struggle now is to bridge the gaps between different social movements, in order to strengthen the power of the people in the fight for social justice. The Fight for 15 points to the capacity and the need for such movements to build strong coalitions, in order to unify specific problems under the umbrella of broader structural problems within the North American neoliberal system.

The power of mass communication has proven over the years to be a successful avenue for the unification of otherwise disjointed movements. The capacity for the Fight for 15 protests to put pressure on politicians to push for legislative reform demonstrates that the strength of these movements can only grow. Civil disobedience will continue to be necessary for maintaining social justice, and movements like the Fight for 15 provide avenues for citizens to organize, unify, and demand change.

Sources:
http://www.nelp.org/publication/growing-movement-15/
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-fight-for-15-in-iowa/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/business/fast-food-workers-seeking-higher-wages-plan-another-strike.html?_r=0
http://fightfor15.org/why-we-strike/
http://rabble.ca/news/2015/04/tomorrow-canadian-workers-are-joining-global-action-fight-15-minimum-wage
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/02/17/ontario-to-review-labour-laws-for-gaping-holes-when-it-comes-to-precarious-work.html

An Interview With Indian Political Activist Satya Sagar: Part I

Katrina Gibbs, Sophia Reuss — 2016-02-02T16:24:43Z

Sophia: Yesterday we spoke with a French political activist who talked about how the French classical political parties are not adapted to proposing political alternatives and no longer drive the political agenda. She expressed that hope for systemic social change must be vested in the emergence of new social movements that aren't linked to formal political parties and organizations. Could you speak about the situation with these so-called ‘invisible' social movements in India?

Satya: India has the second largest population in the world, which means that a bulk of people in India are outside of any organized sector, whether it's a political party or the Indian state. Formal institutions don't reach people in the same manner as they would in a more organized country. To give an example, we've had trade unions in India for almost one hundred years, but only 7 percent of the Indian working population is organized. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. From the point of view of formally organizing people, it looks dismal. Formal political movements in India reach a very small number of people. Of course, a lot of people take part in the elections, they vote once every five years for the national elections. The thing is, the majority of Indian people don't define themselves very clearly with x or y political party. What works in India are older, traditional systems of organizing. To put it more accurately, India is the land of the caste system, which is one of the oldest ways of organizing people into an oppressive hierarchy and operates irrespective of who comes to power. In the last twenty days, there has been a massive upsurge of student protests across the country over the suicide of a student activist who is from the dalit (the ‘untouchables' in the caste system) community. This student was expelled from the hostel he was staying in because of some incident and he, along with some other students, were thrown out of the hostel. He was sleeping out in the open with the others in protest, but at some stage he became overwhelmed with everything that he had gone through, which was all because of his dalit caste —from his economic situation and this, almost, racial discrimination against him, and his fellow students, and the family he came from—he committed suicide. This has sparked a very large movement. There are protests going on in a large number of university campuses and also outside the universities. So the nature of organization and protest in India is very deceptive.

There is a need for organizing people into movements to work toward an alternative paradigm—a different kind of economy and a different kind of political structure. But the formal structures have not been that successful, because they don't capture the realities on the ground.

I look at India as an ecosystem. It is complex, diverse, and there are layers upon layers of categories of people. There is class, there is caste, gender, linguistic groups, regional groups. This makes for a complex ecosystem. One of the failures of the Left was on the issue of caste. They thought of it as a remnant of the past, which would fade away as the class struggles intensified. But it didn't. And it didn't help either that the Indian Communist movements across the spectrum are all led by people from the upper caste. We have a situation in which the oppressed do not have positions of leadership within the organizations meant to liberate them.

A bulk of the Indian population is the dalit caste or the indigenous peoples or poor Muslims. None of these groups have representation in the top hierarchy of the Indian Left. So we have a situation where the party who is meant to be carrying out revolution for social transformation itself is blind to the social, racial, and other realities.

This does not mean that there are no social movements. Movements in India are around the issue of land acquisition, since Independence. For instance, while indigenous people in India constitute only 10 percent of the overall Indian population, they account for 70 percent of the people displaced since Indian Independence. So we're talking about 50-60 million people being displaced over the last 60-70 years.
The Indian state has promoted large mining companies and corporations, and the indigenous community pays a disproportionately high price for India's development.India, as I said, is an ecosystem. It's also a colonial system. So, the upper caste elites are in the upper economic, social, and political hierarchy.

Katrina: Has the Indian Left, whose larger project was social transformation, effectively address all the day-to-day issues of the common people? Did the everyday issues (like education, health, and rights) ever appear on Indian political agenda? What are the social movements that took every day issues as part of their work?

Satya: The record of the Left parties is quite spotty. They've played an important role in setting agendas and raising issues. And in specific parts of the country where they came to power through elections, they did make a some difference for land distribution. But, if you look at the record compared to other parts of the country that didn't have Left parties in power, land reform has also taken place. In fact, the most successful land reform, in terms of transfer of ownership, has happened in places like Kashmir, where there are no Left parties in power. But then even if we commend the Left for their work on land distribution record, on other fronts, as you asked, like health and education, the record is quite spotty.

In Bengal province, where the Left has had continuous rule for over 35 years, the record is very poor. There was land reform, but this benefitted largely the middle and richer peasantry rather than agricultural laborers. Out of the entire Indian population, there are about 500 million workers—both in the urban and rural sector—more than half of them are actually agricultural laborers. The Left to this day, the big Left like the CPI and the CPM, have no organized the agricultural labor at all. Only in the past 10 to 15 years have some of the smaller communist parties have tried to organize agricultural labor. Most of the emphasis has been on people who already have land. They are fewer, but politically more influential. So, unfortunately, the Left has tended to focus on electoral politics, and it is not always about real social transformation.

Bengal has a poor record on health, education, gender, right to food, basic infrastructure (like providing safe drinking water electricity, decent roads, or toilets). This implies a disconnect in the way that the Indian Left has imagined what its role is. In the early phase of the Indian Communist movements in the 40s and 50s, the Communist parties did a lot of very good work, a lot of very creative work—not just for mobilization of people, but of the party on the ground. The prestige of the communist movement internationally was very high. There was a need for the Communist movements and there were good leaders, so they spread very rapidly.

What was most critical though, is that they paid attention to detail at the time. They set up clinics, schools, and they provided relief work, like flood relief for example and on the issue of famine. So they were actually going to the masses, living with them, organizing them and paying attention to detail, but once they achieved electoral success, it became a totally top-down process. They became more and more cut off from the actual day-to-day needs of the people, and they did not even build up an information base needed to understand what was really happening on the ground. They looked down on any work that was not purely agitational, they looked at it as reformist. So a lot of the revolution was rhetorical—not tangible, hard, on the ground stuff.

That gap was filled by other organizations, including the Indian Right. One of the reasons that the Right has become very strong in India is that they have done the day-to-day work of running schools or clinics or providing relief work for the past 7 decades. They spread their poisonous ideology by doing work that the Indian Left should have done. The civil society groups, NGOs, and smaller movements who are also doing that work are competing with the Indian Right more than the Indian party Left. But they are too small. As the situation stands right now, the Indian Right is the most organized force. And when I say organized, it's seriously organized. It has state power: the government of India is run by the Indian Right. It has power at the level of the street: can mobilize people with very short notice. They have power at the level of subversion: they carry out terrorist attacks, which are blamed on other people, They have a militant wing: they have open display of arms at different times of year, they have processions of people with guns in the street.

Sophie: Given the failure of the Indian Left to “capture reality”, is there hope, then, in social movements that do not associate with formal politics?

Satya: It's a very serious situation here. And there is nobody, in that sense, organized enough to take on the Indian Right. But the hope is that India is such a diverse country that the sheer diversity of India is what prevents any one organized group in India from getting too strong. The Left has failed in India to organize these masses. One can only hope that the Right will also fail. There is a strong resistance. This comes from a diversity of small groups; they offer hope. I would not look at the absence of large organized resistance as necessarily an indicator of lack of hope.

What is happening is that, at the macro-level, there is fermentation in India: the country is constantly bubbling under the surface and once in awhile, it erupts. It is too rich and diverse a country to be controlled by any one group. But at the micro- level, the problems are immense. A way to understand India, I always say that India cannot have a Hitler, because there are too many of them already. What happens in India is that at the macro-level, all of these “Hitlers” balance each other out. In the Indian case, at least, it is a balance of terror between all of these different characters. None of them can accept another as their leader, so they cannot unify under one banner and take over. The inefficiency of our elite is our greatest strength.

Sophia: So, you said earlier that once that movement enjoys formal political or electoral success, the movement become hierarchical and therefore can't enact any real change. I want to ask about the Common People's Party in Delhi, which became a formal political party in 2013. Do you think that a similar trajectory will take place with the Common People's Party? And can you tell us more about what that party is doing? Will they be able enact substantial change?

Satya: People cannot live on the hope of revolution, they need something now. A thirsty man comes knocking on the Party door and he's not given water, but the promise of revolution—this doesn't work. So what the Common People's Party has done significantly, I think, has raised hope by addressing day-to-day issues: corruption, lack of electricity, lack of drinking water, high prices of basic goods. The Party's electoral success has been astounding in a time when the Hindu Right was seriously on the ascendent; it swept the election in an extraordinary manner. They are doing a fair number of straightforward things.

In the last 15-20 years, there has been a lot of privatization of public utilities—one of them being electricity in Delhi. The Party, the Party's leader, and some of the people at the top, they started out in the anti-privatization movement in Delhi, long before they started a political party. They had a grip on the issues, and one of the things they did was to slash electricity prices, made water almost free, and they are setting up clinics — primary health centers. The Party believes in solution-oriented policies, not ideology-driven policies. They accept the role of the private sector also in certain things.

Once upon a time, the Left was a magnet for young people who wanted to transform the country, very idealist, people willing to give up their entire life for the political cause. The Left doesn't attract those kinds of people anymore, not for the last two or three decades now probably.This new party, on the other hand, has been able to attract a large number of people working voluntarily with them. Indian politics, otherwise, is a ladder for upward mobility to gain benefits like influence, money, or power. This party, at this early stage, offer hope because they focus on tangible things, not rhetoric. There are problems with the party no doubt, but you can't expect any pure political party in a country as complex as India. It's an ecosystem. As I said, this is both good and bad, but this is the cultural matrix within which we are working, so we cannot expect the party to only have sincere, idealist people.

A Culture of Protest amidst a Culture of Fear

Katrina Gibbs — 2015-12-01T15:04:43Z

Intellectuals, writers, and artists have banded together in response to aggressive and violent political tactics that have been employed since the landslide election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi last year. During his election campaign, Modi made promises that he would be prime minister for all of India and guaranteed protection for minorities, however, this promise has carried little weight during his administration. Two hundred writers, as well as prominent Bollywood figures have actively criticized the growing intolerance in India and have urged others to express solidarity for the protection of freedom of expression and religion.

Salman Rushdie, the writer of the extremely controversial novel The Satanic Verses, has supported writers who have returned their Sahitya Akademi awards in protest against the rising culture of fear and censorship under the Modi administration. The Indian intelligentsia has remarked on the general silence from both Akademi and from the Modi government following a series of murders of both secular activists and Muslims. The murder of MM Kalburgi rocked the Indian literary world. He was a renowned Kannada writer, Sahitya Akademi award winner, research scholar, and rationalist who was shot dead at point blank range in his home. Though the police have not issued an official statement, initial reports have suggested that he was murdered by right-wing activists due to his views on idol worship and Hindu rituals.

In September, a 50-year-old Muslim man was killed in a mob lynching in Uttar Pradesh. The lynching of this Muslim laborer was a horrific response by Hindu extremists to rumors that his family had been consuming beef at home. The deaths of MM Kalburgi, the Muslim laborer, as well as rationalists Govind Pansare and Narendra Dabholkar, have demonstrated the intolerance of Hindu extremists towards anyone perceived as dissenting from Hindu beliefs. The novelist Arundhati Roy, author of the Booker prize-winning novel called The God of Small Things, has joined in protest by returning her top Indian national award in protest against violence encouraged and perpetrated by right-wing groups. Roy expressed her horror and shame in an editorial in the Indian Express that minorities in India are being forced to live in a constant state of terror. The protests of significant cultural figures in India has articulated the mounting fears of millions of Indians and has put the Modi government under a spotlight of criticism for its lack of response to the growing violence.

Many intellectuals have argued that the inaction of the government has encouraged Hindu extremists to justify violence and assert Hindu superiority. Rushdie has expressed concerns that the BJP is fostering a ‘new doctrinaire Hinduism'. Statements have been made by Modi supporters that the reaction and criticism of the Modi government by the intelligentsia is an attempt to slander the Modi government, rather than focusing on achieving unity, progress, and growth under Modi's leadership. Yet it seems that the cause of unity comes at the price of lives of anyone who does not fit into a strictly Hindu form of national unity. In this way, the distinction between national unity and communalism has become blurred. Rushdie has made comments about the difference between race and religion, stating that, “the colour of skin is a fact. Religious belief is an opinion”. The current reality in India, however, is that this distinction is not quite so clear. The complex relationship between ethnicity and religion in India has contributed to a rise of nationalism in which religion and ethnicity are markers for what defines a “true” Indian citizen. Religious belief should not be branded as communal, however, the collective assertion of religious identity in India can be taken as an important indicator of communalism.

In the case of concerns for the rising ‘doctrinaire Hinduism' employed by the BJP, the potential for communalism is bolstered by the huge Hindu majority, as well as consideration for the electoral system. The “Modi toadies”—a mocking term for Modi's supporters coined by Rushdie—have claimed that the “failure in the elections is sought to be avenged by other means”. This failure in the elections may potentially be attributed to the fact that in areas where the representatives of the majority community have electoral dominance there is little electoral incentive to moderate communal appeals from their own community, suppress anti-minority polarization, or order the administration to take firm action to prevent communal violence.

In the wake of criticism, Modi toadies have questioned how the central government could be held responsible for the lynching of the Muslim laborer in Uttar Pradesh by referring to the history of communal violence in the region. Yet the history of violence is the area has largely been encouraged by members of the BJP. The BJP played an active role in encouraging communal violence in the 1990s when they called for the destruction of the Babri Masjid, a mosque in Uttar Pradesh. Though the violence that ensued in the 1990s temporarily disbanded state governments led by members of the BJP, the extremely right-wing party has steadily risen to power in India, as evidenced by Modi's landslide election. Thus the government's unwillingness to condemn the growing intolerance and violence is unsurprising, since the support for the Prime minister is largely grounded in the BJP's Hindu majority. Modi gained political traction through the militant Hindu organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Both the BJP and the RSS have a violent and antagonistic history with regard to the treatment of religious minorities and its skewed perception of Indian nationalism. Despite the fact that India constitutionally has no official state religion, the BJP has been known for employing nationalist rhetoric that defines Indian nationalism in terms of Hinduism and by positioning the Hindu identity against the ‘foreign' Muslim other.

In this way, despite the fact that Modi supporters have criticized the intelligentsia for using cultural means to criticize the government, the involvement of culturally important figures has drawn considerable attention to the growing state of censorship and violence under Modi's administration. The unwillingness of the government to condemn the violence perpetrated by Hindu extremists is an indirect way of condoning it. Just as the police stood passively by in the 1990s in Uttar Pradesh while Hindus slaughtered Muslims, the government now stands passively by as its citizens live in a state of fear. Modi is held to the promise he made to protect minorities. He cannot hide behind the argument of ‘unity' when blood is shed in its name. The literary figures have given a voice of protest to the secularists and minorities whose government has remained silent, in order to let those who live in fear know that they are not alone.

Drone Warfare: Who Are We Protecting?

Katrina Gibbs — 2015-11-05T16:09:35Z

Since their inception, drones have been a controversial weapon of war. Drone warfare has not only continued to advance technologically, but also the frequency of their use has steadily increased over the years. There have been three major phases in the development of drones: the drone as target, the drone as sensor, and, now, the drone as weapon. The use of drones as a tool in the policy of assassination, employed by the United States government, invokes a sense that we have entered into an era in which our reality resembles dystopic science-fiction novels more and more. One of the most well-known drones is the MQ-1 Predator, which, according the U.S. Air Force, was designed in response to a Department of Defense requirement to provide persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information combined with a capability to kill. The name Predator is an accurately daunting description for the U.S. drone project, which has been the weapon of choice for the Obama administration.

In what has been called “The Second Snowden”, the Intercept, an online publication, has received a collection of documents from an anonymous whistleblower. The Intercept has decided to maintain the anonymity of the whistleblower, in light of the aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers that the United States has been known to engage in. The documents known as “The Drone Papers” reveal key information in the evolution of military operations between 2011 and 2013. In light of the disclosure of this information, we are forced to asked, should the U.S. government have this ability to use drones in order to assassinate suspected terrorists based on fallible information, and does the public have a right to know about it?

Although it has been argued that drone strikes are more accurate and result in less loss of life, the release of these documents has proven that this is not the case. The Obama administration actively hides the number of civilians killed in drone strikes by categorizing casualties as “enemies”, regardless of whether or not those killed were intended targets. This tactic is eerily reminiscent of the term 'collateral damage', through which military terminology seeks to subtract the human aspect of casualties of war. The leakage of this information also seems highly important for public knowledge, following the recent airstrike on the hospital in Kundaz, Afghanistan. This horrific incident carried out by the U.S. military resulted in the deaths of doctors and civilians, as well as the destruction of a major hospital. The most eerie aspect of this story, in connection with the presently leaked collection of documents on "Obama's drone wars", is that the pilots of the airstrike questioned whether or not the strike was legal before shooting. Drones, despite their sensing capabilities, do not have this capacity to wonder whether or not what their actions should or should not be carried. They are simply carried out through a chain of command. The way that these decisions are made is through a multi-layered network of information that is subject to several levels of human error. The President makes the decision to assassinate someone based on how much he trusts the information, rather than how much he really knows about the subject. According to this newly leaked information, 90% of U.S. drone killings in the past five months did not hit the intended target. When it comes to the argument for the use of drone warfare, is human error really out of the equation?

These drone strikes are not only destructive with regard to civilian casualties, but they are also limiting the ability to acquire information. Specifically pertaining to military operations in Yemen and Somalia, the release of these documents has revealed details about the Obama administration taking a kill rather than capture policy with regard to suspected terrorists. This tactic was also disclosed as being advised against by the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Task Force. The ISR recommended capturing and interrogating more suspected terrorists rather than simply killing them in drone strikes. Despite the government's ability to maintain surveillance on these individuals and to locate them for interrogation, the commands, more often than not, demand assassination of suspects with drone warfare. Suspected terrorists are added to watch lists, and practically given their own "baseball cards", and through this multi-layered network of information, the chain of command decides whether or not to assassinate suspects. It seems that the increased frequency in the use of drone war tactics has replaced special operations forces, and has, in a sense, sacrificed the power to acquire intelligence for the power to assassinate suspects. In this way, the release of "The Drone Papers" has revealed not only the great loss of life that has been swept under the rug by the Obama administration, but also the inadequacy of this destructive tactic in terms of foreign policy. To kill low level terrorist suspects is to get no closer to solving the problem in terms of the big picture.

The leaking of these documents has revealed the lack of transparency that actually exists between citizen and government, even in the United States that heralds itself for its freedom. The American government continues to cover up its operations and keep the American public in the dark about the reality of foreign military tactics. Simultaneously, the government aggressively prosecutes those who expose important information to the public. Are American lives at risk if they are made aware of the fact that the government actively waters down the actual number of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes? The anonymous source that leaked these documents noted that the military could develop more tactful operations, in order to combat the bigger problem of terrorism. Yet rather than dig to the root of the issue, the government is pulling at leaves and cutting down branches in the process. If the American government continually chooses to take lives based on potentially flawed information, the American people at least deserve to know how much imprecision is actually involved in drone warfare and how many innocent people lose their lives at the hands of a fallible flying robot.

Freedom of Expression in the Age of the Internet

Katrina Gibbs — 2015-10-01T18:04:25Z

As we partake in this era of expansive technological advancement, the invention of the Internet has changed nearly every aspect of the way that we live our lives. The Internet has completely revolutionized mass communication, and the status of journalism remains in flux in the wake of this radical transformation. It has become increasingly difficult for any one specific group (political, religious, economic, etc.) to censor the spread of information and opinions. Yet freedom of speech remains a cause for which people give and lose their lives.

The interplay of journalism and politics has always been complex, and maintaining a balanced and objective journalism in the face of pressure from influential actors in society has always been one of the greatest struggles that journalists must face. Powerful political, social, and economic actors have often tried to use journalists to their advantage, hoping to promote their specific interests. For instance, in the past year in Canada, Bell Media President Kevin Crull has been accused of using his corporate influence over CTV in order to prevent the Telecommunications Commission chairman Jean-Pierre Blais from receiving airtime. This controversy ensued after a CRTC ruling that required broadcasters to provide a low-cost package to customers.

In India, political groups like the BJP have been known to use their influence over newspapers to print stories from a perspective that promotes their goals, often involving anti-Muslim rhetoric. Political and social power, as well as scare tactics, harassment, death threats, and violence are an unfortunate reality that journalists have had to face throughout history across the globe. These are the headwinds that journalists must struggle against in order to expose the truths that can help society reform and progress. As the scope of journalism expands, Internet bloggers are now faced with the same dangerous realities of heavy-handed reactions against the free exchange of ideas.

Although freedom of expression is considered a fundamental right under the Declaration of Human Rights, recently many governments have had adverse responses, not only to free access of information on the internet, but also to the expression of dissenting opinions through mass media. The open architecture of the Internet inherently resists tight controls on freedom of expression; however, this has not prevented governments and other groups from harsh reactions to freedom of expression on the Internet. The upper house of parliament in Russia approved a law that imposes regulations on bloggers and users of mass media in an attempt to increase control of online content. China has also increased censorship of mass media by closing down 16 websites. Users of mass media, in both China and Russia, must now provide personal information to the government oversight agencies regarding online communication. The Chinese and Russian governments have deemed the proliferation of opinions, rumors, and certain kinds of information as threatening to public order and social stability.

Sensationalist journalism can certainly pose a threat to public order and social stability, and this is a concern in the age of the Internet, in which the distinction between bloggers and accredited journalists has become increasingly blurred. In the United States during the 1920s, the rampant problem of sensationalist yellow journalism coincided with exposing the inhumane conditions under which poverty stricken citizens were living. In this way, we are forced to ask: which is a greater threat to public order, sensationalism or censorship?

Sensationalism may proliferate fear, but censorship creates it. This government crackdown on users of mass media may have stifling effects on political competition in the countries, as well as exposing social evils like crime and corruption. In parts of Southern Europe, UNESCO reports that journalists and bloggers will avoid certain topics, such as crime and corruption, in order to avoid conflict. Moreover, there is a huge discrepancy between the freedom of expression that government officials are able to safely exercise, and that of journalists whose personal safety is often threatened. Though world leaders join together each year at the United Nations General Assembly where they are able to speak openly, the journalists and bloggers of their countries are not afforded the same platform for free expression without potential repercussion. In Mexico, PEN reports that at least 67 print and Internet journalists, bloggers, and writers have been murdered since 2004. In 90 percent of cases, there have been no convictions. Mayan journalist, Pedro Canché, was imprisoned for 271 days on charges of sabotage in relation to protests regarding rising water bills, though he was not involved in any of the protests in question. After his release, Quintana Roo Governor Roberto Borge Angulo proposed legislation, which was later passed by the state legislature, that allows the government to decide who is and who is not a journalist. This law prevents freelance journalists and bloggers from receiving protection in case of emergency. The Governor also refused to acknowledge Canché's role as a journalist, despite his work for Mexican news agencies, radio stations, and a notable website called Animal Politico. As the status of journalism expands to new platforms of mass communication, like the Internet, it seems that the security of journalists has become increasingly threatened. In Saudi Arabia, the prominent liberal blogger, Raif Badawi, was sentenced to 1, 000 lashes and ten years imprisonment for criticizing Saudi clerics. That was back in 2012, and since then the reaction against freedom of expression on the Internet has escalated in severity.

Earlier this year, three prominent secular bloggers, Avijit Roy, Ananta Bijoy Das, and Washiqur Rahman Babu, were all brutally murdered in Bangladesh within the span of a few months. Prior to his death, Ananta Das had reportedly received death threats and his name appeared in two assassination lists in Bangladeshi media. Das and Roy were both secular bloggers and close friends, brutally murdered within the span of two months. Ananta Bijoy Das criticized religious intolerance in his blogs, and his writings were deemed blasphemous by extremists and militant Islamists. Das was surrounded and killed by a masked gang with machetes. Avijit Roy, his fellow blogger, was killed in a similarly brutal attack. A militant Islamist group has reportedly claimed responsibility for the attack of Roy. Despite arrests, no one has officially been charged with these murders. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right under Bangladesh's constitution; however, these bloggers were brutally murdered in the streets near universities and even near their own homes. The response from the Bangladeshi government has been indifferent, despite its constitutional commitment to protect freedom of expression. Simply declaring that freedom of speech is a fundamental right does not secure the lives of those who write and share their opinions on controversial issues. The globally accessible platform for mass communication that the Internet provides has enabled the free exchange of ideas to foster. Yet the sword continues to attempt to silence the pen with scare tactics and violence.

Tactics of harassment and violence against journalists and bloggers lead to increased self-censorship, though some brave bloggers continue to exercise the right to freedom of expression despite the potentially disastrous consequences. A multiplicity of voices and the coexistence of differing opinions always run the risk of engendering conflict, whether it be a legislative battle against censorship or the struggle to survive in an environment that seeks to silence. Yet it is the most controversial topics, like religious intolerance and government corruption, that most desperately demand the right to freedom of expression. It is not the expression of an idea that is most dangerous, but its suppression that has the most adverse effects on societal ills. It is through revealing the most controversial and the most difficult aspects of a society that enable a society to progress. To stifle the exchange of ideas through mass communication is not to protect public order, but it is to stagnate society. Silence cannot be commensurate to peace.