Monthly Archives: May 2016

Oklahoma Senate Passes Bill to Slap Abortion Providers With Felony

‘By creating an effective ban on abortion, Senate Bill 1552 is one of the most extreme anti-choice measures imaginable.’

By Nadia Prupis, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 5-19-2016

SB 1552 effectively bans abortion in Oklahoma, reproductive rights group said. (Photo: @TrustWomen/Twitter)

SB 1552 effectively bans abortion in Oklahoma, reproductive rights group said. (Photo: @TrustWomen/Twitter)

The Oklahoma Senate on Thursday passed one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws, which would make it a felony to perform the procedure and restrict any physician who does so from obtaining or renewing a medical license in the state.

The measure would effectively ban abortion altogether in Oklahoma, the state’s ACLU chapter said. The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) noted that the bill, Senate Bill (SB) 1552, was the first of its kind in the nation. Continue reading

Share Button

US Government’s Own Report Shows Toxic TPP “Not Worth Passing”

‘This report indicates the TPP will produce almost no benefits, but inflict real harm on so many workers.’

By Deirdre Fulton, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 5-19-2016

"This report validates that the TPP is not worth passing," said United Steelworkers (USW) International president Leo W. Gerard. (Photo: SumOfUs/cc/flickr)

“This report validates that the TPP is not worth passing,” said United Steelworkers (USW) International president Leo W. Gerard. (Photo: SumOfUs/cc/flickr)

The government’s own assessment of the toxic Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) shows that the controversial trade deal will produce negligible economic benefits while damaging most Americans’ jobs and wages.

The U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) report (pdf), issued Wednesday, shows that the TPP “would likely have only a small positive effect on U.S. growth,” Reuters reported. Continue reading

Share Button

FBI’s Own Report Exposes “War on Cops” as Pure Propaganda — It’s the Citizens Who Are in Danger

The objective here, once again, is to penalize rhetoric as a criminal act against a member of a specially protected class. Apparently, the “War on Cops” won’t be won until citizens who criticize them face criminal prosecution for doing so.

Written by William N. Grigg. Published May 18 by Free Thought Project.

Image via Flickr

Image via Flickr

Following a year in which the public was relentlessly barraged with alarmist rhetoric about a “war on cops” and the dreadful impact of the so-called “Ferguson Effect,” official FBI statistics confirm that violent line-of-duty police deaths declined precipitously in 2015.

According to the Bureau:

“Preliminary statistics … show that 41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2015. This is a decrease of almost 20 percent when compared with the 51 officers killed in 2014.” A greater number of officers (45) suffered fatal injuries in duty-related accidents, 41 of which involved motor vehicles.

Through May 17 of this year, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page, there have been 35 line-of-duty police officer deaths, 21 of which involve violence, such as gunfire or vehicular assault. This suggests that 2016 might see an increase in that grim total, but fortunately that remains only a possibility.

Throughout 2015, law enforcement officials, police unions, and even FBI Director James Comey warned of a “war on cops” that was supposedly an outgrowth of what they called the “Ferguson Effect” – police reluctance to use force because of concerns over negative publicity. On May 10, for instance, Comey reiterated that theme, insisting that the “viral video effect” has changed “the way police may be acting” by inhibiting them from taking assertive action to deal with violent crime. This supposedly leaves police more insecure, thereby emancipating criminals to wreak havoc on under-protected communities.

However, as former Baltimore police officer-turned-police reform advocate Michael Wood Jr. told The Intercept, there are cases in which less aggressive policing has corresponded to a decline in violent crime: Where police don’t treat the public as an enemy to be subdued, the public responds by seeking help, and giving it, in the effort to deter crimes against persons and property.

“Police now for the first time are having to consider the consequences of being brutal, being unethical, and doing things that for the longest time they could do and not be accountable for,” Wood declares. “But that doesn’t make crime happen.”

Comey’s melodramatic statements about a “chill wind blowing through law enforcement,” and reliance on things he has been told “in lots of conversations privately with police leaders” demonstrate that “he is pushing an ideology,” Woods continues. “Comey’s position is that if the armed enforcement wing of the government takes its boot off the neck of the public, just a little, then we will just become killers.”

While fewer police suffered violent deaths last year than in any year since 2013 – when 27 officers were feloniously killed – there is no evidence that the police have been inhibited in the use of deadly force. According to unofficial tabulations, at least 1,200 Americans died in violent encounters with the police last year. Official notice is taken of each of the exceedingly rare instances in which police are violently killed, but there is no official tally of people killed by the police, or accounting for whether each use of lethal force was legally justified.

It is true, as Comey and other law enforcement officials have said, that last year’s murder rate was about eleven percent higher than the year before, as defined by crime statistics gathered in the country’s 30 largest cities. However, as the Brennan Center for Justice points out in its detailed report on the subject, “Even with the 2015 increases, murder rates are roughly the same as they were in 2012”; furthermore, while murder rates were up in 14 of the 30 largest cities, 11 others saw that rate go down last year.

When all documented offenses against persons and property were taken into account, elaborates the Brennan Center, the crime rate for 2015 declined by 1.5 percent.

“It is important to remember just how much crime has fallen in the last 25 years,” underscores the Brennan Center report. “The crime rate is now half what it was in 1990, and almost a quarter (22 percent) less than it was at the turn of the century.”

Since violent on-duty police deaths are vanishingly rare, and crime of all kinds at near-historic lows, what is the real “Ferguson Effect”?

Perhaps the true meaning of that expression is found in the emergence of a movement spearheaded by police unions to define law enforcement as a “specially protected category” for the purposes of “hate crimes” prosecution.

Police officers already enjoy the benefits of “Blue Privilege” – qualified immunity and special consideration in the use of occupational violence. Criminal offenses against police officers are already treated as serious felonies. However, at the urging of police unions and their allies, legislatures in several states are considering bills that would treat violence against police – such as actively resisting arrest – as hate crimes.

Versions of that legislation, which is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) – the country’s largest police union – have been introduced in Maryland and Louisiana, and as ordinances in several cities. The Louisiana bill, HB 953, would make any offense committed against a person or property because of “actual or perceived … employment as a law enforcement officer or firefighter” a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

An FOP-supported bill in Maryland that would likely serve as a model for federal legislation would make resisting arrest a “hate crime” owing to the identity of the supposed victim. State legislatures elsewhere are considering similar measures, and some municipal governments are enacting resolutions endorsing the FOP’s demand to swaddle police officers in federal “specially protected” status.

In a letter to President Obama, Chuck Canterbury, National President of the armed tax-feeders’ union, demanded that “the current Federal hate crimes law be expanded to include law enforcement officers. This call has gone unanswered and our nation’s law enforcement officers continue to die in the streets.”

Displaying tone-deafness as to what his comments say about the supposed valor of police officers, Canterbury demanded that cops be designated a “specially protected” group who are “hunted and targeted just because of the uniform they wear.” This woeful account of insurgent criminals and besieged cops evolved into a demand that “hate speech” be treated as a federal offense.

“Elected officials are quick to console the families of the fallen and praise us for the difficult and dangerous work that we do every day,” sniffles the FOP commissar. “Yet, too many are silent when the hate speech floods the media with calls for violence against police or demands that police stand down and give them” – Canterbury never defines “them,” interestingly – “`room to destroy.’ The violence will not end until the rhetoric does which is why I have called on Congress and your Administration to work with us to address the surge of violence against police by expanding the Federal hate crimes law to protect police.” (Emphasis added.)

The objective here, once again, is to penalize rhetoric as a criminal act against a member of a specially protected class. Apparently, the “War on Cops” won’t be won until citizens who criticize them face criminal prosecution for doing so.

Share Button

Exxon Gets Sued by Conservationists and Legal Help from Conservatives

As attorneys general of Texas and Alabama pledge to assist oil giant with fraud probe, conservation group files first lawsuit since cover-up revealed

By Nadia Prupis, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 5-17-2016

The lawsuit "aims to hold ExxonMobil accountable for decades of dishonesty." (Photo: Johnny Silvercloud/flickr/cc)

The lawsuit “aims to hold ExxonMobil accountable for decades of dishonesty.” (Photo: Johnny Silvercloud/flickr/cc)

An environmental group has filed the first non-governmental lawsuit against ExxonMobil since the fossil fuel giant’s campaign of misinformation was exposed last year.

The Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) announced Tuesday that it served a formal notice against Exxon for its decades-long effort to suppress information about climate change and spread public doubt about the impacts of greenhouse gases. CLF launched an investigation against the corporation after InsideClimate News exposed its cover-up in 2015, and found Exxon to be endangering New England communities by misleading regulators over the climate-readiness of its facilities. Continue reading

Share Button

‘Stunning’: CIA Admits ‘Mistakenly’ Deleting Copy of Senate Torture Report

The CIA inspector general—the agency’s internal watchdog—admits to deleting its copy of the U.S. Senate’s torture report, as well as a backup

By Nika Knight, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 5-16-2016

The seal of the Central Intelligence Agency inlaid in the floor of the main lobby of the Original Headquarters Building. Photo by user:Duffman (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The seal of the Central Intelligence Agency inlaid in the floor of the main lobby of the Original Headquarters Building. Photo by user:Duffman (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The CIA’s inspector general office admitted to reporters that the department inadvertently deleted its copy of the U.S. Senate’s report detailing the nation’s post-9/11 detention and torture of detainees, Yahoo News reported Monday.

The department also deleted a hard disk backup of the report.

“Clearly the CIA would rather we all forgot about torture,” Cori Creider, a director at human rights watchdog Reprieve, responded to the news in a statement. Continue reading

Share Button

Venezuela Accuses US of Plotting Coup, Declares State of Emergency

‘Washington is activating measures at the request of Venezuela’s fascist right, who are emboldened by the coup in Brazil,’ said the nation’s president.

By Nika Knight, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 5-14-2016

Dilma Rousseff receiving a picture of Hugo Chávez from Nicolás Maduro. Photo: Valter Campanato/ABr (Agência Brasil) [CC BY 3.0 br], via Wikimedia Commons

Dilma Rousseff receiving a picture of Hugo Chávez from Nicolás Maduro. Photo: Valter Campanato/ABr (Agência Brasil) [CC BY 3.0 br], via Wikimedia Commons

Venezuela’s leftist president Nicolas Maduro announced a 60-day state of emergency on Friday evening and accused the U.S. of plotting with right-wing groups within the country to overthrow his government.

On the same day, unnamed D.C. officials warned of a coming “meltdown” in Venezuela. Continue reading

Share Button

Advent and Evolution of Sykes-Picot Secret Agreement in 1916

Written by Dr. Michael Izady. Published 5-9-2016 by The Kurdish Project.

Image via you-tube screenshot.

Image via you-tube screenshot.

On May 9, 1916, and as the WWI raged, a secret convention was made between Britain and France, with the later assent of imperial Russia and Italy, for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. The essence of the agreement–expansion of European colonialism into the heart of the Middle East–never came to pass, thanks to the entry of the US into the war at the start of 1918.

The introduction of the Wilson Doctrine, which was intended to create the Mandate System under the supervision of the League of Nations, prevented the outright colonization of that region by the European Colonial empires, which would have enhanced their power vis à vis the United States. The agreement took its name from its negotiators, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and François Georges-Picot of France. The relevant portions of the accord are provided at top right side of the full map attached at the end of the article.

Map provided by Dr. Izady and Columbia University

Map provided by Dr. Izady and Columbia University

Divisions of Sykes-Picot

It is unclear, however, where exactly the map purported to depict the divisions comes from (see one example below, dating to 1918, London, and marked “secret”, which apparently was later colorized). And yet, by referring to various divisions such as, “Area A” or “Area B”, “Red Zone”, “Blue Zone” etc., the text of the agreement predicates the existence of at least one appended map. What became of that map?

Be that as it may, excepting the area now comprising the Republic of Turkey (taken back by force of the combined Turkish-Kurdish arms by 1923), many of the borders found in the provisions of the Sykes-Picot Agreement are generally, and sometimes precisely, the ultimate lines followed by current international borders. By turning communist in 1917, Russia received none of the anticipated awards. France, on the other hand, obtained the League of Nations Mandate over Syria (which she later split into Lebanon and Syria); Britain over Iraq, Jordan and Palestine. Ahsa and Qatif were ultimately relinquished to rising house of Saudi in Nejd.

Although many of the borders anticipated by the Sykes-Picot were arbitrary, they were in fact more sympathetic to the religious and cultural facts on the ground than what the League of Nations later created. Under Sykes-Picot, the Shias were to be united into a super-state, although directly ruled over by Britain. The Agreement meticulously included the Shias of Mesopotamia and Ahsa-Qatif (coastal regions of modern Saudi Arabia on the Gulf). The Christians in the Levant and south-central Anatolia also saw the combination of their multitude into a single French-administered Mediterranean state in which they were to form the predominant force, if not an absolute majority. Had the Armenians not been exterminated from their Cilician exclave, the entire French colony (the Blue Area) would have had a Christian majority. The Sunni Muslims (Arabs, Kurds, Turks) and their interests, meanwhile, were overlooked by Sykes-Picot. It is no surprise then that the Turks and Kurds joined force to immediately challenge the divisions of their native land that were to be implemented in the aftermath of WWI

The Bolshevik revolutionaries of Russia made the provisions of this secret agreement public on November 23, 1917 following their takeover of that country. These are listed to the upper right hand side of this map. A rather detailed map is reconstructed here by taking into consideration the toponyms and directions noted in the Agreement per se, but missing from all subsequent maps. The Russian share, missing from the first draft of Sykes-Picot, is reconstructed from the details found in a letter by Sir Edward Grey to Count Alexander von Benckenkdorff of Russia, dated May of 1916.

In conclusion, many of the current international boundaries match the anticipated lines by Sykes-Picot, and in fact exactly. But this is more due to natural features of the land–river courses, crests of the mountains, bottoms of the valleys and wadis–than any political expedience on the part of the League of Nations that awarded the mandates to the French and British colonial empires. The United States encouraged to take over formerly designated Russian sector to be labeled as the “Mandate of Armenia” ultimately declined the offer. The US Senate objected to the deal on many grounds to include the rationale and cost of stationing of an estimated 100 thousand American soldiers to guard a distant land largely emptied out of the Armenian Christians by the genocide that had visited on them some years earlier.

About the Author:
Dr. Michael Merhdad R.S.C. Izady is a professor at Columbia University, and one of the world’s leading Middle East cartographers and Kurdish historians.has written numerous books on the Kurdish people, including “The Kurds: A Concise Handbook” which is widely accepted to be the best historical account of the Kurds. In 1996, Dr. Izady wrote and published the Kurdish Manifesto, which was later used as the foundation for the Constitution of the KRG’s Kurdistan Regional Constitution. Dr. Izady also designed the Flag of Kurdistan, which was adopted by the Kurdistan Regional Government. Today, Dr. Izady is a professor at Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs.

Share Button

US Army Chaplain Resigns in Protest Over Drones, ‘Policy of Unaccountable Killing’

“I resign because I refuse to support U.S. policy of preventive war, permanent military supremacy and global power projection.”

Written by Andrea Germanos, staff writer for Common Dreams.

Image via Common Dreams.

Image via Common Dreams.

An Army chaplain has resigned in protest over the United States “policy of unaccountable killing” through drone warfare and the nation’s continued investment into nuclear weapons, which “threaten the existence of humankind and the earth.”

In his letter sent April 12, 2016 to President Barack Obama, Rev. John Antal, a Unitarian Universalist Church minister in Rock Tavern, New York, wrote, “The Executive Branch continues to claim the right to kill anyone, anywhere on earth, at any tie, for secret reasons, based on secret evidence, in a secret process, undertaken by unidentified officials.”

Antal served as a chaplain from September 2012 to February 2013 at the Kandahar Airbase in southern Afghanistan. “While deployed,” he wrote in Feb. 2015 a the Times Herald-Record, “I concluded our drone strikes disproportionately kill innocent people.”

Less than a month after I deployed to Afghanistan, on Oct. 24, 2012, a grandmother who lived over the hill from our base camp was out gathering okra in a field when she was killed by a U.S. drone strike.

Or was she?

Official sources claimed they killed “militants” that day; I didn’t see her, or anyone else, die. All I saw were the drones, taking off, landing, and circling around. I did not even hear the explosion.

Months later I watched the testimony of 13-year-old Zubair Rehman, describing how he saw his grandmother blown to bits by two hellfire missiles on the day in question, asking his American audience: “Why?”

They didn’t have an answer.

He added:

From the perspective of both religious wisdom and military values, drone warfare, as conducted by the United States today, is a betrayal of what is right. My faith affirms the inherent worth and dignity of all people, everywhere. I believe Americans who share that affirmation have a responsibility to advocate for a U.S. foreign policy that reflects our regard for human dignity. Military leadership also has a responsibility to advocate for a method of war-fighting consistent with military values like respect, integrity, and personal courage. Too often, I worry, our program of drone warfare falls short of these ideals.

“I resign because I refuse to support U.S. policy of preventive war, permanent military supremacy, and global power projection,” his letter of resignation states.

Military.com, which spoke to Antal on Wednesday, reports that he “remains a chaplain with the 354th Transportation Battalion at Fort Totten, New York” while his resignation is being processed.

Stopping drone strikes and providing transparency for ones that already took place is essential, Antal wrote last year.

“We owe this to Zubair, and the thousands like him. We owe this to our service members who yearn to fight justly. We owe this to the many veterans like myself living in moral pain.”

His full letter of resignation is below:

MEMORANDUM FOR Commander-in-Chief, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20500

THRU U.S. Army Resources Command, ATTN; AHRC-OPL-P, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Ft. Knox, KY 40122

SUBJECT: Resignation in Protest

Dear Mr. President:

I hereby resign my commission as an Officer in the United States Army.

I resign because I refuse to support U.S. armed drone policy. The Executive Branch continues to claim the right to kill anyone, anywhere on earth, at any tie, for secret reasons, based on secret evidence, in a secret process, undertaken by unidentified officials. I refuse to support this policy of unaccountable killing.

I resign because I refuse to support U.S. nuclear weapon policy. The Executive Branch continues to invest billions of dollars into nuclear weapons, which threaten the existence of humankind and the earth. I refuse to support this policy of terror ad mutually assured destruction.

I resign because I refuse to support U.S. policy of preventive war, permanent military supremacy and global power projection. The Executive branch continues to claim extra- constitutional authority and impunity from international law. I refuse to support this policy of imperial overstretch.

I resign because I refuse to serve as an empire chaplain. I cannot reconcile these policies with wither my sworn duty to protect and defend America and our constitutional democracy or my covenantal commitment to the core principles of my religion faith. These principles include: justice, equity and compassion in human relations, a free and responsible search for truth; and the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Respectfully submitted,

Christopher John Antal

Share Button

‘I am on the Kill List’

“Singling out people to assassinate, and killing nine of our innocent children for each person they target, is a crime of unspeakable proportions.”

By Andrea Germanos, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 4-13-2016.

An MQ-1 Predator drone. (U.S. Air Force photo/Lt Col Leslie Pratt)

An MQ-1 Predator drone. (U.S. Air Force photo/Lt Col Leslie Pratt)

“Stop trying to kill me.”

That’s the message a man from Waziristan, Pakistan’s border area with Afghanistan, has brought to the UK this week, saying that the U.S. has targeted him for death by placing him on the so-called kill list.

In an op-ed published Tuesday at the Independent, tribal elder Malik Jalal explains he’s in England “because I decided that if Westerners wanted to kill me without bothering to come to speak with me first, perhaps I should come to speak to them instead. I’ll tell my story so that you can judge for yourselves whether I am the kind of person you want to be murdered.” Continue reading

Share Button

Turkey’s Parliament: Democracy Dies in “Palace Coup”

Turkey’s HDP, civil society launch campaign against lifting immunities: “More than 250 civil society organizations (CSOs), professional chambers and associations have released a joint declaration against a government-led bill which would strip some parliamentarians of their immunity from prosecution, with the Kurdish-problem-focused Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), the main target of the bill, marking the declaration as a starter for a campaign against “the palace’s coup.”

Fight breaks out in Turkish Parliament as discussion over stripping MPs of immunity, May 3, 2016. Image via Twitter.

Fight breaks out in Turkish Parliament as discussion over stripping MPs of immunity, May 3, 2016. Image via Twitter.

The following letter was published by the HDP co-chairs, Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ, following the volatile debate in parliament that dissolved into fist fights and brawling. It appears to have been released on or after May 5, 2016.

Turkey is rapidly moving away from democracy and the rule of law due to President Erdoğan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government’s increasing authoritarian policies – particularly with respect to the Kurdish issue. At multiple platforms we have expressed grave concerns that such antidemocratic policies are dragging the country into political violence, social polarization, and socio-economic instability. We have also emphasized that the only way out of these circumstances is to resume the peace process with the Kurdish movement and broaden the field of democratic politics. Unfortunately, Turkey is moving full force in the opposite direction despite ongoing negotiations for accession to the EU.

Turkey’s already weak parliamentary democracy is under a new totalitarian attack. President Erdoğan and the AKP government have virtually subordinated the Turkish judiciary to the executive by several governmental and legal interventions over the past two years. Now, a recent motion by the government to lift legislative immunity seeks to oust political opposition from the parliament. If passed, this motion would suspend Article 83 of the Constitution, which guarantees parliamentary immunity, through addition of a provisional clause. Lifting parliamentary immunity with such an anti-Constitutional move would extend Erdoğan-AKP bloc’s monopolistic grip to the legislative body.

We view this motion as a political coup attempt to completely destroy the separation of powers by subordinating the legislative to the executive and leaving the former to the mercy of a thoroughly politicized and biased judiciary. If successful, this coup would be a most crucial step for Erdoğan to replace Turkey’s parliamentary democracy, which he has twice declared “de facto over,” with an absolutist presidential system in which the legislative, executive and judiciary powers are virtually monopolized by the President himself.

As of April 21, 2016, the summaries of court proceedings of 131 deputies had been sent to the parliament. If the AKP’s motion passes, these deputies will lose their immunity. Of these, 26 are AKP deputies, 51 are Republican People’s Party (CHP) deputies, 46 are Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) deputies, 7 are Nationalist Action Party (MHP) deputies, and 1 is an independent deputy. The AKP government represents the mixed profile of these deputies as proof of the non-partisan intention of the motion. This is simply a pretense.

What this motion seeks to destroy is the HDP opposition in the parliament. Despite the antidemocratic %10 election threshold, mass arrest and imprisonment of thousands of our party executives, members and electorate, hundreds of physical attacks on our offices, and constant criminalization and scapegoating, the Erdoğan-AKP bloc failed to prevent us from entering the parliament in the elections on June 7th and November 1st, 2015. Lifting our immunity is their latest move to exclude the HDP from the parliament. In fact, in his many public statements regarding the motion, President Erdoğan did single out HDP deputies and criminalized us as “supporters of terrorism” with groundless accusations.

The HDP is a progressive party established by Kurdish political opposition and other under-represented ethno-religious populations, women, labor and ecologist/environmentalist groups who came together around values of pluralist democracy, peace, justice and equality. Conceiving the repression of Kurdish people’s cultural and political rights as a systemic problem of the monolithic nation-state formation in Turkey, we uphold an integrated approach to the struggle for equality and freedom of all repressed sectors of Turkey’s populace. The profile of our parliamentary group, including Kurdish, Turkish, Armenian, Syriac, Alevite and Ezidi representatives as well as democrat Muslims, women, labor and ecological activists, reflects clearly our democratic political commitments.

As per parliamentary immunity, we demand its Constitutional restriction to chair immunity. We have already submitted a motion regarding this to the parliament. We believe that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Limiting parliamentary immunity with chair immunity would guarantee free and democratic debate in the parliament while preventing the abuse of parliamentary immunity for unlawful advancement of personal, familial or small group interests.

Let us remind you that the revocation of parliamentary immunity and imprisonment of Democracy Party’s (DEP) Kurdish deputies in 1994 under the pretext of “fighting terror” was both a symptom and facilitator of one of the most violent periods of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey. In the totalitarian turn that Turkish political system has recently taken, wherein anybody critical of the Erdoğan-AKP bloc is labeled as a “terrorist” or “supporter of terrorism,” the closure of parliamentary representation to political opposition will render Kurds and other marginalized peoples of Turkey even more vulnerable to grave forms of state violence and repression. As it is, the tutelage of the executive over the judiciary emboldened President Erdoğan to even demand revoking the citizenship of his political critics ranging from HDP deputies and elected Kurdish mayors to journalists, pro-peace academics and social media users. Lest the parliament is brought under the control of the executive, we suspect Erdoğan’s next move would be to demand “a state without citizens.”

The HDP will continue its decisive struggle against authoritarian policies that the Erdoğan- AKP bloc carries out to annihilate democratic life in Turkey. Given the injustices in court cases against journalists, academics, elected Kurdish mayors or the citizens alleged to have “insulted the President,” we do not expect the courts, which are under heavy control of President Erdoğan, to deliver justice to our deputies. We will not surrender to authoritarianism and will continue our democratic struggle against all kinds of tyrannies.

In this critical conjuncture for Turkey’s democracy and a peaceful resolution of the Kurdish conflict, we invite all persons and institutions embracing universal democratic values to take immediate and concrete action, strongly raise their voice, and stand in solidarity with our struggle against the intended political coup against the parliament and the HDP.

Share Button