At the request of someone I highly value for her excellent scientific historical work and who has become a valued and dear emailfriend [as I may say so], I sent her my Letter to the Editor.And although she can read Dutch well, I consider it as a special gesture to her, to translate my Letter in English too. And I wished to share it with you too.
Astrid Essed
HERE MY LETTER TO THE EDITOR TITLE [As I have emailed it to the papers] ”CORONAMEASURES OF THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT ARE STUPID, UNRESPONSIBLE AND DANGEROUS” Letter to the Editor The Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero warned the Senate [aristocratic precursor of the contemporary parliaments] in a number of speeches against a [finally prevented] coup d’etat of co senator Lucius Sergius Catilina.Without having the audacity to compare myself with Cicero, by means of this Letter to the Editor I want to warn against the dangerous Corona policy of this government, that is becoming worse and worse, despite the treath of a second Corona wave.The relaxation of the Corona measures, the socalled Corona trainbook [”Coronaspoorboekje], announced on 6th of may which implied except for the opening of schools and barbershops, the opening of almost the whole Dutch social live like the cafe’s, cinema’s, etc, has turned to be highly dangerous, because it led [especially in cafe’s] to more and more infections.And to make matters worse, lesser and lesser people followed the necessary coronarules, like social distancing and avoiding crowded places.And what is the policy of this government regarding those negative developments?Instead of tighten reins more [for example a lockdown of cafe’s and other outbreaks of contamination [like for example cafe’s or perhaps cinema’s], this government does nothing else to declare that discotheques and nightclubs remain closed [that had to be added!] and ”advising” people to follow the rules [that are violated increaslingly], giving ”advice” to go in quarantaine after visiting countries with ”code orange” [countries with great coronarisks] and an ”advice” to let yourself tested on corona.The political stupidity is, that an ”advice” need not to be followed, but a legal prohibition is binding.Why no mandatory testing at Schiphol Airport, when people return from risk countries and mandatory quarantaine [at Schiphol Airport] when tested positive on Covid 19?Why the GGD [Dutch Healthcare Centre] [1] has no centres where people are going in mandatory quarantaine when tested positive on Covid 19?Then there is a chance to avoid the second corona wave instead of stupid talk about ”own responsibility” and [a quote from prime minister Mark Rutte] ”I am no dictator”This isn’t a joke!It concerns maybe thousands of people, who can lose their life in the second corona wave, also predicted by some virologists.And what also helps is, that ministers [here mr Grapperhaus, minister of Justice and Security] follow the very rules they have set, in stead being a cry baby in parliament. [2]A minister of substance would have done the right thing, namely resign.No wonder people increasingly don’t follow the coronarules, when ministers, who are responsible for maintaining the rules, don’t care about those rules at all!When this government doesn’t want a pandemia like the Spanish Flu [1918-1919, 38 thousand dead in the Netherlands] it is high time to take strict measures.To save public health and to prevent worse.
“I also sent a letter around my department to the people, giving the same accountability as I did in parliament,” Grapperhaus said to newspaper AD. “I did not serve as an example and for that I am very sorry. That this should not have happened with me as Minister of Justice and Security either.”
During the parliamentary debate, which lasted hours on Wednesday night, parliament asked the Minister to ensure that not everyone who gets a fine for violating a coronavirus rule gets that mentioned on their criminal record. Grapperhaus said that he would start working on that. Though he added that people who deliberately and aggressively break the coronavirus rules, such as by spitting in someone’s face for example, should still get that on their criminal record.
NL TIMES
EMOTIONAL JUSTIC MIN AGAIN APOLOGIZING FOR SOCIAL DISTANCE BLUNDER; SURVIVES DEBATE
A visibly emotional Minister Ferdinand Grapperhaus of Justice and Security again apologized for not adhering to coronavirus rules at his wedding during a parliamentary debate on the matter on Wednesday. Despite the criticism against him, he finds he has enough credibility to enforce the coronavirus policy. He did say that he would look into whether coronavirus fines could be kept off of people’s criminal records in some cases.
Photos from the Grapperhaus’ wedding show him not only standing too close to his guests, but also shaking hands and hugging people. “During my wedding, compliance with the coronavirus measures went wrong. I have expressed my regret about this and I am doing that again today to the parliamentarians,” Grapperhaus said. “I didn’t do it right myself. I got caught up in the events of that day.” The Minister was visibly overcome with emotions and had to pause. “We talked about it at home. We said to each other: if only we had done it just the two of us together.”
Parliamentarians from the entire political spectrum raised doubts about whether Grapperhaus could still credibly enforce the coronavirus policy. He believes that he can. “Let one thing be clear: I fully support the corona policy that we have agreed on and implemented with the cabinet and I will continue to propagate that in the future.”
MPs also asked him how citizens should accept fines that go onto their criminal records for breaking the same rules he did. Grapperhaus said that he would look into whether these fines can be kept off of people’s criminal records in some cases. But he wants to keep that note on the criminal record for people who spit in the face of others, are aggressive, and deliberately flout the corona rules, he said.
When asked about waiving the fines, Grapperhaus said that was absolutely impossible. The decision of whether a fine was justified or not lies with the Public Prosecution Service and the courts, and the Minister has no businesses interfering with that, he said.
As Minister of Justice and Security, Grapperhaus was responsible for enforcing the coronavirus rules. Opposition parties called it scandalous that he then broke the two most basic rules in place to curb the spread of this virus – staying 1.5 meters apart, and not shaking hands. “Making a mistake and standing too close to someone else can happen to us all,” GroenLinks leader Jesse Klaver said before the debate started. “But shaking hands, you just don’t do it, especially as Minister of Justice. It was the first agreement we made in March.”
The union for enforcement officers NBB, whose job it is to fine citizens for breaking the same rules Grapperhaus did, raised this same issue. “The understanding for the corona fine is getting smaller. And the enforcer is noticing this. It is complicated to explain why people can get a corona fine if the responsible Minister himself does not comply with the rules,” NBB chairman Richard Gerrits said to NOS earlier this week.
Grapperhaus eventually apologized, saying that he feels especially bad given he has to set an example as a Minister. He paid 780 euros – twice the amount of the fine for not adhering to the coronavirus rules – to the Red Cross, but was not officially fined. Then on Tuesday, more photos surfaced, showing Grapperhaus shaking hands with people and embracing his mother-in-law.
Prime Minister Mark Rutte expressed support for Grapperhaus on Friday, saying that him violating the coronavirus rules at his wedding does not affect his credibility as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. “Credibility is related to facing up when something is not going well. He is doing that,” the Prime Minister said.
During a press conference on Tuesday, Rutte did not specifically mention Grapperhaus, but he did talk about social distancing and fines for not adhering to the rules. “The 1.5 meters is always necessary everywhere,” Rutte said about social distancing. “Sometimes difficult to maintain. Sometimes you’ll bump into someone on the street. I really get it. And again, we’re not all perfect. And it is not the case that the police immediately impose fines, it does not work that way. Relatively few fines are imposed.”
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Coronameasures and the Grapperhaus Case/Coromameasures of the Dutch government are stupid, unresponsible and dangerous
ZIONIST LEADER AND LATER ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER DAVID BEN GURION, WHO ONESIDEDLY DECLARED IN MAY, 1948 THE STATE OF ISRAEL AND ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINETHIS LETTER TO HIS SON ONLY SHOWS HIS PREPAREDNESS FOR ETHNIC CLEANSINGS, ALREADY IN 1937! https://la.indymedia.org/news/2008/05/217559.php
‘ We must expel Arabs and take their place. Up to now, all our aspirations have been based on an assumption – one that has been vindicated throughout our activities in the country – that there is enough room in the land for the Arabs and ourselves. But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so. ” AN EXCERPT FROM THE UNDERLYING LETTER, REVEALING THE LONG MADE ZIONIST PLAN TO ETNICALLY CLEANSE THE ”ARABS” [PALESTINIANS]………
THE LETTER
PALESTINA KOMITEELETTER FROM DAVID BEN GURION TO HIS SON AMOS, WRITTEN 5 OCTOBER 1937 Obtained from the Ben-Gurion Archives in Hebrew, and translated into English by the Institute of Palestine Studies, Beirut
Letter from David Ben-Gurion to his son Amos, written 5 October 1937 Obtained from the Ben-Gurion Archives in Hebrew, and translated into English by the Institute of Palestine Studies, Beirut
5 October 1937 Dear Amos,
I was not angry at you, but I was very sorry indeed that there was no reply from you. I cannot accept the excuse that you have no time. I know you have a lot of work at school, in the field, and at home, and I am happy that you are so preoccupied with your studies. But it is always possible to find free time if necessary, not only on Sabbath days but even during weekdays. Your excuse that I keep moving from one country to another is not convincing. You can write to me in London. Here they [the Jewish Agency office] always know where I am, and they are efficient in forwarding my mail. As to the question of my membership in the executive committee [of the Jewish Agency], I shall explain to you in person if I meet you in Tel Aviv upon my return. Here what I want to talk about is the conflict you are experiencing between your reason and your emotions with regard to the question of the state. Political matters should not be a question of emotions. The only thing that should be taken into account is what we want and what is best for us, what will lead to the objective, and which are the policies that will make us succeed and which will make us fail.
It seems to me that I, too, have “emotions” [quotation marks in original.Hebrew: regesh]. Without these emotions I would not have been able to endure decades of our hard work. It definitely does not hurt my feelings [regesh] that a state is established, even if it is small.
Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. But the country that they [the Royal (Peel) Commission] are partitioning is not in our actual possession; it is in the possession of the Arabs and the English. What is in our actual possession is a small portion, less than what they [the Peel Commission] are proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant. But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though of course much less than we merit and desire. The question is: would we obtain more without partition? If things were to remain as they are [emphasis in original], would this satisfy our feelings? What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish [emphasis original]. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me–if it were Arab.
From our standpoint, the status quo is deadly poison. We want to change the status quo [emphasis original]. But how can this change come about? How can this land become ours? The decisive question is: Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country?
My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.
When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land. This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.
We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy– agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.
We must always keep in mind the fundamental truths that make our settlement of this land imperative and possible. They are two or three: it is not the British Mandate nor the Balfour Declaration. These are consequences, not causes. They are the products of coincidence: contingent, ephemeral, and they will come to an end. They were not inevitable. They could not have occurred but for the World War, or rather, they would not have occurred if the war had not ended the way it did.
But on the other hand there are fundamental [emphasis original] historical truths, unalterable as long as Zionism is not fully realized. These are:
1) The pressure of the Exile, which continues to push the Jews with propulsive force towards the country 2) Palestine is grossly under populated. It contains vast colonization potential which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified (because of their lack of need) to exploit. There is no Arab immigration problem. There is no Arab exile. Arabs are not persecuted. They have a homeland, and it is vast. 3) The innovative talents of the Jews (a consequence of point 1 above), their ability to make the desert bloom, to create industry, to build an economy, to develop culture, to conquer the sea and space with the help of science and pioneering endeavor.
These three fundamental truths will be reinforced by the existence of a Jewish state in a part of the country, just as Zionism will be reinforced by every conquest, large or small, every school, every factory, every Jewish ship, etc.
Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if we have a state. Our strength vis-à-vis the Arabs will likewise increase. The possibilities for construction and multiplication will speedily expand. The greater the Jewish strength in the country, the more the Arabs will realize that it is neither beneficial nor possible for them to withstand us. On the contrary, it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well.
I do not dream of war nor do I like it. But I still believe, more than I did before the emergence of the possibility of a Jewish state, that once we are numerous and powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become our allies.
They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country. The Arabs have many countries that are under-populated, underdeveloped, and vulnerable, incapable with their own strength to stand up to their external enemies. Without France, Syria could not last for one day against an onslaught from Turkey. The same applies to Iraq and to the new [Palestinian] state [under the Peel plan]. All of these stand in need of the protection of France or Britain. This need for protection means subjugation and dependence on the other. But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not occupiers or tyrants over them.
Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. In such event, the Negev will remain barren because the Arabs have neither the competence nor the need to develop it or make it prosper. They already have an abundance of deserts but not of manpower, financial resources, or creative initiative. It is very probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific assistance. It is also possible that they will not agree. People don’t always behave according to logic, common sense, or their own practical advantage. Just as you yourself are sometimes split conflicted between your mind and your emotions, it is possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs prefer that the place [the Negev] remains neither ours nor theirs. We must expel Arabs and take their place. Up to now, all our aspirations have been based on an assumption – one that has been vindicated throughout our activities in the country – that there is enough room in the land for the Arabs and ourselves. But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so.
Clearly in such event we will have to deal not only with the Arabs living in Eretz Israel, since it is very probable that Arabs from the neighboring countries will come to their aid. But our power will be greater, not only because we will be better organized and equipped, but also because behind us stands a force still greater in quantity and quality. This is the reservoir of the millions in the Diaspora. Our entire younger generation of Poland, Romania, America, and other countries will rush to our aid at the outbreak of such a conflict. I pray to God that this does not happen at all. Nevertheless the Jewish state will not rely only on the Jews living in it, but on the Jewish people living in every corner of the world: the many millions who are eager and obliged [emphasis original] to settle in Palestine. There are not millions of Arabs who are compelled or willing to settle in Palestine. Of course it is likely that Arab adventurers and gangs will come from Syria or Iraq or other Arab countries, but these can be no match for the tens and hundreds of thousands of young Jews to whom Eretz Israel is not merely an emotional issue, but one that is in equal measure both personal and national.
For this reason I attach enormous importance to the conquest of the sea and the construction of a Jewish harbor and a Jewish fleet. The sea is the bridge between the Jews of this country and the Jewish Diaspora – the millions of Jews in different parts of the world. We must create the conditions that will enable us in times of necessity to bring into the country in our own ships manned by our own seamen, tens of thousands of young men. Meanwhile we must prepare these young men while they are still in the Diaspora for whatever task awaits them here.
I am confident that the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it is only in a part of the country, will enable us to carry out this task. Once a state is established, we shall have control over the Eretz Israeli sea. Our activities in the sea will then include astonishing achievements.
Because of all the above, I feel no conflict between my mind and emotions. Both declare to me: A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will come.
My warm greetings [Hebrew: Shalom Rav].
When do you return to Kadoorie [agricultural school]? Write to me. Show this letter to your mother and sisters.
Sincerely, Your father
END OF THE LETTER
SEE ALSO JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACEBEN GURION: LETTER TO HIS SON, OCTOBER 5, 1937
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Letter from David Ben Gurion to his son Amos, written 5 october 1937/About the ethnic cleansing of the ”Arabs” [Palestinians]
Dear Readers, Despite of the heathwave it is important to mention the wrongs in history!I already did it in Dutch [article and Letter to the Editor], but now I wrote this Letter to the Editor about the allied bombings of German cities during WO II,Especially because it strikes me, that even after 75 years liberation of the nazi terror, there are still people, and many of them, who deny the fact that those allied bombings on cities, civilian goals, were forbidden, even in those times! [1]This Letter to the Editor I’ve sent to a number of British, American and German newspapers.Of course I have no idea, whether they publish it or not, so I want to share my Letter with you.See the Letter to the Editor under note 1 Hoping you all stay healthy in those dangerous Corona days. Astrid Essed
[1] The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
ALLIED BOMBINGS OF GERMAN CITIES DURING WORLD WAR II ARE WARCRIMES
Letter to the Editor Dear Editor,
Again and again it strikes me, that even after 75 year liberation of the Nazi terror, many people still deny the fact, that the British-American bombings of German cities were warcrimes.Of course there is a story behind this:After the killing of 40 000 British civilians by German bombings during the Blitz [warcrimes of course, but nobody denies that], it was payback time, not only out of revenge, but also to destroy the German economy and war industry.Another motive for lage scale bombing was to break the morale of the German people and the hope they would rise up against the nazi regime.Rather ridiculous, since the deadly air attacks were caused by the Allied forces and the caused destruction was ther sole responsibility.Therefore it was no surprise, that the German people became more and more hostile to the Allied forces, being the killers of the people they loved.Not only bombings on civilians and civilian goals are morally wrong, even in that time they were forbidden according article 25 of the Hague Convention [1907]Attacks on military goals of course were permitted.Yet bombings on civilian goals took place, as well by the Allied as the Central Powers.Firestorms on German cities and villages, since firebombs were used, with as a consequence, that people burned alive.In 1942, the German city Cologne was attacked with 1000 firebombs and at an attack on the German city Pforzheim in february 1945, 30 percent of the population had been killed.Was the Nazi top hunted and killed?Not at all, ordinary people.Dozens of cities were attacked, Cologne,Hamburg,,Berlin,Dusseldorf,Osnabruck,Kalsruhe,Dessau,,Potsdam and on and on.Deeply morally inferior was the fact, that even in may 1945, when Germany was about to surrender,bombing took place.Not only the bombing of Dresden [february 1945] was a warcrime, all those other bombings, too.More than half million German civilians were killed by those merciless carpet bombings and miliions of people were left homeless.High time to acknowledge that ”the good side of history” committed warcrimes too and not only Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Astrid Essed
‘Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Allied bombings of German cities during World War II are warcrimes/Letter to the Editor
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTTO SECRETARIAT OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATE PARTIESTO THE BUREAU MEMBERS Mr O-Gon Kwon, PresidentMr Jens-Otto Horslund and Mr Mr. Michal Mlynár
Subject:Request for an investigation after possible Dutch warcrimes in Iraq and the possibility of the prosecution of members of the Dutch government, if warcrimes have been confirmed. Dear Sirs
Although Covid 19 rages around the world like a roaring lion, it is of the utmost importance to remain focussed on the wrongs in the world, as you’ll know better than me.Today I take the liberty to ask your attention for the following, namely:something of the utmost importance, namelyReal or alleged Dutch warcrimes in Iraq, committed in june 2015 In my view, you should investigate A Whether we can speak of warcrimes according to the Rome Statute [1] on which your authority is based B It is possible for you to prosecute the Dutch government [government Rutte II][2] or members of that government?
CASE
Within the context of the Dutch participation in the military intervention against ISIL [called IS or ISIS in the Netherlands] [3], Dutch F’16s launched an airstrikein june 2015, targetting a factory in which ISIS was reportedly manufactering improvised explosive devices. [4]The factory was located in the Iraqi town Hawija.Horrible result:70 civilians were killed. [5] Not only the Dutch government was silent to the parliament about this deadly airstrike untill two newspapers revealed it , which led to the admittance by the government: [6], the Dutch ”justification” of what went wrong, I found very weird:Defence minister [not the minister, who was responsible for the attack, but her successor] Ank Bijleveld said the intelligence before the strike had indicated that “there were no civilians in the immediate vicinity of the target” [7] The most strangest thing, because the factory was located in a town with about 100 000 inhabitants, Hawija. [8] Besides, according to the NOS article [do you read Dutch?] ”In Hawija is niemand de Nederlandse bomaanval vergeten” [9] [Translated in English: In Hawija no one has forgotten the Dutch bombattack], where Dutch journalists interview people from Hawija, Hawija inhabitants confirmed, that the real/alleged IS factory was located in the middle of a neighbourhood.I quote [In Dutch]:”Midden in de wijk stond ooit een grote opslagloods van de gemeente. Die was het doelwit van de coalitie. De loods was door terreurgroep IS in gebruik genomen om munitie in op te slaan” [10]Translated in English:”In the middle of the neighbourhood once was a great storage shed of the municipality. That was the target of the coalition. The storage shed was used by ISIL to store munitions” If that is true, then Dutch intelligence whether must have known this [IS target located in a neighbourhood] and yet have taken the risk, or investigated the location superficially, not fully regarding the safety of civilians. And according to International Humanitarian Law, the protection of civilians times of war is essential, as you know better than me. [11] But there is more: I am not a military expert, but when an attack is launched on a target, which is reportedly manufacting explosive devices and one knows that the target is located in or nearby a city, one can estimate that when the explosives are hit, they are scattered widely into the environment! With all risks for civilians, unless they are exploded in the desert. And the Dutch military knew that the factory was located in the Hawija town! Again, they took a great risk with human lives and that is, in my view, unacceptable! WARCRIMES ACCORDING TO THE ROME STATUTE YOUR MISSION I know it is your mission to investigate, if military actions can be defined as warcrimes according to the Rome Statute and other human rights treaties.Reading the conditions under which you operate I’ve learned, that you may exercise jurisdiction under a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or warcrimes are committed on or after 1 july 2002 [12], which, concerning the alleged Dutch committed warcrimes, is the case here [june 2015]Further, the crimes must be committed by a State national, or in the territory of a State Party or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. [13]As you know, the Netherlands has signed and accepted the Rome Statute [14] and so acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court. An other conditon for your jurisdiction is the complementarityI read on your website:”The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.” [15] And, dear Sirs, that’s exactly the case in the Netherlands concerning the Dutch F’16 airstrike on the IS facory in Hawija, since the Dutch Public Prosecution Service. although it investigated the bomb attack on Hawija, saw no reason for a follow-up investigation. [16]
EPILOGUE Dear Sirs, I have submitted the case of the Dutch F 16 bomb attack on the IS factory in Hawija, in which 70 civilians lost their lives and I am of the opinion, that you should investigate whether warcrimes have been committed according to the definition in the Rome Statute and whether you are willing to prosecute either members of the cabinet Rutte II [under which the bomb attack took place], or the pilot involved, or perhaps both or other parties. Civilians are so vulnerable in a war and should be protected, as International Humanitarian Law says. [17]I think that in this case, where the attack was executed on a factory in a crowded neigbourhood, there is reason for your Court to prosecute those who are responsible. The dead will not come back, but Justice will be done.That’s my opinion and I sincerely hope that you have a case here. Thank you for reading this letter and much success with your work Stay healthy, in those terrifying days of Corona.
Kind greetings Astrid EssedAmsterdam The Netherlands
NOTES
[1] UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTAHUMAN RIGHTS LIBRARYROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
The airstrike triggered multiple secondary explosions in the factory, devastating the surrounding area and killing dozens.’ HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHNEW REVELATIONS ON DUTCH ROLE ON DEADLY IRAQ ATTACKNetherlands Remained Silent Over Role in 2015 Airstrike For Four Years 13 NOVEMBER 2019
”A Dutch F-16 jet serving with the US-led coalition in Iraq killed about 70 people – Islamic State (IS) militants and civilians – in an air strike in 2015, the Dutch defence ministry says.”
BBC
IS CONFLICT: DUTCH AIRSTRIKE KILLED ABOUT 70 PEOPLE IN IRAQ IN 2015
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50286829
[6]
”Recent news reports have exposed Dutch involvement in an airstrike in Iraq in June 2015 that killed at least 70 civilians, with the Minister of Defense finally admitting on November 5, 2019 that the ministry had known about the deaths after years of denial.
Two Dutch news outlets, NRC and NOS, reported on October 18 that a Dutch F-16 pilot staged the attack on the town of Hawija, 20 kilometers southeast of Mosul, which ISIS had captured in June 2014. At the time, the Netherlands were part of a coalition conducting operations against the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria.”
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCHNEW REVELATIONS ON DUTCH ROLE ON DEADLY IRAQ ATTACK
Netherlands Remained Silent Over Role in 2015 Airstrike For Four Years
””Midden in de wijk stond ooit een grote opslagloods van de gemeente. Die was het doelwit van de coalitie. De loods was door terreurgroep IS in gebruik genomen om munitie in op te slaan’
NOS
IN HAWIJA IS NIEMAND DE NEDERLANDSE BOMAANVAL VERGETEN
The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:
the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court
The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely.
”Het OM heeft eigenstandig besloten feitenonderzoeken in te stellen naar vier gevallen, inclusief de drie door Defensie onderzochte gevallen. Hierover is uw Kamer openbaar en vertrouwelijk geïnformeerd. Zoals met uw Kamer gedeeld, hecht het kabinet aan open en transparante communicatie over inzet, ook wanneer dit slecht nieuws is. Dat geldt bij uitstek ook voor de uitzonderlijke gevallen waar mogelijk sprake is van burgerslachtoffers door Nederlandse wapeninzet. Daarom hecht het kabinet er aan uw Kamer over deze specifieke gevallen te informeren. In algemene zin blijft de afweging tussen transparantie en nationale en operationele veiligheid leidend. Het OM onderzocht de volgende vier gevallen, waarbij zoals gezegd in geen geval aanleiding was voor een vervolgonderzoek”
MEDEDELING AAN DE TWEEDE KAMER OVER DE BOMAANVAL OP HAWIJA EN DE ONTWIKKELINGEN ROND DE ANTI ISIS COALITIE
The public prosecution service has independently decided to investigate four cases,included three cases that were investigated by the ministry of Defence over which your Parliament has been informed confidently and publicly.As has been shared with your Parliament, the cabinet finds it very important to share open and transparent communication, even when the news is bad.This is also explicitly the case, in the exceptional cases when there are possible civilian victims due to Dutch military operations.That’s why the cabinet finds it very important to inform your Parliament about those specific cases.In general, the consideration between transparency and national security is leading.The public prosecution service has investigated the following four cases and saw no reason for a follow-up investigation” STATEMENT TO THE PARLIAMENT ABOUT THE BOMB ATTACK ON HAWIJA AND THE DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE ANTI ISIS COALITION http://content1b.omroep.nl/urishieldv2/l27m677e797b0a39d024005e63ac48000000.df389e427806cc57454a8a856b1f7358/nos/docs/181019_kamerbrief.pdf
[17]
The seven fundamental rules which are the basis of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols.
1 – Persons hors de combat and those who do not take a direct part in hostilities are entitled to respect for their
lives and their moral and physical integrity. They shall in all circumstances be protected and treated humanely
without any adverse distinction.
2 – It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat .
3 – The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict which has them in its power.
Protection also covers medical personnel, establishments, transports and equipment. The emblem of the red
cross or the red crescent is the sign of such protection and must be respected.
4 – Captured combatants and civilians under the authority of an adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives,dignity, personal rights and convictions. They shall be protected against all acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
5 – Everyone shall be entitled to benefit from fundamental judicial guarantees. No one shall be held responsible for an act he has not committed. No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
6 – Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare. It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.
7 – Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to
spare civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population as such nor civilian persons shall be the
object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.
BASIC RULES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICTS
US AIRSTRIKE KILLS TOP IRAN GENERAL, QASSEM SOLEIMANI AT BAGHDAD AIRPORT/US LIQUIDATION OF IRAN’S GENERAL SOLEIMANI IS STATE TERRORISM INTRODUCTION: Again, dear readers, wishing you a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year! https://www.astridessed.nl/happy-new-year-6/
Unfortunately however, the New Year did not start peacefully, with the US liquidation of Iran’s general Soleimani [1], being an extrajudicial execution and adding to the many crimes of Superpower USA. Besides:What is there to be expected from rogue president Trump, who makes is as a sport to violate International Law? [2]Also it is an utter scandal, that the Dutch government, which is bound to promote the International Legal Order [article 90, Dutch Constitution] [3], has declared, in the words of the Dutch minister of Defense, mrs Bijleveld, to ”understand” the liquidation of Iran’s general Soleimani! [4]I will write them about that, but that’s another story. Back to USA/Trump: Your Avenger of injustice would not have been your Avenger of injustice, if she would not have taken action: This time by a Letter to the Editor, which I have sent to a number of American, British and other international papers.I did the same with a Dutch Letter to the Editor, sending it to Dutch and Belgian newspapers. Since I, of course, don’t know, whether it is published at all, hereby I share the Letter with you. See firstly the Letter,Then, below, the notes, belonging to this Introduction piece. ENJOY READING!
Astrid EssedAmsterdam
A
LETTER TO THE EDITOR, SENT TO AMERICAN, BRITISH AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL NEWSPAPERS:
US LIQUIDATION OF IRAN’S GENERAL SOLEIMANI IS STATE TERRORISM Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
Unfortunately, this New Year has begun far from peaceful with ”thanks” to the US liquidation of Iran’s general Soleimani on the orders of president Trump.This liquidation is an act of war against Iran and will have dangerous consequences with very probably as main victims Iranian and Iraqi civilians, but also it endangers the chances of terrorist attacks, as in the USA as in countrieswhich agree with this insane Trump adventurism. But there is more:This liquidation of general Soleimani with six other victims like a high profile Iraqi military is a serious violation of International Law.To say it like it is:The USA is not at war with Iran [in which case Soleimani, as a combatant, would have been a ”legitimate” target], neither Soleimani launched an attack on American territory.And since there was no proof whatsoever of an ”imminent threat” [apart from not proven allegations of Trump] this is an assassination maffia style.Because rocket attacks on political enemies, also called ”extrajudicial executions” are a flagrant violations of the right to life, as the right to a fair and independent trial.And I am not alone in this:Recently Agnes Callamard, UN Special Reporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has criticized the liquidation as illegal and contrary with International Law.Now I certainly am no adherent of the Iran regime, because of its systematic violations of human rights, neither of the role of mr Soleimani [being a strong supporter of the Syrian dictator Assad], but human rights are human rights, regardless, and the liquidation of human being without any trial is illegal.Therefore it is a shame, that the Dutch government has declared to ”understand” the Soleimani liquidation and it only shows, how little respect this Rutte III Dutch government has for the International Law that she is obliged to advance, according to article 90, Dutch Constitution.
Reaffirming again that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible,
Deeply concerned over the enactment of a “basic law” in the Israeli Knesset proclaiming a change in the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, with its implications for peace and security,
Noting that Israel has not complied with resolution 476 (1980),
Reaffirming its determination to examine practical ways and means, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to secure the full implementation of its resolution 476 (1980), in the event of non-compliance by Israel,
1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the “basic law” on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;
2. Affirms that the enactment of the “basic law” by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;
3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;
4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;
5. Decides not to recognize the “basic law” and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:
(a) All Member States to accept this decision;
(b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution before 15 November 1980;7. Decides to remain seized of this serious situation.
THIS SECOND TRUMP STRAPATZ IS A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, DECLARING ALL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES ILLEGAL
THE ILLEGALITY OF THE ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
THIS IS WHAT INTERNATIONAL LAW SAYS
”The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49).
The Hague Regulations prohibit an occupying power from undertaking permanent changes in the occupied area unless these are due to military needs in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.”
”Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
On the TV program Op1, Dutch Defense Minister, Bijleveld, says she understands why the US killed Soleimani and nodded to the awful atrocities Iran is responsible for, NOS reports. Nonetheless, the Netherlands, as a member of NATO, is focussed on de-escalation.
“A real crook”
Bijleveld described Soleimani as “a real crook” and discussed his involvement in the war in Syria as commander of the Quds Force.But she went on to acknowledge that the assassination of the leader created “a very fragile situation” and emphasised that NATO members are well aware of the potential retaliation from Iran.
Must focus on de-escalation
However, the minister said the Dutch government are focussed on de-escalation. Bijleveld referred to statements made by Stoltenberg, the secretary of NATO, who also stressed the drone strike was a decision made solely by the US and is not endorsed by NATO.
The Netherlands wants explanation from United States Government
Bijleveld believes the Netherlands and other countries should have been informed of the attack before it happened.
The Netherlands wants the United States to provide a “legal basis” for such a major decision. The US claim the attack on the Iranian general was “self-defense”.
In a letter sent to the House of Representatives, the cabinet says the Netherlands “will underline Iran’s negative influence on regional stability and point out the importance of Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” during the upcoming meeting between EU foreign leaders scheduled for Friday.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor US airstrike kills top Iran general, Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad Airport/US liquidation of Iran’s general Soleimani is state terrorism
(Al-Hol, Northeast Syria) – The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration for northeast Syria is holding more than 11,000 foreign women and children related to Islamic State (also known as ISIS) suspects in appalling and sometimes deadly conditions in a locked desert camp in northeast Syria, Human Rights Watch said today. At least 7,000 of the children are under 12.
During three visits to the section of al-Hol camp holding foreign women and children in June 2019, Human Rights Watch found overflowing latrines, sewage trickling into tattered tents, and residents drinking wash water from tanks containing worms. Young children with skin rashes, emaciated limbs, and swollen bellies sifted through mounds of stinking garbage under a scorching sun or lay limp on tent floors, their bodies dusted with dirt and flies. Children are dying from acute diarrhea and flu-like infections, aid groups and camp managers said.
“Foreign women and children are indefinitely locked in a dustbowl inferno in northeast Syria while their home countries look the other way,” said Letta Tayler, senior terrorism and counterterrorism researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Governments should be doing what they can to protect their citizens, not abandon them to disease and death in a foreign desert.”
At least 240 children have died en route or upon arrival to al-Hol, according to the United Nations. Authorities from the camp, which is overseen by the Autonomous Administration, do not appear to consistently record deaths, international aid group members said. The groups did not want to be identified for fear of losing access to al-Hol.
Al-Hol guards do not allow the women and children to leave the camp except when escorted out for emergencies such as surgery not available in camp hospitals.
Officials from the Autonomous Administration told Human Rights Watch they do not intend to prosecute the women and children. Asked about the legal status of the women and children, they said only in a brief written statement that when the women and children left ISIS-held areas, they were “transferred to al-Hol to work on delivering them to their countries given that they are from different nationalities.” The Autonomous Administration has repeatedly called on home countries to take back all foreigners in their custody. “We are overwhelmed,” a camp manager said.
Countries should immediately assist efforts of their citizens held in al-Hol camp to come home if they choose to do so. The Autonomous Administration, as well as home countries, should ensure that detention is only imposed according to law, on an individual basis, and with all basic rights of detainees under international law including judicial review of detention.
Donor governments, the United Nations, and humanitarian agencies should also immediately increase aid to all camp inhabitants, more than 7,000 of them children.
From June 21 to 23, Human Rights Watch interviewed 26 foreign women confined in al-Hol annex from countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands, and Trinidad. The women included mothers who begged camp guards for news of husbands or sons whom US-backed, Kurdish-led troops, called the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), had separated from them when they fled ISIS-held areas over the past several months.
“Please, tell me, where are my sons? Please, let me visit them,” pleaded “Aisha,” a pregnant woman from Trinidad. The SDF took her two sons, ages 14 and 15, and their father when the family fled ISIS-held Abu Badran in January, she said.
“First they said they would bring my boys to me in a month. Then they said two more weeks. Then they said they were sick in the hospital,” Aisha said of camp officials. Like other women interviewed, Aisha did not want her real name used. “Then for the past two months, nothing.”
Conditions are dire throughout al-Hol, which holds 62,000 Syrians and Iraqis in the main camp sections, most of them also wives and children of men accused of ISIS membership. However, the worst conditions are in the annex holding the 11,000 non-Iraqi foreigners. The annex receives less aid from donors and annex inhabitants must wait for armed escorts to bring them to the camp market, hospitals, and food distribution center, which Syrian and Iraqi women and children can reach freely, aid workers said.
All but one of the foreign women interviewed by Human Rights Watch said they wanted to go home. One, from Uzbekistan, said she wanted to go to a third country because she feared persecution if repatriated. All said they are not allowed to leave the locked camp. None said she had been taken before a judge to review whether she should be detained or been contacted by a representative of her government.
“We were prisoners under al-Dawla [ISIS] and now we’re prisoners of our liberators,” said “Layla,” a 29-year-old Frenchwoman. “I’ll go to prison again back home if I have to but please, just get me out of here.”
International law allows imposing punishment for crimes only on people responsible for the crimes, after a fair trial to determine individual guilt. Imposing collective punishment on families by preventing them from leaving the camps violates the laws of war.
Unless they are lawful places of detention such as prisons, camps for displaced people should respect the free movement right to leave the camps and return. Movement restrictions are only permissible if they are provided by law and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. Any restrictions must be nondiscriminatory, proportionate, and necessary to achieve legitimate aims.
Anyone detained, including civilians initially detained in wartime as security threats, should be detained on a clear legal basis, and have the right to challenge the necessity and legality of their captivity before a court. No one should be detained in inhuman or degrading conditions. International law obligates all countries to ensure justice through fair trials for the gravest crimes, such as those by ISIS.
International law also grants everyone the right to return to their home country and obligates countries to fulfill a child’s right to acquire a nationality. This duty has been interpreted to extend to children born abroad to a country’s citizens who would otherwise be stateless.
“The conditions in al-Hol annex are untenable and unconscionable,” Tayler said. “Abandoning citizens to indefinite confinement without charge will only make the problem worse.”
More than 7,000 foreign children and 3,000 foreign women from about 50 countries are held in the al-Hol annex according to officials from the Autonomous Administration, which is led by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD). Several hundred more foreigners are held in two other camps in northeast Syria, Ain Issa, and Roj. In addition to Westerners, the foreigners include Algerians, Indonesians, Malaysians, Moroccans, Russians, Tunisians, Turks, and Uzbeks, among others. About two-thirds of the foreign children are under age 12 – with most under age 5 – and hundreds are orphans, their parents missing or dead, aid workers said. While most women and children are recent arrivals, some said they had been held at Al-Hol for over a year.
Reluctant Donors, Insufficient Access
Autonomous Administration authorities blamed the conditions in al-Hol annex on insufficient aid from foreign donors. “We feel abandoned by the international community,” Abdulkarim Omar, the administration’s co-chair for foreign affairs, told Human Rights Watch. “Taking care of these foreigners is a big, big problem for us. Countries should take back their people and rehabilitate them.”
The Autonomous Administration and SDF have already made significant sacrifices as part of the international coalition fighting ISIS, Omar said. About 12,000 SDF troops were killed and another 20,000 were injured fighting ISIS, he said, in part “so that people in Europe can sleep calmly at night.”
About three dozen aid agencies including the UN Refugee Agency and UNICEF work in al-Hol. But many donor countries are wary of supporting a camp population that may include ISIS members or sympathizers, Autonomous Administration authorities and humanitarian workers said, even though the majority of people in the camp are young children who had no choice but to live with their parents under ISIS.
“We are seeing the stigmatization of a vast section of the camp population that is perceived as affiliated with the Islamic State group,” said Fabrizio Carboni, who heads Near and Middle East operations for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Carboni warned against a “good victim-bad victim” double standard. International standards prohibit denying essential aid, including if the denial is based on ideological or religious affiliation.
Some organizations are also concerned that their assistance could enable indefinite detention of women and children without charge. “It is one thing to assist a refugee camp and another to assist a prison,” one aid worker said.
The three field hospitals in the main camp areas are understaffed and under-resourced, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported in July. Doctors Without Borders runs a health clinic inside the annex and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) runs a mobile clinic there, but their hours are limited due to staff shortages and security concerns.
Two-fold access problems also hinder delivery of services, aid groups said. Humanitarian agencies with agreements to work in Syria must obtain permission to access al-Hol through Damascus because the Autonomous Administration controlling the northern third of Syria, including al-Hol camp, is not an internationally recognized government. Negotiations with the Syrian government on humanitarian access are often difficult, as Human Rights Watch documented in a June report.
But even agencies that receive Syrian government permission, or that work under the radar in al-Hol without it, sometimes face delays in obtaining the Autonomous Administration authorities’ permission to deliver assistance inside the annex, aid workers said. In its July report, OCHA said that humanitarian access to the annex “remains restricted” in ways that “continue to impact and prevent delivery of services.”
Dire Health Conditions
One reason for poor conditions at al-Hol is that the camp population soared from 10,000 people in December 2018 to more than 73,000 by April, camp managers and aid groups said. During that period, a US-led military coalition routed ISIS from its last stand in Baghouz, a town in eastern Deir al-Zour governate. Many new arrivals from Deir al-Zour were severely injured, traumatized, and malnourished. Yet while conditions are dire throughout al-Hol, they are worse in the annex than in the main areas where Syrians and Iraqis are confined, camp officials and aid workers said.
During Human Rights Watch visits, al-Hol annex was filled with the sounds of children wailing and women and children coughing. A funnel-shaped dust whirl blew hot dust and debris into tents.
Many women and children had visible skin sores from leishmaniasis, a sand fly-borne parasite. Some inhabitants have been diagnosed with tuberculosis, camp managers said. Drinking water is insufficiently chlorinated and remains in short supply, aid workers said. Human Rights Watch saw children drink water from a wash-water tank that had worms coming out of the spout.
In July, OCHA reported a “sharp increase” in acute diarrhea and a “slight increase” in acute malnutrition throughout al-Hol.
Some women, including those with risky pregnancies and pre-natal complications such as anemia or high blood pressure, are giving birth in their tents without a doctor or midwife, aid workers said. One reason is that Asayish – Autonomous Administration security agents who guard the camp –sometimes delay or refuse their requests to go to a hospital, or they arrive at a hospital only to be turned away because the facility is full, they said. In an added disadvantage, women who give birth in a hospital automatically receive post-natal care and essentials such as diapers whereas women who give birth in tents must request such assistance, they said.
Three women said that a young girl had died from kidney failure in the annex the previous week.
Human Rights Watch saw several wounded children in the annex. One was a bone-thin, 12-year-old Russian boy wearing a patch over his left eye. “Shrapnel in Baghouz,” he said, adding that he had lost vision in that eye.
Another boy, a 4-year-old from Uzbekistan, sat with a blank stare as his mother pushed him across the rubble in a stroller, his right leg missing up to his mid-thigh. The boy’s leg was blown off during a US-led coalition strike in the Syrian town of Sousa in late 2018, his mother said, adding: “I have been trying to get him crutches and a prosthetic leg for four months.”
Worse Conditions for Foreigners
In addition to problems accessing essential services in the main camp areas, nearly all the women interviewed in the annex said they had scant if any means to buy fresh food for their children to supplement their rations of lentils, grains, oil, and sugar, or extra diapers. SDF troops and Asayish agents have confiscated women’s cash and other valuables and barred them from selling any possessions that they may have been able to hold onto, camp inhabitants and aid workers said.
Camp administrators allow Syrian and Iraqi women in the main camp areas to make purchases through the Hawala alternative money transfer system but the foreigners cannot, aid workers said.
Autonomous Administration authorities also bar women in the annex from using cell phones for fear they may contact ISIS members, although cell phones are allowed in sections holding Syrians and Iraqis, aid workers said. The ICRC has begun helping women send letters to family members, but many have not yet made contact and communications have been irregular for those who have.
On all three visits Human Rights Watch saw dozens of women pounding on the chain-link fence that cordons off the annex, clamoring for escorts to reach supplies or health services. Human Rights Watch saw some of the women waiting for hours, with no shade, in 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) heat. The temperature at al-Hol has soared as high as 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) this summer.
“I am going into labor,” shouted a visibly pregnant woman. “What about our human rights?” demanded another. By the time they reach the food distribution point, the rations are sometimes gone and they have to return the next day, the women said.
Living in Fear
Tensions run high in al-Hol, and many women said they were terrified for their safety and that of their children. Women in the camp who adhere to ISIS’ extremist ideology have threatened and set fire to tents of women and children who they consider infidels. Twice, in separate attacks in June and July, a woman stabbed a guard with a knife hidden in her abaya, camp managers and aid workers said.
Guards raid tents at night and frequently shoot in the air to keep order. On July 3, guards shot and wounded two boys, ages 12 and 10, who they said were throwing rocks at them, aid workers said. Twice while at the camp in June, Human Rights Watch heard gunshots fired.
Interviewees also consistently said they feared the Asayish security agents who frequently search tents and take away families in the middle of the night. Camp managers said that the night raids were necessary to remove women or children who were security threats, or to relocate families who feared for their safety to other areas of al-Hol or other camps.
Many women said they also feared tent fires caused by women cooking inside tents; at least one child died in a cooking fire. Others spoke of insects and snakes that crawl onto their sleeping pallets at night.
Piecemeal Repatriations
Repatriations of ISIS suspects and family members from northeast Syria, as well as from neighboring Iraq, have been piecemeal. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Russia, Kosovo, and Turkey have organized the return home of more than 1,250 nationals held in northeast Syria and Iraq, most of them children.
But most countries have ignored the Autonomous Administration’s calls for them to repatriate citizens or have taken back only small numbers, primarily orphans, calling them a security threat and citing complications in verifying citizenship of children lacking documents or born in areas under ISIS control.
All the women interviewed said they realized soon after arriving in Syria that they had made a mistake. They all insisted that during their life under ISIS their roles had been solely those of housewives and mothers. Human Rights Watch is not in a position to judge the veracity of these claims and it is clear that some women in the camp support – and seek to enforce – ISIS ideology. Women who have committed international crimes should be charged and those who do not face criminal charges should be freed. But children brought to or born in ISIS-controlled areas should not be punished for their parents’ poor judgment or crimes.
“My children did not choose this life,” said “Fatima,” a 27-year-old Belgian widow held in al-Hol with her four young children. Fatima said her 7-year-old daughter did not even learn to read and write under ISIS. Her 6-year-old daughter has a viral infection; unable to obtain medical care in the annex, she scrounged funds to buy rehydrating fluids and inserted an intravenous drip in her daughter’s arm with a friend.
“My children don’t even have a working toilet,” Fatima said. “When there is shooting, they cry and remember the fighting. They deserve a second chance.”
Additional Recommendations
As part of measures to assist repatriation efforts, countries should immediately take all possible steps to ensure that their citizens trapped in any areas of al-Hol or in other camps or prisons in northeast Syria have a way to request repatriation and expedite efforts to verify citizenship, particularly of children. Countries that can guarantee fair trials and humane conditions should investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute returnees responsible for international crimes such as war crimes and torture.
Children should be treated first and foremost as victims, including those recruited by ISIS, and decisions about their future should be made based on their best interests. Parents should be brought home with children unless separation is in the child’s best interest. Children should face prosecution only in exceptional circumstances.
In the meantime, Autonomous Administration camp administrators, humanitarian organizations and donor governments, including those with nationals confined to camps in northeast Syria, should improve sanitary conditions, access to food and clean water, shelter, and medical and psychosocial services for all camp inhabitants. The Autonomous Administration should increase annex inhabitants’ access to essential services in other camp areas.
The Autonomous Administration and US-led coalition fighting ISIS should facilitate contact between camp inhabitants and their families including relatives held in separate prisons or camps.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres should press and assist UN agencies including the UN Refugees Agency and member states to coordinate a swift global response that upholds international human rights protections and includes repatriations and resettlements.
Statements from Women Confined in al-Hol annex
This is a nightmare I cannot wake up from. As Muslims we wanted to experience the Islamic State like Christians want to visit Jerusalem. It was so easy to get to Syria through Turkey. But then we found there was no way out. Bombs were falling everywhere and we could not afford a smuggler. In the end they [ISIS] even hid food from us. The only people they fed were their fighters. We are so broken. We are not threats to anyone. We just want our children to go to school and to stop stressing about where is the next meal coming from.
“Ayisha,” 37 weeks pregnant, from Trinidad. Mother of five children including two boys, ages 14 and 15, who were taken with her husband when the family surrendered to SDF forces in January.
From the first day I got to Syria I wanted to go home. They [ISIS] treated us like garbage. There was so much injustice. But my husband kept saying, “Forget going back. If they know we want to leave they will put us in prison or kill us.” Then my husband died two years ago. He just never came home. Since then I have been trying to find a way home. The Prophet…says the Sham [Levant] is a blessed place. But I never saw a blessing.
“Maria” from Belgium, widow, mother of two children born in Syria.
One day my husband said, “I am going, you are coming with me.” I was thinking, “Why? We are comfortable.” But as a Muslim woman you follow your husband. I just want to go back to Australia. My family says they will take me and the children back. People think we are monsters. Please tell them we are humans, just like them.
“Radhia” from Australia, widow, mother of three children born in Syria.
I thought, “Now I’ll be able to practice my religion and cover my face without being harassed the way I am at home.” I heard there was bombing and stuff but I didn’t think I’d be living under it. But then I got here [to Syria] and realized how dangerous it was. My husband became disillusioned, too. A year ago, we found a smuggler to take us out. We wanted to start over. But then Kurdish [SDF] forces took us.
“Miriam” from Canada, mother of two children born in Syria, husband in SDF-controlled prison.
I came to Syria because I was having problems at work and at home. It sounds so cliché. I was 20 when I left. I got the idea while I was conversing online with sisters [ISIS members]. I married two weeks after I arrived. They gave me a paper with three men’s names, ages, and hometowns. I chose the man from my hometown. We met and we liked each other. Then he was killed by a bullet in the head. If I have to go to prison I will. I just want to come home.
“Hanneke” from the Netherlands, widow.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/SYRIA: DIRE CONDITIONS FOR ISIS SUSPECTS’ FAMILIES
WOMAN SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER IN HER OWN HOME/POLICE VIOLENCE IN THE USA!/ANOTHER INNOCENT VICTIM
A makeshift memorial outside the home of Atatiana Jefferson on Monday. Jefferson was fatally shot by a Fort Worth police officer early Saturday morning. (Jake Bleiberg/AP)
ATATIANA JEFFERSONONE OF THE COUNTLESS VICTIMS OF US POLICE BRUTALITYATATIANA JEFFERSON, REST IN PEACE
Aaron Y. DeanCreditTarrant County Sheriff’s Office
AARON Y DEAN, THE POLICE OFFICER, WHO SHOT AND KILLED ATATIANA JEFFERSON
” Oscar’s killing is personal because his death offends the fundamental principles of justice, every notion of dignity and the idea that through those threads, all of our lives are connected. As human beings, we are responsible for each other. His death means that we must work for his justice. ” ABOUT OSCAR GRANT, ANOTHER BLACK VICTIM OF US POLICE BRUTALITY https://www.amnestyusa.org/another-year-another-unarmed-black-man-killed-by-police/
Police violence in the USA [1] is very depressing and not only shows an amount of deep structural racism [most victims are black men and sometimes blach women too], but also the insane trigger happiness of many policemen.As I say, not only black people are being deadly shot, white people too [2]But the problem is that reading the percentage of victims, black people are over representated.According to Amnesty International five times more than white people! [3]And almost in the most cases the same story:Police officers are confronted with black men, who are deadly shot, because the police officer tought they were wearing a gun, while in reality it was something innocent like a mobile phone…………[4]This can happen once, or two times, but when it happens each time again [while the police officer is heavily armed and can easily defend himself] it is no ”incident” anymore, but a form of racism, whether it is conscious or subconscious.It happens too many times!Besides:Investigations show, that there is a disproportionate fear to see criminality in black people, especially tall black men and black men in general [5]There are so many examples of police violence against black people!See under note 6Depressing and good, that movements like”Black lives matter” [7] is protesting continually.
But the other officer who responded with Mr. Dean said she could only see Ms. Jefferson’s face through the window when Mr. Dean fired, according to the warrant, and Chief Kraus has defended her right to have a gun in her own home.” [21]And even IF she had a gun in her home, what seemed to be the case [22] since when that is a problem?According to the second amendment of the USA constitution [23] any American inhabitant has the right to bear a weapon!Besides, even the police chief, Kraus, had defended her right to have a gun on her home! [24] Is it not shocking, readers, that a person is not safe in his or her own house? With right the NAACP [25] gave the following statement: ”UNACCEPTABLE! The acts of yet another “trained” police officer have resulted in the death of #AtatianaJefferson. Gun downed in her own home. If we are not safe to call the police, if we are not safe in our homes, where can we find peace? We demand answers. We demand justice.” [26]
CHARGED WITH MURDER End now, the good news is, that Aaron Y Deal, the white police officer, who shot Atatiana Jefferson in her own home, is being charged for murder. [27] I personally wonder whether the cop really is going to be convicted, but if he is, I don’t hope it is such a mockery of justice, like in a similar case, shortly ago, in which a white female police officer shot a black man, Botham Jean, in his own home, pretending [I don’t believe her] that she believed it was her own apartment and that Jean was a burglar [as if it is justified to shoot and kill any burglar, who comes in your home, but that’s apart from this] [28]She was merely convicted to ten years prison. [29] A mockery of justice, according to me and many others. But in the Netherlands it is not at all different: In 2013 a Dutch police officer, who shot the 17 years old Rishi Chadrikasing [from Surinamese-Indian descent], who was running away [the officer wrongly stated that Rishi was a ”treath” to him, despite the fact, that he was running away!], was acquitted for fatlly shooting Chadrikasing.I called the sentence ”license to kill” [30]
EPILOGUE The police killing of the innocent Atatiana Jefferson, in her own home, shows another day in hell for black people in the USA.Because they are not safe!Black men bear the greatest risks-being seen as dangerous, even when they only show their ID, it mysteriously changes in a gun-but also black women are not safe, even not in their own home.And the fact that a female police officer kills a black man in his own home, telling a nonsense story, that she thought it was her own home and is only convicted to ten years prison [31], just shows how sick the American society still is!
Reason for me to write this piece [see also my comment on ABC News below].And in memory to Atatiana Jefferson and all black and other people, who were victims of police killings. But we are determined to fight on.Untill Justice is done! NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
HORRIBLE! Though I don’t know the facts yet, it seems to me like an extrajudicial ezxecution! Not only clearly the policeman did not identify himself as police, or shouting ”police” [he has to show his card too], even if he did, and it was a situation which required shooting, he still had the obligation to shoot in the air first [if there was no imminent threath and then on a less vulnerable part of her body! Police violence against black people in the US is shocking. Mostly is the excuse, that the person ”bearec arms” and to see later it was just a mobile or identity card he wanted to show! But also white people are subject to police violence. So in general: Not only racism, but also trigger happy behaviour is the root of many police deaths. THIS HAS TO BE STOPPED!/RIGHT NOW!/https://www.astridessed.nl/… Astrid Essed
Two new studies have revived the long-running debate over how police respond to white criminal suspects versus African Americans.
In the U.S., African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. For black women, the rate is 1.4 times more likely.
That’s according to a new study conducted by Frank Edwards, of Rutgers University’s School of Criminal Justice, Hedwig Lee, of Washington University in St. Louis’s Department of Sociology, and Michael Esposito, of the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The researchers used verified data on police killings from 2013 to 2018 compiled by the website Fatal Encounters, created by Nevada-based journalist D. Brian Burghart. Under their models, they found that roughly 1-in-1,000 black boys and men will be killed by police in their lifetime. For white boys and men, the rate is 39 out of 100,000.
In fact, people of color in general were found more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts.
The study was published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS, a journal that recently drew controversy for publishing another study on police killing disparities. That study, led by Michigan State University psychology professor Joseph Cesario, published on July 22, found that violent crime rates and the racial demographics of a given location are better indicators for determining a police killing victim’s race.
Many people ask whether black or white citizens are more likely to be shot and why. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot.
The two studies are just the latest salvos in a long-running debate over whether police violence towards African Americans is better explained because of racial prejudice or because black people are really violent enough to justify extra police force. The Cesario study, with its focus on crime rates, seems to fall in the latter camp. Both rely on media-generated police shootings data—Cesario’s uses databases produced by The Washington Post and The Guardian.
Several academics have challenged Cesario’smethodology, namely his decision to “sidestep the benchmark” of using population to calculate racial disparity. It has been questioned whether using population is an appropriate benchmark in these kinds of analyses: Critics of this technique believe that population-benchmarking is flawed because it assumes black and white people have an equal likelihood of encountering police. (An example of population-benchmarking is, as Cesario’s study explains, stating: “26% of civilians killed by police shootings in 2015 were Black even though Black civilians comprise only 12% of the U.S. population. According to this 12% benchmark, more Black civilians are fatally shot than we would expect, indicating disparity.”)
The study was published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, or PNAS, a journal that recently drew controversy for publishing another study on police killing disparities. That study, led by Michigan State University psychology professor Joseph Cesario, published on July 22, found that violent crime rates and the racial demographics of a given location are better indicators for determining a police killing victim’s race.
Many people ask whether black or white citizens are more likely to be shot and why. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot.
The two studies are just the latest salvos in a long-running debate over whether police violence towards African Americans is better explained because of racial prejudice or because black people are really violent enough to justify extra police force. The Cesario study, with its focus on crime rates, seems to fall in the latter camp. Both rely on media-generated police shootings data—Cesario’s uses databases produced by The Washington Post and The Guardian.
Several academics have challenged Cesario’smethodology, namely his decision to “sidestep the benchmark” of using population to calculate racial disparity. It has been questioned whether using population is an appropriate benchmark in these kinds of analyses: Critics of this technique believe that population-benchmarking is flawed because it assumes black and white people have an equal likelihood of encountering police. (An example of population-benchmarking is, as Cesario’s study explains, stating: “26% of civilians killed by police shootings in 2015 were Black even though Black civilians comprise only 12% of the U.S. population. According to this 12% benchmark, more Black civilians are fatally shot than we would expect, indicating disparity.”)Instead of using population, Cesario analyzed variables such as the race of the police officers, crime rates, and the racial demographics of locations where police shootings happened in 2015. From that, he derived that black and Latino victims of police killings were more likely to have been shot by black and Latino cops, and that ”might not be due to bias on the part of Black or Hispanic officers, but instead to simple overlap between officer and county demographics.” The problem with this, as Princeton professor Jonathan Mummolo, explained on Twitter, is that it still rests on the assumption that black and white officers encounter black civilians in equal numbers, or in even temperaments—which they don’t.
The problem with this, as Princeton professor Jonathan Mummolo, explained on Twitter, is that it still rests on the assumption that black and white officers encounter black civilians in equal numbers, or in even temperaments—which they don’t.
What do the recent mass shootings tell us, if anything, about this?
There’s also something to be said for what the victims were doing when the cops shot them. Cesario points out that, “The vast majority—between 90 percent and 95 percent—of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot”—and that there were more white civilians who were committing such attacks when police killed them than were African Americans. In fact, white people were more likely to be armed when police killed them, as Cesario’s study acknowledges—“if anything, [we] found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime,” reads the study.
The three most recent mass shootings—in Gilroy, California; Dayton, Ohio; and El Paso, Texas—represent extreme examples of armed white men on the attack, but looking at them through the lens of Cesario’s findings is still revealing. Police shot two of the perpetrators, killing one of them. Connor Betts, the shooter who killed nine people and injured 27 more on August 4 in Dayton, was stopped by police bullets less than a minute after his attack began. Police fired at the Gilroy shooter, Santino Legan, but he ultimately succumbed to self-inflicted wounds. Patrick Crusius was arrested “without incident” after killing 22 people and injuring dozens more in El Paso.
In only one of these cases did police actually shoot and kill an armed white suspect who was on the attack: Betts in Dayton. Even that case is murky, though. Betts wore a mask, hearing protection, and body armor—his race was likely not apparent from a distance, and the entire melee happened very quickly. But even if one interprets the fact that police shot at two of those three shooters as evidence of the “anti-White disparity” Cesario mentions, one could also argue that it takes whites committing large-scale acts of terror with automatic weapons for police to respond in the same way that police have responded to, say, a teenager walking away-from-police-while-black.
What do the recent mass shootings tell us, if anything, about this?
There’s also something to be said for what the victims were doing when the cops shot them. Cesario points out that, “The vast majority—between 90 percent and 95 percent—of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot”—and that there were more white civilians who were committing such attacks when police killed them than were African Americans. In fact, white people were more likely to be armed when police killed them, as Cesario’s study acknowledges—“if anything, [we] found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime,” reads the study.
The three most recent mass shootings—in Gilroy, California; Dayton, Ohio; and El Paso, Texas—represent extreme examples of armed white men on the attack, but looking at them through the lens of Cesario’s findings is still revealing. Police shot two of the perpetrators, killing one of them. Connor Betts, the shooter who killed nine people and injured 27 more on August 4 in Dayton, was stopped by police bullets less than a minute after his attack began. Police fired at the Gilroy shooter, Santino Legan, but he ultimately succumbed to self-inflicted wounds. Patrick Crusius was arrested “without incident” after killing 22 people and injuring dozens more in El Paso.
In only one of these cases did police actually shoot and kill an armed white suspect who was on the attack: Betts in Dayton. Even that case is murky, though. Betts wore a mask, hearing protection, and body armor—his race was likely not apparent from a distance, and the entire melee happened very quickly. But even if one interprets the fact that police shot at two of those three shooters as evidence of the “anti-White disparity” Cesario mentions, one could also argue that it takes whites committing large-scale acts of terror with automatic weapons for police to respond in the same way that police have responded to, say, a teenager walking away-from-police-while-black.
The limitations of the data
Another way to determine whether racial bias is a factor is by examining police behavior when their target is unarmed and not on the attack. This is what University of Nebraska at Omaha criminology professor Justin Nix examined in his 2017 study on police killings. Nix’s research, which Cesario cites often in his own study, also focuses on police shooting-killings in 2015, when police killed nearly twice as many white people that year (495) than they did black people (258). But 15 percent of the black people police killed that year were unarmed, compared with just 6 percent of white people who were unarmed when killed by police. The study also found that 24 percent of African Americans and 32 percent of other non-white racial groups were not attacking police officers when they were killed, compared to 17 percent of white people. This was interpreted as “preliminary evidence of an implicit bias effect,” against African Americans and people of color.
Nix, however, is cautious about deriving any firm conclusions from his own findings or Cesario’s because the data on police shootings in general is too limited. The FBI finally launched its database on police-involved shootings just this year, which is why researchers rely on databases created by journalists. And even the subset of data that academics have been working with—police shooting fatalities—have their own range of limitations.
Cesario declares in his press release that “violent crime rates are the driving force behind fatal [police] shootings,” but Nix says that is “pretty strong language in light of the limitations,” especially if looking at when police deploy lethal force at the local level.
“I don’t think the conclusions are warranted based on their analysis,” said Nix. “You can’t restrict the data to just fatal shootings. Another problem is that when doing these bird’s-eye views, you lose nuance from city to city. Policing is a local thing and there’s no reason to believe that everything is the same across the board.”
For example, Nix would want numbers not only on how many times a police officer shoots their weapon, but every time they draw their gun. “You need a benchmark that says how often they were in certain circumstances where they could have shot but did not. That gets us closer to the likelihood of racial bias.”
Nix recently updated his analysis on police shootings using fatal and non-fatal shootings from the 47 largest metros from 2010 to 2016, using a dataset produced by VICE. That analysis found wide variation between the cities—in St. Louis, 16.8 percent of police shootings were fatal; in Phoenix, 51.9 percent were; and, in Tampa, all three of its police shootings were fatal.
[4] ”On the video, one of the officers is heard yelling, “Gun, gun, gun”. Police officials initially told local media that Clark was found with a “tool bar” on him, but later clarified that he was only holding a phone.”
”Young Black men are stereotyped as threatening, which can have grave consequences for interactions with police. We show that these threat stereotypes are even greater for tall Black men, who face greater discrimination from police officers and elicit stronger judgments of threat.”
Edited by Jennifer A. Richeson, Yale University, New Haven, CT, and approved January 24, 2018 (received for review August 22, 2017)
Significance
Young Black men are stereotyped as threatening, which can have grave consequences for interactions with police. We show that these threat stereotypes are even greater for tall Black men, who face greater discrimination from police officers and elicit stronger judgments of threat. We challenge the assumption that height is intrinsically good for men. White men may benefit from height, but Black men may not. More broadly, we demonstrate how demographic factors (e.g., race) can influence how people interpret physical traits (e.g., height). This difference in interpretation is a matter not of magnitude but of meaning: The same trait is positive for some groups of people but negative for others.
Abstract
Height seems beneficial for men in terms of salaries and success; however, past research on height examines only White men. For Black men, height may be more costly than beneficial, primarily signaling threat rather than competence. Three studies reveal the downsides of height in Black men. Study 1 analyzes over 1 million New York Police Department stop-and-frisk encounters and finds that tall Black men are especially likely to receive unjustified attention from police. Then, studies 2 and 3 experimentally demonstrate a causal link between perceptions of height and perceptions of threat for Black men, particularly for perceivers who endorse stereotypes that Black people are more threatening than White people. Together, these data reveal that height is sometimes a liability for Black men, particularly in contexts in which threat is salient.
“When you deal with the police, you must be careful. You are big and they will automatically see you as a threat.” — Charles Coleman, Jr. (6′4″ Black attorney/writer), quoting his mother
Charles Coleman, Jr. evoked his mother’s warning when he wrote about Eric Garner, an unarmed man choked to death by police. Garner was both Black and 6′3″ tall. Coleman highlights the perils of “occupying a Black body that is inherently threatening,” arguing that tall Black men receive disproportionate attention from police officers (1). This argument evokes the “black brute” archetype, which portrays Black men as apelike savages who use their imposing physical frame to threaten others (2, 3). Although Black men face stereotypes of aggression and threat (4⇓–6), tall Black men may find themselves perceived as especially threatening.
The idea that height has negative consequences contrasts with previous psychological research on height in men, which argues that taller is better. Research finds that tall men seem healthier, more intelligent, more successful, and more physically attractive (7⇓–9). Tall men also stand a greater chance of being hired (10), making more money (11, 12), gaining promotions (13, 14), and winning leadership positions (7, 15).
However, this research almost exclusively explores perceptions of White men (Table S1), who are already positively stereotyped as competent and intelligent (16, 17). On the other hand, Black men are negatively stereotyped; they are seen as hostile, aggressive, and threatening (e.g., refs. 17⇓⇓–20) and are associated with guns (4, 5). For Black men, height may be more often interpreted as a sign of threat instead of competence.
Thus, being tall may not be inherently good or bad for men. Instead, the accessibility of other traits, such as competence and threat, may influence how people interpret height. Classic work in social psychology demonstrates similar effects: Whether a target is initially described as “warm” or “cold” changes how people interpret the target’s other traits (e.g., intelligent, industrious) (21). Considerable research demonstrates that Black men are specifically stereotyped as physically threatening and imposing (22, 23). For this reason, height may impact judgments of threat more strongly for Black men than for White men.
The Present Research
In three studies, we test whether taller Black men are judged as more threatening than shorter Black men and than both taller and shorter White men. We first examined whether New York City police officers disproportionately stopped and frisked tall Black men from 2006 to 2013 (study 1). We then investigated whether height increases threat judgments more for Black men than for White men by manipulating height both visually (study 2) and descriptively (study 3).
Cultural Stereotypes Pilot
Before conducting these three studies, we first conducted a pilot examining participants’ knowledge of cultural stereotypes, testing whether participants endorse knowledge of stereotypes that tall Black men are seen as especially threatening and tall White men are seen as especially competent. Results showed that cultural stereotypes of threat are increased by tallness more for Black targets than for White targets and, conversely, that cultural stereotypes of competence are increased by tallness more for White targets than for Black targets. Full reporting for this pilot is provided in Pilot Study: Cultural Stereotypes About Height and Race; a graph summarizing the results is shown in Fig. S1.
Results
Study 1: New York Police Department Stop-and-Frisk.
In 2013, Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Federal District Court in New York ruled that the New York Police Department’s (NYPD’s) stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional because of its clear history of racial discrimination (24). Black and Hispanic people faced disproportionate odds of being stopped by police officers, despite the fact that this “racial profiling” was ineffective. In study 1 we tested whether tall Black men were especially likely to be stopped by NYPD officers.
Before analysis, we cleaned the dataset and made three restrictions. (i) We only used data for non-Hispanic Black and White males, avoiding issues with different distributions of height in the population (i.e., Hispanics are shorter than non-Hispanics; women are shorter than men). (ii) We restricted our data to include only people between 5′4″ and 6′4″. This range in height includes over 98% of Black and White males and prevents outliers (particularly those created by clerical errors) from influencing our results. (iii) We restricted our data to include only people of weights between 100 and 400 lb to prevent outliers created by clerical errors.
Recent work demonstrates that young Black men are perceived as taller and more threatening than young White men, controlling for actual height (22). To account for the alternate explanation that police officers simply perceived Black men as taller than White men (25), we analyzed only cases in which suspects provided photographic identification, which almost always lists height alongside other information that cannot be guessed or estimated, such as date of birth (thus making it highly probable that officers record the listed value for height, rather than estimating it) (26). These restrictions left us with 1,073,536 valid targets for analysis.
The stop-and-frisk dataset is large and includes numerous potential dependent variables. For our analysis, we focus on police officers’ decisions to stop individuals, as this decision is made before any interactions with police, making it more reliant on person perception (27). We recognize the potential issue of flexible analyses and partly address this issue by estimating standardized effect sizes for many variables, which allows comparison of the relative magnitude of effects (especially given that the sample size is large enough to allow accurate estimation of effect size).
We accounted for target weight and the interaction of height and weight to isolate height as a predictor (12). Furthermore, to address an ecological explanation for race effects (28), we nested our data within precinct (to account for variability in geographical factors such as crime rate and land value), included precinct-level felony rates (from 2005–2013), and also included a variable in which officers report whether the stop was made in a high-crime area. Finally, because some research suggests that only young Black men are stereotyped as threatening (29), we include age and the interaction between height and age in our model.
Ratio of Black to White stops.
Under stop-and-frisk rules, police officers had the authority to stop anyone they deemed suspicious or threatening. If tall Black men seem especially threatening, then the ratio of Black to White stops (i.e., how many Black men are stopped per White man) should increase with height.
Accounting for precinct-level felonies, weight, age, and perceived local crime, height still showed a meaningful main effect, B = 0.079, t(1,073,526) = 23.98, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.070, 0.085]. At 5′4″, police stopped 4.5 Black men for every White man; at 5′10″, police stopped 5.3 Black men for every White man; and at 6′4″, police stopped 6.2 Black men for every White man. These results suggest that taller Black men face a greater risk of being stopped than shorter Black men.
Notably, the ratio of Black to White stops was also greater for heavier men, B = 0.041, t(1,073,526) = 11.80, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.035, 0.048]. At 115 lb, police stopped 4.5 Black men for every White man; at 175 lb (the average weight in the dataset), police stopped 5.2 Black men for every White man; and at 235 lb, police stopped 5.7 Black men for every White man. Finally, height and weight interacted, B = 0.047, t(1,073,526) = 15.71, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.041, 0.053], such that each 1-SD increase in weight increases the standardized effect of height by 0.047. Because weight estimates were not provided on photograph IDs (hereafter, “photo IDs”), we interpret these results with caution.
We also found effects for other variables in the model. Unsurprisingly, areas with more crime, as reported by police and captured in precinct-level data, exhibit higher ratios of Black to White stops. The ratio of Black to White stops was also larger for younger men. Interestingly, height and age interacted, such that height’s effect on the ratio of Black to White stops was larger for older Black men. See Table S2 for the full coefficients and a replication of results with both photo and verbal IDs included.
Discussion.
Study 1 demonstrates that tall Black men receive disproportionate attention from police officers. During 8 y of NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program, tall Black men were particularly likely to face unjustified stops by police officers, and these patterns were not explained by biased height estimates (since officers received photo IDs).
In the next two studies, we test whether these results might be explained by an interaction between race and height, such that tallness primarily increases perceptions of threat for Black men and primarily increases perceptions of competence for White men.
Study 2: Manipulating Height with Perspective.
We experimentally manipulated height and race to test whether they interact to influence judgments of threat and competence. To manipulate height, we took photographs of 16 young men—eight Black and eight White—from two perspectives: above the target and below the target. These different perspectives naturalistically manipulated the experience of encountering someone who is tall or short. A manipulation check indicated that perspective significantly influenced participants’ free response estimates of target height, b = 1.78, F(1, 427) = 16.42, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.91, 2.65], such that targets that were looking down were perceived as taller [mean (M) = 71.6 in.] than targets that were looking up (M = 69.8 in.). See Method for a more detailed description of the perspective manipulation.
Participants rated 16 photographs for adjectives describing both threat and competence. Then, because we expected judgments to depend on participants’ individual beliefs about Black and White people, we assessed participants’ beliefs that Black people are more threatening than White people. We predicted that stronger beliefs about Black threat (BaBT) would increase participants’ tendency to identify tall Black men as especially threatening. We also tested the complementary hypothesis that stronger BaBT might make tall White men seem especially competent. We preregistered these predictions at https://aspredicted.org/465w9.pdf. We also previously conducted another study with a nearly identical design; the results of this study are detailed in Previous Iteration of Study 2.
Race, height, and racial stereotypes.
To test whether those with higher BaBT would judge tall Black men as especially threatening, we fit a three-way multilevel model predicting threat with race, height, and BaBT. This analysis yielded an expected two-way interaction between target race and BaBT, b = 0.19, F(1, 437) = 61.40, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.14, 0.23], such that those higher in BaBT rated Black men as more threatening relative to White men. Importantly, this analysis also yielded the key three-way interaction, b = 0.15, F(1, 2,081) = 10.97, P = 0.001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.24]. No moderating effect of participant gender emerged (Fig. 1).
For Black targets, the two-way interaction between height and BaBT was significant, b = 0.12, t(833) = 3.67, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.19]: Those higher in BaBT saw tall black men as especially threatening. For White targets, this two-way interaction was not significant, b = −0.03, t(834) = −0.83, P = 0.41, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.04]. These results suggest that the predictive utility of BaBT is moderated by height for stereotype-relevant targets (Black men) but not for stereotype-irrelevant targets (White men). See Additional Analyses for Study 2 for BaBT main effects by race and height.
Although BaBT captures the endorsement of stereotypes about threat and not competence, we nevertheless tested for a three-way interaction with competence ratings. We found an expected two-way interaction between target race and BaBT, b = 0.16, F(1, 459) = 70.27, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.20], such that those higher in BaBT rated White men as more competent relative to Black men. We also found a three-way interaction, b = 0.12, F(1, 1,097) = 7.52, P = 0.006, 95% CI [0.03, 0.20], such that BaBT predicted competence especially strongly for tall White men. Participant gender did not moderate effects. This interaction is further broken down statistically (Additional Analyses for Study 2) and graphically (Fig. S2).
Suppressed height effects.
Height did not increase threat for White men, nor did it increase competence for Black men. However, our pilot study revealed main effects of height on stereotypes of both competence and threat. One possible explanation for this null finding is that, for judgments of tall White men, perceived competence suppressed gains in threat, and, for judgments of tall Black men, perceived threat suppressed gains in competence. Because we found significant race by height interactions for both threat and competence at mean levels of BaBT, we were able to conduct Sobel mediations using the entire sample to test these hypotheses.
For White targets, we found a negative indirect effect of height on threat, ab = −0.04, z = −4.30, P < 0.001; being taller makes targets seem more competent and thus less threatening. Once this indirect effect was accounted for, height no longer decreased threat for White men, b = −0.05, t(1,406) = −1.40, P = 0.16. Conversely, for Black targets, we found a negative indirect effect of height on competence, ab = −0.09, z = −6.07, P < 0.001; being taller makes targets more threatening and thus less competent. Notably, once this indirect effect was accounted for, height increased perceived competence for Black targets, b = 0.09, t(1,406) = 2.75, P = 0.006, suggesting that height may be beneficial for Black men in contexts that sufficiently nullify concerns about threat (e.g., the corporate boardroom).
Discussion.
Study 2 experimentally demonstrates that height amplifies threat for Black men and competence for White men, particularly for perceivers who endorse beliefs that Black people are more threatening than White people. Study 2 also found indirect negative effects of height on competence for Black men and threat for White men.
Study 3: Manipulating Height with Descriptions.
Although the photographs from study 2 have naturalistic validity, they may also confound height with intimidation (30). We address this concern by manipulating height with text vignettes (e.g., “As you approach each other, you can see that he is very short/quite tall”) and manipulating race with standardized photographs. See Textual Descriptions of Height Used in Study 3 for text descriptions of height.
Participants rated 16 targets on the same threat and competence adjectives used in study 2. They then completed the BaBT scale. As in the previous experiment, we predicted that those higher in BaBT would make especially strong threat judgments for tall Black men and especially strong competence judgments for tall White men. We preregistered these predictions at https://aspredicted.org/sp3aj.pdf.
Race, height, and racial stereotypes.
We again fit a multilevel model predicting threat with race, height, and BaBT. We replicated the key findings of study 2; those higher in BaBT rated Black men as more threatening relative to White men, b = 0.15, F(1, 374) = 30.83, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.10, 0.20], and this effect was especially large for tall Black men, b = 0.16, F(1, 1,548) = 9.04, P = 0.003, 95% CI [0.06, 0.27]. Participant gender did not moderate effects (Fig. 2).
We also replicated the competence results of study 2: Those higher in BaBT rated White men as more competent relative to Black men, b = 0.11, F(1, 320) = 20.36, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.05, 0.17], and this effect was especially large for tall White men, b = 0.10, F(1, 1,518) = 3.78, P = 0.052, 95% CI [−0.00, 0.20]. No moderating effect of participant gender emerged. See Additional Analyses for Study 3 for the breakdown of both the threat and competence interactions.
Discussion.
Study 3 addressed stimuli concerns from study 2 and again demonstrated that, for those higher in BaBT, tall Black men seem especially threatening compared with short Black men and both short and tall White men.
General Discussion
In three studies, we showed that taller is not always better; although tall White men may benefit from increased perceptions of competence, tall Black men are burdened with increased perceptions of threat. We first revealed that NYPD police officers stopped tall Black men at a disproportionately high rate (study 1). We then demonstrated that, for perceivers who endorse stereotypes that Black people are more threatening than White people, tall Black men seem especially threatening (studies 2 and 3).
Previous research has amply demonstrated that people may interpret traits and behaviors as positive or negative depending on the accessibility of other concepts. For example, a classic study revealed that a target’s ambiguous actions are negatively evaluated when participants are first primed with hostility-related traits (versus kindness-related traits) (31). Racial stereotypes alter the accessibility of traits during person perception, which influences how people interpret other traits—in this case, height. For people who already perceive Black men as threatening, height confers extra threat.
Our findings have important implications when considered alongside recent research demonstrating that young Black men are perceived as taller and more muscular than young White men of equivalent size, which causes them to also seem more threatening to non-Black participants (22). The present findings suggest that the negative consequences of these biased height perceptions (i.e., increased threat perceptions) hinge on how strongly the perceiver believes that Black people are threatening (thus interpreting height as a sign of threat).
Height may also interact with more subtle cues of race, such as Afrocentric features (32, 33), and the effect of height may be determined by contextual cues. Once we controlled for perceived threat in study 2, taller Black men were actually perceived as more competent than shorter Black men. When competence is clearly more relevant than threat, Black men may also benefit from height. Alternately, Black men may also benefit from height if they possess other traits that reduce threat, such as babyfacedness (34).
More broadly, these results highlight the importance of intersections between social categories and physical traits. Just as social categories such as race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status intersect in important ways with each other (35, 36), so too do they influence the impact of physical factors such as height (37), weight (38), babyfacedness (34), and facial attractiveness (39).
We recognize that our findings do not necessarily generalize to perceptions of women. We limited our targets to men because police profiling and threatening stereotypes both target Black males. However, future research should investigate whether the same race–height interactions apply for women. Previous work indicates that White women enjoy at least some of the same benefits of height as White men (7), but no work to date has investigated the effects of height for perceptions of Black women.
We also recognize the potential role of weight in perceptions of threat. Consistent with others’ previous work (22, 25), our stop-and-frisk analyses suggest that weight also plays a key role in judgments of suspicion. Because of accuracy concerns about the weight estimates, which may have been biased (22), and the relatively large effect size of height, we chose to focus on height; however, future work should further investigate how height and weight combine with categories such as race and gender to influence judgments.
Being tall is often discussed as a wholly good trait, so much so that Randy Newman wrote a satirical song that lists reasons why “short people got no reason to live.” However, height means something different for Black men: Height amplifies already problematic perceptions of threat, which can lead to harassment and even injury. When Charles Coleman, Jr.’s mother told him that he “was big and they would automatically see [him] as a threat,” she eloquently summarized what we empirically showed—for Black men, being tall may be less a boon and more a burden.
Method
The University of North Carolina Institutitional Review Board (IRB) approved studies 2 and 3 as well as the pilot study. Participants in these studies indicated consent electronically and received debriefing at the end of the studies. Study 1 did not use human subjects and required no IRB approval.
We combined 8 y of publicly available data (2006–2013) documenting the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program. These data include information about every person stopped as part of the program, including race, age, gender, height, weight, and whether the person was frisked, searched, arrested, or issued a summons. Notably, we only analyzed stops in which officers received photo ID, ensuring the relative accuracy of the reported height and age (26).
We cleaned the data by filtering cases with clear errors (i.e., a large number of people had ages of 99 y or higher, or birth years of 1900). We also restricted the dataset to non-Hispanic Black and White males. By focusing on non-Hispanic Black and White males, we minimized problems of distribution: Adult Black and White males have nearly identical means and distributions of height (40).
Study 2.
Participants and design.
Two hundred participants (73% White, 6% Black, 42% women, Mage = 36 y) completed a 2 × 2 [Target Race: Black, White by Target Perspective: Looking Down (Tall), Looking Up (Short)] within-subjects study. With n = 200 at level 2 and n = 16 at level 1 and a subject slope variance of 0.39, we had ∼88% power to detect a small cross-level interaction (41).
Materials.
Creating stimuli to manipulate height and race.
To create stimuli, we photographed 16 male students from the University of North Carolina. Eight students were White, and eight were Black. We photographed each student from two perspectives: looking up and looking down. We intended to manipulate perceived height: If someone is looking down on you, they are likely taller, but if they are looking up at you, they are likely shorter. This perspective manipulation allowed us to manipulate height in a within-subjects design, addressing both power and stimulus sampling issues (42). In particular, our attention to stimulus sampling reduces the likelihood that our effects were driven by the traits of a particular photograph and minimizes the possibility that small variations in luminance or target size explain our effects (42). See Fig. 3 for examples of stimuli.
To check whether our manipulation of height actually worked, we predicted the estimated height of each target by target perspective. The analysis revealed a main effect of target perspective on estimated height, b = 1.78, F(1, 427) = 16.42, P < 0.001, 95% CI [0.91, 2.65], such that targets who were looking down were perceived as taller (M = 71.6 in.) than targets who were looking up (M = 69.8 in.). We found no main effect of race, b = −0.39, F(1, 427) = 0.80, P = 0.37, 95% CI [−1.26, 0.48], although we did find a race by perspective interaction, b = 1.77, F(1, 2,322) = 4.12, P = 0.043, 95% CI [0.06, 3.48], such that perspective had a larger effect for Black targets. Simple main effects show that Black looking-up targets were perceived as 1.3 in. shorter than White looking-up targets, b = −1.27, t(899) = 2.05, P = 0.041, 95% CI [−2.49, −0.05]. The difference between Black and White looking-down targets was not significant, b = 0.49, t(3,018) = 0.80, P = 0.42, 95% CI [−0.72, 1.72].
BaBT.
Participants answered questions adapted from the General Social Survey (gss.norc.org/). We used these questions because they are less confounded with political beliefs than other scales (43) and directly target stereotypes of Black threat. Participants provided their attitudes toward Black, Hispanic, and White people on seven-point bipolar scales for “nonviolent/violent,” “nonthreatening/threatening,” “nonaggressive/aggressive,” and “not dangerous/dangerous.” Questions about Hispanic targets were included to decrease the focus on Black and White targets and reduce the effect of social desirability on responses.
To create an index variable representing participants’ BaBT, we subtracted participants’ attitudes about White targets from their attitudes about Black targets to capture the relative difference in participants’ attitudes (believing Blacks are more violent than Whites) rather than their overall attitudes (believing people are generally violent regardless of race). Then, we averaged the four difference scores together.
Procedure.
Participants rated 16 photographs of college-aged males on five traits: competent, likable, attractive, threatening, and aggressive. These photographs were counterbalanced, such that each target was seen by half of the participants as looking up and by the other half as looking down. The first item captured competence, and the last two items captured threat. We initially included “likable” and “attractive” as competence items but removed them as suggested by reviewers and the editor; this change did not influence our results. Participants also estimated the height of each target, in inches. After completing these ratings, participants completed the BaBT scale.
Analytic strategy.
We again accounted for between-participant variance by using hierarchical linear modeling, with responses nested within participants. We allowed slopes to vary for both race and perspective manipulations to provide a more precise model and allow cross-level interaction with BaBT.
Study 3.
Participants and design.
Two hundred eight participants (75% White, 10% Black, 61% women, Mage = 38 y) completed a 2 × 2 (Target Race: Black, White by Described Height: Tall, Short) within-subjects study. This study sought to replicate the three-way interaction of study 2 with stimuli that more specifically manipulate height. With n = 208 at level 2 and n = 8 at level 1 and a subject slope variance of 0.28, we had ∼90% power to detect a small cross-level interaction (41).
Materials and procedure.
To manipulate race, we used 20 Black male and 20 White male faces from the Chicago Face Database (44). These faces were chosen based on age; all targets were between 21 and 29 y old. To manipulate height, we described an encounter with each target in which the target was either taller or shorter than the participant. Participants rated eight targets using the same competence and threat items as in study 2. Participants then completed the BaBT scale. The analytic strategy was identical to that of study 2.
Preregistration Details.
We note a few points of discrepancy between our preregistrations and the presented results. (i) The study 2 preregistration did not include the specific hypothesis that people higher in BaBT would judge tall White men as especially competent. (ii) The study 3 preregistration notes the inclusion of BaBT as a potential moderator but does not explicitly state the specific hypotheses. (iii) The specific traits used in the “competence” and “threat” composites were not listed in the preregistrations. END OF ARTICLE
Five years after the rise of Black Lives Matter, activists are still protesting. But national attention to police misconduct has waned.
It’s been nearly five years since several high-profile incidents of police violence spurred racial justice protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and chants of “black lives matter!” began to echo across the country.
The deaths of several black men and women, including Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, Alton Sterling, and Philando Castile, drew national attention to issues of race and policing and spurred on demands for police reform.
But recent developments in two high-profile cases raise questions about whether police violence is still a flashpoint issue — or if national attention to the problem has faded.
In early May, a previously unreleased video recorded by Sandra Bland, the black woman whose 2015 death in a Texas jail cell sparked protests, emerged. The video showed Bland’s perspective of the traffic stop that led to her arrest, and it contradicted policeclaims that she posed a threat to the officer who pulled her over. Bland’s family and others have since demanded that the investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death be reopened.
About a week later, the disciplinary hearing for Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer accused of recklessly using a department-prohibited chokehold on Eric Garner, kicked off in New York City. Garner, an unarmed black man, died in 2014 shortly after being restrained by Pantaleo, and officers failed to immediately render first aid. Video of his arrest, and his gasps of “I can’t breathe,” became a rallying cry for activists.
Pantaleo, who is still employed by the NYPD, was not indicted by a grand jury in 2014, but he’s now facing a department trial that could result in him losing his job as an officer. Several new details about the case have been revealed to the public, including the fact that a police lieutenant texted a different NYPD officer that Garner’s death was “not a big deal,” and that another officer inflated charges against Garner when filling out an arrest form after the man died.
The new revelations in both the Bland and Garner cases are striking — yet they arrive at a time where national anger over police violence doesn’t seem to be as strong as it was when their deaths occurred.
More recent police shootings and incidents of police brutality still draw local attention and activist outrage, but they often fail to attract the same level of public attention they did from 2014 to 2016. At the federal level, the Trump administration has halted efforts to enact police accountability measures. And years into racial justice activists’ fight for structural reform, many of the systems that shield officers from accountability remain in place. In short, it appears that public interest in these problems is waning, along with the momentum to push for police reform — even as the need for these changes remain.
Black and brown Americans still suffer from police violence
The Washington Post has been tracking fatal police encounters since 2015, and for the past four years, the database has found that roughly 1,000 people have died in police shootings each year. So far, 363 people have been killed by police in 2019 alone, according to the Post database.
Even now, these shootings continue to disproportionately affect black Americans. A 2018 article in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health found that while roughly half of police shooting victims are white, young black Americans and Native Americans are disproportionately likely to be killed in a police shooting.
And as Vox’s Dara Lind and German Lopez have previously reported, significant racial disparities have also been seen in federal data and other media-compiled databases of shootings, like the Guardian’s Counted project, which ran from 2015 to 2016.
Black people are also more likely than whites to be exposed to arrests and traffic stops that could potentially escalate into violent encounters.
But recent police violence incidents and shootings haven’t dominated headlines or spurred calls for federal investigations and demands for national police reform efforts in the same way they did three or four years ago. And while some stories that center on the deaths of unarmed black men — such as the fatal 2018 shooting of 22-year old Stephon Clark in his family’s Sacramento, California, backyard — continue to go viral, they tend to fade from public view more quickly, even as activists on the ground continue their protests.
“Police violence — beatings, Taserings, killings — and criminal justice reform more broadly were arguably the leading domestic news storyline during the final two years of the Obama administration,” Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery wrotelast year. In 2018, he added, “the issue has all but vanished from the national political conversation.”
That trend has been noticed by other writers, like the Week’s Bonnie Kristian, who recently wrote that part of the problem may be that public opinion of police has improved among some groups:
Indignation about police misconduct and calls for reform were fading among the white majority by early 2016, as I wrote here at The Week at the time. Polling in late 2015 showed white Americans found police more trustworthy after 18 months of notorious police custody deaths and resultant protests. Already it was becoming evident that cases which once would (and should) have provoked national controversy were increasingly met with desensitization and indifference outside of local protests.
In 2017, a Gallup poll showed that public confidence in police was back to its historical average, with 57 percent of those polled saying they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in police compared to 52 percent in 2015. This was largely driven by shifts among white Americans, with more people expressing confidence in police in the 2015-17 period than from 2012 to 2014 (61 percent to 58 percent). During that same time confidence in police fell among black Americans, going from 35 precent in 2012-14 to 30 percent in 2015-17.
Black Americans are also significantly less likely to view police “warmly” when compared to white Americans.
There could be several reasons for the change in the national discussion of policing, but one factor stands out in particular: the election of President Donald Trump.Trump’s election and presidency has consumed a significant amount of media attention and public discussion, leaving little space for discussions of policy issues like police reform.
The Trump administration has also effectively halted federal momentum on policing reform. Under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Trump administration announced it would review old police reform agreements between the federal government and police departments and also stop entering into new ones.
In cities like Baltimore and Chicago, the Justice Department went so far as to attempt to intervene in ongoing reform efforts, arguing that reform agreements would hamper effectiveness and morale of police officers.
Lack of police accountability is still very much a problem
In recent years, several of the most high-profile cases of police violence have ended with officers not facing charges or not being convicted. This is largely due to longstanding legal standards giving officers wide latitude to use force.
It is possible the continued dismissal of police misconduct cases by police departments or the legal system — especially in incidents caught on video — has created a sense of futility, or discouragement, among some people who were first exposed to police violence incidents back in 2014.
While some officers involved in police violence are never indicted, in other cases, like the case of Michael Rosfeld, a former East Pittsburgh officer who fatally shot 17-year-old Antwon Rose in 2018, officers faced trial but were not convicted. Convictions remain very rare in police shooting cases, and officers who are given prison time for their involvement in shootings is rarer still.
In fact,the only acknowledgement of wrongdoing often comes in the form of settlements given to the families of police-shooting victims. But these settlements, which usually arrive after lawsuits (and in some cases aren’tgiven), are far from the systemic reform that activists and families of victims have demanded.
And because these protections largely hinge on if an officer had a “reasonable” belief that he or others were in danger rather than if a threat was actually expressed, the result is that some police misconduct or excessive force is shielded from prosecution. Efforts to change that standard have emerged in states like California, but no laws have yet to be passed.
There are other longstanding practices within police departments that make accountability for police misconduct, abuse, and fatal shootings a challenge. A 2016 New York Times report and 2017 Washington Post investigation found that officers who were fired from departments for misconduct or criminal behavioroften go on to be hired by other departments or are rehired by the same agency that dismissed them. And tracking officer misconduct, or viewing body camera footage of a police shooting, remains difficult for the public.
Public attention has waned, but activists continue to push for reform
Though police violence and lack of accountability remains a very real problem, Americans in general simply seem less interested in hearing about it — which makes it more difficult for activists and politicians to push through tangible reforms.
However, that doesn’t mean people have given up. Instead, groups seem to be putting more of an emphasis on pushing for structural change from within.
The police reform-oriented Campaign Zero and the Movement for Black Lives have outlined detailed policy plans aimed at policing, but they have also demanded changes to education systems and the economy and joined a larger set of groups making up the anti-Trump “resistance.”
Other groups are seeking to boost black political engagement in the upcoming election and things like the 2020 census in an effort to force politicians to address black voters’ concerns about racism and police accountability.Activists say their fight for justice is as urgent now as it was five years ago, and that while systemic policy change may still be a work in progress, their movement has had an impact. “Since we started using the hashtag #blacklivesmatter, since the jump start of this current iteration of the Black Liberation movement, I know the world has transformed,” Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of the Black Lives Matter Network, wrote in a 2018 HuffPost op-ed. “I know the world is changing.” END OF ARTICLE NEW REPORT IACHR:
[15] [WARNING ABOUT WIKIPEDIAWIKIPEDIA MAY NOT BE THAT ACCURATE AND SINCE THIS TRAGIC NEWS HAS HAPPENED RECENTLY, MAYBE NOT ALL THE WRITTEN FACTS ARE THAT ACCURATE/RELY MORE ON YOUTUBE, ABC NEWS AND OTHER NEWSSOURCES I MENTION HERE] WIKIPEDIAKILLING OF ATATIANA JEFFERSON https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Atatiana_Jefferson
During a news conference on Sunday afternoon, Fort Worth Police Lt. Brandon O’Neil said the officer who opened fire on Jefferson never identified himself as a police officer.
“What the officer observed and why he did not announce ‘police’ will be addressed as the investigation continues,” O’Neil said.
The NAACP released a statement on Twitter calling the fatal shooting of Jefferson “UNACCEPTABLE!”
“The acts of yet another ’trained’ police officer have resulted in the death of #AtatianaJefferson Gun downed in her own home,” the NAACP wrote. “If we are not safe to call the police, if we are not safe in our homes, where can we find peace? We demand answers. We demand justice.”
James Smith, a neighbor, said the shooting unfolded after he called the non-emergency police number to report seeing the lights on and the front door open at Jefferson’s home. He said police arrived at the home around 2:30 a.m. without activating their lights and sirens.
“I called my police department for a welfare check,” Smith told WFAA. “No domestic violence, no arguing, nothing that they should have been concerned about as far as them coming with guns drawn to my neighbor’s house.”
Hearing the gunshot shocked him, he said.
“I don’t know what went on in that house, but I know she wasn’t a threat,” Smith said. “I’m still kind of broken and shocked. They tell me I shouldn’t feel bad. But I feel bad cause had I not called the police department, she would probably still be alive today.”
Civil rights attorney Lee Merritt said Jefferson’s “understandably heartbroken” relatives told him that Jefferson and her nephew were playing video games when they heard noises outside.
“She went to investigate at the window. An officer was on the other side who shouted commands and before she had a moment to respond, he shot her to death,” said Merritt, who also represents the family of Botham Jean, a 26-year-old black man shot to death in September 2018 by white former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, who mistook Jean’s apartment for her own and wrongly suspected he was an intruder.
The Fort Worth Police Department did not release the name of the officer.
O’Neil said police received a call at 2:25 a.m. to respond to the home on East Allen Avenue. He said two officers arrived at the house at 2:29 am. and parked near Jefferson’s home, but not in front of the residence. He said the officers walked around the back of the house, and that one of the officers observed a person through the rear window of the home and opened fire.
Body-camera footage released by the department shows the officer approaching a rear window of the home with his gun drawn. The officer sees the woman through the window, shouts, “Put your hands up, show me your hands,” and fires one shot.
The video seems to confirm the officer never identified himself as police before he opened fire.
The front door appears open in the body-camera footage, but a screen door looks to be closed in front of it. The officer doesn’t appear to knock.
Responding officers entered the home, located the shooting victim and began providing emergency care.
Jefferson died at the scene.
“An 8-year-old male, Ms. Jefferson’s nephew, was inside the room during this time,” O’Neil said.
O’Neil declined to answer questions from reporters, saying Police Chief Ed Kraus is scheduled to hold a news conference about the shooting on Monday.
He said the officer who shot Jefferson is scheduled to be interviewed on Monday by the department’s Major Case Unit investigators.
A firearm was recovered from the woman’s home, but police did not say where the gun was found in the house. The investigation is ongoing.
The officer, who’s been with the department since April 2018, has been placed on administrative leave.
Merritt set up a GoFundMe page to raise money for Jefferson’s funeral. As of Sunday afternoon, more than $81,000 had been raised.
Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price released a statement saying the Police Chief Ed Kraus and his command staff “are acting with immediacy and transparency to conduct a complete and thorough investigation.”
She said the case will be turned over to the Tarrant County District Attorney Law Enforcement Incident Team to investigate the incident further.
“Writing a statement like this is tragic and something that should never be necessary,” Price said in her statement. “A young woman has lost her life, leaving her family in unbelievable grief. All of Fort Worth must surround Atatiana Jefferson’s family with prayers, love and support.” END OF THE ARTICLE OF ABC NEWS
Aaron Dean, the officer who shot Ms. Jefferson in her own home, resigned hours before he was charged with murder.
Days after a woman was fatally shot by the Fort Worth police, the officer who fired one bullet through her bedroom window when responding to a call from a concerned neighbor was arrested and charged with murder.
Although the circumstances have varied, it was yet another example of a white officer killing a black civilian, raising nationwide questions about policing practices and racial profiling. The shock of Saturday’s shooting further strained the relationship between residents and the Fort Worth Police Department.
The woman who was killed, Atatiana Jefferson, had been up late playing video games with her 8-year-old nephew, according to the family’s lawyer. She was shot by an officer, Aaron Y. Dean, who was standing in her backyard with a flashlight and a gun. He resigned on Monday, hours before the police chief had planned to fire him.
Here is what we know about the shooting and its aftermath:
Aaron Dean was released from jail and is not cooperating
Mr. Dean, who had been placed on administrative leave before he resigned, has not answered questions from investigators, said Ed Kraus, the interim police chief.
He was arrested without incident in his lawyer’s office on Monday and released from the Tarrant County jail later that night after posting a $200,000 bond. His lawyer has not responded to calls seeking comment, but he told the local NBC television station that Mr. Dean is sorry and that his family was in shock.
Mr. Dean joined the department in April 2018, one month after completing his classes at the police academy, and the only notable entry in his personnel file was for a traffic accident, Chief Kraus said.
Officer Manny Ramirez, the president of the Fort Worth Police Officers Association, said Mr. Dean had never been the subject of an investigation and was “very shaken up” by the shooting.
Fellow police officers condemned the shooting
Chief Kraus grew emotional this week as he described how the killing would undoubtedly erode the trust that he said officers had worked to build with the people they serve.
“I likened it to a bunch of ants building an ant hill, and somebody comes with a hose and washes it away,” he said. “They just have to start from scratch.”
Chief Kraus said he had spoken to scores of officers who all said they supported the quick move to arrest Mr. Dean and charge him with murder.
Officer Ramirez said he and other officers had been dumbfounded as to why Mr. Dean pulled the trigger. Mr. Ramirez added that there was “no way to explain” his actions.
Atatiana Jefferson wanted to attend medical school
Ms. Jefferson, 28, sold medical pharmaceutical equipment from home while studying to apply to medical school. She had earned a degree in biology from Xavier University of Louisiana in 2014.
Ms. Jefferson was a loving aunt who would play basketball and video games with her nephews, her sister Amber Carr said. She had recently moved in with her mother, who had health problems — and learned about her daughter’s shooting while in a hospital.
The police were responding to a neighbor’s call
One of Ms. Jefferson’s neighbors, James Smith, had called a nonemergency line at 2:23 a.m. on Saturday to express concern that the doors of Ms. Jefferson’s house had been open for several hours.
“I haven’t seen anybody moving around,” he told the dispatcher in a calm voice. “It’s not normal for them to have the doors open this time of night.”
Mr. Smith’s niece later said that he was upset with how the police responded, and that he had never suggested a burglary was taking place.
Chief Kraus said the call was relayed to the two officers who responded as a call for an “open structure,” a vague classification that could mean anything from an abandoned house to a burglary in progress. It was not a welfare check, in which case officers would often knock on the house’s doors or call inside.
A gun was found on the floor of Ms. Jefferson’s bedroom near the window. When Ms. Jefferson heard noises coming from outside, she had taken a handgun from her purse and pointed it toward the window, her 8-year-old nephew told officials, according to an arrest warrant released on Tuesday.
But the other officer who responded with Mr. Dean said she could only see Ms. Jefferson’s face through the window when Mr. Dean fired, according to the warrant, and Chief Kraus has defended her right to have a gun in her own home.
“It makes sense that she would have a gun if she felt that she was being threatened or that there was someone in the back yard,” he said at a news conference on Tuesday. YOUTUBE.COMCOP SEEN SHOOTING, KILLING WOMAN IN HER OWN HOME/ABC NEWS
YOUTUBE.COMWOMAN SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER IN HER OWN HOME
”During a news conference on Sunday afternoon, Fort Worth Police Lt. Brandon O’Neil said the officer who opened fire on Jefferson never identified himself as a police officer.
“What the officer observed and why he did not announce ‘police’ will be addressed as the investigation continues,” O’Neil said.” ABC NEWSTEXAS COP NEVER IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS POLICE BEFORE FATALLY SHOOTING ATATIANA JEFFERSON IN HER OWN HOME: OFFICIAL13 OCTOBER 2019 https://abcnews.go.com/US/officer-bodycam-shooting-killing-woman-home/story?id=66237208
[19]
YOUTUBE.COMWOMAN SHOT AND KILLED BY POLICE OFFICER IN HER OWN HOME
[20]
”When Ms. Jefferson heard noises coming from outside, she had taken a handgun from her purse and pointed it toward the window, her 8-year-old nephew told officials, according to an arrest warrant released on Tuesday.”
Jefferson’s nephew told the authorities that while playing video games they heard noises outside the window. Jefferson took her gun from her purse and pointed it at the window, before she was shot. The nephew’s account was used as the basis for the arrest warrant.
”A gun was found on the floor of Ms. Jefferson’s bedroom near the window. When Ms. Jefferson heard noises coming from outside, she had taken a handgun from her purse and pointed it toward the window, her 8-year-old nephew told officials, according to an arrest warrant released on Tuesday.
But the other officer who responded with Mr. Dean said she could only see Ms. Jefferson’s face through the window when Mr. Dean fired, according to the warrant, and Chief Kraus has defended her right to have a gun in her own home.” THE NEW YORK TIMESWHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE FORT WORTH POLICE SHOOTING OFATATIANA JEFFERSON15 OCTOBER 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/us/aaron-dean-atatiana-jefferson.html
[22] ”A gun was found on the floor of Ms. Jefferson’s bedroom near the window.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
https://constitutionus.com
[24]
But the other officer who responded with Mr. Dean said she could only see Ms. Jefferson’s face through the window when Mr. Dean fired, according to the warrant, and Chief Kraus has defended her right to have a gun in her own home. THE NEW YORK TIMESWHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE FORT WORTH POLICE SHOOTING OFATATIANA JEFFERSON15 OCTOBER 2019
The acts of yet another “trained” police officer has resulted in the death of a person of color. If we are not safe to call the police, if we are not safe in our homes, where can we find peace? We demand answers! We demand justice! #AtatianaJeffersonpic.twitter.com/ZGBsgIdUCg
UNACCEPTABLE! The acts of yet another “trained” police officer have resulted in the death of #AtatianaJefferson. Gun downed in her own home. If we are not safe to call the police, if we are not safe in our homes, where can we find peace? We demand answers. We demand justice.
Aaron Dean, the officer who shot Atatiana Jefferson, resigned on Monday, hours before he was booked on murder charges.
In the days since a black woman was fatally shot in her Fort Worth, Texas, home by a white police officer performing a welfare check, calls for police accountability have been nonstop in a community whose trust in law enforcement has already been shaken by other police shootings and the death of Botham Jean in nearby Dallas.
Local authorities have moved quickly in their response, saying that they have every intention of taking action against the officer who fired through a home window, killing 28-year-old Atatiana Koquice Jefferson on October 12 as she stood in her bedroom with her 8-year-old nephew, who she had been playing video games with.
A neighbor had called a non-emergency police line minutes before saying that he wanted someone to make sure that Jefferson and her nephew were okay after seeing their open door so late in the evening. When police arrived, they walked around the outside of the home instead of announcing themselves at the front door, and one officer fired his weapon at a window shortly after entering the home’s backyard, striking and killing Jefferson in the process.
On Monday, the Fort Worth Police Department announced that Aaron Dean, the officer who shot Jefferson, had resigned from the department hours before he would have been terminated. That same evening, Dean was booked into the Tarrant County Correction Center on murder charges. He was later released on a $200,000 bond.
The police department has attempted to show residents that it is taking Jefferson’s case seriously and that it understands the fury her death, as yet another example of a black person being killed by law enforcement, has ignited in Fort Worth and nationally.
“To the citizens and residents of our city, we feel and understand your anger and your disappointment and we stand by you as we work together to make Fort Worth a better place for us all,” Fort Worth Police Sgt. Chris Daniel said during an evening press conference on October 14.
Dean, who was hired in August 2017 and became an officer nearly a year later in April 2018, is currently not cooperating with the investigation into the shooting and has not answered questions from investigators, interim Fort Worth Police Chief Ed Kraus told reporters earlier on Monday.
Kraus also said he has asked the FBI to look into the shooting for possible civil rights violations, adding that Dean would have been fired by the police department on Monday for failing to follow its policies on use of force and deescalation, and for unprofessional conduct. Police previously said that they plan to submit the camera footage and other evidence to the Tarrant County District Attorney at the end of the investigation.
The department says that despite Dean’s resignation, it will continue its internal investigation as if he were still an officer. Dean’s record will also show that he was dishonorably discharged from the department.
“None of this information can ease the pain of Atatiana’s family, but I hope it shows the community that we take these incidents seriously,” Kraus told reporters.Jefferson’s family, meanwhile, has criticized the fact that Dean was allowed to resign and has maintained calls for an independent investigation into the shooting, saying that they want justice through an “independent, thorough, and transparent process.”
“Fort Worth has a culture that has allowed this to happen,” Lee Merritt, a lawyer representing Jefferson’s family, said over the weekend. “There still needs to be a reckoning.”
The shooting of Jefferson in her own home has drawn national attention
At around 2 am local time on October 12, a neighbor of Jefferson’s called a non-emergency hotline, saying he was concerned about an open door at the woman’s residence and wanted to make sure she was okay. According to a statement released by the Fort Worth Police Department on Saturday, officers arrived at the home at around 2:25 am to respond to an “open structure call” and, after seeing the open door, walked around the perimeter of the residence.
The department said that while doing so, officers saw a person inside standing near a window. “Perceiving a threat the officer drew his duty weapon and fired one shot striking the person inside the residence,” police said.
That person was Jefferson, who was shot while standing in a bedroom. After firing, officers entered the home and began providing emergency aid, but the woman was pronounced dead at the scene.
The department also released body camera footage of the shooting, showing what happened outside of Jefferson’s home as well as the residence itself, which had a door open and the lights on inside. The video shows two officers walking around the outside of Jefferson’s home, looking into screen doors before walking into the backyard. Moving toward a closed window on the first floor, one of the officers, who has since been identified as Dean, quickly points a flashlight at it before drawing his weapon.
Dean then yells, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” before firing a shot less than a second later, seemingly while in the middle of repeating his commands. At no point in the released video do the men clearly identify themselves as police officers.
In addition to the statement and the body camera video, the police department also released edited footage of a firearm officers said they found at the residence, but it did not offer any additional information about where Jefferson was in relation to it or if the weapon was ever visible to the officers. Texas is an open-carry state and state residents are allowed to possess and carry firearms with few restrictions.
The initial release of the image immediately drew criticism, with observers arguing that the department was attempting to suggest that Jefferson’s weapon was relevant to her death. The police department later said that this was not its intention.
“Nobody looked at that video and said there was any doubt that this officer acted inappropriately,” Kraus later told reporters. “I get it. We’re trying to train our officers better.”
The shooting has left Fort Worth’s black residents devastated
Jefferson’s shooting, which is the seventh local police shooting involving a civilian since June 1 according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, has left the area’s black residents angered and confused. Community members say the shooting proves they cannot call the police for assistance.
“The Fort Worth police murdered this woman. They murdered this woman in her own house,” said Rev. Michael Bell, a local pastor who joined a group of community leaders for a Saturday press conference. “And now, African Americans, we have no recourse. If we call the police, they will come and kill us. And we know that.”
A similar fear was echoed by James Smith, the neighbor of Jefferson’s who called police after noticing the open door and lights at her home, saying he was concerned about Jefferson and her 8-year-old nephew. “I’m shaken. I’m mad. I’m upset. And I feel it’s partly my fault,” he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on October 12. “If I had never dialed the police department, she’d still be alive.”
In audio of Smith’s call released by the police department on Sunday, the man can be heard telling a police operator that the doors of the home had been open since 10 pm Friday and that he was concerned because he did not see any movement in the house.“I don’t know what went on in the house, but I know that she wasn’t a threat,” Smith later told reporters.
The shooting of Jefferson, who was born in Dallas and graduated from Louisiana’s Xavier University in 2014 with a biology degree, has quickly drawn comparisons to the 2018 shooting of Botham Jean, a 26-year-old black man fatally shot by former off-duty Dallas officer Amber Guyger as he ate ice cream in his apartment.
Lee Merritt, a local civil rights attorney who represents Jean’s family, is also working with Jefferson’s relatives. He said the weekend shooting is yet another example of black people being unable to live safely in their own homes.
“You didn’t hear the officer say ‘gun, gun, gun,’ you didn’t hear him — he didn’t have time to perceive a threat,” Merritt told reporters on Saturday. “That’s murder.”
“We expect a thorough and expedient investigation,” he added. A GoFundMe created by Merritt on behalf of Jefferson’s family was posted on October 13 and had collected more than $210,000 by Tuesday morning.
Before the shooting, Merritt says that Jefferson, who was called “Tay” by her loved ones, was playing video games with her nephew. The boy was in the bedroom with her when the shooting occurred, and stayed at the homes as Jefferson,who worked in pharmaceutical equipment sales and was saving money for medical school,was helping take care of the home for her sick mother, who was in the hospital at the time of the shooting.
Merritt says that when she went to the bedroom window on Saturday morning, Jefferson was concerned after hearing noise outside, adding that she was likely worried about the possibility of a prowler or burglar being near the home.
“Law enforcement has not said that she wielded a weapon,” Merritt told the New York Times on Sunday. “Also, it wouldn’t matter because that’s her home.”
Speaking to CNN that same day, Merritt said that while Jefferson’s family has spoken to local police, they want an independent agency to take over the investigation into the shooting. “We don’t think that Fort Worth police should be investigating it on their own,” he said.
The police department and city officials are working to show that they take Jefferson’s death seriously
On Sunday, the Fort Worth Police Department held a brief press conference to discuss the shooting but offered little new information about what transpired in the early morning hours of October 12.
The agency largely stuck to a prepared statement, saying that it shared the “very real and valid concerns” raised by local residents and Jefferson’s family.
“The tragic loss of life has major ramifications for all involved, especially the family of Ms. Atatiana Jefferson. We have communicated with the family and have shared our serious and heartfelt concern for this unspeakable loss,” Fort Worth Police Lt. Brandon O’Neill said.
The department did not answer questions about why it released information about a gun in Jefferson’s home and also declined to answer questions about the exact nature of the “threat” perceived by the officer.
However, the department did confirm some previous statements already made by Merritt and Smith, noting that Jefferson’s nephew was in the room with her when the shooting took place and that the officer who shot the woman did not identify himself as law enforcement before firing.
“What the officer observed, and why he did not announce ‘police,’ will be addressed as the investigation continues,” O’Neil told reporters.
On Monday, however, the department gave several additional updates, likely in an effort to mitigate concerns that the agency would protect Dean from punishment.Along with announcing Dean’s resignation, Police Chief Kraus said he regretted that the department shared images of the firearm in Jefferson’s home, saying she had every right to possess it.
“We’re homeowners in the state of Texas,” he said. “I can’t imagine most of us — if we thought we had somebody outside our house that shouldn’t be and we had access to a firearm — that we wouldn’t act very similarly to how she acted.”
Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price has also issued several statements, including an open letter on Monday where she said that the city was “heartbroken” at Jefferson’s death. Price also denounced the initial images of a weapon in Jefferson’s home, and apologized to Jefferson’s family and to James Smith, saying that his call about his neighbor should have never culminated in her death.
In the wake of the shooting, Price says she has asked the city’s manager to hire a “third-party panel of national experts to review the police department. Everything from top to bottom.”
“Justice is critical here — but it will not bring back the life of a young woman who was taken too soon,” Price added in the letter. “This is a pivotal moment in our city, and we will act swiftly with transparency.”
Jefferson’s death has been compared to the 2018 murder of Botham Jean
News of Jefferson’s death, which comes less than two weeks after Amber Guyger was convicted of murdering Jean and sentenced to 10 years in prison, adds to already intense attention to policing in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
In recent months, Dallas residents have voiced several concerns about the Dallas Police Department, concerns that were only intensified by evidence revealed during Guyger’s trial and by the October 4 death of Joshua Brown, a black man who testified against Guyger last month. The Dallas Police Department has condemned speculation that its officers were somehow connected to Brown’sdeath, saying that the man was killed in a drug deal gone bad.
According to the Washington Post’s Fatal Force database, Jefferson is one of at least 709 people who have been killed by police since the start of 2019. The database notes that 32 women have been killed by police officers this year; five of those women were black.
Speaking to reporters on Saturday, members of Jefferson’s family said that it was “inconceivable and confusing” that the woman was shot by police in her home. “It’s another one of those situations where the people that are supposed to protect us are actually not here to protect us,” Amber Carr, Jefferson’s older sister, told NBC Dallas-Fort Worth, adding that she was concerned about the training given to officers.
More concerns about the shooting were raised on Sunday evening as hundreds of people gathered for a rally and vigil on the same street as Jefferson’s home. “Systemic oppression has created risks for black people to be killed,” one attendee, Michelle Anderson, told local reporters. “We talk about state-sanctioned violence — it has always been a culture for black people. So no, it’s not about the training issue.”
Similar concerns have also been raised by national politicians, including several Democratic presidential candidates who shared Jefferson’s story on social media over the weekend.
“Being Black in your own home shouldn’t be a death sentence,” Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted on October 13. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the shooting showed the urgent need for police reform and “federal standards for the use of force.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, called for a federal investigation into the shooting. Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke also weighed in on the latest high-profile police shooting in his home state, saying that people “must demand accountability and promise to fight until no family has to face a tragedy like this again.”
Jefferson’s family and community say they intend to do just that and will push to hold the department accountable for the shooting as the Fort Worth Police Department’s investigation continues.But the family also acknowledged that accountability will not erase the pain and trauma that the shooting has caused. “You want to see justice, but justice don’t bring my sister back,” Carr told reporters on Saturday before breaking down into tears.
[28]
”On September 6, 2018, off-duty Dallas Police Departmentpatrol officer Amber Guyger entered the Dallas, Texas, apartment of Botham Jean and fatally shot him. Guyger said that she had entered the apartment believing it was her own and that she shot Jean believing he was a burglar.[1][2] The fact that Guyger, a white police officer, shot and killed Jean, an unarmed black man, and was initially only charged with manslaughter resulted in protests and accusations of racial bias.[3][4][5] On October 1, 2019, Guyger was found guilty of murder.[6] The next day, she received a sentence of ten years in prison” WIKIPEDIAMURDER OF BOTHAM JEAN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Botham_Jean [29]
CNNAMBER GUYGER GETS TEN-YEAR MURDER SENTENCE FOR FATALLY SHOOTING BOTHAM JEAN3 OCTOBER 2019
It was one particular event that took place at De Balie (that was brought to my attention on Saturday) which began a closer look for me at the centre and made me question whether I wanted to speak there. I explain my position . I hope to return to #Amsterdam soon.
For those asking “Why cancel your appearance over one event”: 1. That “one event” was bad enough 2. That event inspired a closer look at the centre & what it represents 3. Only white people can play “free speech” & “debate all ideas” game. I am not white. This is not theoretical
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Egyptian feminist Mona Eltahawy fights Islamophobia/Cancels her talk in the Islamophobic debating centre De Balie, Amsterdam
The glimpse of Julian Assange being dragged from the Ecuadorean embassy in London is an emblem of the times. Might against right. Muscle against the law. Indecency against courage. Six policemen manhandled a sick journalist, his eyes wincing against his first natural light in almost seven years.
.jpg)
. I hope to return to 
.jpg)
Since late 2015, 249 Palestinians have been killed in Israel and the Palestinian territories [File: EPA]