Category Archives: Human Rights

Clergy members describe assaults by ICE agents at Illinois facility

We were singing old protest hymns like “We shall not be moved.” We eventually changed it to “Even if they tear gas us, we shall not be moved.” We also sang “We shall not be moved,” in Spanish. This song is about standing up for justice in a metaphorical sense. We were not literally blocking anything and no one ever asked us to move. Nonetheless, we were continuously tear-gassed and had pepper balls launched at us.
The Rev. Dr. Beth Johnson
Minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Hinsdale

Federal court records provide a continuing flow of first-hand unfiltered information about the attacks on First Amendment rights by ICE agents. The documents below were filed in against the federal government by a group of reporters, journalism organization, and other who say they witnessed numerous incidents of escalating violence by federal agents in response to demonstrations outside the ICE detention center in Broadview, Illinois, twelve miles from downtown Chicago.

According to Politico:

The plaintiffs are urging the court to protect the First Amendment rights of protesters to peacefully demonstrate around the facility and of journalists to “observe, record, and report on the federal agents’ activities and the public’s demonstrations against them.”

The suit — which was filed by the newsroom Block Club Chicago, the Chicago Headline Club, local labor unions representing Chicago-area journalists and a group of individual journalist and protesters — lists specific incidents in which they say agents targeted the press, including instances where they allege six journalists were hit with either pepper balls or tear gas despite wearing visible press credentials.

They also list eight examples of protesters and residents who they said were harmed or injured by ICE officers’ “violent presence” — including a minister for a local Presbyterian Church who allegedly was struck by the pepper balls and sprayed with tear gas while trying to offer prayers to the crowd.

The 52-page complaint can be read for free online.

Among the exhibits filed in court are several declarations by members of the clergy representing different religious denominations which describe what they witnesses and, in some cases, assaults they suffered at the hands of armed federal agents.

I’ve combined several of these, which are posted below.

Honolulu’s women’s movement 1975-77

[Disclosure: This narrative was constructed by an AI assistant by systematically reviewing a selection of issues of Woman Alive from 1975 to 1977. Information regarding key events, legislative efforts, organizational activities, health initiatives, and the individuals involved was extracted and synthesized from these primary sources to provide a comprehensive overview of the women’s movement in Honolulu during that period.]

The mid-1970s marked a vibrant and deeply engaged period for feminist activity in Hawaii, primarily documented through the independent newsjournals, “Woman Alive” (1975-1976) and its successor, “Ferity” (1977). These publications, initially launched in September 1974, served as crucial platforms to “express and discuss new women’s views, concerns and experiences” and functioned as a vital “forum for the feminist movement in Honolulu”. Published by the University YWCA in Honolulu, which provided essential initial printing costs, editorial support, and office space, the newsletters frequently appealed for community support through subscriptions, donations, and volunteer efforts, highlighting their ongoing financial struggles. A central tenet was a collaborative approach, actively encouraging contributions from readers and inviting participation in various committees and action groups, with the frequent mention of forming an “umbrella group” or coalition to unify women’s organizations across Hawaii.

At its core, the feminist agenda articulated by “Woman Alive” and “Ferity” was a comprehensive critique of patriarchy and sexism, consistently highlighting how “male power” was maintained through prevailing social structures, including media, politics, education, and the workplace. Articles argued that “the maintenance of male privilege involves hurts for both men and women”.

The movement engaged deeply in political and legislative action, with a significant focus on the Hawaii State Women’s Conference throughout 1976 and 1977. This conference aimed to formulate a “plan of action” and identify “priority areas” for women in Hawaii, serving as a preparatory event for the National Women’s Conference in Houston. A key initiative was the establishment of a “Legislative Coalition”, designed to monitor bills, lobby state legislators, and promote women’s political participation to influence legislation concerning women’s issues. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a persistent and prominent concern, with strong calls for its ratification at both state and national levels, often supported by rallies and demonstrations. National initiatives like National Women’s Agenda Day were also promoted to foster a unified front for women’s rights.

Reproductive rights, particularly access to abortion, were a contentious yet frequently discussed topic. The publications consistently advocated for a woman’s right to choose, emphasizing the health benefits and reduction in maternal mortality rates associated with legal abortion. This advocacy faced strong opposition from “traditionalist” groups, notably the Mormon church. The ongoing debate around the “Hyde Amendment” and federal funding for abortions was also a significant concern.

Addressing sexism in media was another critical area of focus, with detailed analyses of how women were portrayed in newspapers, television, and advertising. This led to the formation of the “Task Force for Equal Treatment of the Sexes in the Media”, dedicated to challenging “sexist language” and “stereotyped and/or derogatory treatment of women/girls”. There were frequent calls for increased representation of women in media management and production.

Women’s health and healthcare access were central to the movement’s efforts. The Women’s Health Center (WHC) at the University YWCA was regularly highlighted for offering personalized health services, counseling, and workshops. Topics covered included contraception (such as “morning-after pills” and IUDs), breast cancer awareness, and the recognition of women’s unique health needs.

The newsletters extensively addressed violence against women. The prevalence of rape and sexual abuse was a major concern, with “Women Against Rape (W.A.R.)” emerging as a prominent organization providing counseling and advocacy. Discussions aimed at legal reforms for rape trials and challenging “rape culture” were common. The need for and establishment of shelters for abused spouses and children were also emphasized.

Economic equality and workplace discrimination were consistently highlighted, addressing disparities in wages, promotion, and job access for women. The publications stressed the importance of “affirmative action programs” and discussed the challenges faced by working mothers, including childcare needs. Concerns about “sex bias in education”were raised, particularly regarding unequal opportunities for girls in sports and vocational training, advocating for “equal educational opportunity for women”. The growth of women’s studies programs at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and community colleges was viewed as a positive development.

Beyond these, the newsletters delved into the complexities of motherhood and family structures from a feminist viewpoint, challenging traditional societal expectations and touching on issues like divorce and raising children in a patriarchal society. Crucially, the publications strove for inclusivity within the feminist movement, inviting participation from “women of diverse racial, ethnic and religious groups” and regularly listing lesbian feminist groups and events in their calendars.

Key organizations and individuals were integral to these efforts. The University YWCA served as the central hub. National Organization for Women (NOW) chapters in Hawaii were highly active in protests, lobbying, and educational programs. The Hawaii Women’s Political Caucus (HWPC) played a vital role in political organizing and advocating for women in politics. “Women Against Rape (W.A.R.)” led the efforts against sexual violence. The Women’s Health Center (WHC), operated by the YWCA, offered crucial health services. The State Commission on the Status of Women was an official body involved in coordinating efforts and influencing policy. Prominent individuals such as Priscilla Barge, LeAnn Cragun, Kelly Gardner, Carole Goodson, Suzanne Meisenzahl, Barbara Polk, and Robin Phillips were key contributors to the publications. Mel Flanagan was recognized for her leadership in NOW and consciousness-raising workshops, and Ruth Ann Brown for her reporting on conferences and legislative efforts.

Despite this dynamic activity, the movement faced various challenges. There were internal dynamics and disagreements, particularly in attempts to form a unified “umbrella group”. Strong opposition from “traditionalist” groups, especially the Mormon church, posed significant hurdles for initiatives like the ERA and abortion rights. The feminist movement also battled against “negative coverage” and “misrepresentation” of their issues in mainstream media. The rallying cry “Do It NOW!” frequently appeared in the newsletters, underscoring the urgency for sustained action. A recurring aspiration was the vision for a comprehensive “Women’s Center” to serve as a central hub for all women’s organizations, offering diverse services and fostering communication.

In essence, the “Woman Alive” and “Ferity” newsletters provide a detailed historical account of a vigorous feminist movement in Hawaii during the mid-1970s, showcasing its broad and comprehensive vision for achieving an equitable society despite the persistent challenges it encountered.

Sen. Brian Schatz leading in pushback against Trump administration aid cut-off

Brian Schatz, Hawaii’s senior U.S. Senator, has seized center stage in the national political debate by putting a blanket hold on all Trump administration nominees for positions in the Department of State.

In a press release, Schatz, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, explained his action.

“Dismantling USAID is illegal and makes us less safe. USAID was created by federal law and is funded by Congress. Donald Trump and Elon Musk can’t just wish it away with a stroke of a pen – they need to pass a law,” said Senator Schatz, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Until and unless this brazenly authoritarian action is reversed and USAID is functional again, I will be placing a blanket hold on all of the Trump administration’s State Department nominees. This is self-inflicted chaos of epic proportions that will have dangerous consequences all around the world.”

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Schatz’s move shows that Democrats are stepping up their efforts to block DOGE’s attempts to dissolve USAID-and it a signals a greater willingness to push back on the new president.

Democratic lawmakers Monday gathered at the agency’s Washington headquarters to protest the Trump administration’s proposed closure of USAID. Democratic senators said they have spoken with Republicans in recent days over what actions, if any, they might take to reverse the administration’s actions against USAID. For now, they say there is little they can do legislatively, especially because the organization’s existence already is delineated in federal statute.

Schatz said he expects the judicial system may at least temporarily stop DOGE’s attempts to close USAID. “You cannot wave a wand and eliminate a department established by federal law, so it will be reversed by a court,” Schatz said. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, (D., Md.) said he was in touch with the group Democracy Forward, a legal nonprofit organization, that would be willing to take up USAID’s cause. The best venue may be filing a lawsuit in Washington, D.C.’s federal court, he said.

On Monday, USAID personnel woke up to an email barring them from showing up for work. The agency’s personnel were instructed to work remotely except for officials with essential functions who have been directly contacted by senior leaders. The email indicates that employees will receive more instructions later.

Charles Pierce, writing in Esquire, described Schatz’s action as “what you do when there isn’t much you can do.”

Last week, Senator Schatz used a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the “Malign Influence of the People’s Republic of China at Home and Abroad: Recommendations for Policy Makers,” to call attention to the importance of U.S. leadership and global engagement in advancing American interests using the Philippines and Papua New Guinea as examples of the consequences of the Trump administration’s attempted cut-off of all foreign aid.

In response to a question about PNG, Dr. Melanie Hart, Senior Director of Global China Hub at Atlantic Council, said it was a gift to China.

“Basically we’ve given Beijing a blank check and kneecapped the United States and the entire global pro-democracy movement. If you want to talk about PNG and their need for medicine, there is very clear pattern that, during the COVID crisis, Beijing forced nations around the world… to carry out its political edicts in exchange for COVID vaccines. I have no doubt that Beijing is already showing up in capitals where the United States is pulling back and saying here is your HIV medicine and guess what: here’s the three things you need to do for me today to get it.”

Although Schatz’s move to stall nominations was widely reported in the national media, it got scant attention here in his home state. We really need to be paying more attention to the senator’s role in the pushback against the Trump administration.

Rep. Case votes for bill widely seen as threat to the right of dissent

The U.S. House of Representatives this week fell just 14 votes short of passing H.R. 9495, dubbed the “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.”

The bill would have allowed future presidents, including the incoming Trump administration, to strip nonprofit organizations of their tax-exempt status if they are deemed to be providing “material support or resources” to a terrorist group. The government could take this action without due process and without having to jusify its action, and without any providing any evidence to prove its allegations.

The measure’s grant of unbridled power was broadly opposed by a broad range of charitable organizations, including 130 tax-exempt groups that joined in a letter to Congress in September.

The potential for abuse under H.R. 6408 is immense as the executive branch would be handed a tool it could use to curb free speech, censor nonprofit media outlets, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups across the political spectrum. Moreover, the addition of this authority to the tax code would allow the IRS to explicitly target and harass domestic nonprofits using its investigative authority. It is also not hard to imagine a future administration using this power in far broader circumstances that have nothing to do with the hostilities in Gaza.6 And as more recent congressional oversight efforts make clear, these efforts are part of concerted attack on civil society that is targeted at more than just groups involved in the campus protests regarding Gaza.

The executive branch could use this authority to target its political opponents and use the fear of crippling legal fees, the stigma of the designation, and donors fleeing controversy to stifle dissent and chill speech and advocacy.

In a joint statement, the Council on Foundations, Independent Sector, National Council of Nonprofits, and United Philanthropy Forum, also spelled out their reasons for strongly opposing the measure.

This legislation would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to designate section 501(c) nonprofits as “terrorist supporting organizations” at the Secretary’s discretion, without requiring the Secretary to share their full evidence or reasoning with accused nonprofits. Furthermore, the legislation runs counter to constitutional due process protections by placing the burden of proof on the accused organization and providing only 90 days for organizations to demonstrate their innocence before revoking their tax-exempt status.

Even if the Secretary’s decision were successfully reversed, designees would risk irreparable damage to their operations and reputation. The implication that an organization could be associated with terrorism could cause it to lose not only access to banks and other financial institutions but also the trust of donors and the communities it serves. In the end, the beneficiaries of nonprofits’ work would suffer the most.

In addition, under H.R.9495, law-abiding organizations could be stripped of their tax-exempt status for providing humanitarian assistance in conflict zones even when operating under Office of Foreign Assets Control authorizations. These authorizations protect nonprofits under sanctions law, but not under tax law.

It is already illegal to provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations. Organizations suspected of violating the law are rightly subject to criminal investigation and prosecution. Section 4 of H.R.9495 may achieve the goal of expediting these cases, but it does so at the expense of fairness and transparency. If the investigation process needs refinement or expedition, we stand ready to work with policymakers on changes that protect due process rights of nonprofit organizations and guard against future abuse.

As reported by The Intercept:

Under the bill, the Treasury secretary would issue notice to a group of intent to designate it as a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Once notified, an organization would have the right to appeal within 90 days, after which it would be stripped of its 501(c)(3) status, named for the statute that confers tax exemptions on recognized nonprofit groups.

The law would not require officials to explain the reason for designating a group, nor does it require the Treasury Department to provide evidence.

“It basically empowers the Treasury secretary to target any group it wants to call them a terror supporter and block their ability to be a nonprofit,” said Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council Action, which opposes the law. “So that would essentially kill any nonprofit’s ability to function. They couldn’t get banks to service them, they won’t be able to get donations, and there’d be a black mark on the organization, even if it cleared its name.”

Case’s Congressional website does not provide any explanation for why he joined a minority of Democrats in voting for the bill. I’m hoping Rep. Case will take another look at the issues involved when the matter comes up again in the new congress, as it surely will.