While this apartheid regime has existed for the past 75 years, and these atrocities for even longer, it has failed to gain adequate coverage by the mainstream media. The main reason for this is that of Israel’s creation, where a UN resolution gave Israel its own state, disregarding and displacing the Palestinian people who resided on the land. Israel is much richer than Palestine, and, however disheartening it may be, standing by Israel is more advantageous for governments across the world for many reasons, including the power of Israel’s financial allyship. Because of this, it is far more uncommon to see a major publication or news outlet throw its support behind the Palestinian people, who have been subject to ethnic cleansing for the past 75 years.

Now, as the world begins to understand the gravity of the genocide that is occuring in Palestine, governments are also beginning to crack down on any criticism of the state of Israel. 

While governments have expressed unwavering support for the Israeli government, despite the war crimes that are being committed daily, it becomes clearer every day that these countries’ populations do not agree. From Yemen to the United Kingdom and the United States, pro-Palestine protests have garnered millions to support their cause. However, as people begin to express their discontent with government support for Israel, these governments are limiting the right to protest and free speech. 

For example, in Germany, a country which outlines that, “every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech writing and pictures … There shall be no censorship,” the government is directly opposing what is stated in the country’s legal code. Currently, Germany is banning a number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, with police attacking citizens for simply wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Palestinian scarf. These are not only horrifying attacks on free speech, but in direct opposition of what the German government claims to stand for. Germany has justified its actions as combating antisemitism, but it is abhorrent and dishonest to Jews and Palestinians alike to claim that standing up against Israel’s apartheid regime is an antisemetic act.

Germany is not the only country where this is happening, though. Austria, Hungary and Switzerland have all attempted to enact similar bans, while France continues to ban these protests on a case-by-case basis. 

Unsurprisingly, protest is also being heavily suppressed within Israel. In a country that is often lauded as the only democracy in the Middle East, its government is restricting the right to express any disagreement with its current actions. Not only is Israel arresting dozens of its Arab citizens for suspicions of terrorist sympathy, but is also treating social media posts with the Palestinian flag as hate speech. 

Seeing this, a clear act of anti-Arab sentiment and proof that Israel does not see Palestinians as equals, makes me wonder if Israel really has “the most moral army in the world” as it claims. If a global power who arrests citizens for sympathizing with innocent civilians is considered moral, the state of the world is worrisome.

The United States, a country that constantly boasts about its First Amendment rights and the right to free speech, is certainly not exempt from this hypocrisy. Some of the most elite universities in the country, which often pride themselves on being free-thinking and allowing of political speech, are among the harshest opposition to pro-Palestinian speech. 

Columbia University has suspended both JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) over claims that both groups are supporting hate speech. The idea that JVP, a Jewish activist organization with over 700,000 members, is antisemetic is not only laughable, but an insult to every Jewish person who stands against Israel’s crimes. Brown University is yet another example of this, arresting 20 Jewish students for asking that Brown consider a divestment resolution.

It is important to note that free speech within the United States is limited to the prohibition of government retaliation, meaning that groups not associated with the government are free to respond to speech as they wish. This is a bit of a difficult area to navigate, but it is crucial to remember that free speech does not signify speech without consequence. Speech that one simply disagrees with should not be a punishable offense, but speech that is hateful in nature and threatens violence must be addressed. Free speech does have consequences and it has limits, yet the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues to prove that governments will only acknowledge the right to free speech when it suits them. 

A prime example of this within the United States is the censorship of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Tlaib was censured for defending the use of the slogan “from the river to the sea,” which is not violent, despite what Zionists may claim. What this statement means is that Palestine will be a free state for all to exist in, regardless of religion — it is not calling for Jewish genocide as many Zionists choose to believe. While Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, faces a completely unjust censure for this statement, government officials who have called for violence against Palestine have not faced similar repercussions. 

Representative Max Miller has gone so far as to say “I don’t even want to call it the Palestinian flag because they’re not a state, they’re a territory, that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot.” 

This statement is unquestionably violent and does not begin to acknowledge the fact that Palestine is made up of innocent civilians, with half of Gazans being children. Yet, he has not faced any repercussions while Tlaib is censured for speaking on behalf of a country that endures genocide. The double standard here is astounding, and I am ashamed to be represented by those who silence voices advocating for equality while simultaneously failing to condemn others who wish violence upon innocent civilians.

The other side of the coin here is the individuals who are not receiving any repercussions for their actions. While free speech is a cornerstone of democracy and something that must not be taken away, it is important to consider that the right to free speech includes the ability to retaliate. 

While people are free to express themselves in a manner that you choose, they are equally able to respond, whether in agreement or not. And, as explained by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

Everyone should unequivocally condemn the vitriol that is being spewed, that which is antisemetic as well as that wishing violence on Palestinians. The University of Southern California has its own issues with this, specifically regarding Professor John Strauss, who was taped on video saying, “I hope they all are killed,” as he walked passed an event held to mourn the thousands of Palestinian lives lost to Israel’s genocide. Not only is his speech not protected from consequence by the First Amendment, but it is in direct contrast with USC policy against hate speech. 

I must add that I do not have faith that USC will uphold what it claims to stand for and unequivocally condemn this violent speech, but I hope that I am wrong. 

Globally, we have been subject to a media campaign to support Israel and suppress any opposition to the Israeli government, labeling the fight for Palestinian liberation as antisemitic. However, it is clear that people across the world do not stand with our respective governments, and it is crucial that we continue to oppose Israel’s violent settler-colonial apartheid regime by using our right to free speech, regardless of the attempt to take it away from us.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

The post The Meaning of Free Speech During Genocide appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In what many see as a response to the Hong Kong protests of 2019, China passed the Hong Kong National Security Law in June 2020, which criminalizes offences of “secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security”. Johannes Chan, former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong, criticized the law as ambiguously worded and questioned how peaceful protests act such as chanting slogans and flying banners could be seen as violations of the law.

These policies prompted opposing statements from foreign countries. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab asserted that it was “a flagrant assault on freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful protest,” while then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the “draconian law” destroys the territory’s autonomy.

Since then, countries have been taking action; most notably, a few governments have  enacted new immigration measures for Hong Kong’s citizens. In July 2020, the United Kingdom announced a policy proposal immediately after the law went into effect, opening an immigration tunnel for Hong Kong citizens who hold the British National Overseas passport (BNO). The BNO is a passport issued by the UK government for Hong Kong citizens born before July 1, 1997, the day of handover of the city. Citizens born after that day are eligible for the HKSAR passport issued by China instead.

The UK’s immigration policy stated that BNO holders and their dependants can apply for the BNO visa, which grants them the right to live and work in the UK.  Applicants will be able to apply for a permanent resident status after living within the country for five years.

Liu Xiaoming, China’s ambassador to the UK, claimed that Britain’s action has infringed on China’s sovereignty and undermined international norms. On January 29, 2021, the Hong Kong government announced that they would no longer recognise the BNO, meaning that BNO holders would not be able to enter or leave the Hong Kong border or demonstrate identity with the passport.

This means that for Hongkongers to depart, they would need an HKSAR passport. However, the British government has found a way around China’s response to their policies. The UK stated that BNO citizens do not need a valid BNO passport to demonstrate their BNO citizenship, thus they would not need a BNO passport to enter the UK. 

Other countries have also moved to enact similar immigration policies. Canada launched its Hong Kong Pathway immigration scheme, which allows all Hong Kong residents to apply for open work permits. Australia also loosened its VISA policies by allowing Hong Kong students to stay within the country for up to five years upon graduation from an Australian university. 

The threat to freedom of expression posed by the National Security Law has already made emigration a popular topic among Hong Kong citizens, and new immigration schemes by different countries have prompted debate. Jacky Yau, a student from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said that the uncertainty of Hong Kong’s future is one of the key reasons why he thought about leaving the city.

“We don’t know how much time Hong Kong has before it becomes exactly the same as China,” Yau said. “We might lose all the freedoms that we once enjoyed, and that’s not something that many of us want to see.” 

When asked about what country he would want to move to, Yau suggested Taiwan as a preferable destination.

“Lots of people have raised concerns about the problem of discrimination in Western countries, and Taiwan is just both culturally and linguistically closer to Hong Kong,” Yau said.

Clarence Ip, a Hong Kong citizen currently studying at the University of California San Diego, wants to stay in North America after graduation. He considers Canada as a viable option because of its new immigration scheme.

“I’ve looked into countries like the UK, Canada, the [United States], and I’ve looked into both the BNO program and the Canada youth program,” Ip said. “I feel like the Canada youth program is more beneficial towards the younger people of Hong Kong, but I have not seen anything from the [United States] yet.”

In September 2020, Congress proposed the The Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act of 2020, which would provide temporary protected status for Hong Kong residents who have “well-founded fear of persecution if the individual asserts such fear.” After the bill was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and moved to the Senate, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) blocked the bill, asserting that the bill was Democrats’ effort to advance their immigration agenda and would be used by China to send more Chinese spies into the United States.

With China further tightening its grip on Hong Kong, emigration is increasingly being seen as the best option for HongKongers to preserve their freedom. Fortunately, foreign countries are offering to take the city’s residents. But moving away from home and immigrating into a new country could prove to be another round of tough challenges for the Hong Kong people.

The post Amid China’s Tightening Grip, Countries Open New Immigration Paths for Hong Kong Citizens appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In exchange, nuclear-related sanctions would be lifted once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified that Iran had taken the steps to roll back their nuclear program. The controversial agreement was designed to repair the relationship between the United States and Iran after numerous tumultuous decades. 

For moderate Iranians, the JCPOA ignited a sense of unprecedented optimism for a new beginning — one that could integrate Iran into the international community, allowing for economic prosperity and policy reform within the nation. These sentiments were echoed by the Obama administration, as their top Deputy National Advisor Ben Rhodes said that the agreement would produce an “evolution in Iranian behavior,” while simultaneously implying a reduction in the systemic human rights abuses within the nation.

While the JCPOA was primarily viewed as a nuclear and economic agreement, there was hope that the deal would inspire a shift in the sociopolitical governing of the Iranian regime. Prior to the deal, Iran had a long-lasting history of alleged American hostage-taking, including the mysterious disappearance of Bob Levinson, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent, and Siamak Namazi, an Iranian-American businessman. In the days preceding the JCPOA’s implementation, former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif worked to release ten U.S. Navy personnel who were taken into Iranian custody after straying into the nation’s territorial waters. 

On January 16, 2016, the day the JCPOA went into effect, Iran agreed to release all remaining jailed dual nationals, implying renewed diplomatic intentions. However, the same year, Iran further imprisoned several other dual nationals, making it abundantly clear that Iran’s true motives in regard to diplomatic and human rights relations had not reformed. Instead, Iran’s support for Houthi rebels in Yemen, a U.S. declared foreign terrorist organization, increased, initiating a concatenation of consequent violations. 

The largest human rights violations following the JCPOA’s implementation were the inhumane conditions within Iranian penitentiaries faced by free speech proponents which were carried out without basic due process. Prisoners continued to be executed, their deaths symbolizing the consequences of rebellion. Human rights activists and citizen journalists have carried the majority of the burden, as they uphold the reputation of being the regime’s most formidable threat. A majority of political activists’ executions are justified by the Iranian government through false convictions that require barbarous punishments or the clandestine selection of a scapegoat to pin government officials’ crimes on. 

According to an informed source, Hossein Jozi, a protest organizer during the 2019 riots, was kidnapped and murdered by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). Farhad Vosoughi, a 27-year old husband and father, was accused of killing Jozi and unlawfully subjected to solitary confinement — without ever having received legal assistance. During his sentence, his brother cited the fierce torture Farhad Vosoughi’s endured that led to his eventual death. Following his demise, prison judiciary officials further threatened Vosoughi’s family to equivocate the truth to the press.

Sina Ghanbari, another political activist, was incarcerated and rumored to have committed suicide in May of 2018. However, when Ghanbari was lowered into his grave, family members unveiled his head and found signs of a broken skull and smashed left eye. 

Aside from mysterious homicides, there were also direct accounts of inhumane treatment through the refusal of medical services within penitentiaries. Behnam Mahjoubi, a prisoner of conscience, was arrested for his involvement in anti-government protests in February of 2018. Despite requiring daily medication for a diagnosed panic disorder, Mahjoubi was intentionally denied proper medical care. According to Mahjoubi’s wife, the correctional physician substituted his prescribed medication with 14 to 17 sleeping pills, a night, which led to his paralysis and untimely death. Their deaths and cruel treatment represent a minuscule fraction of the overwhelming number of political prisoners who bear the burden of seeking free speech. 

It has become increasingly difficult to hear the muffled screams of Iranian citizens, as human rights abuses continue to be meticulously buried via government censorship. As there has been little information revealed on the subject, the situation on the ground is best understood through local activists. Shiela, an Iranian local advocate who has extensively studied the sociopolitical climate of the region, spoke to Glimpse from the Globe on the status of human rights post-JCPOA implementation.

“There has been an extensive amount of misinformation spread regarding the satisfaction of Iranian citizens, especially after the signing of the JCPOA,” said Sheila, who requested that her identity be kept anonymous. “Rouhani repeatedly expressed that Iranian citizens were overjoyed at the lifting of sanctions, when the reality is that Iranian families have received no economic assistance and are victims to inhumane living conditions… the painted narrative put forward omits the realities of our hardships. It becomes increasingly frustrating when there is no way to illustrate how human rights abuses have worsened.”

Government mandated censorship does not end at journalist inoculation; the concealment of human rights violations is equally crucial for the Iranian government. During the November 2019 protests, over 300 protesters died and over 7,000 were arrested. An Amnesty International report revealed accounts of relentless torture throughout their prison sentences, including beatings, electrocution, amputation, waterboarding and sexual violence. On the deadliest day of the protests, Iranian authorities purposely blocked all internet access within the nation to conceal the true extent of police misconduct. Till this day, there have been no official criminal investigations or accountability measures taken against the government for the blanket internet shutdown. During the shutdown, many American-Iranians residing in the U.S. turned to non-partisan organizations to shed light on the severity of the protests. While various organizations within Iran claim to be for the people, Sheila said this is not always the case.

“Non-partisan organizations such as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) claim that they amplify the voices of the Iranian-American community, yet they continuously formulate false testimonies about our experiences and have been repeatedly linked to the Iranian government,” she said.

While the international community may not understand the depth of human rights violations, they have witnessed the multitude of protests that overtook the streets of Tehran in the past decade. Since January 2018, over 5,000 individuals have been imprisoned for engaging in protests surrounding inflation, unemployment and inequality. In May 2018, former President Trump declared that he was withdrawing from the nuclear deal and imposing severe economic sanctions and penalties on Iran. Consequently, Iran has been unable to access its tens of billions of dollars in assets held in foreign entities, mostly in the form of oil and gas exports. 

Despite these sanctions causing an increased cost of living, many Iranian citizens had hoped that the increased pressure on the regime could promote accountability, decrease human rights violations and even lead to an eventual government collapse. However, the imposed sanctions produced no change in governmental accountability, causing an eruption of mass dissent. The protests were multifaceted in their aim; while a portion of citizens were protesting the worsening human rights violations, others were opposing the rise of fuel prices and their crippling socioeconomic conditions.

Thus, citizens face a Catch-22 with no axiomatic resolution. During the JCPOA era, the Iranian government was able to access over 50 billion dollars in usable liquid assets to further strengthen their regime and perpetrate severe human rights offenses. However, even during the post-JCPOA era, increased economic sanctions led to civil uprisings, further provoking the government’s police forces to escalate state-sanctioned imprisonment and death rates amongst Iranian citizens. 

The entrance of the Biden administration onto the world stage could mark a new era in Middle Eastern affairs. However, reentering a revised deal will not be accomplished as easily as the United States may hope. Since the Trump administration previously withdrew from the deal, Iran has enriched their uranium from 102 kilograms to approximately 2,440 kilograms — more than 12 times the limit set by the JCPOA. They have also halted international inspections of nuclear sites, allowing for the accelerated development of atomic weapons. 

Iran has become more powerful, granting them greater leverage at the negotiating table. Although Iran’s economy is in shambles, Iranian hardliners are hesitant to negotiate a new deal following the killing of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general who commanded a wing of Iranian military forces. With the upcoming 2021 Iranian Presidential election, a tough fight between hardliners and moderates will indicate the future of U.S.-Iran relations, and more importantly, the future of human rights within the country. 

The most feasible and immediate solution for Biden’s administration may be an interim agreement to halt nuclear buildup in exchange for sanction relief and access to oil revenues, allowing an economic boost. Following a potential period of economic relief, popular support for a more moderate presidential candidate could allow the revisiting of a new deal that can further develop diplomatic ties between Iran and the international community. 

While economic benefits may be the key to reentering negotiations, the global community cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the number of Iranian lives at stake following the introduction of a new deal. In September of 2020, then-presidential candidate Biden promised to “call out the [Iranian] regime for its ongoing violation of human rights”, citing the execution of Iranian wrestler Navid Afkari as a “travesty” in a September 12th tweet. 

Iranians now, more than ever, are urging Biden to impose stringent economic sanctions until Iran is willing to accept accountability for their human rights violations. Only then can the global community and Iran negotiate a feasible nuclear and economic deal that sets human rights at the forefront.

The post Renegotiating the JCPOA: Human Rights Should Take Center Stage appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Some notable ones as of late are a woman’s right to drive, granted after the law stripping this right was abolished in June 2018, a woman’s right to obtain a passport and travel abroad without consent from a male guardian if she is at least twenty-one, granted through an amendment in August 2019, and most recently, a woman’s right to join the armed forces, passed in February 2021.

These laws are responded to with global media frenzies, reported on by the largest news outlets in every major region and country. As a result, it is not uncommon for people to think that Saudi Arabia has generally improved in women’s rights. However, according to the Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) 2020 World Report on Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian women are still required to have male guardian approval for many things such as getting married, leaving prison, or obtaining healthcare. Women also face discrimination in regards to family, divorce, children and child custody matters. On top of this, men are still able to file for guardianship of women based on perceived “disobedience,” which can lead to women being forcibly imprisoned or kept in the male guardian’s home. 

This report shows little change in Saudi Arabia’s position in both the HRW 2019 World Report and the HRW 2018 World Report. So, despite chipping away at the guardianship system with small legislative changes, the overall treatment of women, in regards to legislation, has remained fairly consistent. 

Perhaps even more egregious than the persistence of the guardianship system is the Saudi government’s treatment of those who have spoken out against it. While the government is praised in the press for somewhat minor changes in the system, the women’s rights activists calling for change are arbitrarily imprisoned. Ahead of the lifting of the ban on women driving in 2018, over a dozen women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia were arrested. After being held for a year, many faced trials throughout 2019. These trials were closed, barring journalists and diplomats from attending. One of the activists, Loujain al-Hathloul, was only released this February after spending over one thousand days in detention. Even after her release, she faces travel bans and a suspended three-year sentence under Saudi terrorism laws.

Other women’s rights activists arrested alongside al-Hathloul were said to have been released as well, but it is likely they are under similar restrictions, diminishing their ability to speak up. This was not an isolated incident. According to Amnesty International, in April of 2019 fourteen women’s rights activists were arrested for peacefully supporting women’s rights movements. The individuals were kept in detention through the end of the year without charge or trial. 

Many believe that the Saudi government’s decisions to make changes to their policies regarding women’s rights come from international pressure over anything else. This is a particularly popular stance when considering the most recent reforms, as President Biden has put pressure on the Saudi government through his cabinet’s commitment to protecting human rights abroad. This is thought by many to be the main reason behind the release of al-Hathloul, but it does not reflect a real change in the will of the Saudi government to protect and help their female citizens. 

Aside from the issue of stifling women’s rights activists, the Saudi government’s actual reforms seem to be largely cosmetic. Despite passing a domestic abuse ban in 2013, the Saudi government still, in many cases, mistreats the women who decide to report such abuse. In 2020, a large social media movement started in Saudi Arabia where women used the hashtag “Why I Didn’t Report It” to discuss their experiences with domestic abuse and the legislation surrounding it. Women who participated spoke of smear campaigns and victim-blaming if they reported, and many were arrested after being reported by their male guardians for disobedience. As long as the male guardianship system exists, many women in Saudi Arabia do not feel safe going to the police and are unable to escape abusive situations. 

There has also been a large resistance to the changes in the law from those that want the guardianship system to remain intact. Many women face backlash from their families for invoking their recently granted rights. So, although women may have the legal right to join the military, get a job, drive a car or get a passport, all without the consent of a male guardian, many still feel obligated to get permission from their father, brother, or husband depending on how accepting the family is of the new laws.  

Considering that women have been beaten, arrested, and, in extreme cases, killed for disobedience under the male guardianship system, its continued existence does not set a promising precedent for the future of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Until major action is taken to dismantle the discriminatory guardianship system and women’s rights activists are no longer silenced, it is difficult to say that the Saudi government has made any serious headway in promoting women’s rights.

It seems many recent reforms came from a place of economic strategizing rather than a serious commitment to change. For example, the expansion of jobs women are now allowed to work expands the Saudi workforce, boosting the economy. It’s very possible that this is the main goal for the Saudi government when taking into account the fact that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has repeatedly dedicated himself to diversifying the Saudi economy in preparation for a post-oil future. Allowing women to participate in the economy in a greater capacity would be a large part of that. 

It is worth questioning why the governments and news organizations of the world praise Saudi Arabia for these small changes without demanding the real changes necessary for achieving gender equality. For countries like the United States, which has a vested interest in maintaining good relations with the world’s largest oil producer, it has become common practice to turn a blind eye to the questionable practices of the Saudis. 

This was affirmed just recently with the Biden Administration’s decision not to penalize the Saudi Crown Prince over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi despite their aforementioned commitment to human rights. Khashoggi’s murder on October 2, 2018, inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, caused international outrage due to the suspected involvement of the Saudi government. In February 2021, a U.S. intelligence report on the murder was released directly implicating the Saudi crown prince. Biden decided that the relationship was too important to risk direct punishment, citing counter-terrorism and facing Iran as his reasoning.

Without a greater commitment to abolishing the male guardianship system and with a continued history of suppressing the voices of women’s rights activists, it is hard to believe that the Saudi government wants to bring about real change. In combination with inaction on an international level, it is likely that this pattern of making minimal revisions to legislation preceded or followed by sweeping crackdowns on activism will continue to act as the only way the Saudi government addresses women’s rights.

The post Performative Feminism in the Saudi Government and How it Hides a Bigger Problem appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Navalny is an outspoken critic of the Vladimir Putin government, and just a few weeks ago, returned to Russia after a botched poisoning attempt on his life by Russian intelligence services. Navalny returned to Moscow on January 15 from his five-month recovery in Germany. Navalny and his wife, Yulia, boarded a flight on Pobeda Airlines, which means ‘Victory’ in Russian, along with international media reporters. The world watched Navalny’s return to Russia closely, anticipating an inevitable response from the government that surely would seek to arrest him for this bold move. At the last minute, the flight was rerouted and Navalny was met with security forces upon landing and detained before the passport control booth. 

In the two weeks since his detention, as he awaited sentencing, Russia has seen a swell of people protesting in the streets in support of Navalny, the likes of which has not been seen in decades. As a result of these protests, over 5,000 demonstrators have been detained in the crackdown response from Russian authorities.

Navalny has been a consistent leader of political opposition to Putin and has garnered support from across the political spectrum under a political platform of anti-corruption and a personal platform of energized charisma. He founded the Party of Progress in 2012, which has championed increasingly pro-worker policies such as an increase in the pensions and salaries of state employees. In March 2020, Navalny even claimed to support candidate Bernie Sanders in the United States Democratic primary. 

He is also a known ethnic Russian nationalist and has participated in far-right marches against “illegal immigration” and launched a campagin against “feeding the Caucausus.” The latter was targeted against poor, ethnic minorities in Chechnya and the Caucuses whose “corrupt” and “ineffective” governments are the recipients of federal subsidies. Navalny said at one of these marches: “Those of us who are here, we know and believe that there are also ‘normal’ people in the Caucasus — not only those freaks who are in power. We know that there are girls there whose life’s ambition is not about being wrapped up in a burqa and having 25 children, but about living a decent life like humans.” He also supported Russia’s 2008 war against Georgia and used derogatory terms for Georgians in his blog, which he has since apologized for but remains firm in other positions he took at that time. Navalny is also in support of deporting illegal immigrants and has called for an introduction of a visa regime for the countries of Central Asia.

It’s important to note that Western observers and media outlets seem to downplay Navalny’s nationalistic beliefs and chameleon political nature in the hopes of finding a champion for liberal democracy and human rights in Moscow. But the broader picture of his nationalist ideology should be acknowledged and further explored.

Regardless, Navalny has managed to unite thousands of discontent Russians to mobilize behind him. In a stunning and effective tactical move, Navalny’s camp released a two-hour long documentary detailing a secret mansion dubbed “Putin’s Palace” built on the Black Sea. While to many, the Palace has been identified since 2010, this video in its timely release — the day of Navalny’s arrest — has sparked new outrage among the working class and Navalny’s supporters. The documentary goes so far as to peek inside Putin’s bedroom and sheds light on everything up to the hookah lounge with a built-in strip pole. Particularly, amid a national economic downturn, Putin’s extravagance and little regard for Russia’s working class has been a glaring offense to many. For young people, there is a sense of economic desperation as a result of lower wages and a stagnating value of the Russian ruble, the effects of decreased foreign investments, low oil prices, and sanctions from the West since Russia’s condemned annexation of Crimea. This frustration has boiled over into the streets, with the largest protests seeing several thousand people march in Moscow.

The Kremlin warned against protesting, citing the coronavirus pandemic. Officials threatened individuals breaking health guidelines would be detained. Russian law dictates that local authorities must be notified of public gathering and protests before 10 days of assembling. From the Pacific Bay, to the Ural Mountains, to even Yakutsk, the world’s coldest city, protests erupted. At around noon in each of Russia’s ten timezones, people poured into the streets in support of Navalny. In Moscow, people pelted police with snowballs. In St. Petersburg, crowds clapped back at riot police banging on their shields in attempted intimidation. Chants such as, “Putin is a thief,” and, “Russia will be free!” were heard across the country.In Moscow, crowds marched to the jail where Navalny is being held, chanting, “All for one and one for all!” 

Footage from the protests also show the intensity of the violence in response by security forces, reminiscent of the ongoing Belarusian government and U.S. crackdown against the Black Lives Matter movement. Journalists and reporters have been beaten, unarmed and unresisting protesters have been bludgeoned and even carried off in vans. There are increasing reports of the use of stun guns by police. Navalny’s wife, Yulia was also detained at a protest and has since been released. On January 31, Russia saw a new record for the highest number of police out in the streets and people arrested in Moscow. Putin and government officials have claimed that the protests are Western-backed insurrection, specifically from the United States as a “strategy to contain Russia.” 

The international community also responded to the protests. Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde, who currently chairs the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), condemned “the excessive use of force by authorities and mass detention of peaceful protesters and journalists” and urged Russia “to release all those unjustly detained, including Navalny.” The European Court of Human Rights announced Monday, before Navalny’s trial, that a complaint filed against Russia concerning Navalny’s poisoning would be considered and on Tuesday deemed that his sentencing was politically motivated. 

The United States pressed for Navalny to be released and criticized the tactics used by state police. “The U.S. condemns the persistent use of harsh tactics against peaceful protesters and journalists by Russian authorities for a second week straight,” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrote on Twitter before Navalny’s trial.

NGOs have also spoken out. In a statement on the protests, Natalia Zviagina, Amnesty International’s Moscow office head, said, “the Kremlin is waging a war on the human rights of people in Russia, stifling protesters’ calls for freedom and change.” Amnesty also reported that Moscow detention facilities have reached maximum capacity and have run out of space.

Navalny and his supporters have urged President Joe Biden to place new sanctions on eight individuals with close ties to Putin. These are eight on the ‘priority shortlist’ out of total 35, seven of whom already face U.S. sanctions. The letter reads: “the West must sanction the decision makers who have made it national policy to rig elections, steal from the budget, and poison. It must also sanction the people who hold their money.”

Now that Navalny’s trial has concluded, there is no doubt that additional protests by his supporters will erupt throughout Russia. It is uncertain how hard Putin will crackdown on this incoming wave of dissent. State violence will likely intensify as a result of increased discontent from the masses. 

“Hundreds of thousands cannot be locked up,” Navalny said during the hearing before his sentencing. “More and more people will recognize this. And when they recognize this — and that moment will come — all of this will fall apart, because you cannot lock up the whole country.”

The post Russian Opposition Leader Sentenced After Record-Breaking Protests Erupt in Moscow appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.