Tag Archives: Occupy

The Bull in the China Shop

Photo via Flickr

There’s been a major upheaval happening for the last three months halfway around the world; yet the Western press has only covered it in fits and starts. If you’re a regular reader here, you probably know the basics of the Umbrella Revolution; we’ve covered both the protests in July and the beginning of the current wave of unrest and how it became known as the Umbrella Revolution. What had been for the most part peaceful protest turned violent this week, as the police began to crack down.

On Monday, the New York Times ran an op-ed by Shiu Sin-por, the head of The Central Policy Unit of of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the Beijing government). In it, he claimed that the pro-democracy protesters must accept Beijing’s powers as defined in the Basic Law; what China says is the constitutional document that specifies how Hong Kong is governed. In remarks made to the China News Service (a state-run news organization), Zhang Xiaoming, the head of the central Chinese government’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong, said the movement had “provoked” the central Chinese government and engaged in “radical forms of street confrontation,” and that China’s central leadership was “paying very close attention to the current developments.”

Then, on Tuesday morning, police using chain saws and sledgehammers cleared away the barricades that protesters had put up around two sites, and reopened several major roads that the protesters had blocked. Early Wednesday morning, students and the police clashed, with the police using riot shields, batons and pepper spray. The police made 45 arrests, and four policemen were injured. However, it’s the other thing the police did that has Hong Kong up in arms.

A video shot and broadcast by TVB, a usually pro-government television station, showed at least six plainclothes Hong Kong police officers dragging a pro-democracy protester into an alley, where he was kicked and beaten by them. The public reaction to this was as you’d suspect. “I thought a situation like this would only be seen in foreign countries, other societies — I didn’t expect to see it in Hong Kong,” said Ronny Tong, a Civic Party member of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council.

Audrey Eu, the chairman of the Civic Party, said; “Whatever they might charge him with, both his hands were tied behind his back with a plastic tie, and he was carried by police officers to a dark corner where he was assaulted for four minutes. I don’t know what has come over the police. It’s criminal.”

Hui Chun-tak, a spokesman for the Hong Kong police, said the authorities would conduct an “impartial and fair investigation” over the beating. Meanwhile, a front page commentary in the People’s Daily (the official Communist Party newspaper) praised Leung Chun-ying (Hong Kong’s Chief Executive)’s handling of the protests and further said the calls for his dismissal from protesters were part of a plot to force the government into unacceptable concessions.

As we’ve said before, we’re struck by how much the situation in Hong Kong parallels our own here in the U.S. Rampant income inequality, a lack of affordable housing, and many more. Even the way candidates are chosen for the highest office are similar; the only difference is that here we pretend the special interests who control the government and choose which candidates will run aren’t actually who’s in charge.

And, just like on the Chinese mainland, our media does its best to ignore the protests, hoping that they’ll go away before we notice what’s happening; before we realize that we share common goals; before we realize that we too have the power to bring about change.

Tales From The Umbrella Revolution

Leave a reply

Back in July, we wrote a piece about the democracy movement in Hong Kong. The piece was published the day after 500,000 people took to the streets for reasons that should sound familiar to us all; in many ways, it sounds just like here in the U.S.

Hong Kong has historically had more freedom and more of a democracy than the mainland has; when the British handed over Hong Kong to China back in 1997, preserving Hong Kong’s relative autonomy was one of the promises that China made to the British and to Hong Kong residents. The Chinese furthermore pledged that in 2017, Hong Kong’s citizens would be allowed to democratically elect their top leader for the first time.

You see, in Hong Kong, the candidates for leader are selected by a nominating committee, which consists of corporate representatives and members of the upper class, In other words, just like our system, except that the Chinese are much more honest about the procedure than our political parties are. Non-elected officials get their appointments through patronage, and not the skills they have. Sound familiar to you?

In June, the Chinese government issued a “white paper” claiming “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong and that “the high degree of autonomy of [Hong Kong] is not an inherent power, but one that comes solely from the authorization by the central leadership.” Then, in August, the Chinese government stated that although citizens would vote for the chief executive (the head government office in Hong Kong), the candidates would have to be approved by a , special committee. Needless to say, the citizens were not impressed.

Hong Kong, 9-28-14. Photo via Facebook

Last Monday, thousands of students began a week-long boycott of classes at CUHK to protest the government’s decision. Lester Shum of the Federation of Students said in speaking to the demonstrators, ““In the colonial days, the British ruled Hong Kong as if they were a group of refugees and obedient subjects. On August 31, [Beijing’s] decision would allow the central government and [tycoons]to continue to manipulate the election. Isn’t that applying the colonial [approach]to Hong Kong?”

Then, Occupy Central joined the students. The main force behind the July protests, Occupy Central was originally going to launch a “civil disobedience” campaign on October 1, a national holiday celebrating communist China’s founding. But, as the student protests escalated, they decided instead to join the students. On Friday, the protesters peacefully occupied the forecourt (think courtyard) in front of the main government building.

Hong Kong, 9-28-14. Photo via Facebook

On Sunday afternoon, the police moved in. Firing tear gas canisters into the crowd, they were also stopping supporters of the protest from entering the area. The protesters who couldn’t get into the forecourt spread out into the nearby streets, and the confrontations with police spread across the city. As the police crackdown spread, outraged citizens joined the protesters – the unrest spread even more. At this point, the student leaders began referring to the protests as the Umbrella Revolution, as the protesters were using umbrellas not only to keep dry (it rains a lot in Hong Kong this time of year), but as shields against tear gas and pepper spray.

The Chinese central government issued a statement endorsing the police actions, as did Hong Kong’s current chief executive, who’s basically a front for the Beijing government. How this will go over with the protesters remains to be seen; we’re guessing it won’t go over too well.

Occupy World Writes stands in solidarity with the people of Hong Kong. In what’s becoming a familiar sight at protests, some of the demonstrators are using the same “hands up, don’t shoot” gesture used by protesters in the Ferguson, Missouri protests of last month. We find this to be fitting; just as we are all Michael Brown, we’re also all the people of Hong Kong.

Ferguson, Missouri 9-28-2014. Photo via Facebook

The right of the people to self-govern is non-negotiable. The right of the people to hold the police responsible for their actions is non-negotiable. We are Hong Kong. We are Michael Brown. We are the 99%.

We Hoped For The Best, But…

Leave a reply

Last Friday, we ran a piece on the The Democracy for All Amendment. This wasn’t the first time we’ve touched on Citizens United and its impact on our politics and policies; we ran a piece back in January proposing that our Congressthings wear the logos of their “sponsors” at all public engagements and while conducting the business of politics. But, last Friday’s post was especially timely, considering that a procedural vote was scheduled for Monday.

We pointed out the inherent flaws in the bill that went before the Senate, especially when compared to HJ Res 29, which is a comprehensive resolution introduced at the behest of the grassroots organization Move to Amend. First of all, the bill didn’t address transparency in the campaign contribution process. Secondly, it was designed to be passed with a companion bill, The People’s Rights Amendment, that defined the legal status of a corporation as far as constitutional rights went. We questioned whether the two bills instead of the one all-encompassing bill strategy was a smokescreen – pass one and we’d be so happy that one got through that we won’t notice that the other’s going nowhere, when both are needed the way that they’re written.

Monday’s procedural vote almost gave us reason to be hopeful; the Senate voted 79-18 to let it advance to the floor. However, then the corporate and big money spin machine went to work, and we heard such absurdities as a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United was an attempt to repeal the First Amendment. Our favorite psychopath from Texas, Ted Cruz, went as far as to claim “Saturday Night Live” creator Lorne Michaels could be thrown in jail if the amendment passed, as according to him, the amendment would outlaw political speech by corporations. Of course, Teddy knows it does nothing like that at all; yet that and other such absurdities were spouted as gospel by those on the right to ramp up the paranoia among their followers. Then came yesterday’s vote.

via Facebook

We hoped that we would be wrong in our prediction of what would happen, but alas, it was not to be. In a completely partisan voice, the Senate voted 54-42 to pass this amendment. However, since this is the modern Senate where everything besides confirmation of nominees to various posts requires 60 votes to pass instead of a simple majority, the bill won’t go forward to the House. Once again, the Republicans in the Senate paid more heed to the corporations putting lobbyist money in their pockets than to listen to the American people.

We could not help but note this vote was taken on 9-11, when most media outlets would be paying very little attention to what the Senate was doing. So, once again, while we were distracted, our elected officials did their utmost to screw we the people out of having any say in our government.

So, what can we do? Is it game over – have they won? Absolutely not!

Be an active participant in the process, and not a passive watcher. Get involved with Move to Amend. Let your Congressthings in both the House and Senate know that you’re watching; remind them that they work for you, and not the other way around. Get out and vote in November. Just do it.

America’s future generations will thank you…

How Not to Make Amendments

Leave a reply

By occupostal for Occupy World Writes

The United States Capitol building, Washington, D.C. Date 2010. From the Carol M. Highsmith Archive at the Library of Congress, via Wikimedia Commons.

Next Monday, September 8th, will mark a feel-good moment in this waning U.S. Senate session, when it holds a procedural vote on reforming campaign finance. Nothing will come of the vote this time—but its occasion is an opportunity to reflect on what’s important the next time we have a real stab at neutering the fallout from recent relevant Supreme Court decisions, most notably Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC.

The vote will occur on a joint resolution called The Democracy for All Amendment (SJ Res 19) (It’s “joint” because an identical resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives, HJ Res 20, though no vote is scheduled there.)

SJ Res 19 is the first step toward a Constitutional amendment that asserts Congress’ and the states’ right to control elections financing despite the Supreme Court’s decisions enabling the opposite for corporations and wealthy persons, both of whose money the court views as speech itself. While making reference to “distinguish[ing] between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections”–the resolution doesn’t deal with whether corporations have constitutional rights, rather than just statutory ones granted them by law. That task is taken care of by a companion joint resolution, The People’s Rights Amendment (SJ Res 18 and HJ Res 21). It’s anyone’s guess when this one will get on schedule for a vote (in either house of Congress).

But together, this pair of resolutions emulate the comprehensive one introduced at the behest of Move To Amend, a grassroots organization that leads the pack of amendment reform advocates—HJ Res 29 (though it hasn’t been given a catchy title).

So at this point — just before that Senate vote on Monday — it’s instructive to examine briefly why SJ Res 19 and 18 are inadequate to tackle what ails our democracy when compared with MTA’s HJ Res 29.

First, put your money where your mouth is. SJ Res 19 does not address transparency in the campaign contribution process. HJ Res 29 does: “Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed”. Since there are always maneuvers around law limiting contributions, disclosing the sources of all funding is a critical sunlight principle.

Second, what’s in a name? The companion resolution, SJ Res 18, is a “people’s amendment” with dodgy language. Most critical is this mouthful: “The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state[…].”

The problem is with specific words here: corporation, limited liability company, and especially corporate entities. An encouraging stab at inclusiveness, but not enough. The first two name common legal entities for the conduct of business activities, while the third tries to cast the net wider and catch-all anything else of a “corporate” nature that may be enabled by law. But that term may be vulnerable—subject to legal and otherwise rhetorically inventive maneuvers to create funding entities that can technically escape being deemed “corporate.” I suspect that the language reads this way in order to permit labor unions to squeak through a loophole as exceptions to the resolution—since unions are arguably not corporations or even corporate entities (to the best of my imperfect knowledge).

But that’s an unwise safe-haven. Unions don’t need this exception, and a lot more nefarious shenanigans can slip through a loophole designed for them. MTA’s language nails it simply and elegantly: “Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution[…].” Here the operative term is “artificial entities” (the corporate forms listed are merely examples of them). Human beings are natural persons because they spring from nature. Anything that humans create is an artificial device—a tool for dealing with the natural world or with how we can organize living in it as social beings meeting our needs. That includes not only hammers and nails and fracking technology, but more to the point here corporations, unions, and any sort of entity—be it humanely ideal or just a dodge—devised by the minds of people. No lawyerly Houdini moves can escape the net of this resolution. Simple and elegant.

Third and finally… You crazy? — The fail will probably kill ya! Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid jumped off the cliff and into the river together. That’s the way it should be with the major principles embodied in these resolutions: that money is not speech and must be controlled in politics, and that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of people. Yoke them together in one amendment, not two. Again, you can suspect that their separation into the Democracy for All Amendment and The People’s Rights Amendment is disingenuously strategic: to condition your expectations to settle for less. One resolution will eventually pass (the invidious logic may go), and given the flush of a partial victory, and sufficient passage of time while waiting, waiting, waiting on the second… it may fade into memory and resignation. “Ah well, at least we got the one. The important one that deals with the most pressing problem.”

And which one do you think that is? SJ Res 19 of course. Which would establish the right to control campaign financing—but without transparency—and with the actual control having to follow in further legislation. Meanwhile, corporate and other artificial entities would still have the constitutional rights of people—which can enable a lot more political influence mischief both inside and outside of mere campaign funding. Failure to follow through on both principles will dilute the medicine and buy the disease time to mutate around it.

I regret that I’m not hopeful a People’s Amendment would build on momentum from the success of a Democracy for All Amendment, and bring us a one-two take-down later if not sooner. It’s more likely that the name of the game is Divide and Conquer. Divide your attention, then conquer and diminish your expectations of what’s really needed to cure our democratic process and what we can settled for in the end.

The only remedy? Keep your eyes on the prize. Think outside the box of the political babble of the moment—especially after September 8th’s place-holding Senate vote. This is an issue where it isn’t true that perfect is the enemy of the good. If you understand the nature of the problem facing our democracy, and really mean to solve it, you have to conclude: without perfectly addressing the problem, there is no “good enough” cure worth living with.

The Price of Principle

Leave a reply

By U.S. Air Force photo illustration by Airman 1st Class Kenna Jackson [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Letting your mind be “occupied” means you consider the principle at play in most interactions you have in life. From the grocery clerk to the solicitor at the door, you must pause and ask yourself, “How does this align with the tenants and values of the Occupy movement?”

We operate our lives much like our vehicles. We have an assumed trust that the oncoming car will not cross the center line and enter our lane. We assume everyone will stop at a four-way stop, and that motorists will not go down a one-way street the wrong direction. By following the basic rules, we arrive at our destinations safely. It is a grand bargain that works for everyone on the road.

Sometimes there is a collision. Like the scene of any bad accident, you realize that every witness sees things differently. Even if the other driver was impaired, it does not change the fact that the “rules” were not followed and someone pays. Maybe it is as serious as the loss of life, maybe it is simply increased insurance premiums. But someone pays.

So it is when we find things that we may hold very dear to us but, for whatever reason, they no longer align with the tenants and values of the Occupy Movement, nor in the thinking of an “occupied mind.” This is when you pause and say “I must make a choice. What means more, this “thing” or the principles I value and the voice I have chosen? Will making a stand make a difference, and does it matter if I try, or can I just let this one go?”

One of the firmest stands I have made in my life is the solidarity I take with domestic violence and rape survivors. Unwavering in my commitment to educate those who live in ignorance of the cultures in our society that perpetuate these issues and generate more victims, I can not make exception even if I want to.

When I met my husband, he had been participating in a hobby/craft for decades. His involvement introduced me to a new world, where I made many friends and enjoyed myself immensely. It became the center of our social life and allowed us time with other couples with like interests.

Until.

Until we learned that one of the “members” of the group we were not as close to was a convicted felon who had beat the face of his then-wife in with the butt of a gun. He is serving his “extended supervision” portion of his sentence by violating the terms of the court every chance he gets in order to participate in the activities as though every thing is as acceptable as a speeding ticket. When he is arrested for his infractions, he blames his now ex-wife for reporting him, not recognizing it was his choice to violate the terms of his sentence in the first place.

As a result, I have felt forced to withdraw my participation and isolate myself from the group of friends I truly enjoy, all in order to first; teach them that this convicted felon’s behavior is not acceptable, and secondly, to prevent the PTSD and panic disorders triggered by this particular individuals’ actions from occurring. My husband is still considering if he can continue participation much longer.

Is this what I wanted? NO. Did I have a choice? NO.

But when when your principles means more than the things in life that humor you, it is worth the stand. When I know I affected at least one life with my decision, it is the start of change.

What change are you willing to stand up to make?

Separation Anxiety

Leave a reply

“Life is what gets in the way while you are making other plans.”

Photo author’s own work. ©2014 Occupy World Writes. Used by permission.

People move through life with expectations; the sun will come up tomorrow, the earth is round, the mail delivery will bring your bills and your vehicle will start when you turn the key. We also have expectations of others; your parents will always love you, your boss will reward you for a job well done, your friends will stand by you as well as protect you from yourself and your family will always be there in times of need.

Sometimes this flow of life gets interrupted. When this happens, the effects can be devastating. You can lose focus, motivation, drive and ambition in the same instant that an event occurs, even though you may not realize the consequences until further down the road. You can think you are prepared for any crisis, that nothing can deter you from your goals. But then it happens.

Everything changes.

Maybe it is through inconvenience of something not working, maybe a coworker or friend that lets you down. Perhaps it is the diagnosis of a terminal illness, the death of a family member or dear friend, even the death of a beloved pet is enough. Regardless the cause, the derailment is now before you, and you feel powerless to get things back to whatever “normal” might be.

Through a recent experience that has caused me to even be unable to write, I have learned something valuable. You will always benefit more when you take the time to allow the process of inner reflection to occur at its own pace. It teaches you to pause in life’s busy moments to appreciate things that otherwise would go unnoticed. It reminds you that everyone grieves their own way, in their own time and it is not for you to judge.

What does this have to do with Occupy World Writes and why is this post here? Because I am again reminded that until you have actually been in the shoes of those you are concerned for or about, you can not pass judgement on how you think they should act, feel or speak. Until you have suffered the same tragedy, been chased from your home by terrorists or war, been nearly starved to death, held in captivity against your will, suffered the burden of a corrupt government, or have been persecuted for your religious faith, do not judge those who have.

Occupy World Writes stands in solidarity with all those who understand personal grief, overcoming adversity and learning growth through the penalty of loss. As individuals and members of society, we feel it is the right of every individual to learn from tragedy in such a way that their life will become enriched over time from the experience. We also understand the importance of offering your support to those who are handed a platter of life’s cruel food. The next time someone seems out of sorts, take the time to ask them if you can help them through something somehow, and then listen to them when they answer.

Sometimes the soft voices are the ones that carry the most impact.

No Comment

Leave a reply

There are times we cover stories because we believe there are principles that apply to the tenants of the Occupy movement. There are also times that we choose NOT to cover certain stories for reasons we consider to be bigger than ourselves.

The most recent example we can use to explain how we choose what to cover and why is the news from Nigeria regarding the kidnapping of 276 school girls. We have been following this story since it broke, but have not published a response or comment. Why? Because we believe that extremist organizations like Boca Harem do these things to shock and horrify the world and bring attention to their cause and viewpoints. Occupy World Writes draws a line in giving a platform to any group that uses human trafficking, murder and rape as stepping stones to the world stage of notoriety. By publishing a comment while these girls are still in captivity that may be seen by those guilty of the crime, we could risk the possible safety of these girls. We will not give this group that power or voice. The international community has put more resources and effort in finding a missing plane where all are presumed dead than they are in recovering these young women, who are quite alive and will be sold into sexual slavery. SHAME ON THE WORLD.

Another example of recent news we chose not to cover is the Cliven Bundy story. In this case, we saw Mr. Bundy as the oppressor, both in his attitudes toward other ranchers and his viewpoints when he decided to “tell you something about the negro.” We have problems with armed militia groups in America that have taken over the town of Bunkersville, and question why something is not being done. If this were a group of Occupy folks, they would all have been arrested. If these people were wearing turbans instead of cowboy hats, America’s populace would be screaming for authorities to step in. If Cliven Bundy were black or Latino, no one in Nevada would have stood beside him.

Then there is the amount of coverage we give certain topics. We talked consistently about Ukraine when that story began developing. Why didn’t we continue? Because once the main-stream media picks up on a story, they will examine it ad nauseum. Example: the GWB scandal, where we learned who Bridget Kelly had been dating, as if that has anything to do with the corruption within New Jersey politics or “traffic studies” om the world’s busiest bridge. We also assume you are a thinking, breathing, competent human being who can follow stories that interest you without the use of a 2X4.

You will sometimes see posts that aren’t really news at all. Why are they in there? Because sometimes the idea is the news – the teaching moment or the time to pause and try to make sense of a bigger picture. And we know we are not always right, and that not everyone will agree with us. They aren’t supposed to – individual critical thinking is the goal. Occupy your consciousness.

Our choices are not always easy. Our vision may not always align with yours. That’s okay – this is where we grow and learn from each other. We also know we won’t get everything right, but we try our best. Trying is better than acquiescing and languishing in complicity.

Condemning “Provacative”

Leave a reply

The guided missile destroyer USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) underway. Donald Cook was the first surface combatant to fire Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) in the liberation of Iraq. Photo By U.S. Navy photo by Chief Journalist Alan J. Baribeau. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

A 90-minute encounter between the USS Donald Cook and a Russian SU-24 fighter aircraft, making 12 low-altitude, close-range passes near the ship in the Black Sea over the weekend, brought some excitment to the crew of the guided missle destroyer.

The passes — ranging from sea level to several thousand feet — did not place the US destroyer in danger, according to Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren. Attempts to communicate with the Russian aircraft to inquire as to its intentions were met with radio silence.

“This provocative and unprofessional Russian action is inconsistent with their national protocols and previous agreements on the professional interaction between our militaries,” Warren said.

At Putin’s request, Obama and Putin spoke by phone on Monday evening. Described as “frank and direct,” the conversation reportedly did not go well. This is the coolest the relationship with Russia has been in decades.

This comes following a heightened tension in the Ukraine crisis as more government buildings were seized in various eastern Ukraine cities over the past few days. Tactics, equipment and unidentified provocateurs operating under the exact same methods as we saw in Crimea. Yet Russia wants us to believe there is no connection, while their media reports how Yanukovich is still the legitimate ruler of Ukraine.

Russian Air Force Jet SU-24. Photo By Alex Beltyukov - RuSpotters Team [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL 1.2 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/fdl-1.2.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

Russian Air Force Jet SU-24. Photo By Alex Beltyukov – RuSpotters Team [CC-BY-SA-3.0, CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GFDL 1.2], via Wikimedia Commons

How do we know about the connection with sure confidence? Activists that are homegrown movements bent on democratic change do not take over government buildings sporting automatic, military grade weaponry and maneuvers. The protest in Kiev began as a peaceful group in Independence Square – it did not turn violent until provoked by the riot police, under Yanukovich acting on Putin’s advice, attacked the protestors.

As we continue to hold our breath and pray that Ukraine does not escalate into the next World War, we also hold firm on our opinion and belief that true oppression, as seen in the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement and in Kiev, represents the fact that THE PEOPLE WILL ONLY TAKE SO MUCH!

Impressions at Gezi Park

1 Reply

Taksim Square - Gezi Park Protests, İstanbul, 1 June 2013. Photo By Alan Hilditch from Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Taksim Square – Gezi Park Protests, İstanbul, 1 June 2013. Photo By Alan Hilditch from Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire [CC-BY-2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

On International Women’s Day, police used violence to prevent a group of approximately 50 women (an association against the murder of women), denouncing domestic violence against women from entering Gezi Park at Taksim Square in Istanbul.

A police officer in plainclothes approached the spokeswoman of the group while she was peacefully reading a statement and shouted: “You are not allowed to stage a demonstration here. Get out!” a report from the daily Hürriyet said. “The officer then violently pushed several women down the stairs, as the group refused to disperse and tried to resist the police attack with their banners.”

“In the aftermath of their violent removal from Gezi Park, hundreds of women gathered at Galatasaray Square before attempting to march on Taksim Square despite a steady downpour and cold temperatures. The demonstrators, who frequently chanted “Tayyip, escape, woman are coming” in Turkish and “Women, Life, Freedom” in Kurdish, advanced as far Zambak Street before they were met by a cordon of riot police. Police used their shields to shove a number of those that had reached the security force’s lines before organizational leaders called for a retreat toward Galatasaray,” the Hurrieyet continued.

Since the Gezi Park uprising began on May 31 of 2013, police often block off access to Gezi Park and Taksim Square’s central monument at the whim of the province’s governor, Hüseyin Avni Mutlu. The protestors are met with violent, military-style brutality, complete with chemical weapons like teargas, under Mutlu’s instructions.

The Gezi Park Occupation originated when civilians objected to the decision of the government to raze and develop the last public green space in Istanbul. The protest surged when the fans of three football teams took their energy and support from the huge, filled stadium to the park and united forces with the people there. Met with extremely brutal push-back from riot police, demonstrators went as far as to write their names and blood types in indelible marker on their arms, fearing the worst and wanting medics to know something should the unthinkable happen.

This 18 minute video report will take you inside the uprising, giving voice to the thousands of people who continue their united struggle for democracy in Turkey.

A video from June 2013 describing the situation in Istanbul as it was at that time.

The uprisings quickly spread to over 60 cities in Turkey, and the struggles continue today. Occupy World Writes stands in solidarity with the demonstrators of Gezi Park, the people of Turkey and northern Kurdistan, and all those who support the right of people to assemble and make redress of grievances against their governments who have failed them.

These Are Not Isolated Incidents

Leave a reply

By David Shankbone (Own work) [CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

By David Shankbone (Own work) [CC-BY-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Over the past few years, the world has witnessed what might be best described as a new awakening; a new consciousness emerging that is unlike anything we have seen before. We are witnessing a shift in both the perception of governments’ responsibilities and the response of those who are governed.

Most recently, events in the Ukraine began with a protest and occupation of The Maiden, also known as Independence Square, in Kiev. The result was an ousted president and an anxious world as the Crimea region’s future and stability throughout the region remains in question.

In the United States, the Occupy movement forced topics into the national dialogue that remain long after the physical occupations of the cities were ended. We still hear discussions of the 99%, income inequality, financial reform, the influence of money in politics, social justice, austerity and a host of other issues. Mobilization of the masses was seen as a tool more than a reaction.

The Arab Spring has resulted in changes within the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Morocco. Turkey is home to a current protest movement which began in Gezi Park, Istanbul and now includes over 90 cities.

Protestors in Thailand have brought change to a nation of military rule and corruption within the government. Although their struggle is long from over, their rejection of oppression unites them with determination.

So what is really going on?

Photo by Alpsdake (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Photo by Alpsdake (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

The easiest way of thinking of it is one word: evolution. From this root word, grows revolution. The human race, and most specifically, the millennial generation, has looked beyond self to recognize fellow humans, disregarding borders, ethnicity, religion and governments. What happens to a rape victim in India transforms into world outrage, forcing change.

Lending itself well to this shift has been the contribution of social media. Our connectivity with people all over the world has never been greater. We are better able to make statements of solidarity, to mobilize multitudes and to begin creating changes where they are needed most. But just being connected does not explain what reflects a spiritual change within our consciousness.

Spiritualism, separated from religion is the part of us that can move mountains through emotion, see beyond the physical and transcend the limitations of book knowledge and science. It is the realization of the truths taught most in the great religions of the world, but not restricted to one religion or another. Truths that also live in the hearts of people whose only religion is helping their neighbor. Intrinsic truth, unleashed in the human consciousness, is becoming the new religion of the world.

Like the stream of consciousness from which it sprang, spiritualism now moves across the globe despite any force which tries to stop or impede the progress. We are ever changing, and this time it is for the betterment of all humanity. The people will only take so much.