An executive order issued by U.S. President Donald Trump late Friday calls for the reduction of non-statutory components of the United States Agency for Global Media, or USAGM, the federal agency that funds RFA and several other independent global news organizations.

The U.S. Congress appropriates funds to USAGM, which disburses the monies to the grantee news outlets.

The brief order calls for the elimination “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law” of USAGM and six other unrelated government entities that work on museums, homelessness, minority business development and more. While the order addresses “non-statutory components” of USAGM, RFA is statutorily established, meaning it was congressionally established by a statute in the International Broadcasting Act .

But a letter sent to the president of RFA Saturday and signed by USAGM special adviser Kari Lake, whose title is listed as “Senior Advisor to the Acting CEO with Authorities Delegated by Acting CEO,” notes that the agency’s federal grant has been terminated and that RFA is obliged to “promptly refund any unobligated funds.” It says that an appeal can be made within 30 days.

It was not immediately clear how and when operations would cease, but RFA is solely funded through federal grants.

In a statement issued Saturday, RFA President Bay Fang said the outlet planned to challenge the order.

“The termination of RFA’s grant is a reward to dictators and despots, including the Chinese Communist Party, who would like nothing better than to have their influence go unchecked in the information space,” the statement says. “Today’s notice not only disenfranchises the nearly 60 million people who turn to RFA’s reporting on a weekly basis to learn the truth, but it also benefits America’s adversaries at our own expense.”

An editorially independent news outlet funded through an act of Congress, RFA began its first Mandarin language broadcasts in 1996, expanding in subsequent years to a total of nine language services: Cantonese, Uyghur, Tibetan, Korean, Khmer, Vietnamese, Burmese and Lao.

RFA news programming is disseminated through radio, television, social media and the web in countries that have little to no free press, often providing the only source of uncensored, non-propaganda news. Because RFA covers closed-off countries and regions like North Korea, Tibet and Xinjiang, its English-language translations remain the primary source of information from many of these areas.

Its parent agency, USAGM, oversees broadcasters that work in more than 60 languages and reach an audience of hundreds of millions. These include Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which reported Saturday that its grants had also been terminated. Voice of America and the Office for Cuba Broadcasting, which are directly run by USAGM, put all staff on paid administrative leave Saturday.

In a post on Facebook, VOA Director Michael Abramowitz wrote: “I learned this morning that virtually the entire staff of Voice of America—more than 1300 journalists, producers and support staff—has been placed on administrative leave today. So have I.”

Committee to Protect Journalists Program Director Carlos Martinez de la Serna urged Congress to restore funding to USAGM, “which provides uncensored news in countries where the press is restricted.”

“It is outrageous that the White House is seeking to gut the Congress-funded agency supporting independent journalism that challenges narratives of authoritarian regimes around the world,” he said in a statement.

China watchers cautioned that cuts to RFA in particular could impact Washington’s ability to counter Beijing.

“Radio Free Asia plays a vital role in countering China’s influence by providing accurate and uncensored news to audiences facing relentless propaganda from the People’s Republic of China,” Rep. Ami Bera, a California Democrat, wrote in a post on X. “RFA helps advance American values amidst our ongoing Great Power Competition with China and exposes egregious human rights abuses like the Uyghur genocide and Beijing’s covert activities abroad.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul called the dismantling of RFA and its sister publications “giant gifts to China,” while Human Rights Watch’s Maya Wang posted that in places like Xinjiang and Tibet: “Radio Free Asia has been one of the few which can get info out. Its demise would mean that these places will become info black holes, just as the CCP wants them.”

In a statement issued by USAGM Saturday evening and posted to X by Lake, the agency deemed itself “not salvageable” due to a range of alleged findings of security violations and self-dealing, though few details were provided.

“From top-to-bottom this agency is a giant rot and burden to the American taxpayer — a national security risk for this nation — and irretrievably broken. While there are bright spots within the agency with personnel who are talented and dedicated public servants, this is the exception rather than the rule,” the statement read.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Staff.

The editorial boards of the nation’s major media organizations must have been frantic last week.

Used to reporting on US foreign policy, wars and arms exports so as to portray the United States as a benevolent, law-abiding and democracy-defending nation, they were confronted on March 25 with a real challenge dealing with Israel and Gaza. No sooner did the Biden administration, for the first time, abstain and thus allow passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution that was not just critical of Israel, but demanded a ceasefire in Gaza, than US officials began declaring that the resolution that they allowed to pass was really meaningless.

It was “nonbinding,” they said.

The New York Times (3/25/24) reported that US’s UN Ambassdor “Thomas-Greenfield called the resolution ‘nonbinding’”—and let no one contradict her.

That was enough for the New York Times (3/25/24), which produced the most one-sided report on the decision. That article focused initially on how Resolution 2728 (which followed three resolutions that the US had vetoed, and a fourth that was so watered down that China and Russia vetoed it instead) had led to a diplomatic dust-up with the Israeli government: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled a planned visit to Washington by a high-level Israeli delegation to discuss Israel’s planned invasion of Rafah and the future of Gaza and the West Bank.

The Times quoted Richard Gowan, a UN expert at the International Crisis Group: “The abstention is a not-too-coded hint to Netanyahu to rein in operations, above all over Rafah.”

Noting that “Security Council resolutions are considered to be international law,” Times reporters Farnaz Fassihi, Aaron Boxerman and Thomas Fuller wrote, “While the Council has no means of enforcing the resolution, it could impose punitive measures, such as sanctions, on Israel, so long as member states agreed.”

This was nevertheless followed by a quote from Washington’s UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who abstained from the otherwise unanimous 14–0 vote of the rest of the Security Council, characterizing the resolution as “nonbinding.”

The Times offered no comment from any international law scholars, foreign or US, to rebut or even discuss that claim. Such an expert might have pointed to the unequivocal language of Article 25 of the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

If the US offered its claim that this language only applies to resolutions explicitly referencing the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, dealing with “threats to the peace,” an international law expert (EJIL: Talk!, 1/9/17) might note that the International Court of Justice stated in 1971, “It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view.”

‘Creates obligations’

The Washington Post (3/26/24) quoted an international law expert to note that the resolution “creates obligations for Israel and Hamas.”

The Washington Post (3/26/24), though like the Times a firm defender of Washington’s foreign policy consensus, did marginally better. While the Times didn’t mention Britain or France, both major US NATO allies, in its piece on the Security Council vote, the Post noted that the four other veto powers—Britain and France, as well as China and Russia—had all voted in favor of the resolution, along with all 10 elected temporary members of the Council.

The Post also cited one international law legal expert, Donald Rothwell, of the Australian National University, who said the “even-handed” resolution “creates obligations for Israel and Hamas.”

While that quote sounds like the resolution is binding, the Post went on to cite Gowan as saying, “I think it’s pretty clear that if Israel does not comply with the resolution, the Biden administration is not going to allow the Security Council members to impose sanctions or other penalties on Israel.”

The Post (3/25/24) actually ran a stronger, more straightforward piece a day earlier, when it covered the initial vote using an AP story. AP did a fairer job discussing the fraught issue of whether or not the resolution was binding on the warring parties, Israel and Hamas (as well as the nations arming them).

That earlier AP piece, by journalist Edith M. Lederer, quoted US National Security spokesperson John Kirby as explaining that they decided not to veto the resolution because it “does fairly reflect our view that a ceasefire and the release of hostages come together.”

Because of the cutbacks to in-house reporting on national and international news  in most of the nation’s major news organizations, most Americans who get their news from television and their local papers end up getting dispatches—often edited for space—from the New York Times, Washington Post or AP wire stories. (The Wall Street Journal, for example, ran the same AP report as the Post.)

‘A demand is a decision’

CNN (3/27/24) quoted US officials claiming the resolution was nonbinding—and noted that “international legal scholars” disagree.

In TV news, CNN (3/27/24) had some of the strongest reporting on the debate over whether the resolution was binding. The news channel said straight out, “While the UN says the latest resolution is nonbinding, experts differ on whether that is the case.”

It went on to say:

After the resolution passed, US officials went to great lengths to say that the resolution isn’t binding. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller repeatedly said during a news conference that the resolution is nonbinding, before conceding that the technical details of are for international lawyers to determine. Similarly, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby and US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield separately insisted that the resolution is nonbinding.

Those US positions were challenged by China’s UN Ambassador Zhang Jun, who “countered that such resolutions are indeed binding,” and by UN spokesperson Farhan Haq, who said Security Council resolutions are international law, and “so to that extent they are as binding as international law is.”

CNN quoted Maya Ungar, another International Crisis Group analyst:

The US—ascribing to a legal tradition that takes a narrower interpretation—argues that without the use of the word “decides” or evocation of Chapter VII within the text, the resolution is nonbinding…. Other member states and international legal scholars are arguing that there is legal precedence to the idea that a demand is implicitly a decision of the Council.

‘A rhetorical feint’

According to the Guardian (3/26/24), the US’s “nonbinding” interpretation “put the US at odds with other member states, international legal scholars and the UN itself.”

To get a sense of how one-sided or at best cautious the US domestic coverage of this critically urgent story is, consider how it was covered in Britain or Spain, two US allies in NATO.

The British Guardian (3/26/24), which also publishes a US edition, ran with the headline: “Biden Administration’s Gaza Strategy Panned as ‘Mess’ Amid Clashing Goals.” The story began:

The Biden administration’s policy on Gaza has been widely criticized as being in disarray as the defense secretary described the situation as a “humanitarian catastrophe” the day after the State Department declared Israel to be in compliance with international humanitarian law.

Washington was also on the defensive on Tuesday over its claim that a UN security Council ceasefire resolution on which it abstained was nonbinding, an interpretation that put the US at odds with other member states, international legal scholars and the UN itself.

But the real contrast is with the Spanish newspaper El País (3/29/24), which bluntly headlined its story “US Sparks Controversy at the UN With Claim That Gaza Ceasefire Resolution Is ‘Nonbinding.’” Not mincing words, the reporters wrote:

By abstaining in the vote on the UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the United States on Monday sparked not only the anger of Israel, which had asked it to veto the text, but also a sweeping legal and diplomatic controversy due to its claims that the resolution—the first to be passed since the start of the Gaza war—was “nonbinding.” For Washington, it was a rhetorical feint aimed at making the public blow to its great ally in the Middle East less obvious.

El País (3/29/24) quoted the relevant language from the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

After quoting Thompson-Greenfield saying it was a “nonbinding resolution,” and Kirby saying dismissively, “There is no impact at all on Israel,” they wrote,

These claims hit the UN Security Council—the highest executive body of the UN in charge of ensuring world peace and security—like a torpedo. Were the Council’s resolutions binding or not? Our was it that some resolutions were binding and others were not?

The reporters answered their own rhetorical question:

Diplomatic representatives and legal experts came out in force to refute Washington’s claim. UN Secretary-General António Guterres made his opinion clear: the resolutions are binding. Indeed, this is stated in Article 25 of the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” Several representatives of the Security Council, led by Mozambique and Sierra Leone, pointed to case law to support this argument. The two African diplomats, both with legal training, said that the Gaza ceasefire resolution is binding, regardless of whether one of the five permanent members of the Council abstains from the vote, as was the case of the US. The diplomats highlighted that in 1971, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) established that all resolutions of the UN Security Council are legally binding. The Algerian ambassador to the UN summed it up even more categorically: “Security Council resolutions are binding. Not almost, not partly, not maybe.”

Unlike most most US news organizations, El País went to an expert, in this instance seeking out Adil Haque, a professor of international law at Rutgers University, where he is a professor, and also executive editor of the law journal Just Security. Haque, they wrote, “has no doubts that the resolution is binding.” He explains in the article:

According to the UN Charter, all decisions of the Security Council are binding on all member states. The International Court of Justice has ruled that a resolution need not mention Chapter VII of the Charter [action in case of threats to the peace, breaches of the peace or acts of aggression], refer to international peace and security, or use the word “decides” to make it binding. Any resolution that uses “mandatory language” creates obligations, and that includes the term “demands” used in the resolution on Gaza.” He adds, “For now, it does not seem that the US has a coherent legal argument.”

It should be noted that the New York Times, when there is a dispute regarding a document, typically runs a copy of the document in question—or, if it is too long, the relevant portion of it. In the case of Resolution 2728, which even counting its headline only runs 263 words, that would have not been a hard call. Despite the disagreement between the US and most of the Council over the wording of the ceasefire resolution, the Times chose not to run or even excerpt it.

The post UN Tells Israel: Cease Fire; NYT Says: If You Want appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Dave Lindorff.

The post Corporate Media Say No On Ceasefire, Want To Cease “Uncommitted” Voters Instead appeared first on Project Censored.

This content originally appeared on Project Censored and was authored by Kate Horgan.

The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel must cease its warmaking in Gaza — cease committing and inciting genocidal acts — and that the case charging Israel with genocide must proceed.

This was a make or break moment for international law, or rather a break or make-a-first-step moment. There is hope for the idea and reality of international law, but this is only a beginning.

The president of the International Court of Justice, who read the ruling, is Judge Joan Donoghue, former top legal advisor under Hillary Clinton at the U.S. State Department during the Obama Administration. She previously was the lawyer for the United States in its unsuccessful defense before the ICJ against charges by Nicaragua of minining its harbor.

The court voted for portions of this decision by 15-2 and 16-1. The “No” votes came from Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda and Ad Hoc Judge Aharon Barak of Israel.

The case presented by South Africa was overwhelming (read it or watch a key part of it), and Israel’s defense paper-thin. And the case just grew more overwhelming during the bizarre delay (yes, courts are slow, but this genocide is swift).

People all over the world built the pressure to move South Africa to act and other nations to add their support. Over 1,500 organizations signed a statement. Individuals signed a petition by CODEPINK, and sent almost 500,000 emails to key governments’ United Nations consulates through World BEYOND War and RootsAction.org. Click those links because more emails are needed now. While several nations have made public statements in support of South Africa’s case, we need them to file papers officially with the International Court of Justice. To reach out to additional national governments, go here.

Governments that have made statement in support of the case against genocide include Malaysia, Turkey, Jordan, Bolivia, the 57 nations of the Organization of Islamic Countries, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Maldives, Namibia, and Pakistan, Colombia, Brazil, and Cuba.

Germany has backed Israel’s defense against the charge of genocide, which has been denounced by Namibia, victimn of a German genocide. Prominent Jews have denounced Germany’s shameful action.

Mass demonstrations in the streets of the world have continued in support of peace and justice, and to a far greater extent than major media outlets have reported.

Here’s a discussion of this campaign for justice with Sam Husseini on Talk World Radio.

Prior to today’s ruling from the International Court of Justice, the U.S. government pointedly refused to say whether it would comply with ruling, despite insisting that other nations comply with rulings by the ICJ.

Hamas said that it would cease fire if Israel does, and release all prisoners if Israel does

Germany, to its credit, reportedly said that it would comply.

Arming a genocide is complicity in genocide. While Israel gets most of its weapons from the United State, other weaponry comes from Germany, Italy, the UK, and Canada — at least some of which nations also provide parts to U.S. weaponsmakers that provide weapons to Israel. Italian opposition demanded an end to it. And then the Foreign Minister claimed Italy had stopped shipments on Oct 7. Meanwhile, Canada is coming under pressure to cease shipments and prevarications. In Canada, Members of Parliament are among over 250 people hunger striking for an arms embargo on Israel.

People in the United States can tell Congress to stop arming Israel here or here.

President Joe Biden already faces a lawsuit for aiding and abetting genocide in Gaza. In November 2023, Palestinian human rights organizations, along with Gaza- and U.S.-based Palestinians, filed suit in a U.S. federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Biden Administration for failing to prevent genocide, and for aiding and abetting genocide. The plaintiffs seek an order to end U.S. military and diplomatic support to Israel. A hearing to address the government’s motion to dismiss will be held at 9 a.m. PT / 12 noon ET today, Friday. The hearing will be webstreamed to the public. You are encouraged to tune in and witness the U.S. government’s attempts at avoiding accountability and justify its support for the genocide that is happening in Gaza.

• First published at World Beyond War.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by David Swanson.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Federal Trade Commission has ordered the maker of TurboTax to stop what it called years of widespread deceptive advertising for “free” tax-filing software.

The order, released Monday, was accompanied by a 93-page opinion that harshly criticized Intuit, the Silicon Valley company behind TurboTax. Intuit’s “deceptive ad campaign has been sufficiently broad, enduring, and willful to support the need for a cease-and-desist order,” the commission’s opinion stated.

The order caps off a process that started four years ago when the FTC launched an investigation in response to a series of ProPublica stories documenting Intuit’s ad tactics. ProPublica revealed how millions of Americans were lured into paid tax preparation products even though they were eligible to file for free through a government-sponsored program. Huge sums of money are at stake: In a single year, tax prep companies led by Intuit generated $1 billion in revenue from customers who should have been able to file for free, according to one analysis.

In a statement, Intuit said it planned to appeal the order in federal court. “There is no monetary penalty in the FTC’s order, and Intuit expects no significant impact to its business,” the statement said, adding that the company “has always been clear, fair, and transparent with its customers.”

Sam Levine, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement that the order was intended to send a message to all companies: “‘free’ means free — not ‘free for a few’ or ‘free for some.’ Businesses can expect an FTC enforcement action if they harness the power of ‘free’ in the dishonest way Intuit did.”

Apparently in anticipation of the FTC’s order, Intuit recently changed how it touts “free” tax prep.

Here, for example, is how Intuit’s ads used to look. This is taken from Intuit’s website in 2019:

Ads in that period simply stated the product was “FREE Guaranteed.” Other ads took this message even further. The company’s “free, free, free” TV ad campaign featured scenes of people just saying the word “free” for 30 seconds. Intuit pulled its “free, free, free” ads in 2022, after the FTC and all 50 state attorneys general began investigating Intuit’s advertising, but the company continued to tout free tax prep.

Of course, for most customers, TurboTax wasn’t free. A list of conditions (like having student loan interest or unemployment benefits) would disqualify customers from the free offering and force them to pay, often over $100, to have their tax returns filed. People often found this out only after having entered much of their tax information and did not want to start the process over again.

Today, TurboTax ads state that only about 37% of taxpayers will qualify:

The FTC order requires clear disclosures in the company’s ads. TurboTax must inform consumers that most filers won’t qualify.

When ads have the space, Intuit is also required to provide full details of who qualifies to file for free. On the TurboTax website, a link details what “Form 1040 & limited credits only” means: Filers with student loan interest do now qualify, for example, but those with unemployment income do not.

The FTC’s order also has a more general requirement, prohibiting TurboTax from “misrepresenting any material fact.” This “ensures that Intuit does not make other false claims about Intuit’s products to consumers,” the FTC wrote in its opinion.

The fact that Intuit has changed its advertising doesn’t mean it agrees with the FTC. The company raised a host of objections during the process. Intuit argued that forcing the company to tell consumers that its product is not free for a majority of taxpayers would violate the company’s First Amendment right to free speech. It also protested that having to disclose the terms of who would qualify would lead consumers to suffer from “information overload.”

The FTC swept those arguments aside in its opinion, as it did Intuit’s complaint that it was unfair to prevent TurboTax from touting “free” tax prep when its competitors continued to do so. “Courts have long held that it is not defense to an order against unlawful practices that others in a marketplace are similarly engaging in unlawful practices,” the commission wrote.

Not having succeeded at the FTC, Intuit plans to take its arguments to a federal appeals court. Derrick Plummer, a company spokesperson, criticized the FTC as “biased” and said, “we believe that when the matter ultimately returns to a neutral body Intuit will prevail.”

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Justin Elliott and Paul Kiel.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Federal Trade Commission has ordered the maker of TurboTax to stop what it called years of widespread deceptive advertising for “free” tax-filing software.

The order, released Monday, was accompanied by a 93-page opinion that harshly criticized Intuit, the Silicon Valley company behind TurboTax. Intuit’s “deceptive ad campaign has been sufficiently broad, enduring, and willful to support the need for a cease-and-desist order,” the commission’s opinion stated.

The order caps off a process that started four years ago when the FTC launched an investigation in response to a series of ProPublica stories documenting Intuit’s ad tactics. ProPublica revealed how millions of Americans were lured into paid tax preparation products even though they were eligible to file for free through a government-sponsored program. Huge sums of money are at stake: In a single year, tax prep companies led by Intuit generated $1 billion in revenue from customers who should have been able to file for free, according to one analysis.

In a statement, Intuit said it planned to appeal the order in federal court. “There is no monetary penalty in the FTC’s order, and Intuit expects no significant impact to its business,” the statement said, adding that the company “has always been clear, fair, and transparent with its customers.”

Sam Levine, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement that the order was intended to send a message to all companies: “‘free’ means free — not ‘free for a few’ or ‘free for some.’ Businesses can expect an FTC enforcement action if they harness the power of ‘free’ in the dishonest way Intuit did.”

Apparently in anticipation of the FTC’s order, Intuit recently changed how it touts “free” tax prep.

Here, for example, is how Intuit’s ads used to look. This is taken from Intuit’s website in 2019:

Ads in that period simply stated the product was “FREE Guaranteed.” Other ads took this message even further. The company’s “free, free, free” TV ad campaign featured scenes of people just saying the word “free” for 30 seconds. Intuit pulled its “free, free, free” ads in 2022, after the FTC and all 50 state attorneys general began investigating Intuit’s advertising, but the company continued to tout free tax prep.

Of course, for most customers, TurboTax wasn’t free. A list of conditions (like having student loan interest or unemployment benefits) would disqualify customers from the free offering and force them to pay, often over $100, to have their tax returns filed. People often found this out only after having entered much of their tax information and did not want to start the process over again.

Today, TurboTax ads state that only about 37% of taxpayers will qualify:

The FTC order requires clear disclosures in the company’s ads. TurboTax must inform consumers that most filers won’t qualify.

When ads have the space, Intuit is also required to provide full details of who qualifies to file for free. On the TurboTax website, a link details what “Form 1040 & limited credits only” means: Filers with student loan interest do now qualify, for example, but those with unemployment income do not.

The FTC’s order also has a more general requirement, prohibiting TurboTax from “misrepresenting any material fact.” This “ensures that Intuit does not make other false claims about Intuit’s products to consumers,” the FTC wrote in its opinion.

The fact that Intuit has changed its advertising doesn’t mean it agrees with the FTC. The company raised a host of objections during the process. Intuit argued that forcing the company to tell consumers that its product is not free for a majority of taxpayers would violate the company’s First Amendment right to free speech. It also protested that having to disclose the terms of who would qualify would lead consumers to suffer from “information overload.”

The FTC swept those arguments aside in its opinion, as it did Intuit’s complaint that it was unfair to prevent TurboTax from touting “free” tax prep when its competitors continued to do so. “Courts have long held that it is not defense to an order against unlawful practices that others in a marketplace are similarly engaging in unlawful practices,” the commission wrote.

Not having succeeded at the FTC, Intuit plans to take its arguments to a federal appeals court. Derrick Plummer, a company spokesperson, criticized the FTC as “biased” and said, “we believe that when the matter ultimately returns to a neutral body Intuit will prevail.”

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Justin Elliott and Paul Kiel.

“The RSF’s use of Sudan’s state television headquarters as detention facilities is extremely shocking and is a clear indication of the deteriorating press freedom in the country amid a deadly war,” said Sherif Mansour, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program coordinator, in Washington, D.C. “The paramilitary group must immediately stop using media institutions as detention centers and protect these establishments from destruction.”

On Thursday, December 7, the Sudanese Journalists Syndicate, which documents abuses against journalists, reported that the RSF has turned buildings owned by the Sudan Broadcasting Corporation into detention facilities, and that they have been selling its broadcasting equipment in local markets, according to the syndicate’s statement and news reports. The statement also mentioned that the equipment of local independent television channels Sudania 24, Al-Balad, Al-Neel Al-Azraq, and British broadcaster BBC, has been looted from their offices and sold in local markets.

The RSF has had control of the state television headquarters since the ongoing fighting broke out between the paramilitary forces and the Sudanese army April 15, CPJ reported at the time. Since then, many journalists in the country have been killed, shot, beaten, harassed, and arrested while covering the war. 

CPJ emailed Sudan’s army, the Sudanese Armed Forces, and the RSF for comment but did not receive any replies.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Photograph Source: Murray Foubister – CC BY-SA 2.0

It is time for a cease-fire in the so-called buffalo hunts that take place on the western and northern edges of Yellowstone National Park.

Last winter was the worst “hunting” season the buffalo suffered since the 19th century.  Winter came early and hard and we witnessed one of the largest migrations into Montana long before Yellowstone was established.  No less than 1,175 buffalo were killed by hunters — the majority of them were slaughtered in the killing fields of Beattie Gulch in the Gardiner Basin — mostly by tribal hunters.  Most of the tribes currently hunting under treaty right actually extended their hunting seasons to take advantage of the situation.  It’s bad every year, but last winter Beattie Gulch became a massacre site with gut piles stretching as far as they eye could see, many of them encased baby buffalo who would never see the light of day.  A river of blood ran down Beattie Gulch into the Yellowstone River.  The hunters ignored the tragedy they had caused, and instead patted themselves on the back for a successful season.

Roam Free Nation, along with our allies at the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Gallatin Wildlife Association, and the Council for Wildlife and Fish, recently sent a letter to Gallatin National Forest Supervisor Mary Erickson, asking her to close Beattie Gulch to bison hunting due to serious concerns for public safety. For Roam Free Nation, it’s much more than that; the well-being of our National Mammal is the gravest concern.  The Yellowstone buffalo are currently being considered for Endangered Species Act listing by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, yet in the meantime, nearly every single one gets gunned down after stepping out of the park, so listing can not come fast enough. We know those who “hunt” there will fight us, because they have a sovereign right to kill.  But, just because you have a right, doesn’t make it right.  Humans have a responsibility and obligation to ensure the viability and evolutionary potential of hunted populations, and all creatures we share this Earth with.

Such is not the case in these so-called hunts.

At the October 2023 Interagency Bison Management Plan meeting, Yellowstone’s head bison biologist, Chris Geremia, warned state, federal, and tribal decision-makers — as he has for many years now — against any lethal action in the Hebgen Basin, near West Yellowstone.  Why?  To attempt some semblance of protection for the imperiled Central herd; the last truly wild, migratory buffalo left in the country.  The Northern herd migrates into Montana’s Gardiner Basin; the Central herd migrates into both the Gardiner Basin and Hebgen Basin, meaning they are doubly impacted by mismanagement actions.  The Central herd has been in decline for over a decade. Yellowstone biologists continue to warn against hunting in the Hebgen Basin, but these warnings continue to fall on deaf ears.  As I write this, already 8 bull buffalo have been taken by state hunters near West Yellowstone.  It is a disservice by hunt managers to ignore these warnings, and it is utter disrespect and irresponsibility by hunters to continue to kill.  It’s time for hunters to stop doing the dirty work of Montana’s Department of Livestock and their cattle interests.

These killing frenzies are not sustainable.  Wild buffalo will never be able to restore themselves so long as there is no restraint by hunters and no enforcement by hunt managers.  The buffalo barely have any opportunity to access or express themselves on the meager “tolerance” zones they’ve been granted.  A cease-fire is in order to allow them to do just that, then we work together for more buffalo on a much larger landscape.

The post Cease Fire!  Yellowstone Buffalo Need to Recover appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Stephany Seay.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is horrified by the brutal mass killing of civilians perpetrated by Hamas, and by the massive attacks on Gaza, Palestine, now being pursued by Israel. MSF calls for an immediate cessation to the indiscriminate bloodshed, and the establishment of safe spaces and safe passage for people to reach them as a matter of urgency. People must be afforded safe access to essential supplies like food and water and health facilities. Essential humanitarian supplies like medicine, medical equipment, food, fuel, and water must also be allowed to enter the Gazan enclave. To facilitate this, Rafah border crossing with Egypt must be opened and bombings on the crossing point must cease.

Some 2.2 million people are currently trapped in the Gaza strip, where indiscriminate bombing has turned a chronic humanitarian crisis into a catastrophe. More than 300 MSF staff are in Gaza, some of whom have lost homes or family members; it has been near-impossible for them to move.

“The fighter jets are demolishing entire streets block by block,” says Matthias Kennes, MSF Head of Mission in Gaza. “There is no place to hide, no time to rest. Some places are being bombed on consecutive nights.”

“We know what it was like in 2014 and in 2021, thousands died. Each time, our medical colleagues go to work, not knowing if they will see their homes or their families again,” continues Kennes. “But they say this is different. This time, after five days, there have already been 1,200 deaths. What can people do? Where are they supposed to go?”

Millions of men, women and children are facing a collective punishment in the form of total siege, indiscriminate bombing, and the pending threat of a ground battle. Safe spaces must be established, humanitarian supplies must be allowed into Gaza. The wounded and sick must receive medical care. Medical facilities and personnel must be protected and respected; hospitals and ambulances are not targets.

The siege imposed by the Israeli government, including the withholding of food, water, fuel, and electricity is unconscionable. Following 16 years of military blockade of the Gaza strip, the medical facilities within are already weakened. This siege leaves no respite for patients caught up in the fighting, nor for medical staff. It represents an intentional block on life-saving items; the entry of these supplies and key medical staff must be facilitated urgently.

“In Ministry of Health hospitals, medical staff report that they are running out of anaesthetics and painkillers,” says Darwin Diaz, MSF Medical Coordinator in Gaza. “On the MSF side, we moved medical supplies from our two-month emergency reserves to Al-Awda hospital and now we have used three weeks’ worth of stock in three days.”

MSF staff, including medical personnel, have been extremely restricted in their movements since Saturday. They are unable to obtain safe passage to support Palestinian medical colleagues working day and night to treat the injured. People playing no role in the hostilities do not have a safe haven to go to. Our teams are witnessing a level of destruction that may already exceed previous escalations. Two of the hospitals MSF supports, Al-Awda and the Indonesian Hospital, have both sustained damage in airstrikes, while our own clinic sustained some damage in an explosion on Monday.

Today MSF is running a standalone clinic, and supporting Al-Awda hospital, Nasser hospital, and the Indonesian hospital in Gaza. MSF reopened an operational theatre in Al-Shifa on 10 October to receive burn and trauma patients. We have also donated medical supplies to Al-Shifa hospital and will continue providing support to hospitals. Our teams in Jenin, Hebron and Nablus are actively assessing the medical needs in the West Bank, as violence there is escalating. At least 27 Palestinians have been killed in settler attacks and clashes with the Israeli military.

Civilians, civilian infrastructure and healthcare facilities must be protected at all times. MSF calls on the Government of Israel to cease its campaign of collective punishment against the entirety of Gaza. Israel and Palestinian authorities and factions must establish safe spaces. The entry of humanitarian assistance, food, water, fuel, medicine, and medical equipment to the Gaza Strip must be facilitated urgently. The failure to do so will cost more lives.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

On the heels of former President Donald Trump's historic indictment, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office on Friday told three top Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House that their "attempted interference with an ongoing state criminal investigation—and now prosecution—is an unprecedented and illegitimate incursion on New York's sovereign interests."

U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), James Comer (R-Ky.), and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.)—who chair the House Judiciary, Oversight, and Administration committees, respectively—initially wrote to Bragg last week demanding documents and testimony. In response, the general counsel for Bragg's office, Leslie Dubeck, called their requests an "unlawful incursion" into state sovereignty.

A second letter from Jordan, Comer, and Steil—public allies of Trump—prompted the six-page response from Bragg's office on Friday, less than 24 hours after the New York grand jury convened by Bragg over a hush money payment to a porn star voted to indict the former president and 2024 GOP candidate, who is expected to be arraigned Tuesday.

"You and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump's efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations."

"Your first letter made an unprecedented request to the district attorney for confidential information about the status of the state grand jury investigation—now indictment—of Mr. Trump," Dubeck wrote to the lawmakers. "Your second letter asserts that, by failing to provide it, the district attorney somehow failed to dispute your baseless and inflammatory allegations that our investigation is politically motivated. That conclusion is misleading and meritless."

"We did not engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of your letter because our office is legally constrained in how it publicly discusses pending criminal proceedings, as prosecutorial offices are across the country and as you well know," the general counsel continued. "That secrecy is critical to protecting the privacy of the target of any criminal investigation as well as the integrity of the independent grand jury's proceedings."

The letter lays out why the congressmen's committees "lack jurisdiction to oversee a state criminal prosecution," and declares that "based on your reportedly close collaboration with Mr. Trump in attacking this office and the grand jury process, it appears you are acting more like criminal defense counsel trying to gather evidence for a client than a legislative body seeking to achieve a legitimate legislative objective."

Dubeck also took aim at their "vague and shifting legislative purpose." Only noting it in the second letter suggests "your proposal to 'insulate current and former presidents' from state criminal investigations is a baseless pretext to interfere with our office's work," she wrote. "Even if you were seriously considering such legislation and had the constitutional authority to enact it (which you do not), your request for information from the district attorney and his former attorneys concerning an ongoing criminal probe is unnecessary and unjustified."

After highlighting that the lawmakers' initial rationale for the inquiry related to the use of federal funding, the letter notes that over the past 15 years, the DA's office has helped the federal government secure over $1 billion from asset forfeiture and the office itself "receives only a small fraction of those forfeited funds."

Dubeck disclosed that from October 2019 to August 2021, approximately $5,000 of the federal forfeiture money was spent investigating the former president or the Trump Organization; most of those costs were related to a case that led to the conviction of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and two Trump business entities, and "no expenses incurred relating to this matter have been paid from funds that the office receives through federal grant programs."

The letter explains the DA office's current participation in federal grant programs, then forcefully calls out the congressmen:

Finally, as you are no doubt aware, former President Trump has directed harsh invective against District Attorney Bragg and threatened on social media that his arrest or indictment in New York may unleash "death and destruction." As committee chairmen, you could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury. Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump's efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges and made unfounded allegations that the office's investigation, conducted via an independent grand jury of average citizens serving New York state, is politically motivated. We urge you to refrain from these inflammatory accusations, withdraw your demand for information, and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference.

Dubeck asked that if the lawmakers won't withdraw their request, they agree to a meeting and provide a list of questions for Bragg as well as a description of documents they believe could be turned over to Congress "without violating New York grand jury secrecy rules or interfering with the criminal case now before a court."

"We trust you will make a good-faith effort to reach a negotiated resolution," she concluded, "before taking the unprecedented and unconstitutional step of serving a subpoena on a district attorney for information related to an ongoing state criminal prosecution."

The latest letter from the DA's office "is really a work of art," independent journalist Marcy Wheeler said in a series of tweets on Friday. "It was a joy to read. Bragg is not fucking around and... well, Jimmy Jordan is."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

In the early morning of Wednesday, March 29, authorities arrested Prothom Alo correspondent Shamsuzzaman Shams under the Digital Security Act for allegedly spreading “false news” in a March 26 article.

On Wednesday evening, authorities in the capital city of Dhaka opened another DSA investigation into Prothom Alo editor Matiur Rahman, Shams, an unnamed camera operator at the outlet, and other unidentified people, according to news reports, Prothom Alo executive editor Sajjad Sharif, who spoke to CPJ by phone, and a copy of the first information report launching that investigation, dated March 29 at 11:10 p.m., which CPJ reviewed.

Also on Wednesday, Mithun Biswas, a lawyer based in southern city of Chittagong, issued a legal notice to Rahman, Sharif, and Shams demanding they unconditionally and publicly apologize for that March 26 article within seven days or face legal action, according to news reports and a copy of the notice reviewed by CPJ.

On Thursday morning, Shams appeared before a Dhaka court and was denied bail, according to news reports. Authorities had not arrested Rahman or the camera operator as of Thursday evening, Sharif said.

“Bangladesh authorities’ harassment of staff members with the Prothom Alo newspaper and the arrest of correspondent Shamsuzzaman Shams under the draconian Digital Security Act are clear attempts to quash critical reporting,” said Carlos Martinez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director. “Authorities must immediately release Shams and cease abusing the legal process against journalists, which produces a chilling effect on the media.”

That March 26 article and a post on Facebook briefly used a child’s photo to accompany a quote from an adult laborer about price hikes; the outlet swiftly removed the Facebook post and re-published the article on its website and Facebook page with a correction.

The investigation opened Wednesday night by the Ramna police station in Dhaka was sparked by a complaint by Abdul Malek, a lawyer who said the accused had used “print, online and electronic media to tarnish the image and reputation of the state” and displayed that erroneous image. When reached by phone, Malek told CPJ that he stood by the allegations in the complaint, and the journalists should be punished for their work “against the independence” of the country.

Police are investigating the accused under three sections of the Digital Security Act pertaining to the transmission or publication of offensive, false, or threatening information; publication or transmission of information that deteriorates law and order; and abetment, according to the first information report.

The first two offenses can carry a prison sentence of three to seven years and fines of 300,000 taka to 500,000 taka (US$2,797 to $4,662), according to the law, which says abetment can carry the same punishment as committing an offense itself.

CPJ called and messaged Abu Ansar, the investigating officer in the case, and Roy Niyati, a Dhaka metropolitan police spokesperson, for comment, but did not receive any replies.

CPJ called the phone number listed for Biswas in his legal notice, but received an error message. CPJ was unable to immediately find other contact information for him.

In February, CPJ joined civil society organizations in a letter calling on Bangladesh to cease the judicial harassment of Prothom Alo special correspondent Rozina Islam, who faces an ongoing investigation under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act and the penal code in apparent retaliation for reporting on alleged corruption in the public health sector at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

Mr. Asaduzzaman Khan, MP
Minister of Home Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
minister@mha.gov.bd

Mr. Zahid Maleque, MP
Minister of Health and Family Welfare
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
minister@mohfw.gov.bd

Dear Ministers Khan and Maleque,

We, the undersigned press freedom and human rights groups, write to seek your leadership in ensuring an immediate end to the harassment of Bangladeshi journalist and human rights defender Rozina Islam. Islam faces an ongoing investigation under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act and the penal code in apparent retaliation for merely exercising her right to freedom of expression through her reporting on alleged government corruption and irregularities in the public health sector at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. If formally charged and convicted under the Official Secrets Act, Islam faces up to 14 years in prison, or a death sentence. Islam was arbitrarily detained for seven days in May 2020, when a health ministry official filed the complaint accusing the journalist of taking photos of official documents in the ministry’s secretariat, leading to the ongoing investigation.

Since her release on bail, Islam has been routinely summoned for court appearances, many of which have been unduly delayed and rescheduled in violation of her right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is a state party. In August 2021, the Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit asked banks to provide transaction details of any accounts held by Islam, in an apparent move to further intimidate the journalist.

Islam continues to face unlawful restrictions on her right to freedom of movement in violation of Article 12 of the ICCPR. She was granted bail on the condition that she surrender her passport, imposing an effective travel ban despite the fact that there is no provision for conditional bail in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In January 2022, a Dhaka court temporarily permitted the return of her passport for six months. Since then, however, Islam has been obliged to request her passport from the court whenever she plans to travel abroad.

After 14 months of investigation, the detective branch of the Dhaka police submitted its final report to court in July 2022, and called for the case against Islam to be dropped due to lack of evidence. Seven months later, in January 2023, the health ministry official filed a naraji (no-confidence) petition against the detective branch’s report, in response to which the court directed the Police Bureau of Investigation to further investigate Islam. We are deeply disturbed by a government official’s use of a naraji petition to prolong the investigation of a journalist under a national security law, particularly given that police have failed to produce a charge sheet or present any concrete evidence indicating that she has committed a crime.

Islam’s work, for which she received the United States Department of State’s Anti-Corruption Champions Award in 2022, is a public service, not a crime, and should be protected under Sections 4 and 5 of the Disclosure of Public Interest Information (Protection) Act.

We urge the authorities to fully respect and protect the human rights of journalist and human rights defender Rozina Islam, including her right to a fair trial, and to immediately cease all forms of judicial harassment against her, facilitating the return of her passport from judicial custody, and ensuring that she is not subjected to further retaliation for her work.

Signed:

Amnesty International

Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network

Capital Punishment Justice Project

Coalition For Women In Journalism

Committee to Protect Journalists

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma

Free Media Movement

Front Line Defenders

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

International Federation of Journalists

International Women’s Media Foundation

Overseas Press Club of America

Pakistan Press Foundation

PEN America

PEN Bangladesh

PEN International

Reporters Without Borders

Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights

South Asian Journalists Association

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

CC: Mr. Anisul Haq
Minister of Law, Justice, and Parliament
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
secretary@lawjusticediv.gov.bd

CC: Mr. A.K. Abdul Momen, MP
Minister of Foreign Affairs
People’s Republic of Bangladesh
fm@mofa.gov.bd

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Madeline Earp.

A group of climate leaders from across the globe issued a "cease and desist notice" on Monday directed at fossil fuel CEOs attending this week's World Economic Forum, which environmentalists warn will likely be used by oil and gas interests as another PR opportunity for their planet-wrecking business.

The open letter—penned by Vanessa Nakate of Uganda, Greta Thunberg of Sweden, Helena Gualinga of Ecuador, and Luisa Neubauer of Germany—demands that fossil fuel companies "immediately stop opening any new oil, gas, or coal extraction sites, and stop blocking the clean energy transition we all so urgently need."

At present, the fossil fuel industry is doing the opposite, ramping up oil and gas extraction plans even as scientists call for a rapid phase-out to prevent more catastrophic warming.

The letter, which has been signed by more than 693,000 people as of this writing, continues:

We know that Big Oil:

KNEW for decades that fossil fuels cause catastrophic climate change.
MISLED the public about climate science and risks.
DECEIVED politicians with disinformation sowing doubt and causing delay.

You must end these activities as they are in direct violation of our human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, your duties of care, as well as the rights of Indigenous people.

"If you fail to act immediately, be advised that citizens around the world will consider taking any and all legal action to hold you accountable. And we will keep protesting in the streets in huge numbers," concludes the letter.

\u201cI (and many others!) just signed this "cease and desist" letter to fossil fuel CEOs from @GretaThunberg, @vanessa_vash, @SumakHelena & @Luisamneubauer. It demands an end to the fossil fuel projects that are destroying our \ud83c\udf0e. Join us! @Davos @wef #wef23 https://t.co/z0T1nAZ3Lu\u201d

— Fanny Petitbon (@Fanny Petitbon) 1673861100

Chevron CEO Mike Wirth and BP chief executive Bernard Looney will be among the Wall Street executives and other corporate elites gathered in Davos, Switzerland for this week's forum, an overview of which acknowledges that the climate crisis is "spiraling out of control"—though it doesn't specify that the oil and gas industry is primarily responsible.

The presence of fossil fuel giants in Davos spurred local protests over the weekend, with demonstrators accusing the industry of "hijacking the climate debate."

Speaking to journalists last week, Nakate said that "it's not hard to be cynical about the prospects for climate justice after spending a week there."

"Oil and gas CEOs are invited into the forum to greenwash their businesses," said Nakate.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Progressives in the United States welcomed news that a federal judge on Friday filed a nationwide cease and desist order against Amazon, which stipulates that the e-commerce giant must stop firing workers for organizing and otherwise impeding their participation in pro-union activities.

The court order, filed in the Eastern District of New York by District Judge Diana Gujarati, instructs Amazon, the country's second-largest employer, to immediately stop "discharging employees because they engaged in protected concerted activity" and "in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act."

As VICE reported Monday:

The order was a response to a petition filed by Gerald Bryson, a former Amazon employee who in 2020 was fired for protesting the company's lack of safety protocols regarding Covid-19. Bryson worked at JFK8, the company's Staten Island warehouse which has since become famous as the first Amazon facility to successfully unionize, earlier this year. He had participated in multiple protests alongside then-worker Christian Smalls, who is now the president of the Amazon Labor Union.

At the time, the National Labor Relations Board found that Amazon had illegally retaliated against Bryson by terminating him, and demanded that it reinstate him. Judge Gujarati's order denied Bryson's request to get his job back because, it claimed, it would not have a significant effect on workers' willingness to organize.

Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors of the Center for Popular Democracy Action, applauded the court's decision to provide injunctive relief that protects Amazon workers across the United States from being terminated for engaging in legally protected workplace organizing while lamenting that the ruling "falls one step short" because it fails to reinstate Bryson.

"This decision is a massive victory for Amazon workers nationwide—protection from retaliation is especially important as those workers enter the grueling peak season in Amazon's warehouses," Mejia and Cooper said Monday in a statement. "Nonetheless, continuing to keep Gerald Bryson out of work at this point is a travesty of justice."

In addition to mandating that Amazon cease and desist from retaliatory dismissals of workplace organizers and other suppressive tactics that violate federal labor law, the court order also requires the immensely profitable corporation to publicly inform all of its JFK8 employees of their rights.

"The Center for Popular Democracy looks forward to the posting and public reading of the judge's order so that JFK8 workers will be notified of their federal rights and of their employer's unlawful actions," said Mejia and Cooper.

"Amazon continues to aggressively suppress worker organizing across the country, but now the NLRB has the added enforcement power of a federal court's cease and desist order," the pair added. "We will continue to fight for justice for Gerald and other Amazon workers nationwide and we urge the NLRB to continue pushing courts to grant injunctive relief for fired Amazon employees."

Amazon Labor Union (ALU) lawyer Seth Goldstein told VICE that the ruling is "of huge significance."

"This is a national cease and desist order," Goldstein explained. "That means that wherever in the country they violate it, theoretically the National Labor Relations Board can immediately seek a contempt of court order. A federal judge is not happy when a party violates their rule—there can be sanctions of all types."

The court order comes just weeks after Amazon suspended dozens of JFK8 workers who refused to return to the shop floor for a few hours due to health and safety concerns following a fire at the New York City fulfillment center.

Goldstein called Amazon's punitive response to last month's temporary work stoppage "a violation of workers' rights to join in a collective action about the terms and conditions of their employment."

The Staten Island facility has earned a reputation for egregious violations of workers' rights since it opened in September 2018. Data published earlier this year, for instance, shows that the fulfillment center's already above-average injury rate increased by 15% from 2020 to 2021.

Earlier this year, Amazon spent big on union-busting consultants and pulled out all the stops in a failed bid to crush the organizing drive at JFK8.

Just days after the early October fire at JFK8, however, Amazon successfully defeated a unionization effort at the ALB1 warehouse in Albany. ALU has filed objections to the result, accusing Amazon of "coercive, threatening, and retaliatory conduct."

Regarding the new nationwide cease and desist order, Goldstein said that "it's broad, it's sweeping."

"No one has gotten that yet against Amazon," he added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

The National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday asked a federal court in Michigan for a "nationwide cease and desist order" prohibiting Starbucks from firing workers for union organizing.

Federal prosecutors also asked the court to reinstate and reimburse a pro-union worker who was fired from one of the coffee giant's Ann Arbor stores and to require a high-ranking Starbucks official to publicly inform the store's employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act to pursue representation and collectively bargain for better conditions without fear of retaliation.

As Law360 reported:

Starbucks managers fired Hannah Whitbeck on April 11, days after Michigan news outlet MLive published an article about Starbucks workers' nationwide organizing campaign that quoted Whitbeck multiple times, according to the preliminary injunction motion filed by NLRB Region 7 prosecutors.

The firing also came months after Whitbeck reached out to Workers United—the union behind the organizing push—wore a button bearing the union's name to work, spoke to co-workers about the campaign, and posted about her support for discharged Starbucks employees in Memphis, Tennessee, the filing said.

The same day Whitbeck was fired, Workers United filed an unfair labor practice charge against Starbucks to challenge the move. The NLRB's general counsel later consolidated the case with another unfair labor practice charge against the company, and on October 7, NLRB Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter found Starbucks unlawfully fired Whitbeck for participating in union activity.

Employees at the Starbucks location that discharged Whitbeck voted to be represented by Workers United on June 15, but after Whitbeck and other employees left, the union had trouble finding out who the new employees were, prosecutors said.

"Starbucks will achieve its unlawful goals of purging the Ann Arbor store of the union's leadership and crushing employee activism in Michigan and nationwide," the prosecutors wrote. "In the process, Starbucks will irreparably harm the statutory rights of its employees, frustrating the board's remedial power, and thwarting the intent of Congress."

In a Tuesday statement, NLRB Region 7 Director Elizabeth Kerwin said, "We are asking the court to swiftly grant the injunction so that the employee Starbucks unlawfully fired can return to work and all Starbucks employees nationally can effectively exercise their right to engage in union activities."

The new petition marks the fourth time this year that the NLRB has sought a preliminary injunction against Starbucks. Prosecutors previously asked courts to mandate that the corporation rehire pro-union workers who were terminated from stores in Memphis, Phoenix, and Buffalo, and halt unfair labor practices.

But as VICE reported Wednesday, "[R]equesting a national prohibition on firing employees for supporting union efforts marks a significant escalation in the labor board's attempts to rein in Starbucks' alleged union-busting."

Starbucks Workers United called the request for a nationwide injunction a "huge victory for workers."

According to the union, the coffee chain has illegally terminated more than 150 workers in retaliation for organizing.

Starbucks "has repeatedly and consistently denied those claims," VICE noted, but "a former Starbucks manager in the Buffalo area testified under oath in August that he was encouraged by higher-ups to scrutinize the record of a longtime pro-union employee to find 'something in there we can use against her,' and to ensure a manager was always working and able to discourage employees from talking about the union."

A federal judge in Tennessee recently ordered Starbucks to reinstate seven pro-union baristas who were fired in Memphis. That ruling came several weeks after an Arizona judge dismissed the NLRB's request for injunctive relief in Phoenix. In Buffalo, meanwhile, litigation has been paused since last month, when a New York judge permitted Workers United to appeal his contentious ruling allowing Starbucks to subpoena the union and employees.

The NLRB has also accused Starbucks of unlawfully withholding raises and benefits from thousands of workers at unionized and unionizing shops in an effort to repress a nationwide organizing campaign. In addition, the company has completely shut down some unionized shops, including as recently as Tuesday in Portland, Maine.

U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) blasted Starbucks for "blatantly union-busting at one of the busiest stores in my district." Describing the move as "despicable," Pingree called for a "full NLRB investigation now."

Baristas at 264 of the coffee giant's roughly 9,000 locations have voted to join Workers United since December, when an initial victory was claimed in Buffalo. Fewer than 60 stores have lost an election.

But interim CEO Howard Schultz has openly refused to work in good faith with the union and largely prevented collective bargaining from moving forward. Of the 264 shops that have voted to unionize in 36 states since late 2021, just three started contract negotiations with Starbucks prior to October, though more meetings were expected to start last month.

The NLRB has issued dozens of formal complaints against Starbucks in the past year, encompassing hundreds of allegations of labor law violations.

Earlier this year, House Labor Caucus co-chair Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) said that "Starbucks—a multi-billion dollar corporation—is squeezing its workers to stop them from exercising their legally protected rights."

"This is worker intimidation at its worst," he added. "We must pass the No Tax Breaks for Union Busting Act and fully fund the NLRB."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Our most important contribution is to have demonstrated concretely how to reconcile democratic planning with worker and consumer autonomy. We believe this was the Achilles’ heel of socialism during the twentieth century, which must be resolved if there is to be a future for socialism in the twenty-first century.

— Robin Hahnel speaking to the breakthrough that would be achieved in A Participatory Economy, 2022 (p 236-237)

In his book, A Participatory Economy, Robin Hahnel, a professor emeritus of economics at American University, begins by clarifying the goals of a participatory economy: economic freedom, economic justice, solidarity, efficiency, environmentally sustainable, and economic variety.

Economic justice is achieved by remunerating people based on their effort and sacrifice, how much of the burden one bears. Effort and sacrifice will be judged by colleagues in the workplace. Efficiency is the converse of wastefulness — that work performed is beneficial. Environmental sustainability means attaining intergenerational equity. Economic variety recognizes that people are different, have different tastes and wants; therefore, achieving an economy that produces a diversity of outcomes and lifestyles is sought.

Chapter 2 looks at different political-economic models and discusses why a participatory economy (parecon) is preferable and superior to capitalism, communism, and democratic socialism.

Hahnel shoots down the canard relentlessly propounded by adherents of capitalism that humans are motivated by greed. Hahnel writes, “The fallacy is in asserting that people will act in the same greedy and fearful ways in a system where they are given the opportunity to make their own decisions, are positively rewarded for embracing a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of economic activity, and are rewarded, not punished, for acting in solidarity with others.” (p 32-33)

Perhaps the most controversial feature in a parecon is that there will be no private enterprise. This is because of the belief that “… only full social ownership of all productive resources is capable of achieving economic justice and distributive justice.” (p 40)

Markets are also eschewed for a variety of reasons, including their unfairness and subversion of democracy.

Instead of markets determining outcomes, people will get together and plan the economy. This is not a centralized command economy. A permanent top-down hierarchy has been eliminated. All workers and consumers are equally empowered in a parecon, although workers within a job complex will have greater input into their particular job complex than others outside that job complex.

There are many factors that go into protecting the environment (by, e.g., eliminating externalities), determining planning, creating balanced job complexes, determining effort, special needs, etc. Nonetheless, parecon and its planning are not pie-in-the-sky. Hahnel cites the promising results of computer simulations that support the feasibility and efficiency of annual planning. (see chapter 5)

A Participatory Economy also includes a chapter on reproductive labor. Thus labor, that has traditionally been heavily skewed to women (e.g., housework, child care), is recognized for its value to not only the family unit but society. Women’s equal participation in the workplace and economic life is a given in a parecon.

Parecon is a system in which fairness means fairness is across all ethnicities, genders, and whichever identifying features people choose for themselves. Application of the principles that underlie parecon must be accorded to all human distinctions with fairness. This is a sine qua non to be faithful to parecon’s principles.

Subsequent chapters examine participatory investment planning and long-run development planning.

But how does all the forgoing relate to international economic relations? Hahnel relates that a parecon rejects foreign direct investment in all forms because it is at odds with worker self-management. Private, for-profit business is not allowed in a parecon.

Foreign trade would take into account the level of economic development in a trade partner and seek to rectify long-standing economic injustices. Hahnel details a more-than-50-percent rule to greater benefit disadvantaged economies and respect a commitment to economic justice.

Parecon is not considered a finished product. Neither is it a process. It answers the question of what kind of economy and world do we desire once markets are supplanted and the masses of people have gained control of the resources, economy, and their futures.

A Participatory Economy is an eminently worthwhile read for people devoted to social justice and an economically just society. Seek answers to your questions and gain a deeper understanding of the principles and details of a promising people-oriented economic model that cannot be sufficiently covered in a book review.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Kim Petersen.