#Constitutional rights impact

[redgearguru]

What 5 U.S. States Attack Your Second Amendment Rights The Most

Did you know 21% of Americans think their gun rights are under attack? This shows how big the fight over gun laws is in different states. Knowing which states limit gun rights the most is key for anyone wanting to protect their Second Amendment rights. In the U.S., laws about guns vary a lot from state to state. Federal laws set a basic standard, but states add more rules. This can really affect…

[castielsprostate]

hey americans, please fucking vote this year! thanks!

signed,

the rest of the world

[alwaysbewoke]

[b4kuch1n]

tdov was like a week ago already but I just wanna say when I came over to vacation slash help my sworn brother move flat he told me, "ever since you said you wanted to get top surgery I've been thinking about it. it's straight up number two on my bucket list"

[luckystarchild]

I've been keeping it off my face as much as I can on video, but I'm livid about the TikTok ban.

I have about 100,000 followers on that app. I joined during the pandemic. I was lucky to find a community full of incredible people, many of whom I now consider lifelong friends. Because of the community I found on that app, I found space to experiment with my gender presentation. I was able to come out as nonbinary (to feel SAFE ENOUGH to come out as nonbinary) because of that app.

I've seen a few Tumblr posts in which people gloat they never got into TikTok. Good for you. You won't suffer emotionally, and that makes you feel superior. But if you have no concept of what that app has meant for more than 170,000,000 Americans (that's half of all Americans!), many of whom do not have access to community in physical spaces, kindly sit down.

The ban constitutes the largest mass layoff in American history. We will lose billions of dollars in our domestic economy. Over 7 million small businesses are impacted because of the ban. You will feel the effect of that whether or not you were on the app. If you can't grasp the significance of that, again: kindly sit down.

The language of the TikTok ban has set a dangerous precedent for the American government to shutter any tech platforms they deem "dangerous" for arbitrary, undisclosed, nebulous reasons. This will affect Americans' ability to organize, spread information, and protest. They have effectively banned our right to assembly in digital spaces. This is the greatest infringement of free speech that has ever occurred in the United States. If you can't grasp the significance of that, either: kindly sit down.

This is bigger than "never falling for the TikTok craze." This is an enormous governmental overreach sanctioned by our own Supreme Court. It's bigger than teens doing silly dances you can sneer at from your smug high horse.

And if you can't grasp that: Kindly. Sit. Down.

[manasastuff-blog]

BR. Ambedkar's Death Anniversary #trending#viral

BR. Ambedkar's Death Anniversary is a significant day for every Indian to reflect on his unparalleled contributions to the nation. On this day, we commemorate the legacy of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who fought for equality, social justice, and human rights. His visionary leadership laid the foundation for India’s Constitution, a remarkable achievement that continues to shape our nation. we discuss the profound impact of Ambedkar’s ideals on modern India and explore the importance of remembering this iconic figure. Join us as we celebrate his life, his work, and his vision for a better, more inclusive society.

Call:7799799221

Website:www.manasadefenceacademy.com

#BRAmbedkar #AmbedkarDeathAnniversary #DrAmbedkar #IndianConstitution #SocialJustice #Equality #AmbedkarLegacy #BRAmbedkarLegacy #AmbedkarMemorial #AmbedkarTribute

[amaditalks]

Abortion Is On The Ballot

In ten states, there are ballot measures or questions which will be decided in the November election which will impact the future of abortion access in those states. Here’s what you need to know.

Arizona

Arizona Proposition 139 the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to provide for the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Colorado

Colorado Amendment 79, the Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative will amend the state constitution to create the right to an abortion and authorize the use of public funds (Medicaid) to pay for abortion care.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Florida

Florida Amendment 4, the Right to Abortion Initiative, will amend the state constitution to declare that "no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The current constitutional provision requiring parental consent for minors' abortions will not be affected.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution and overturn the current six week abortion ban Vote Yes

Maryland

Maryland Question 1, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, will amend the state constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy."

To enshrine reproductive rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Missouri

Missouri Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative will amend the state constitution to provide the right for reproductive freedom, which is defined as "the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions," and providing that the state legislature may enact laws that regulate abortion after fetal viability.

To enshrine broad reproductive rights protection including abortion in the state constitution and overturn the current complete abortion ban Vote Yes

Montana

Montana CI-128, the Right to Abortion Initiative will create a constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when "medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

To enshrine broad reproductive rights protection including abortion in the state constitution Vote Yes

Nebraska

The Nebraska Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment will amend the state constitution to elevate the current twelve week abortion ban law to a constitutional provision with limited exceptions for medical emergencies or in cases of rape.

To prevent the current legislative abortion ban from being enshrined in the state constitution Vote No

Nevada

Nevada Question 6, the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to create a constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to "protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

New York

New York Proposal 1, the Equal Protection of Law Amendment will amend the state constitution to provide that people cannot be denied rights based on their "ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability" or "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy."

To enshrine equal rights protection for pregnant people and abortion patients in the state constitution Vote Yes

South Dakota

The South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to protect the right to an abortion based on a trimester framework, with no restrictions permitted in the first trimester, only limited medical need restrictions permitted in the second trimester and allowing deeper restrictions in the third trimester except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution and overturn the state's current full abortion ban Vote Yes

If you live in one of these ten states and abortion rights matter to you, get registered or double check your registration and make your voting plan today. Every single vote matters significantly in amendment questions.

[ctbraininjurysupportservice-blog]

Is CCC's secret electronic randomization system for federally funded programs legal?

Is this secret referral system violating the rights of the disabled?

How long has CCC's this secret system been in place?

How many Approved Agency Providers have possibly been affected by this secret system?

Who may be benefiting from CCC's secret referral system?

ABI Resources will let keep you informed as we discover more information.

Investigating the Legality and Impact of CCC's Secret Electronic Randomization System on Federally Funded Programs

Subtitle: Exploring the potential implications for Approved Agency Providers and the rights of disabled individuals

Introduction:

Recently, questions have emerged regarding the legality of CCC's secret electronic randomization system utilized in federally funded programs. This system, which has been operating clandestinely for an unspecified duration, could potentially impact numerous Approved Agency Providers and raise concerns about the rights of disabled individuals involved in these programs.

The legality of the Secret Electronic Randomization System

A comprehensive analysis of the legality of CCC's secret electronic randomization system is necessary, taking into account federal and state regulations, as well as any potential breaches of constitutional rights.

Duration of the Secret System's Implementation

Further investigation is required to determine the exact length of time that the secret electronic randomization system has been in place and the extent of its impact on federally funded programs.

Potential Effects on Approved Agency Providers

The number of Approved Agency Providers possibly affected by this clandestine system is currently unknown, necessitating a thorough examination to assess the system's impact on the delivery and quality of services provided.

Implications for the Rights of Disabled Individuals

It is crucial to evaluate whether the secret referral system might be infringing upon the rights of disabled persons, particularly in terms of equal access to services and protection against discrimination.

Conclusion:

As we continue to uncover more information about CCC's secret electronic randomization system, ABI Resources remains committed to providing unbiased, professional, and comprehensive updates on the issue. Stay tuned for further developments as we work to unravel the implications of this system on federally funded programs, Approved Agency Providers, and the rights of disabled individuals.

ABI Resources has taken steps to address these concerns by reaching out to the federal government for assistance. Specifically, the organization has requested an investigation into management practices and has requested more detailed information about the programs, including the total number of program-approved agency providers, the entity responsible for managing and updating the approved provider directory list, information about public access to this list and Care Management referral practices of federal program agency providers. ABI Resources' requests for information have been made in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

ABI Resources remains committed to steadfast advocacy for the rights of individuals with disabilities. We are dedicated to staying informed and up-to-date on the latest developments, and we pledge to keep you informed as we receive new information.

This article sheds light on the concerns surrounding the lack of transparency and accountability in Connecticut's federally funded programs.

Connecticut, brain-injured individuals, transparency, accountability, Approved Provider Directory, care management referral processes, Medicaid agency providers, lack of access, concerns, confusion, investigation, advocacy, Freedom of Information Act. Trending

#trendingnow #ctnewss #Democrats #Republicans #FOIA #BreakingNews #news #Connecticut

ABI Resources contacted,

Erin Kane Head of Quality and Performance Improvement for CCC Connecticut Community Care. and Julia Evans Starr, President, of CCC Connecticut Community Care. And they are not providing clarity.

[reasonsforhope]

"This week was a big win for animals across Mexico.

On December 2, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum signed a set of constitutional reforms that will pave the way for a comprehensive federal animal welfare law. The changes represent the first-ever mention of nonhuman animals in the Mexican Constitution, marking a milestone achievement for Mexico’s animal rights movement, which has for years been drawing attention to pervasive animal cruelty and extreme confinement in the country’s growing meat industry.

“This is huge,” says Dulce Ramirez, executive director of Animal Equality Mexico and the vice president of Animal Equality’s Latin American operations. These constitutional changes come after two years of campaigning by animal advocacy organizations, including Igualdad Animal Mexico, Humane Society International/Mexico (HSI/Mexico), and Movimiento Consciencia.

These reforms are internationally unique. While national animal protection laws aren’t uncommon, most countries have no mention of animals in their Constitutions. Constitutions are “a reflection of socially where we are,” Angela Fernandez, a law professor at the University of Toronto, told Vox, making any constitutional reform symbolically a big deal.

Beyond Mexico, nine countries include references to animals in their Constitutions, but those mentions have generally been brief and open to interpretation. “Mexico is different,” Kristen Stilt, faculty director at Harvard Law School’s Animal Law and Policy Program, told Vox. “It’s longer, it’s more specific. It’s in several provisions. It’s not just a general statement.”

Plenty of countries have laws against animal mistreatment, including the US, where all 50 states have an anti-cruelty law, but that doesn’t mean they’ve been particularly effective at stopping violence against animals. Part of the problem is that these laws very often exempt farmed animals such as cows, pigs, and chickens, thereby excluding from protection the overwhelming majority of animals that suffer at human hands. That’s where Mexico’s reforms stand out: They’re intended to protect all animals, including farmed animals and other exploited species.

The reforms in Mexico, the world’s largest Spanish-speaking country, represent a major advancement in the status of animals globally. It could set a precedent for other countries in Latin America, where a vibrant animal rights movement has emerged in recent years, said Macarena Montes Franceschini, a fellow at Harvard Law School’s Animal Law and Policy Program.

Still, as one of the world’s top producers of beef, chicken, pork, dairy, and eggs, Mexico has an intensive animal agriculture industry much like the US, says Antón Aguilar, HSI/Mexico’s executive director. Business interests will undoubtedly want to influence the writing of animal welfare laws that could impact their bottom lines, as they have in the US and elsewhere. The question now is what changes the constitutional reforms will really bring to animal law in Mexico, and how effective they will be.

What will these reforms do?

The reforms comprise changes to three separate articles of Mexico’s Constitution. The most foundational change amends the Constitution’s Article 73, which dictates what Congress has the authority to legislate on. The article now gives the federal government the power to issue laws on animal welfare and protection.

Previously, animal welfare was largely left up to local and state authorities, and the result has been uneven laws and enforcement across the country. While all states in Mexico have animal protection legislation, just three include farmed animals: Hidalgo, Colima, and as of last month, Oaxaca, following pressure from animal advocates. And though Mexico does have a federal law on animal health that focuses on farmed animals and includes some broad mentions of animal welfare, it was created to protect human health rather than animals. The same goes for Mexico’s federal wildlife law, which was written with a focus on sustainability and conservation, rather than on protecting individual animals from cruelty.

Perhaps the most significant part of the reforms is an amendment to Article 4 of Mexico’s Constitution prohibiting the mistreatment of animals and directing the Mexican state to guarantee the protection, adequate treatment, and conservation and care of animals. The language is broad, Ramirez says, but she sees it as a substantial improvement over existing animal welfare laws. She and other advocates worked to ensure that no animals were excluded, particularly given that farmed animals have historically been left out of animal protection.

“It’s really, really important in Mexico to start with this first step — but a big one — because now it’s all animals” that are covered, Ramirez said.

The changes to Articles 4 and 73 tee up the creation of federal legislation on animal welfare. Under these reforms, Mexico’s Congress has been directed to write a first-of-its-kind General Law of Animal Welfare, Care, and Protection, a comprehensive bill that would address and develop regulations preventing the mistreatment of all types of animals, including farmed animals, wildlife, animals in laboratories, and companion animals, Aguilar said.

This general animal welfare law will need to consider animals’“nature, characteristics and links with people,” according to the reform decree released last week. What does this actually mean? Ramirez gave the example of chickens: Part of the natural behavior of these animals is to be able to spread their wings and move around. But if chickens are stuck in cages, as is standard practice on egg factory farms, they can’t do either of those things. Now, the idea is to develop legal criteria that would consider the ability to express these natural behaviors as part of their welfare. (The language could also be interpreted to prioritize human needs, however — particularly the reference to animals’ “links with people.” Animal Equality said it would interpret this through an animal welfare lens, and with the word “link” invoking what humans owe animals.)

Finally, Article 3 of Mexico’s Constitution, which pertains to the education system, was also amended to require that animal welfare be included in school curricula for grade school and high school students. Aguilar said this change could help “attitudes shift and change in a very enduring, long-term way” for future generations. But the new constitutional language is unspecific, and the devil is in the details.

What’s next for animal welfare in Mexico

Advocates in Mexico have two focuses going forward, Ramirez and Aguilar said: shaping the general animal welfare bill into a strong piece of legislation, and working with the Ministry of Education to get meaningful implementation of animal welfare into the national curriculum."

[suzannahnatters]

So here's one of the coolest things that has happened to me as a Tolkien nut and an amateur medievalist. It's also impacted my view of the way Tolkien writes women. Here's Carl Stephenson in MEDIEVAL FEUDALISM, explaining the roots of the ceremony of knighthood: "In the second century after Christ the Roman historian Tacitus wrote an essay which he called Germania, and which has remained justly famous. He declares that the Germans, though divided into numerous tribes, constitute a single people characterised by common traits and a common mode of life. The typical German is a warrior. [...] Except when armed, they perform no business, either private or public. But it is not their custom that any one should assume arms without the formal approval of the tribe. Before the assembly the youth receives a shield and spear from his father, some other relative, or one of the chief men, and this gift corresponds to the toga virilis among the Romans--making him a citizen rather than a member of a household" (pp 2-3). Got it?

Remember how Tolkien was a medievalist who based his Rohirrim on Anglo-Saxon England, which came from those Germanic tribes Tacitus was talking about? Stephenson argues that the customs described by Tacitus continued into the early middle ages eventually giving rise to the medieval feudal system. One of these customs was the gift of arms, which transformed into the ceremony of knighthood: "Tacitus, it will be remembered, describes the ancient German custom by which a youth was presented with a shield and a spear to mark his attainment of man's estate. What seems to the be same ceremony reappears under the Carolingians. In 791, we are told, Charlemagne caused Prince Louis to be girded with a sword in celebration of his adolescence; and forty-seven years later Louis in turn decorated his fifteen-year-old son Charles "with the arms of manhood, i.e., a sword." Here, obviously, we may see the origin of the later adoubement, which long remained a formal investiture with arms, or with some one of them as a symbol. Thus the Bayeux Tapestry represents the knighting of Earl Harold by William of Normandy under the legend: Hic Willelmus dedit Haroldo arma (Here William gave arms to Harold). [...] Scores of other examples are to be found in the French chronicles and chansons de geste, which, despite much variation of detail, agree on the essentials. And whatever the derivation of the words, the English expression "dubbing to knighthood" must have been closely related to the French adoubement" (pp 47-48.)

In its simplest form, according to Stephenson, the ceremony of knighthood included "at most the presentation of a sword, a few words of admonition, and the accolade." OK. So what does this have to do with Tolkien and his women? AHAHAHAHA I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED. First of all, let's agree that Tolkien, a medievalist, undoubtedly was aware of all the above. Second, turn with me in your copy of The Lord of the Rings to chapter 6 of The Two Towers, "The King of the Golden Hall", when Theoden and his councillors agree that Eowyn should lead the people while the men are away at war. (This, of course, was something that medieval noblewomen regularly did: one small example is an 1178 letter from a Hospitaller knight serving in the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem which records that before marching out to the battle of Montgisard, "We put the defence of the Tower of David and the whole city in the hands of our women".) But in The Lord of the Rings, there's a little ceremony.

"'Let her be as lord to the Eorlingas, while we are gone.' 'It shall be so,' said Theoden. 'Let the heralds announce to the folk that the Lady Eowyn will lead them!' Then the king sat upon a seat before his doors and Eowyn knelt before him and received from him a sword and a fair corselet."

I YELLED when I realised what I was reading right there. You see, the king doesn't just have the heralds announce that Eowyn is in charge. He gives her weapons.

Theoden makes Eowyn a knight of the Riddermark.

Not only that, but I think this is a huge deal for several reasons. That is, Tolkien knew what he was doing here.

From my reading in medieval history, I'm aware of women choosing to fight and bear arms, as well as becoming military leaders while the men are away at some war or as prisoners. What I haven't seen is women actually receiving knighthood. Anyone could fight as a knight if they could afford the (very pricy) horse and armour, and anyone could lead a nation as long as they were accepted by the leaders. But you just don't see women getting knighted like this.

Tolkien therefore chose to write a medieval-coded society, Rohan, where women arguably had greater equality with men than they did in actual medieval societies.

I think that should tell us something about who Tolkien was as a person and how he viewed women - perhaps he didn't write them with equal parity to men (there are undeniably more prominent male characters in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, at least, than female) but compared to the medieval societies that were his life's work, and arguably even compared to the society he lived in, he was remarkably egalitarian.

I think it should also tell us something about the craft of writing fantasy.

No, you don't have to include gut wrenching misogyny and violence against women in order to write "realistic" medieval-inspired fantasy.

Tolkien's fantasy worlds are DEEPLY informed by medieval history to an extent most laypeople will never fully appreciate. The attitudes, the language, the ABSOLUTELY FLAWLESS use of medieval military tactics...heck, even just the way that people travel long distances on foot...all of it is brilliantly medieval.

The fact that Theoden bestows arms on Eowyn is just one tiny detail that is deeply rooted in medieval history. Even though he's giving those arms to a woman in a fantasy land full of elves and hobbits and wizards, it's still a wonderfully historically accurate detail.

Of course, I've ranted before about how misogyny and sexism wasn't actually as bad in medieval times as a lot of people today think. But from the way SOME fantasy authors talk, you'd think that historical accuracy will disappear in a puff of smoke if every woman in the dragon-infested fantasy land isn't being traumatised on the regular.

Tolkien did better. Be like Tolkien.

[jstor]

From all of us at JSTOR, happy Black History Month!

The profound impact of African American writers, artists, politicians, and academics, along with countless others, is indelibly etched into the fabric of American history–and we'll be highlighting them all month long.

Image credit: 

Fink, Larry (1941-2023). Malcolm X, Rally for Birmingham, Harlem, NY, May, 1963. 1963, printed 2019. Archival pigment print, 22 x 17 in. (55.88 x 43.18 cm). 

Levy, Mark. Mississippi Freedom Summer 1964. 1964. Queens College Special Collections and Archives.

Borg, Erik. Toni Morrison. August 26, 1977. 

Lisa Kuzia. Angela Davis. 1980-1985. Black and white photography, 4 3/4 x 3 3/4 in. Special Collections and Archives, Colby College Libraries, Waterville, Maine. 

Padow-Sederbaum, Phyllis. Junior NAACP Demonstration. 1963. Queens College Special Collections and Archives. 

Allied Printing Trades Council. Placard from Memorial March Reading “HONOR KING: END RACISM!” 1968.  National Museum of African American History and Culture; On View: NMAAHC (1400 Constitution Ave NW), National Mall Location, Concourse 1, C1 053; Collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. 

Created by C. M. Battey, American. W.E.B. Du Bois/. 1918. Silver and photographic gelatin on photographic paper. National Museum of African American History and Culture; Collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. 

Mosley, John W. Civil Rights Demonstrators at Girard College. Philadelphia PA: Temple University Libraries, 1965-07-17. Charles L. Blockson Afro-American Collection.

[pale-fairytales]

I don't really like to get political but I feel a need to talk about this;

It's so funny. It's so funny to me that the people pushing for KOSA also criticize other countries who do the exact same shit (i.e., China, which from what I've heard (and correct me if I'm wrong please) censors a lot of things) and hate their guts. The fact that they're pushing for censorship directly violates one of the amendments of the constitution (which is free speech) and it baffles me that they think this is okay. But hey these are also the same people that won't do anything about gun violence or school shootings and who want to take away bodily autonomy and gay/trans rights so why am I even surprised.

For the love of god, if you can, help stop KOSA. Not just for fandom purposes, but for the fact that it impacts people who want to transition, people who want/need abortions, it impacts a way that human beings can seek out human contact in an increasingly lonely world where things are growing bleak. Not only that, but the people who are suffering from genocide (8 FUCKING GENOCIDES IN THE WORLD BTW) may not be able to get help or get the word out about their condition if a big chunk of the world can't access the content that helps said people.

And I'm sorry, but if you really cared about children's safety, you a) would do more about school shootings, b) would fix issues that put children in danger (shockingly hunger/malnutrition is still an issue in the U.S.A. just not in the same way as in a war-torn country), c) would fix the foster-care/adoption system, and d) teach parents to have some common fucking sense not to have 5-year-olds on the internet watching age-inappropriate stuff (like 5 year olds listening to Sexxy Red or Ice Spice)

Censorship is bad. It's bad because it can genuinely put lives at risk. If you're for the KOSA bill, don't pretend like it's because you care. You don't care about people—you just want to control them. Just like the people you and its instigators hate so much.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Turbulent times are upon us. Already, blockades, demonstrations, riots, and clashes are occuring regularly. It’s past time to be organizing for the upheavals that are on the way.

But getting organized doesn’t mean joining a pre-existing institution and taking orders. It shouldn’t mean forfeiting your agency and intelligence to become a cog in a machine. From an anarchist perspective, organizational structure should maximize both freedom and voluntary coordination at every level of scale, from the smallest group up to society as a whole.

You and your friends already constitute an affinity group, the essential building block of this model. An affinity group is a circle of friends who understand themselves as an autonomous political force. The idea is that people who already know and trust each other should work together to respond immediately, intelligently, and flexibly to emerging situations.

This leaderless format has proven effective for guerrilla activities of all kinds, as well as what the RAND Corporation calls “swarming” tactics in which many unpredictable autonomous groups overwhelm a centralized adversary. You should go to every demonstration in an affinity group, with a shared sense of your goals and capabilities. If you are in an affinity group that has experience taking action together, you will be much better prepared to deal with emergencies and make the most of unexpected opportunities.

This guide is adapted from an earlier version that appeared in our Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook.

Affinity Groups are Powerful

Relative to their small size, affinity groups can achieve a disproportionately powerful impact. In contrast to traditional top-down structures, they are free to adapt to any situation, they need not pass their decisions through a complicated process of ratification, and all the participants can act and react instantly without waiting for orders—yet with a clear idea of what to expect from one another. The mutual admiration and inspiration on which they are founded make them very difficult to demoralize. In stark contrast to capitalist, fascist, and socialist structures, they function without any need of hierarchy or coercion. Participating in an affinity group can be fulfilling and fun as well as effective.

Most important of all, affinity groups are motivated by shared desire and loyalty, rather than profit, duty, or any other compensation or abstraction. Small wonder whole squads of riot police have been held at bay by affinity groups armed with only the tear gas canisters shot at them.

The Affinity Group is a Flexible Model

Some affinity groups are formal and immersive: the participants live together, sharing everything in common. But an affinity group need not be a permanent arrangement. It can serve as a structure of convenience, assembled from the pool of interested and trusted people for the duration of a given project.

A particular team can act together over and over as an affinity group, but the members can also break up into smaller affinity groups, participate in other affinity groups, or act outside the affinity group structure. Freedom to associate and organize as each person sees fit is a fundamental anarchist principle; this promotes redundancy, so no one person or group is essential to the functioning of the whole, and different groups can reconfigure as needed.

Pick the Scale That’s Right for You

An affinity group can range from two to perhaps as many as fifteen individuals, depending on your goals. However, no group should be so numerous that an informal conversation about pressing matters is impossible. You can always split up into two or more groups if need be. In actions that require driving, the easiest system is often to have one affinity group to each vehicle.

Get to Know Each Other Intimately

Learn each other’s strengths and vulnerabilities and backgrounds, so you know what you can count on each other for. Discuss your analyses of each situation you are entering and what is worth accomplishing in it—identify where they match, where they are complentary, and where they differ, so you’ll be ready to make split-second decisions.

One way to develop political intimacy is to read and discuss texts together, but nothing beats on-the-ground experience. Start out slow so you don’t overextend. Once you’ve established a common language and healthy internal dynamics, you’re ready to identify the objectives you want to accomplish, prepare a plan, and go into action.

Decide Your Appropriate Level of Security

Affinity groups are resistant to infiltration because all members share history and intimacy with each other, and no one outside the group need be informed of their plans or activities.

Once assembled, an affinity group should establish a shared set of security practices and stick to them. In some cases, you can afford to be public and transparent about your activities. in other cases, whatever goes on within the group should never be spoken of outside it, even after all its activities are long completed. In some cases, no one except the participants in the group should know that it exists at all. You and your comrades can discuss and prepare for actions without acknowledging to outsiders that you constitute an affinity group. Remember, it is easier to pass from a high security protocol to a low one than vice versa.

Make Decisions Together

Affinity groups generally operate on via consensus decision-making: decisions are made collectively according to the needs and desires of every individual involved. Democratic voting, in which the majority get their way and the minority must hold their tongues, is anathema to affinity groups—for if a group is to function smoothly and hold together under stress, every individual involved must be satisfied. Before any action, the members of a group should establish together what their personal and collective goals are, what risks they are comfortable taking, and what their expectations of each other are. These matters determined, they can formulate a plan.

Since action situations are always unpredictable and plans rarely come off as anticipated, it may help to employ a dual approach to preparing. On the one hand, you can make plans for different scenarios: If A happens, we’ll inform each other by X means and switch to plan B; if X means of communication is impossible, we’ll reconvene at site Z at Q o’clock. On the other hand, you can put structures in place that will be useful even if what happens is unlike any of the scenarios you imagined. This could mean preparing resources (such as banners, medical supplies, or offensive equipment), dividing up internal roles (for example, scouting, communications, medic, media liaison), establishing communication systems (such as burner phones or coded phrases that can be shouted out to convey information securely), preparing general strategies (for keeping sight of one another in confusing environments, for example), charting emergency escape routes, or readying legal support in case anyone is arrested.

After an action, a shrewd affinity group will meet (if necessary, in a secure location without any electronics) to discuss what went well, what could have gone better, and what comes next.

Tact and Tactics

An affinity group answers to itself alone—this is one of its strengths. Affinity groups are not burdened by the procedural protocol of other organizations, the difficulties of reaching agreement with strangers, or the limitations of answering to a body not immediately involved in the action.

At the same time, just as the members of an affinity group strive for consensus with each other, each affinity group should strive for a similarly considerate relationship with other individuals and groups—or at least to complement others’ approaches, even if others do not recognize the value of this contribution. Ideally, most people should be glad of your affinity group’s participation or intervention in a situation, rather than resenting or fearing you. They should come to recognize the value of the affinity group model, and so to employ it themselves, after seeing it succeed and benefiting from that success.

Organize With Other Affinity Groups

An affinity group can work together with other affinity groups in what is sometimes called a cluster. The cluster formation enables a larger number of individuals to act with the same advantages a single affinity group has. If speed or security is called for, representatives of each group can meet ahead of time, rather than the entirety of all groups; if coordination is of the essence, the groups or representatives can arrange methods for communicating through the heat of the action. Over years of collaborating together, different affinity groups can come to know each other as well as they know themselves, becoming accordingly more comfortable and capable together.

When several clusters of affinity groups need to coordinate especially massive actions—before a big demonstration, for example—they can hold a spokescouncil meeting at which different affinity groups and clusters can inform one another (to whatever extent is wise) of their intentions. Spokescouncils rarely produce seamless unanimity, but they can apprise the participants of the various desires and perspectives that are at play. The independence and spontaneity that decentralization provides are usually our greatest advantages in combat with a better equipped adversary.

Bottomlining

For affinity groups and larger structures based on consensus and cooperation to function, it is essential that everyone involved be able to rely on each other to come through on commitments. When a plan is agreed upon, each individual in a group and each group in a cluster should choose one or more critical aspects of the preparation and execution of the plan and offer to bottomline them. Bottomlining the supplying of a resource or the completion of a project means guaranteeing that it will be accomplished somehow, no matter what. If you’re operating the legal hotline for your group during a demonstration, you owe it to them to make sure someone can handle it even if you get sick; if your group promises to provide the banners for an action, make sure they’re ready, even if that means staying up all night the night before because the rest of your affinity group couldn’t show up. Over time, you’ll learn how to handle crises and who you can count on in them—just as others will learn how much they can count on you.

Go Into Action

Stop wondering what’s going to happen, or why nothing’s happening. Get together with your friends and start deciding what will happen. Don’t go through life in passive spectator mode, waiting to be told what to do. Get in the habit of discussing what you want to see happen—and making those ideas reality.

Without a structure that encourages ideas to flow into action, without comrades with whom to brainstorm and barnstorm and build up momentum, you are likely to be paralyzed, cut off from much of your own potential; with them, your potential can be multiplied by ten, or ten thousand. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world,” Margaret Mead wrote: “it’s the only thing that ever has.” She was referring, whether she knew it or not, to affinity groups. If every individual in every action against the state and status quo participated as part of a tight-knit, dedicated affinity group, the revolution would be accomplished in a few short years.

An affinity group could be a sewing circle or a bicycle maintenance collective; it could come together for the purpose of providing a meal at an occupation or forcing a multinational corporation out of business through a carefully orchestrated program of sabotage. Affinity groups have planted and defended community gardens, built and occupied and burned down buildings, organized neighborhood childcare programs and wildcat strikes; individual affinity groups routinely initiate revolutions in the visual arts and popular music. Your favorite band was an affinity group. An affinity group invented the airplane. Another one maintains this website.

Let five people meet who are resolved to the lightning of action rather than the agony of survival—from that moment, despair ends and tactics begin.

[omgellendean]

In this report, evidence and documentation collected by DCIP indicate that Israeli forces are deliberately targeting Palestinian children with the intent to unleash cruel and degrading treatment up until the moment of the child’s death. Israeli authorities, which have the ability to hold Israeli soldiers and military officials accountable, are unwilling to take action to stop the killing of Palestinian children.

This report is based on evidence collected by DCIP’s field researchers documenting 141 Palestinian child fatalities in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between October 7, 2023, and July 31, 2024.

Full report here

20 percent of the Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces and settlers in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, since 2000 have been killed after October 7, 2023 at a rate of one child every two days.

Israeli forces deliberately target and shoot unarmed children with live ammunition and trained snipers. Israeli forces and settlers shot and killed 116 Palestinian children in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between October 7, 2023 and July 31, 2024.

Israeli forces have killed 25 Palestinian children in aerial attacks in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between October 7, 2023 and July 31, 2024. Some children were directly targeted while others were collateral damage as Israeli forces deployed aerial attacks in densely populated civilian areas.

Israeli forces and authorities systematically deny Palestinian children their right to medical care when preventing ambulances, paramedics, or bystanders from providing medical care to a child shot with live ammunition or struck in an Israeli airstrike. In 43 percent of cases in this report, Israeli forces deliberately prevented injured Palestinian children from receiving medical care by detaining and firing live ammunition toward ambulances, paramedics, and civilians attempting to provide aid.

Israeli authorities and forces systematically, deliberately, and specifically embolden Israeli settler violence towards Palestinian children. Israeli forces present during armed Israeli settler attacks fail to prevent the aggression, fail to help the Palestinian victims, and often collaborate with the settlers in inflicting lethal harm. In two cases, Israeli forces and settlers fired toward Palestinian children simultaneously, and DCIP was unable to determine which perpetrator fired the fatal bullet.

Israeli forces killed at least 49 Palestinian children during the intensified large-scale and deadly incursions into Palestinian refugee camps in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between October 7, 2023 and July 31, 2024. 

The fatal shootings of child protesters in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza and the use of expanding bullets during the crackdowns constitute war crimes prosecutable at the ICC. In October 2023, Israeli forces shot and killed four Palestinian children with expanding bullets designed to increase in size upon impact, inflicting fatal internal injuries.

Israeli authorities’ practice of confiscating and withholding Palestinian bodies is a violation of international humanitarian law and international criminal law, which include absolute prohibitions on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Israeli authorities have confiscated 18 Palestinian children’s bodies in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, between October 7, 2023 and July 31, 2024.

Israeli authorities work to ensure Israeli forces continue enjoying impunity and face no consequence for the extrajudicial killing of Palestinian children. There are no known accounts of accountability during this reporting period.

[patricide1885]

Regarding Trump's executive orders

https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/1i6bbxd/a_legal_researchers_guide_to_trump_antitrans/

With misinformation going wild on this forum and all over the internet, and me having spent the entire day trying to put out the fire, I am going to set the record straight for what Trump's anti-trans executive orders do and don't do:

[1] They DO kickoff a rulemaking process to ban Passport gender changes, but DON'T ban them right away: There will be at least a 60 day comment period before Biden's old rules fall. If you put in an expedited application for a gender change right now (even if you haven't finalized your name change yet for those in process, you can amend your name later but not your gender), you can still self select your new gender if you move NOW! Posting this at the end of inauguration day.If you are able to amend the gender/sex on your Birth Certificate in your birth state and are not nonbinary, you are unaffected as you can apply anew (with surrendering any old Passports beforehand if applicable) with an amended Birth Certificate under both any new or old rules.

[2] They DON'T impact Social Security records: Social Security is an independent agency not subject to the whims of the President nor Executive Orders, ran by an official who can only be fired for cause and not for disobedience. Gender change bans on records are not happening right now.

[3] They DO setup effective permission for transphobic officials to try any action through lawsuits, threats, or the rulemaking process any other intimidation of the trans community or attempt to restrict our rights. The traditional institutional guardrails have been taken off. Of course, we will fight many of these in the courts and win (even if SCOTUS decides against protecting trans rights constitutionally) due to most of the big changes he wants needing legally to go through Congress.

[4] They DON'T affect name changes at all, these are managed by states and there is no proposal to change that or not recognize our name change orders.[5] They DON'T change any rights your state gives to you (read up on your state constitutional and state civil rights laws), your federal Civil Rights protections (even if the executive branch refuses to enforce it, you can still take them to court), federal law, the constitution, or anything like that. This ONLY affects how the Executive Branch operates, not anything or anyone else.

[6] Finally, updated Passports with amended gender markers cannot be reversed due to being validly issued under different regulatory regimes. They normally last for ten years before expiring, we will outlast this clown.

[a-very-tired-jew]

I'm convinced that Ireland's recent petition to the ICJ to expand and change the definition of "genocide" was either pre-planned or waiting for something like the Amnesty International report that recently came out. However, the report is problematic. It buries the lede in its executive summary, the first and maybe only part that many people read, that they disagree with the accepted standard for genocide and are expanding it.

This disagreement with the accepted definition and their intention to change it is on pages 101 and 102. A little over 100 pages later they admit to this action, which makes up the basis for their entire argument. There are four whole sections before this, two of which are their scope and methodology section and their background and context section. When making an argument for changing a well defined and established term and expanding its accepted definition you have to introduce the argument early on and work to establish it throughout your document.

Especially if its the crux of your entire position.

By pushing off this admittance until pages 101/102 and not even mentioning it in the executive summary it comes across as Amnesty International knew exactly that their argument was poor.

Surely when they get to it they provide a good argument backed up with sources and citations that they expand upon and explain and support them, right?

Nope.

One court case that they don't even go into in the section. Also, this is it. This is their entire section admitting that they disagree with the accepted definition and legal standard of genocide, that they are expanding it to encapsulate their standards, don't explain what those standards are, and cite one case that maybe supports their position.

One citation to support changing the definition and the legal framework surrounding it 101/102 pages into an almost 300 page document.

Any lawyer could easily get this argument thrown out. Any professor would toss out your paper for this. Journals, editors, publishers...you'd receive scathing critical feedback for this alone.

One citation to support your position to change the accepted definition and standards of a highly impactful and devastating act because you "feel" that it is happening and the standard is too "narrow".

In fact, the report alludes to other experts and literature that supposedly supports their position, but it is not included in this section that stands at the core of their argument. It's almost like finding people who also feel the same way are not actually evidence in the eyes of accepted standards, precedence, and evidence based practices and policy.

It'd be like someone in entomology saying they think spiders are actually insects because they feel that the definition of insects is too narrow, providing one citation, not explaining why that citation supports their position, and ignoring the whole body of literature that states otherwise.

And that's been my problem with the position of a lot of anti-Israel groups and individuals. It has been a subjective position based upon them feeling like this conflict is the worst thing ever and thus must constitute a genocide. There's a reason even the ICJ deemed it not a genocide but a conflict that could potentially become one.

Creating a report that is predicated on changing the definition of "genocide", burying the lede on the intention of doing so, and then (likely) having another country petition to change the definition based upon your report is shady behavior. We would all call it out if it was some Right Wing organization in the USA doing it towards another country, organization, or what have you. But again, Israel and, by extension and affiliation, Jews are held to a different standard than anyone else. That is what makes so many of these organizations and their actions antisemitic. None of this effort to goalpost and change the rules and definitions happens for any other country or people.

Only Israel, Israelis, and Jews.

And we know what happens when that occurs.