#fundamental rights / civil liberties

[spacelazarwolf]

Hey there! I’ve really appreciated your posts and perspective over this past month, I’m having a hard time (as so many Jews are) and your voice helps.

I’m hoping you can help me with reliable resources. A friend of mine condemned the Hamas attacks etc (as they should, to my relief) but is under the impression that Israeli govt is doing genocide to the Palestinians. I’ve no idea how to approach that to verify (or not), I don’t even know where to start looking. Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you.

thanks! this is a really tough question, but i'm going to do my best to break it down. also if anyone's thinking of clowning on this post without reading it, inb4 "omg ur denying genocide!!!!!!" bc this post is literally outlining, in detail, all the ways the israeli government is, by definition, committing genocide.

this is really long, just a heads up.

a big frustration i have with a lot of progressive or leftist spaces is the tendency to throw around words like genocide without being able to define the term or properly apply it to the situation in question. this isn't just a semantics issue. if all you're doing is repeating the buzzwords you've heard on social media, your "activism" is going to be less than useless. it is crucial that if you are going to talk about the current genocide in gaza, you must be able to define exactly what a genocide is and how it applies to what's happening in gaza.

i'm paraphrasing from this article by the united nations. the word "genocide" was coined in 1944 by raphael lemkin in his book "axis rule in occupied europe." it was developed partly in response to the shoah, but also to previous instances of what we would now define as genocide. it was recognized as a crime under international law in 1946, and codified as an independent crime in the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.

the definition of genocide

(from article II of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide):

in the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. killing members of the group; b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

the 10 stages of genocide

a model created by gregory stanton, the founding president of genocide watch

classification - people are divided into "them and us"

symbolization - when combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups.

discrimination - law or cultural power excludes groups from full civil rights: segregation or apartheid laws, denial of voting rights.

dehumanization - one group denies the humanity of the other group. memmbers of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases.

organization - genocide is always organized... special army units or militias are often trained and armed...

polarization - extremists drive the groups apart... leaders are arrested and murdered... laws erode fundamental civil rights and liberties.

preparation - mass killing is planned. victims are identified and sepaarated because of their ethnic or religious identity.

persecution - expropriation, forced displacement, ghettos.

extermination - it is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human.

denial - the perpatrators... deny that they committed any crimes.

application to the crisis in gaza

to start with the first definition from the united nations:

a. killing members of the group - YES

the death toll in gaza has risen above 8,000 according to the associated press. as far as i know, as of writing this post, there has been no ceasefire so the death toll will continue to rise.

b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group - YES

over 20,000 people in gaza have been injured, and gazans - particularly children - suffer incredibly high rates of ptsd.

c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part - YES

the israeli blockade of gaza has had devastating consequences for gazans. they are running out of food, water, fuel, and medicine, and this is costing additional lives.

d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group - unclear but leaning toward YES

whether or not it is the explicit goal, the current bombardment of gaza has put the lives of 50,000+ pregnant women in gaza at risk, along with their babies. babies who need incubators are also in danger as generators begin to run out of fuel.

e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group - as far as i am aware, NO

according to the us embassy in israel, the palestinian authority ministry of social development is the only authorized entity regarding adoption of palestinian children. this doesn't mean it isn't happening, it just means i was not able to find any credible sources.

the 10 stages of genocide

classification - YES there is a long history in israel of othering palestinians, both socially/culturally and legally. former israeli minister of interior and minister of justice ayelet shaked shared a racist quote from netanyahu's former chief of staff explicitly framing palestinians as "the enemy."

symbolization - not yet there are no overt symbols palestinians, even within israel, are required to wear to outwardly identify themselves, but there are identifying features on their ids. in fact, the opposite has been happening, with far right members of the israeli government attempting to pass legislation making it illegal to publicly display palestinian flags.

discrimination - YES there is, again, a long history of discrimination against palestinians within and by the state of israel. it is difficult for palestinians from the west bank or gaza to gain status in israel, israeli work permits are used as a form of control, and often forcibly separate palestinian families.

dehumanization - YES former israeli deputy minister of defense eli ben dahan said of palestinians, "to me they are like animals, they aren't human."

organization - YES israel is currently carrying out an organized and brutal attack on gaza.

polarization - YES from extremist groups like hamas, to the corruption in the likud party in israel, there are very clear signs of extreme polarization. israel's siege against gaza has caused polarization across the entire globe.

preparation - YES gazans in particular are unable to leave gaza without a permit, and now with the blockade from both israel and egypt they are essentially trapped.

persecution - YES gaza in particular could absolutely be likened to a ghetto. as stated above, (in "usual" circumstances) they are unable to leave without a permit, and since hamas took control it is nearly impossible to get an israeli work permit.

extermination - GETTING THERE if the siege continues and gazans are unable to get out of gaza, there will be catastrophic casualties.

denial - YES i often hear that "israel has a right to defend itself" but i cannot possibly find a way to frame the current siege as "self defense."

so in conclusion, israel is - by multiple definitions - committing genocide against gazans. and it's very important to be able to identify specifics, especially if you are planning on having discussions about it. and i've said it in the past, but if you are not directly affected by what's happening - palestinians in particular, but israeli citizens and jews and muslims in the diaspora are also getting hit hard - it is IMPERATIVE that you are able to talk about this with a level head. escalating tensions and pushing away potential allies is only going to make things worse. find common ground, form connections, and then have a productive discussion.

[antifainternational]

Since youre antifascist, how about you give us a definition of fascism? What exactly makes someone a fascist? (and in case you use terms such as left-wing or right-wing be sure to define them too)

Guess it's been a while since a clever Anon challenged us to define fascism, huh? Right, let's get into it: Via the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

Yale professor Jason Stanley:

“Fascism is a creation of race hatred and its politically organized expression.” - Willhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (1933).

“Fascism is capitalism plus murder.” - Upton Sinclair

“Repression by brute force is always a confession of the inability to make use of the better weapons of the intellect — better because they alone give promise of final success. This is the fundamental error from which Fascism suffers and which will ultimately cause its downfall…that its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one’s own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone. ” - Ludwig von Mises,  Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition (1927).

“Spent most of the day reading fascisti leaflets. They certainly have turned the whole country into an army. From cradle to grave one is cast in the mould of fascismo and there can be no escape … It is certainly a socialist experiment in that it destroys individuality. It destroys liberty.” -  Harold Nicolson, The Harold Nicolson Diaries : 1919-1964 (2004).

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

“A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends….If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States.” - Henry A. Wallace

“Fascism is the cult of organised murder, invented by the arch-enemies of society. It tends to destroy civilization and revert man to his most barbarous state. Mussolini and Hitler might well be called the devils of an age, for they are playing hell with civilization.” - Marcus Garvey,  Authors take Sides on the Spanish War, 1937 Philosophy Tube's breakdown of the elements of fascism is very thorough and recommended if you're not the reading type. But do you read books? We hope so if you're looking to engage in political discussion about anything. Here are some books that tackle the definition of fascism, in whole or in part, that we would recommend to you (check/order from your local library!) Mark Bray's highly-accessible Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook is a great starting point for this topic.

Columbia history professor Robert O. Paxton's excellent book The Anatomy of Fascism goes into this in great detail.

There's also Umberto Eco's The Eternal Fascist

or his "practical list for identifying fascists" as well as Hannah Arendt's seminal The Origins of Totalitarianism

We hope you weren't looking for a simple answer to the complex question of "what is fascism?" Anon, just as we hope you're up to taking our challenge of checking out all of the above so you're curiosity is satisfied and you're well-versed on the topic.

[beardedmrbean]

In a classic example of better late than never, a Federal Court in Canada ruled on Tuesday that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's invocation of The Emergencies Act in 2022, used to crush the largest and most peaceful protest in Canadian history, was "unreasonable," "unjustified," and "violated the fundamental freedoms" set out in Canada's constitution.

The case was brought to the court by a number of individual applicants as well as several Canadian civiil liberties groups, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. And in the decision, Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley expressed what every trucker and other participant in the trucker's Freedom Convoy knew to be true: There was no justification for granting the government powers that amounted to near Marshall Law over a protest that was 100 percent peaceful, with no violence or property damage committed—that is, until the Emergencies Act was passed, and the police trampled grandmothers under horses, fired tear gas canisters at journalists within point blank range, beat protesters down and smashed the windows of the truckers rigs, and generally deployed the type of violence that the government had knowingly falsely accused the truckers of engaging in.

The government also froze the bank accounts of truckers, seized donated funds, and shut down of the economic lives of hundreds of Canadian citizens, a draconian measure which shocked the world.

Every protester and trucker who took part in the Convoy knew that the government and it's bought and paid for media were lying to the public about the Freedom Convoy, and though it feels good to once again be proven correct, that doesn't change what happened. It also doesn't change the division in Canadian society which took place under COVID, and it remains to be seen if this ruling will put an end to the ongoing punishments of various Freedom Convoy protesters which continue to this day.

For example, the trial of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, who emerged as public faces and leaders of the Ottawa portion of the Freedom Convoy, has now become the longest mischief trial in Canadian history. Finally getting underway in September of last year, the trial proceeded in fits and starts into December, and is set to resume in February.

Or take Guy Meisner, a trucker from Nova Scotia, was one of the first to be arrested and charged when the crackdown began after the Emergencies Act was invoked. He will be back in Ottawa near the end of February for the ninth time to face his "mischief" charges.

Then there is the case of Christine Decaire, a woman who protested in Ottawa and was charged by the police, who was acquitted last year; much like this ruling today, however, The Crown has decided to appeal her acquittal. To drag an innocent person back to court is the kind of grossly vindictive behavior on the part of the Trudeau Government that they have become well known for.

There are dozens of cases like this working their way through the system.

And then we have The Coutts Four, a group of men who were arrested in Alberta right before the Emergencies Act was invoked and have been kept in custody without bail nor trial ever since. Hopes are high that this ruling may help change their circumstances, but it has now been two years since they have seen their families, which is a grossly offensive situation, especially in a country where nearly everyone gets bail.

All of these cases point to a level of vindictive cruelty on the part of this government as constituted under Trudeau, who was only too happy to champion the fair treatment of someone who fought on the side of The Taliban in Afghanistan and was later apprehended by American forces. Champion the rights of his own peaceful citizens to a fair trial? Apparently that is beneath the Prime Minister.

Trudeau's deputy, Chrystia Freeland was behind the bank account freezing acting as Finance Minister, and she appeared almost immediately after the ruling to announce that her government would be appealing, claiming to "remind Canadians how serious the situation was." This though all the evidence and testimony presented in 2022 at the official inquest into the invocation of the Emergencies Act found that no threats existed, and everything the media said about the truckers was a fabrication.

Justin Trudeau has remarked in the past that Canada is a "post-national" state that has "no core identity," yet when that identity asserted itself to say enough is enough to the strictures of his punishing COVID Regime, he was only too happy to unleash the full power of his "post-national" state to attack these citizens whom he holds in utter contempt.

It appears that there is no ruling Trudeau will not appeal or lawfare he will not pursue to ensure punishment of the enemies of his party.

Justin Trudeau is not a leader, but merely a narcissistic tyrant. This week was only the latest evidence.

Gord Magill is a trucker, writer, and commentator, and can be found at www.autonomoustruckers.substack.com.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

[marveltrumpshate]

Current Events

This year continued to be A Lot and we decided to ensure that there were charities that directly addressed current events. Folded into this post are groups that work for aid targeting every natural disaster as well as man-made ones, climate change, rights under attack, and the ongoing pandemic. If you're looking for an organization that directly addresses any of those, this is your spotlight post.

For more information on donation methods and accepted currencies, please refer to our list of organizations page.

Center for Reproductive Rights

The Center for Reproductive Rights is the only global legal advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person. With local partners across five continents, they have secured legal victories before national courts, UN Committees, and regional human rights bodies on issues such as access to life-saving obstetrics care, contraception, maternal health, and safe abortion services and the prevention of forced sterilization and child marriage.

Clean Air Task Force

As we've seen for a long time now but especially this year with constant natural disasters and alarming news from all over the world, climate change is real and we need to do something about it. Over the past 25 years, CATF, a group of climate and energy experts who think outside the box to solve the climate crisis, has pushed for technology innovations, legal advocacy, research, and policy changes. Their goal is to achieve a zero-emissions, high-energy planet at an affordable cost.

Electronic Freedom Foundation

The leading nonprofit defending civil liberties in digital spaces, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. They fight against online censorship and illegal surveillance, advocate for net neutrality and data protection, and more so that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for everyone. 

Innocence Project

The mission of the Innocence Project is deceptively simple: exonerate those who have been wrongly convicted through the use of DNA evidence. The reality of it involves much broader strokes covering support for exonerees rebuilding their lives post-release and criminal justice reform through targeted litigation and the implementation of laws to prevent wrongful conviction. They strive to restore freedom for the innocent, transform the systems responsible for unjust incarceration, and advance the freedom movement.

International Rescue Committee 

Founded in 1933, the IRC is a long-standing trusted partner in supporting those whose lives have been upended by sudden violence, political or natural. They are no stranger to areas of disaster and conflict throughout the world as they currently work in 40 countries. The IRC provides emergency aid and long-term assistance, including refugee settlement, and focuses on health, education, economic well-being, empowerment, and safety. 

Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF)

Odds are you’ve heard of MSF, the global organization that sends trained medical professionals to the places they’re needed most. MSF has been working globally for over 50 years, providing medical assistance to people affected by conflict, epidemics, disasters, or exclusion from healthcare—no matter what. They’re guided by principles of independence, impartiality, and neutrality to global political policies or movements. 

Oceana

Oceana is the largest international advocacy organization for ocean conservation. To protect and restore the world’s oceans, they campaign globally for policies that stop overfishing and plastic pollution, protect habitats and the climate, and increase biodiversity. Oceana conducts its own scientific research and expeditions, is engaged in grassroots activism, and is involved in recommending and supporting policies and litigation.

Palestine Children's Relief Fund

PCRF delivers crucial, life-saving medical relief and humanitarian aid to children and families in Palestine and throughout the Middle East, especially those in Gaza and Lebanon's refugee camps. In addition to providing free medical care, equipment, medicine, and treatment, PCRF also supplies clean water, hygiene kits, food, and other necessities. Their programs include mental health and amputee projects, support for infrastructure plans such as hospital expansions to improve healthcare access, and sponsorships for children who are disabled, orphaned, or in need of medical treatment or surgery.

Partners In Health

Founded by Paul Farmer when he was still in medical school, PIH is committed to bringing exceptional health care to every corner of the planet. PIH also works to provide access to food, transportation, housing, and other key components of healing to the most vulnerable. Their work started in Haiti but has expanded rapidly across the globe. 

Transgender Law Center

Transgender Law Center, the largest trans-specific and trans-led organization in the U.S., changes law, policy, and attitudes so that all people can live safely and authentically and free from discrimination regardless of their gender identity or expression. Through its precedent-setting litigation victories and community-driven programs, TLC protects the rights of transgender and gender nonconforming people in areas spanning employment, prison conditions, education, immigration, healthcare, and more.

Undue Medical Debt

Over 100 million Americans (one in three) are struggling with paying off medical bills. COVID has only added to those numbers, putting people under significant financial burden and emotional distress. This organization buys up medical debt in order to forgive it with no tax consequences to donors or recipients. Donate just $1 and you wipe out $100 of someone's medical debt, $100 to get rid of $10,000 in debt, and so on—the ripple effect is real. Through their work, Undue Medical Debt not only helps with financial relief but also brings attention to the need for a more compassionate, transparent, equitable, and affordable healthcare system.

Waterkeeper Alliance

In 1966, this movement was started by a band of blue-collar fishermen pushing back against industrial polluters, and their tough spirit remains intact through the 300+ local community groups that make up the global Waterkeeper Alliance today. The Alliance works to ensure, preserve, and protect clean and abundant water for all people and creatures. Their programs are diverse, spanning from patrolling waterways against polluters to advocating for environmental laws in courtrooms and town halls and educating in classrooms.

World Central Kitchen

Started by Chef José Andrés, WCK makes sure that people are fed in the wake of humanitarian, climate, and community crises. Their programs advance human and environmental health, offer access to professional culinary training, create jobs, and improve food security. WCK also teaches food safety and cooking classes to native people who live where disasters have occurred, so they may open restaurants and support the local economy more permanently. You can follow where WCK is currently on the ground assisting and feeding people affected by natural and man-made crises here.

[haggishlyhagging]

Human rights violations get ignored in the new reproductive technological context, because what male individuals do to female individuals is not defined as a violation, but rather as a civil liberty (for example, to enter into a surrogate contract or to submit one's body to exploitative medical treatment). Any state intervention to protect women from exploitation is seen as a restriction on individual liberties, privacy, and rights, not as a legal safeguard for women from reproductive violation. The male entitlement to a woman's body is rationalized as a woman's reproductive right. The male right to genetic fulfillment and continuity is reworked as a woman's right to sign a surrogate contract or subject herself to an experimental IVF procedure, rather than her right not to be placed in the situation of surrogacy and her right not to be subjected to experimental procedures, even when some women supposedly choose to do so.

Liberalism has perverted individualism and used it to promote a masculinist consumerist philosophy and practice. Liberalism replaces a politics of resistance to male domination with the so-called freedom of enlightened self-interest for men and for some women. Liberal individualism reifies the male individual, ascribing to him fundamental, absolute, and unlimited rights. It grounds everything in the unchecked right of the male individual to absolute liberty of property, pleasure, and now reproductive fulfillment. And what it gives to men, it pretends to give to women.

Critics of the human rights movement have asserted that Western human rights advocates do not hold basic human needs and material entitlements as rights equal to civil liberties ("food versus freedom"). As one critic wrote, "To have freedom of speech and assembly while living in squalor is as inimical to human dignity as is living in relative economic security while being denied fundamental rights of self-expression."

The same deficiency exists in the current liberal version of reproductive rights. Based on the civil libertarian model of rights, women have the so-called civil liberty of entering into a surrogate contract, while their basic human need of dignified and economically sustaining work is denied. It is the right to dignified and economically sustaining work, not the right to become a surrogate, that contributes to women's genuine empowerment. Surrogacy, promoted as a woman's reproductive right, keeps a woman in the state of personal devaluation, systematic subordination, relegating her to the work of breeding and to being defined as a reproductive instrument. It is absurd to assume that a woman should be provided with the right to enter prostitution, pornography, or surrogacy, without providing her with the means to go beyond these so-called rights.

-Janice G. Raymond, Women as Wombs

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has adopted former President Donald Trump’s platform for the Republican Party. The new platform removes the party’s opposition to same-sex marriage — though conservatives have signaled that they’d like to overturn it — and also "softens" conservative opposition to abortion and in vitro fertilization (IVF), two issues that Republicans worry could hurt them in the November election. The platform’s anti-transgender goals, numbered 16 and 17 among its 20 goals, are stated thus: “Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” and “Keep men out of women’s sports.” Chapter 9, Section 5 of the platform promises to “end Left-wing gender insanity,” stating, “We will keep men out of women’s sports, ban Taxpayer funding for sex change surgeries, and stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition, reverse Biden’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations, and restore protections for women and girls.”

[...] The platform also echoes the Republican opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in schools by promising to “expose politicized education models.” The platform also promises to “restore Parental Rights in Education”, a dog whistle for opposition to anti-racist and LGBTQ+-inclusive education. Anti-LGBTQ+ groups like Moms for Liberty and Leave Our Kids Alone have functioned under the banner of “parents’ rights.”

“We trust Parents’ Knowledge and Skills, Not CRT [critical race theory] and Gender Indoctrination,” the platform states. “Republicans will ensure children are taught fundamentals like Reading, History, Science, and Math, not Leftwing propaganda. We will defund schools that engage in inappropriate political indoctrination of our children using Federal Taxpayer Dollars.” As for higher education, the platform promises to “fire Radical Left accreditors … restore Due Process protections, and pursue Civil Rights cases against Schools that discriminate.” The line about accreditors may refer to the College Board, an organization that gives high school students a chance to pre-earn college credits through Advanced Placement (AP) tests. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) publicly criticized the board last year and tried to get it to drop AP test questions on racial justice movements and queer theory — he failed. The platform repeatedly mentions that Leftists should be removed from government. It also promises, “Republicans will use existing Federal Law to keep foreign Christian-hating Communists, Marxists, and Socialists out of America. Those who join our Country must love our Country. We will use extreme vetting to ensure that jihadists and jihadist sympathizers are not admitted.”

The GOP’s proposed platform contains several anti-trans items, such as keeping trans women out of women’s sports, de facto support for bans on gender-affirming care, support for forced outing policies under the guise of “parental rights”, and pushes the lie that trans people are a “danger” to women and girls.

[mariacallous]

Every president of the United States has within their grasp the power of a vast surveillance state that has grown significantly over the past few decades and has beaten back any real effort to rein it in. Through America’s numerous enigmatic intelligence agencies, presidents possess the ability to dive deeply into the communications, movements, and relationships of everyday Americans. Presidents of both parties have abused the surveillance state, but under a second Trump administration, this power could be abused in ways it has never been before.

Donald Trump, a now convicted felon and the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has said he plans to prosecute his political opponents should he return to the White House. He’s said he would allow states to monitor pregnant women and prosecute those who seek abortions. Trump wants to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. He plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell civil unrest, which means sending the military into the streets. The much publicized Project 2025 outlines how he would quickly replace thousands of career civil servants in the federal government with loyalists.

If a president was interested in prosecuting their political opponents, crushing protests, targeting undocumented immigrants, and had the right people in place to help them carry out those plans, surveillance could become a valuable tool for accomplishing those goals. Like former US president Richard Nixon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Trump could use the surveillance powers available to him to monitor his political opponents, disrupt protest movements, and more.

Nixon and former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover famously surveilled the president’s political opponents and activists, including Martin Luther King Jr., through a program called COINTELPRO. One of the main goals of the program was to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” civil rights groups.

If he so desired, Trump could create his own version of this program, but he’d be working with much more advanced technology—and it’d be in a time when there are countless data points available on every American. Hoover could have only dreamed of a world where everyone was walking around with tracking devices.

“So much of what we depend on, in terms of the rule of law, depends on norms. When those norms are ignored, that’s when things start to fall apart,” says Jeffrey L. Vagle, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University. “Some of the norms, like prosecutorial discretion, might be eroded or disappear entirely. That could mean a number of things in terms of surveillance.”

Vagle says that if a second Trump administration wanted to defend its abuse of surveillance powers, it could stretch the use of national security as a justification for doing so. He says presidents have done this in the past in other ways.

“Administrations from both parties have invoked the term ‘national security’ and have used national security loopholes to justify surveillance and profiling,” says Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “They have too often used national security as a pretext for law enforcement to target Muslims, communities of color, and immigrants.”

Toomey says Trump has sent “mixed signals” when it comes to how he feels about surveillance, but he’s made it clear he plans to target his political opponents in various ways if he’s elected again.

“A second Trump administration could be disastrous for many of our most fundamental freedoms,” Toomey says.

The administration may not even need to come up with a justification for surveilling Americans without a warrant, because it could simply purchase scores of people's personal data. The federal government has been known to purchase data from private brokers in the past, and doing so doesn’t require a warrant.

“We are just awash in data, and data brokers can just collect and sell these data,” Vagle says. “Law enforcement or quasi-law enforcement can collect that information.”

Surveillance can be done in secret so that the people being surveilled don’t realize they’re being surveilled, or it can be done openly as a way to stifle free expression, Vagle says. The government might tell you they’re keeping an eye on people, and then you might be less likely to speak out.

“If you think you’re being watched, you act differently,” Vagle says. “You could see a Trump version of COINTELPRO—only maybe not so covert. They might be more open about it with the idea that it might chill speech.”

As for the abortion issue, some of what may occur will depend on the future legal status of abortion, which could involve a US Supreme Court decision or congressional action. A major change in its legal status would likely affect how the federal government approaches the issue. If it remains a state issue, the federal government wouldn’t typically get involved in how a state is implementing a law it’s passed, but that’s not to say it couldn’t. If a state wanted help tracking people who are crossing state lines for abortions, for example, the federal government could conceivably assist with that.

“The federal government is not in the business of enforcing state laws, but there are a lot of what-ifs. How crazy might a Trump administration be willing to be?” Vagle says.

Whether it’s monitoring political opponents, activists, immigrants, or pregnant people, there are many ways in which a second Trump administration could utilize surveillance powers to exert more control over the populace. If the FBI and the Department of Justice are staffed with people who won’t push back when Trump orders them to do things that might be legally or morally questionable, they may carry out his wishes, and Americans may discover how much their privacy rights have eroded over the years.

“One of the things about Project 2025 is that it’s clear that the Trump camp, and more broadly the Republican Party that’s behind Trump, want to make it a more organized presidency than his first presidency was,” Vagle says. “It would be very unsurprising if the Department of Justice and the FBI dismissed anyone if they even had a whiff of disloyalty.”

[detroitpedxing]

Judge grants restraining order against people recording and threatening voters in Michigan

A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against six individuals accused of voter intimidation by recording, following and threatening people inside Michigan polling locations.

According to a complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, six unnamed people were working to “threaten, intimidate, harass, and deter voters” from participating in the presidential election.

“Defendants, by engaging in intimidating behavior including travelling to multiple polling locations and illegally recording voters inside polling locations, following a voter to her car as she exited a polling place, and threatening that violence may befall the child of a different voter should Kamala Harris win the election, are actively depriving Michigan voters, including the members of ACLU, of their fundamental right to vote free from intimidation, harassment, threats, or other forms of coercion,” the ACLU wrote in their complaint.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson addressed the accusations brought by the ACLU, saying that state officials have “been working with partners throughout the state to investigate any claims of intimidation,” but assured that there have been “no credible reports of anyone being stopped from voting or in other ways, blocked from participating in the process.”

Federal Judge Terrence Berg, a Barack Obama appointee, approved the emergency action, ordering the individuals to “cease the harassment or intimidation of voters at or outside of the polls during the November 2024 Election.”

Berg said the defendants could not film people going in and out of polling locations, come within 100 feet of the entrance to polling locations, follow people to or from their cars, or otherwise intimidate voters.

[unfortunatetheorist]

Is Klaus' legal logic of The Bad Beginning sensible?

* Joint Theory: @unfortunatetheorist with @snicketstrange *

Klaus's speech to the audience during the events of The Bad Beginning had a carefully thought-out structure, anchored in deeply rooted legal, but more so ethical, principles. In defence of his sister, who was forced into a marriage, Klaus appears to have adopted a multifaceted approach to challenge the marriage's validity.

Firstly, John Locke.

John Locke was one of the first people to suggest that humans have natural rights. He also wrote a book about this called the 'Two Treatises of Government'.

Klaus likely invoked John Locke's arguments on natural rights to contend that the marriage was not consensual and, therefore, violated his sister's fundamental rights to life and liberty. The idea that the bride must sign "with her own hand" is interpreted here not literally, but as an indicator of action "of her own free will," supported by Locke's principles.

Secondly, Thurgood Marshall.

Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice of the USA, who fought for the rights of black citizens against Jim Crow's extremely racist ideologies.

His defence of the 14th Amendment may have been used by Klaus to argue that, in cases of ambiguity or doubt, the judge's decision should lean towards protecting the more vulnerable party. This point strengthens the point that, if there is doubt about the how valid Violet's consent is, the legal and ethical obligation is to invalidate the marriage. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is crucial for establishing constitutional rights and consists of various clauses. The most relevant for Klaus's case is probably the Equal Protection Clause, which states that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Klaus may have leaned especially on this clause to argue that, in situations of uncertainty, i.e. his sister's forced marriage, the interpretation/application of the law should be done in a manner that protects (in this case) Violet. This would align with the principles of the 14th Amendment, using it for equal protection under the law to invalidate the marriage and protect his sister's rights.

Third, Ida B. Wells.

Ida B. Wells was, similar to Thurgood Marshall, an early civil rights campaigner, who campaigned for anti-lynching (a word which here means, opposing the brutally violent act known as lynching).

Klaus likely drew inspiration from Ida B. Wells to assert that everyone has the right to be heard and protected by authorities, regardless of their age or origin. This argument would serve to legitimize his own standing as his sister's defender in court, neutralizing any potential prejudice against him for being a child or, perhaps, belonging to a minority (he and his sisters are Jewish).

Moreover, the presence of a judge at the ceremony should not be viewed as merely a formality, but a control mechanism to ensure mutual consent, something that resonates strongly with Locke and Marshall's ideals about the role of government and law. Thus, if either of the spouses gave any evidence to the judge that the marriage was conducted under duress, the judge would be obligated to invalidate the marriage. Violet's chosen signal was to sign the document with her left hand instead of her right hand. As the judge explained, the marriage could be invalidated due to this discreet yet appropriate signal.

Lastly, the word "apocryphal" that Lemony uses to describe Klaus's argument suggests a non-conventional but insightful interpretation of the law, something that seems to echo Marshall's "doubtful insights" and Wells' "moral conviction." Instead of resorting to literalism ('literally' - with her own hand, i.e. Violet's dominant hand), Klaus's argument was much deeper and grounded, touching on the very essence of what legislation and the role of judges are. That's why Justice Strauss was so fascinated by the young boy's speech.

In summary, the historical references evidence that Klaus wove these diverse elements into a cohesive and compelling argument, utilising the legacy of these thinkers to question and, ideally, invalidate his sister Violet's forced marriage.

¬ Th3r3534rch1ngr4ph & @snicketstrange,

Unfortunate Theorists/Snicketologists

[lemonhemlock]

I saw a comment that really hit the nail on the head regarding a lot of the fandom in both ASOIAF/HOTD spaces. Basically, this comment said that a lot of Dany/Rhaenyra/Targ stans don't understand that targ women can both be oppressed and also oppressors. They literally view Westeros in this lens that the Worst Thing That Can Ever Happen to someone is misogyny, and yes GRRM's ahistorical levels of misogyny imbued in his work don't help here, and that nothing else can come close lol. They don't really get class dynamics, lesser nobles, etc. When you're the crown princess of the realm you have immense power, but also responsibility which, yes, includes not openly cuckolding your spouse and having obvious bastards you try to put into the succession lol. They very much think that every targ women could do whatever she wanted with her immensely privileged and pampered position as a royal and if anyone says anything, well, it's misogyny. It's a deeply unannounced, ahistorical way to look at this series.

Your comment in one of your other anons where you said 'are you really sexually liberated if you are causing pain to others in your vicinity' was funny to me because targ stans unironically would say 'yes.' They are stuck in this modern sensibility that romantic/sexual freedom is the number one civil liberty and anything a character does in pursuit of it is fine, even at the expense of others, and if anything bad happens as a result, well that's just the Patriarchy's fault. It's a fundamental difference in thinking that I don't think can ever be bridged because they are incapable of not projecting modern values. They truly believe that targ women can be privileged, pampered, politically and socially powerful, yet not be beholden to any of the traditions, duties, or responsibilities even with the most, like, basic decorum expected of royal and any calling out of this behavior is just misogyny lmao.

It's just so stupid lmao. Imagine if people had said that Queen Elizabeth II, one of the most rich, powerful, and privileged women in the world for literal decades was 'oppressed' because she couldn't have obvious affairs or take official mistresses or boytoys and have bastard children like her male forefathers did and blame that on misogyny lmao. It's literally the same thought process but these people cannot put two and two together if their lives depended on it.

^^^^ you did it, anon. you condensed targ stans to their essence 😅

some of them act as if being monarch should mean doing exactly what you want at all times and any kind of suggestion that immense privilege comes at the price of great responsibility automatically translates to misogyny. god forbid we put some restriction on "absolute power" and make it less absolute.

also in regards to sexual freedom and their inability to imagine a life without it. you live in the 21st century!! not only that you have recognised rights enshrined by law, but you also have modern medicine!! you have antibiotics, contraceptives, safe abortion, emergency services, surgeons, you can book an appointment with a doctor if you're feeling unwell etc. look me in the eye and tell me that if all of those were taken away overnight you'd continue to be your sexually liberated self and risk dying painfully of an STD in the name of love.

of course there are religious and sexist dimensions to restricting women's sexuality, there is no point in pretending otherwise, but who would really want their spouse to risk infecting them with whatnot in the name of sexual freedom? it's equally unhelpful in pretending there's not an aspect of public health in encouraging behaviours like chastity, monogamy and being faithful to your spouse.

again, this is not to say that it was all good and proper to be like that and what a time of pure morals we left behind in the olden days. it's to say that those times truly sucked for a lot of people, sometimes because of reasons they had no control over, and that they often had to choose between options that all sucked in some way

[pipthegreat]

love your au, heres a random ass thing about politics

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear the Biden administration’s challenge to a transgender care ban in Tennessee, delving into the complicated and politically fraught issue of gender-affirming care in a substantive way for the first time.

The state law, enacted last year, bans hormone therapy and puberty blockers for minors and imposes civil penalties for doctors who violate the prohibitions. It is among a growing number of state laws enacted in recent years targeting transgender care.

Nearly half of US states have enacted bans on transgender care for minors, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

The case will be heard this fall.

“The Supreme Court was always going to have to resolve how state bans on gender-affirming medical care can be reconciled with its approach to sex-based discrimination,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “Today’s grant sets up this issue as one of the early blockbusters for the Court’s upcoming term.”

Laws in Kentucky and Tennessee were challenged by the Biden administration and families of transgender minors. The Supreme Court only agreed to hear the challenge filed by the Biden administration in Tennessee.

In September, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a district court ruling that blocked the gender-affirming care ban from being enforced. In other words, the appeals court allowed the ban to take effect.

Republican lawmakers who support the ban say decisions about care should be made after an individual becomes an adult. Opponents argue that in addition to violating the civil rights of trans youth, the laws also run afoul of parents’ rights to make decisions about their child’s medical care.

Tennessee’s law says that medical providers cannot perform procedures that “enable a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or “treat purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

The legal fights over similar bans have been moving through federal courts for more than a year. In April, the Supreme Court allowed Idaho officials to temporarily enforce a strict statewide ban on gender-affirming care for most minors, although it did so on a temporary basis without resolving the underlying questions posed by the case.

Several groups that advocate for transgender youth called on the Supreme Court to strike down Tennessee’s law.

“It’s simple: Everyone deserves access to the medical care that they need, and transgender and non-binary young people are no exception,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “No politician should be able to interfere in decisions that are best made between families and doctors, particularly when that care is necessary and best practice.”

Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, criticized state lawmakers for using the bans to “fuel divisions for their own political gain.”

“It’s crucial to recognize that for trans youth and their families, this isn’t about politics,” Cameron-Vaughn said. “It’s about the fundamental freedom to access vital, life-saving healthcare.”

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, said his office looks forward to defending the law.

“This case will bring much-needed clarity to whether the Constitution contains special protections for gender identity,” he said.

Why thank you kind sir

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Professor Laurence Tribe’s reflection on Project 2025

Professor Tribe’s career as America’s leading constitutional scholar spans half a century. From that unique vantage, he is raising the alarm about Project 2025’s most pernicious goal—one that is frequently lost in understandable concern about the plan to weaponize the DOJ against Trump's political enemies.

In a thoughtful essay in The New York Review of Books, Professor Tribe identifies Project 2025’s most dangerous aim as that of imposing a “theocratic autocracy” to extinguish fundamental liberties at the core of our democratic existence. See Laurence H. Tribe, The New York Review of Books, Where Freedom Ends.

Professor Tribe addresses the current threat to constitutional liberties by tracing his career defending those liberties before the Supreme Court. His career began during a hopeful time when the Court was recognizing and defending personal liberties against encroachment by a web of theocratic prohibitions masquerading as civil law. The watershed case of Roe v. Wade was one of many cases that challenged religious dogma posing as legislative policy. The victories that began with Roe v. Wade (reproductive liberty) ran through Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage equality).

Since the 2015 high water mark, small groups of religious fundamentalists have engineered a “regulatory capture” of the Supreme Court. The Court has been reduced to the political action arm of the Christian nationalism. That movement aims to extinguish all rights that conflict with its extreme religious doctrine. As Professor Tribe writes,

Law can oppress as easily as it can liberate, and it is the everyday life we lead at our kitchen tables and in our bedrooms that is most dangerously threatened by a return of Trump to power.

As Professor Tribe notes, Project 2025 is at root a religiously motivated effort to replace civil rights with religious dogma. The trappings of an imperial presidency are the means to imposing the religious values of a small minority on the personal lives of all Americans. As Professor Tribe writes,

The threat to all our personal freedoms and civil liberties posed by a second Trump administration is not principally that Trump will finally have learned how to thoroughly weaponize his Department of Justice, filling it with obedient acolytes. We needn’t underestimate this threat to recognize that we look through the wrong end of the telescope if we focus on the powers an unleashed president might exercise through his underlings rather than on the freedoms that exercise would suffocate.

There is much more in Professor Tribe’s essay that merits your consideration. But if we take nothing else away from his essay, it is that the threat of a second Trump term is that it aims to erase the promise that lies at the heart of American democracy: “Liberty and justice for all.”

But Professor Tribe is not merely raising the alarm. He notes that he is “tirelessly working” to achieve the results in 2024 that will allow for the restoration of the rights abrogated in Dobbs. Like Professor Tribe, we must simultaneously recognize the true nature of the threats we face while working diligently to prevent those threats from materializing. The fact that the nation’s preeminent constitutional scholar of the last half century is on the front lines in the defense of liberty tells us all we need to know about the urgency of our own actions.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A federal judge in Austin on Thursday halted a new state law that would allow Texas police to arrest people suspected of crossing the Texas-Mexico border illegally.

The law, Senate Bill 4, was scheduled to take effect Tuesday. U.S. District Judge David Ezra issued a preliminary injunction that will keep it from being enforced while a court battle continues playing out. Texas is being sued by the federal government and several immigration advocacy organizations. Texas appealed the ruling to the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ezra said in his order Thursday that the federal government “will suffer grave irreparable harm” if the law took effect because it could inspire other states to pass their own immigration laws, creating an inconsistent patchwork of rules about immigration, which has historically been upheld as being solely within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

“SB 4 threatens the fundamental notion that the United States must regulate immigration with one voice,” Ezra wrote.

Ezra also wrote that if the state arrested and deported migrants who may be eligible for political asylum, that would violate the Constitution and also be "in violation of U.S. treaty obligations."

"Finally, the Court does not doubt the risk that cartels and drug trafficking pose to many people in Texas," Ezra wrote in his ruling. "But as explained, Texas can and does already criminalize those activities. Nothing in this Order stops those enforcement efforts. No matter how emphatic Texas’s criticism of the Federal Governments handling of immigration on the border may be to some, disagreement with the federal government’s immigration policy does not justify a violation of the Supremacy Clause."

Gov. Greg Abbott signed SB 4 in December, marking Texas’ latest attempt to try to deter people from crossing the Rio Grande after several years of historic numbers of migrants arriving at the Texas-Mexico border.

In a statement, Abbott said the state "will not back down in our fight" and that he expects this case would eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. On social media, he wrote that he is "not worried" because "this was fully expected."

"Texas has solid legal grounds to defend against an invasion," he added.

State Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office is defending SB 4 in court, said in a statement that he "will do everything possible to defend Texas’s right to defend herself."

The law seeks to make illegally crossing the border a Class B misdemeanor, carrying a punishment of up to six months in jail. Repeat offenders could face a second-degree felony with a punishment of two to 20 years in prison.

The law also seeks to require state judges to order migrants returned to Mexico if they are convicted; local law enforcement would be responsible for transporting migrants to the border. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return to Mexico voluntarily.

In December, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project sued Texas on behalf of El Paso County and two immigrant rights organizations — El Paso-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Austin-based American Gateways — over the new state law. The following month, the U.S. Department of Justice filed its lawsuit against Texas. The lawsuits have since been combined.

During a court hearing on Feb. 15 in Austin, the Department of Justice argued that SB 4 is unconstitutional because courts have ruled that immigration solely falls under the federal government’s authority.

The lawyer representing Texas, Ryan Walters, argued that the high number of migrants arriving at the border — some of them smuggled by drug cartels — constitutes an invasion and Texas has a right to defend itself under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from engaging in war on their own “unless actually invaded.”

Ezra said that he “is not unsympathetic to the concerns raised by Abbott,” but appeared unconvinced by Walters’ argument.

"I haven't seen, and the state of Texas can't point me to any type of military invasion in Texas," Ezra said. "I don't see evidence that Texas is at war."

Immigrant rights advocates around the state celebrated the ruling because they worried that SB 4 would lead to border residents' rights being violated.

"We celebrate today’s win, blocking this extreme law from going into effect before it has the opportunity to harm Texas communities," said Aron Thorn, senior attorney for the Beyond Border Program at Texas Civil Rights Project. "This is a major step in showing the State of Texas and Governor Abbott that they do not have the power to enforce unconstitutional, state-run immigration policies."

Edna Yang, co-executive director at American Gateways, said that SB 4 does not fix “our broken immigration system” and it will divide communities.

“This decision is a victory for all our communities as it stops a harmful, unconstitutional, and discriminatory state policy from taking effect and impacting the lives of millions of Texans," she said. "Local officials should not be federal immigration agents, and our state should not be creating its own laws that deny people their right to seek protection here in the U.S."

David Donatti, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said the ruling is an "important win for Texas values, human rights, and the U.S. Constitution."

"Our current immigration system needs repair because it forces millions of Americans into the shadows and shuts the door on people in need of safety. S.B. 4 would only make things worse," he said. "Cruelty to migrants is not a policy solution.”

[marveltrumpshate]

Civil Rights Advocacy & Litigation

Since there is no Avengers Initiative working to physically fight our way to a more equitable world, we have to rely frequently on advocacy, public education, and litigation to bend the arc of the work more quickly towards justice. If this is your personal charitable focus, you have a lot of options to choose from, from organizations working on systemic change for marginalized populations to those focusing on freeing individuals from the prison industrial complex and defeating censorship. 

For more information on donation methods and accepted currencies, please refer to our list of organizations page.

Autistic Self Advocacy Network

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network seeks to advance the principles of the disability rights movement with regard to autism. ASAN believes that the goal of autism advocacy should be a world in which autistic people enjoy equal access, rights, and opportunities and have their voices heard. For that reason, the organization is run by individuals on the autism spectrum. ASAN's primary focuses are advocating for policies that protect disability and civil rights, creating tools and leadership training for autistic self-advocates, and offering educational resources. 

The Bail Project

In their own words, “The Bail Project, Inc. is an unprecedented effort to combat mass incarceration at the front end of the system. We pay bail for people in need, reuniting families and restoring the presumption of innocence. Because bail is returned at the end of a case, donations to The Bail Project™ National Revolving Bail Fund can be recycled and reused to pay bail two to three times per year, maximizing the impact of every dollar. 100% of online donations are used to bring people home.”

The financial burden that bail places upon many arrestees means that they stay in the system disproportionately longer than necessary, disrupting their economic options and personal stability. This is particularly true if they’re poor and/or people of color. To fight bail and provide pretrial support is to fight mass incarceration and the racial and economic disparities of the bail system in the United States.

Center for Reproductive Rights

The Center for Reproductive Rights is the only global legal advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring reproductive rights are protected in law as fundamental human rights for the dignity, equality, health, and well-being of every person. With local partners across five continents, they have secured legal victories before national courts, UN Committees, and regional human rights bodies on issues such as access to life-saving obstetrics care, contraception, maternal health, and safe abortion services and the prevention of forced sterilization and child marriage.

Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund

DREDF is the leading civil rights organization in the United States that fights for and is directed by people with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities. Not only does DREDF work directly with their clients to help them know their own rights, but they train and educate lawyers, lawmakers, and other societal gatekeepers to make sure they know those rights as well.

Electronic Freedom Foundation

The leading nonprofit defending civil liberties in digital spaces, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. They fight against online censorship and illegal surveillance, advocate for net neutrality and data protection, and more so that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for everyone. 

Innocence Project

The mission of the Innocence Project is deceptively simple: exonerate those who have been wrongly convicted through the use of DNA evidence. The reality of it involves much broader strokes covering support for exonerees rebuilding their lives post-release and criminal justice reform through targeted litigation and the implementation of laws to prevent wrongful conviction. They strive to restore freedom for the innocent, transform the systems responsible for unjust incarceration, and advance the freedom movement.

Native American Rights Fund

NARF is the oldest and largest nonprofit that defends Native American rights and provides legal assistance to Native American tribes, organizations, and individuals across the U.S. They concentrate on issues such as tribal sovereignty, land rights and treaty compliance, tribal natural resource protection, education on Native American human rights, and more.

Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES)

Most known for their work on the Texas/Mexico border but operating on the national frontlines of the fight for immigration rights, RAICES provides free and low-cost legal services, bond assistance, and social programs to underserved immigrant children, families, and refugees. Among their many accomplishments, RAICES established the largest bond fund in the U.S., which they use to secure the release of individuals from ICE detention, and has more immigration lawyers than any other organization in Texas. These lawyers represent individuals, including children, in court, offer residency and citizenship services, assist asylum seekers, and deal with removal defense. RAICES also offers social services ranging from case management and resettlement assistance to a national hotline connecting migrants with local community resources and transit support for recently released migrants.

Southern Poverty Law Center

They’re mostly known in the U.S. as a hate group watchdog of sorts, but their work goes beyond tracking and exposing hate groups and promoting tolerance education programs. SPLC fights for voting rights advocacy, children’s rights, immigration reform and family reunification, LGBTQ+ rights, economic justice, and criminal justice reform. They work “with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.” Essentially, if there is injustice against a vulnerable and/or marginalized group in the U.S., SPLC aims to address and fix it.

Transgender Law Center

Transgender Law Center, the largest trans-specific and trans-led organization in the U.S., changes law, policy, and attitudes so that all people can live safely and authentically and free from discrimination regardless of their gender identity or expression. Through its precedent-setting litigation victories and community-driven programs, TLC protects the rights of transgender and gender nonconforming people in areas spanning employment, prison conditions, education, immigration, healthcare, and more.

[absolute-immunities]

increasingly convinced that Morton Horwitz is a moron

it’s really irritating to hear someone is banging on about context and language and history and then gets them all wrong

for example:

Take the concept higher law—When Thomas Jefferson invoked the ‘self-evident ... truth’ of an ‘inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ in the American Declaration of Independence, he sought to weave together at least four different historical strands or layers of meaning: first, the seventeenth century Whig fundamental law tradition derived either from immemorial custom or from an ancient constitution existing before the Norman invasion; second, Thomistic natural law, whose content consisted primarily of specifying a person's social duties in an organic community; third, the seventeenth century social contractarian conception of natural rights existing in a state of nature and exercised by atomistic individuals against the State; forth, a conception of rights in which Newtonian scientific laws were gradually transformed into Kantian moral laws.

beyond the dubious proposition that Jefferson was trying to “weave together” any “strands or layers” of meaning, most of this is unfounded

“Thomistic natural law” was simply not present in Anglo-American imagination, much less its discourse

the language of the Declaration, and the discourse of which it was a part, was in the key of public law, the law of nations, of the publicists Vattel, Wolff, Pufendorf, and Grotius

these publicists, men of Protestant education and Protestant service—Vattel, of Basel, Geneva, and Saxon service; Wolff, of Leipzig, Jena, and Prussian service; Pufendorf, of Leipzig, Jena, and Swedish service; Grotius, of Leiden and Dutch service—could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called “Thomistic”

Pufendorf, whose survey of the history of the field in The Law of Nature and Nations (Basil Kennett trans., 5th ed. 1749) (1672) has full chapters on the Chaldeans, Thales, and Anaxagoras and Archelaus, treats of the scholastics, and the whole Roman middle ages, with a single dismissive aside at the end of his chapter on the Neoplatonists, short enough to excerpt here in full:

Aristotle had hitherto but very few Followers: He was scarce known in the Western Parts of the World, till towards the Beginning of the sixth Century. The celebrated Boëtius, by translating some of that Philosopher’s Writings, laid the Foundations of that prodigious, and truly despotic Authority, which the Peripatetic Philosophy became afterwards possessed of; and which, even to this Day, in many Places, it ftill maintains. The Arabians, in the eleventh Century, grew fond of it, and introduc’d it into Spain. From thence sprung the Scholastic Philosophy; which spread itself all over Europe, and, with its barbarous Cant, became even more prejudicial to Religion, and Morality, than to the speculative Sciences. The Ethics of the Schoolmen, is a Piece of Patchwork; a confus’d Collection, without any Order, or fix’d Principles; a Medley of divers Thoughts, and Sentences out of Aristotle, Civil and Canon Law, Scripture, and the Fathers. Both good and bad lie there intermix’d, and confus’d; but so, as that there is much more of the latter, than the former. The Casuists of the succeeding Centuries, made it their sole Business to excel their Predecessors, in vain Subtilties; nay, what is worse, in monstrous, and abominable Errors; as all the World knows. But let us pass by these unhappy Times, that we may, at length, come to that Age, wherein the Science of Morality was, if I may so say, rais’d again from the Dead.

“passing by these unhappy Times,” which, for the author, included the full millennium after the death of Boethius, Pufendorf renews the narrative with Francis Bacon

if that was how the Continentals treated the scholastics—and Vattel and Wolff do not even condescend to mention the scholastics, though Grotius, writing in the infancy of his field and under the protection of a Catholic prince, allows them a handful of cordial notes—still less could the English be thought “Thomistic”

Blackstone, educated in the civil law, who littered his Commentaries with references to Roman and canon law, to Domat and the decretals, to the Institutes, the Novels, and the Codex, and who made some few sparing references to Montesquieu and Locke, made, across the whole of his Commentaries, his vast survey of the public and private laws of England, which begins with the natural rights of man, precisely zero references to Thomas, and zero to the Thomists

they simply did not matter

despite the Thomists’ insistence on writing the revered Thomas into our history and insinuating him into our thought, this is a dialogue in which Thomas did not take part, and a discourse in which Thomism has no place

the “seventeenth century social contractarian conception” is presumably a gesture at that mainstay of the American syllabus, Locke, who was an irrelevance in public law

the “contractarian conception” is, again, more properly grounded in the eighteenth-century publicists, in Vattel and Pufendorf

here Horwitz’s suggestions are, again, totally inapt,

but I’ve tired myself out confirming that the public and natural law background to this public and natural law text bears no marks of “Thomistic natural law,”

so, rather than make any further analytic or conceptual arguments, or address the balance of the misconceptions and crude errors that Horwitz has knit together here,

I’m just going to gesture towards the text and say “get a load of this guy”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

As Americans prepare to tune in to one of the most anticipated presidential debates in recent history, GLAAD has released a provocative new ad warning voters of the dangers posed by the Republican-backed Project 2025 plan. The ad, “The Playbook,” is the latest in a trilogy of national campaigns launched by the LGBTQ+ media advocacy organization to expose what it describes as the plan’s severe economic and social consequences. Timed just hours before presidential hopefuls Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump take the stage, the ad aims at the detailed 900-page manifesto developed by the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. The controversial plan calls for radical changes to the U.S. government, including dismantling protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, raising taxes on the middle class, and rolling back worker rights. According to GLAAD, Project 2025 is an existential threat not just to LGBTQ+ people but to all Americans who value democratic institutions and civil liberties. Narrated in stark, urgent tones, the ad warns that Project 2025 would empower corporate elites and strip everyday Americans of fundamental rights and protections. In the 30-second spot, the narrator describes the plan as a “costly blueprint” designed to enrich corporations at the expense of working families. The ad goes on to emphasize several troubling aspects of the proposal, including a new tax on health insurance, eliminating overtime pay for workers, and barring Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices.

[...] “The Playbook” is the third in a series of ads in GLAAD’s campaign against Project 2025, following the July release of “The Pledge.” That ad painted a dystopian vision of the future under a Republican administration intent on dismantling LGBTQ+ rights and pushing a conservative Christian nationalist agenda. In “The Pledge,” a classroom of children recites a chilling new version of the Pledge of Allegiance, swearing loyalty not to the nation but to the president and “the natural order of man and woman under God.”

LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD released the 3rd ad of their Project 2025 trilogy series.

Ad: