From the Current Events Editorial Team: Chris Fong Chew, Leila Wickliffe, Kaixin Yan, Jiaying Zhang As of last Sunday, Jan 9, 164 people were killed in a violent week of protesting in Kazakhstan sparked over raised gas prices. On January 1 this year, the Kazakhstan government lifted the price cap on gas, which led to a steep increase in costs of petroleum gas. The overnight doubling of the cost of liquid petroleum gas was seen as an insult to the oil workers that had cultivated the industry. The citizens started protesting in the western oil city of Zhanaozen. Cities across the country, including Almaty, joined the protest, making it the largest the country has seen in three decades. Kazakhstan, a Central Asian country bordering China and Russia, was a former constituent of the Soviet Union before declaring independence in 1991. The largest country in Central Asia, Kazakhstan has abundant natural resources which make up much of its economy and exports, including agricultural products, raw materials, chemical products, and manufactured goods. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan developed into one of the wealthier nations in the region due to its large amounts of resources, developing a solid middle class. However, wealth inequality continued to grow with the average monthly salary being only around $600 USD, juxtaposed to a substantial number of ultrarich tycoons who benefited most from the country's economy. The policies leading to this were mostly the work of former president Nursultan Nazarbayev, who governed the country with an almost autocratic rule from the 1990s until he stepped down in 2019. While the nation went through several rounds of elections, a report by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) observers stated that “restrictions on political activity in Kazakhstan and the absence of a viable opposition candidate for president had left voters without a meaningful choice in the election.” Even after stepping down, Nazarbayev still remained as the head of the security council - an influential position that controlled much of the military and other security forces. The current president, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, elected in 2019, was described as a “handpicked” successor to the former president. In response to the unrest, Tokayev reinstated the price cap on fuel on January 4, but protests still continued. There was a nationwide internet blackout, and protesters tore down a statue of former president Nursultan Nazarbayev, shouting “Shal ket!” (“Old man go”). A day later, on January 5, President Tokayev imposed a two-week state of emergency and called on Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a Russian-led alliance of the former Soviet states. President Tokayev evoked Article 4, which states that if an external aggressor (i.e., the protesters) is attacking a country under the CSTO, then it is considered an act of aggression against all members in the alliance. Therefore, the allies will provide military assistance to the ""aggressed"" country. This order marks the first time troops were deployed in the organization's history. Russian troops arrived on January 6 to assist President Tokayev and to subdue the protests. President Tokayev then ordered his troops to “shoot to kill without warning” the following day on January 7. He believed that the order was imperative to end the anti-government protests and ignored calls from abroad to negotiate. "We had to deal with armed and trained bandits and terrorists, both local and foreign. Therefore, they need to be destroyed, and this will be done in the near future," Tokayev said in a televised address. This led to dozens of protesters being killed, thousands of others being injured and hospitalized, and many being detained. Some police were killed as well when the troops fired upon the crowd. There were several rumors that former president Nursultan Nazarbayev fled the country after protesters tore down his statue in the town of Taldykorgan in the Almaty region. However, his press secretary, Aidos Ukibai, claimed that he was still in the capital city Nur-sultan. Ukibai asked the public to not ""disseminate false information"" despite not providing any proof of Nazarbayev's whereabouts. He claims that Nazarbayev has a direct line of contact with President Tokayev, and has contacted leaders of countries friendly to Kazakhstan amid the protests. ""The leader of the nation calls to unite around the President of Kazakhstan to overcome current challenges and to ensure safety in the country,"" Ukibai said. The protests, although initially triggered by the dissatisfaction of the rise in petroleum prices, are now unfolding as the biggest street protests with the most casualties since the country’s independence from the USSR, reflecting on a “wider discontent with authoritarian rule.” The scale of the protests and the brutality of the president’s response are so grave in magnitude that they could be a watershed moment in the trajectory of Kazakhstan’s politics - significant in the potential upheaval and national mobilization it could provoke. Kazakhstan’s 30-year anniversary of independence was just celebrated last month, with official speeches spotlighting its peace and political stability. Now, this image has been tainted; wider geopolitical implications for Kazakhstan have also come to light. Kazakhstan’s government has been said to have grown closer with China in the wake of the turmoil, with a goal of managing unrest in the interests of the ‘Belt and Road’ integration strategy. Being a nation that borders both China and Russia, and that possesses bountiful reserves of natural resources, it therefore holds strategic and economic importance for key nations navigating contemporary political tensions. Its geographical distance might perpetuate the event as distant, isolated, and anachronistic to the relevance of Western political discourse, but many of the reported rhetoric and actions mirror the Western world. Kazakhstan’s president using language such as ‘terrorists’ and ‘bandits’ to describe protesters and active verbs such as ‘shoot’ and ‘kill’ as a green-light for harsh law-enforcement practices, is reminiscent of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s ruthless rhetoric. Haunting similarities of synonyms —if not exact replicas—in their speeches can be found, exposing the prevailing culture of violence that ironically encompasses the facade of law and order. While police and military enforcements did not overtly open fire on civilians in the U.S., unjustified aggressive methods such as batons, pepper spray, and rubber bullets were used, which only resulted in dramatic escalation into continued violence. It speaks to the fragility and precariousness of peace and civil rights in any environment when tensions are inflamed via restricting the act of protesting. Curtailing protests with lethal force towards civilians represents an agenda of eroding democracy. The right to protest is essential as a vehicle of change and revolution and central to a healthy democracy. It is a medium for the voices of the marginalized and is a part of human expression that is fundamental to us all. The government should uphold protesting by supporting protestors and ensuring that criticism of the government is not stifled. Ultimately however, human tragedy cannot be undermined—the fact that dozens of protestors were killed, and thousands more injured, speaks to the loss of people’s safety and lives as we know it; this is tragedy at its core. While the protest may have been sparked by an increase in petroleum prices, it was fueled by deeper political and social unrest in the country. Decades of autocratic rule under Nazarbayev and a lack of political freedom in the country, combined with a widening wealth gap, fueled the flames of unrest. The government’s violent response has led to calls for further investigation while the ousting of Masimov and removal of Nazarbayev signals the likely end of an era in the country’s leadership. The agreement to also bring in Russian troops to help quell the unrest will likely redefine the relations between the two nations and have resounding effects on both. As Kazakhstan begins to move past the violence in the past week, the attention turns to answering the question of where the country is heading now; however, we cannot forget the violence that rocked its capital city, and the lives lost in the process. Editors: Amshu V., Cydney V., Blenda Y., Lillian H., Lang D.

On January 6th, 2021, two weeks before the inauguration of Joe Biden, Trump supporters attacked the Capitol Building in Washington D.C under the former president’s urging for them to “fight like hell” against his electoral defeat. A year after the event, , the Republican Party declared the January 6th attacks “legitimate political discourse,” which was met with vitriol from many, and for good reason. This insurrection claimed five lives and injured more than 100 police officers. Some of the authorities who responded to the event took their own lives shortly afterward. It has been over a year since the Capitol riot, a markedly chilling moment in U.S. history that reinforced the threat of white supremacist groups and domestic terrorism, so much so that the Biden administration, made combating right-wing terrorism a priority following the insurrection. As a result, Over 700 individuals have been charged in the storming of the Capitol, many caught through the various social media posts and over 200,000 pictures sent in by tipsters. Thanks to the onset of such accessible and widespread platforms in recent decades, this insurrection is quite possibly the most thoroughly documented criminal act in U.S. history. Many have tried to dissect the causes of this day of violence, and a resounding conclusion appears to point to the radicalization of American politics as a root cause of the insurrection. The Capitol saw Trump supporters of all kinds during January 6, some belonging to organized whitesupremacy or militia groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, but most being ordinary Trump supporters without the same level of structural formality. According to Seamus Hughes, deputy director of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, “There was absolutely a spectrum of support. In many ways, Jan. 6 was a bug light. It brought extremists from all areas.” He added, “You have militias on one side. On the other side, you have the merely curious, people wrapped up in the moment.” Truthfully, and especially compared to past Republican politicians, President Donald Trump created an environment of support for the far-right through his rhetoric. A noteworthy example is his expressed sympathy towards the white supremacy attacks in Charlottesville, Virginia where he said there were “very fine people on both sides.” In addition, Jennifer Chudy, a political science professor at Wellesley College, said, “while the actual extremists may represent a small group of the public, the share of Republicans who support their behavior, whether explicitly or implicitly, is not as small. This is, in part, due to mainstream political institutions — like the Republican Party, with Trump at its helm — helping make their mission and behavior seem legitimate.” There are many factors that enable extremist values to thrive, including but not limited to rhetoric. Gerrymandering, for example, is an institution that has allowed politicians to play to their own political bases. District lines are fashioned to support a particular party, creating a bubble where one voice is correct at all times. This exacerbates extreme rhetoric while also discouraging any critique of extremism from individuals within that party. All this in mind, the effectiveness of the Biden Administration’s strategy against domestic terrorism is called into question. The approach is focused on pressing charges against specific civilians, which misses the mark on this issue in the sense that it is too narrow of a method. Combating the problem starts with its roots: organized whitesupremacy and militia groups. While many of the civilians present at the insurrection were average Trump supporters without direct affiliation to these organizations, it is evident that the extremist ideologies of these far-right groups have a trickle-down effect that permeates the wider political landscape, creating an atmosphere that has the potential for violence. The Biden Administration has done important work regarding the January 6th insurrection, making it clear that finding those who played a part in the event was a major priority. Investigations concerning the involvement of key political players are also underway including Donald Trump. Trump’s participation is undeniable—he clearly instigated the attacks with his inflamed and explicit rhetoric. Additionally, it was recently revealed by the Guardian that “Trump personally reviewed a draft executive order concerning the seizure of voting machines in key states and came close to approving the appointment of Sidney Powell, a lawyer and conspiracy theorist, as a special counsel to investigate electoral fraud.” Trump certainly set an atmosphere of extreme partisanship amongst an already divided nation, as he proved to be wildly polarizing in popularity surveys, widening the chasm between political parties. However, there is still work to be done. As unlikely as it is, the biggest step to take comes in the form of openly shunning white supremacist ideas and violent conspiracy theories. It is essential that politicians actively condemn the beliefs of such organized radical groups that can result in the same violence as the insurrection. An attempted, violent coup has been described as a valid forum of political discussion—a “legitimate political discourse”—and the factors that enable this need to be suppressed, for the good of not only the Republican party, but American politics as a whole. Editors: Erika Y., Raniyah B. This article was originally published in January 2022 Image Credits: Jason Andrew for The New York Times

On August 25, 2020, then 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse made his way up from Antioch Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin. It was the third night of protests against police brutality, following an altercation where white police officer Rustin Sheshky shot Jacob Blake, a Black man, several times in the back paralyzing him from the waist down. On that night, Rittenhouse was seen by several protestors holding a military style assault rifle roaming the streets with other armed men in a self described “militia.” He would later fatally shoot: Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, Anthony Huber, 26, and injured Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, as protestors clashed with the armed group and police. Rittenhouse was arrested the next morning and charged with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide charges, attempted homicide,reckless endangerment, and a misdemeanor for the possession of a weapon as a minor. Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty to his homicide charges, claiming it was a matter of self-defense and testifying to the court, “I did what I had to do.” Wisconsin’s defense law allows someone to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. As standard, the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt falls upon the prosecution as they aim to contest this claim. The defense’s case constantly restated that Rittenhouse’s intentions at the protest were to help as a medic and protect private property. Rittenhouse’s testimony alongside other accounts painted Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz as confrontational and threatening. A quote from his attorney, Mark Richards, states, “When my client shot Joseph Rosenbaum, he feared for his life. He feared because of his prior threats, prior statements and the violent acts that had been witnessed by my client.” The prosecution attempted to disprove the self-defense claim, stating that Rittenhouse’s reckless behaviour placed him in the volatile situation he found himself in that night. He came to Kenosha during a period of protest, armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle, and stayed there past curfew after being separated from his group. They emphasized that he was the only person there to shoot someone. Thomas Binger, the prosecutor, emphasized that “You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.” The jury, after 27 hours of deliberation over four days, acquitted Rittenhouse on all charges. Rittenhouse’s trial highlights the fundamental flaws of the U.S. justice system. The judge presiding over the case, Bruce Shroeder, made clearly biased decisions that drew criticism during the trial. In particular, he ruled that the prosecutors in the case could not refer to those shot by Rittenhouse as “victims”, but allowed the defense to describe them as “looters'' and “arsonist.” This is a racist double standard - rhetoric shapes prejudice in this matter. In addition, equating the damage or loss of property with taking someone’s life is unjust. We see other similar cases reflect this sense of fundamental injustice. In the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, for example, where white offenders claim “self defense” as a justifiable excuse for murder and without public pressure bringing the story to light, almost get away with it. The Arbery trial declared all three offenders as guilty. However, the verdict of the Rittenhouse case upholds the dangerous status quo of the American justice system: that a white man is allowed to shoot into a crowded protest and walk free. The verdict has been met with protests across the nation and sparked massive conversation surrounding racial injustice, gun rights, and the boundaries of self-defense. President Biden wrote in a statement that “while the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken.” It is difficult, however, to feel that the law has succeeded in its purpose of upholding justice. Moments after the verdict was announced in the courtroom, Karen Bloom and John Huber, the parents of Anthony Huber, stated: "There was no justice today for Anthony, or for Mr. Rittenhouse's other victims, Joseph Rosenbaum and Gaige Grosskreutz...Today's verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son...It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street." The verdict left many of the families heartbroken and angry. Huber’s parents said they would continue to fight on in the case: "Neither Mr. Rittenhouse nor the Kenosha police who authorized his bloody campaign will escape justice… Anthony will have his day in court." Justin Blake, the uncle of Jacob Blake, was quoted stating, “I don’t know how they came to the final conclusion that [Rittenhouse is] innocent, but this is why African Americans say the whole damn system is guilty.” He followed up stating, “This must end. We are here to support Anthony and Jojo and Gaige, and that’s what we’re doing to continue to do.” Rittenhouse’s case ultimately embodies more than just a miscarriage of justice. Two people died, and a third seriously injured with no apparent consequences for the killer. It’s occurrence against a backdrop of civil unrest and racial injustice means that it cannot be isolated from the ongoing cultural reckoning needed in the U.S. The verdict shows a gross double standard in the justice system, where many would argue that a Black man would not have received the same verdict. It also exposes how deeply white supremacy and systemic racism exist as Rittenhouse is not only acquitted, but embraced as a hero by right-wing groups and individuals. It speaks to a deep-rooted part of U.S. culture and society that needs to be urgently addressed. Editors: Lillian H., Rachel C., Roshni C.

In August, the Supreme Court refused to block a Texas law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The vote was 5-4, with three Trump-appointed justices joining two other conservative justices. Dissenting were conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's three liberal justices. The law is the most restrictive abortion act in the U.S., banning abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy while also allowing private citizens to sue any party involved in the procedure-- including clinics, physicians, and people who transport an individual to their appointment. This bill greatly disadvantages individuals seeking an abortion, as many do not know they are pregnant before six weeks. Reasons for abortion are very diverse and often interconnected - some may seek the procedure for financial reasons, timing, cases of sexual assault, or a combination of different factors. Abortion is a necessary and essential healthcare procedure that should be easy to access. The tight deadline for seeking the procedure coupled with the intense practice of law enforcement by private citizens makes it virtually impossible to get an abortion in the state of Texas. Texas’ S.B. 8 presents a creative approach to anti-abortions. The bill states that it “ shall be enforced exclusively through”...“private civil actions.” Under S. B. 8, private individuals are the ones who enforce the law because the state is prevented from doing so. Essentially, this is a legal workaround-- it effectively avoids challenges to the bill's constitutionality. S.B. 8 was not ruled on constitutionality. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Texas Legislature circumvented constitutional precedent by taking the “extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the State could not.” Such a method of law enforcement is revolutionary, and it marks a turning point in state legislation. Several other states have used S.B. 8 as a model to draft their own anti-abortion bills. The court decision prompted representatives in North Dakota, Mississippi, Indiana, Florida, South Dakota and Arkansas to openly declare an interest in passing similar legislation. Florida’s bill, in the style of Texas’ (That being, banning abortions after six weeks and encouraging bounty-hunter style lawsuits), has already been proposed by Rep. Webster Barnaby and is under review. Civil Litigation in Legislature While these are decidedly important pieces of legislation pertaining to abortion rights, this form of civil litigation reaches far beyond that singular issue. Law enforcement by private individuals preceded S.B. 8, and when it comes to socially controversial issues, it is sometimes used to disadvantage marginalized communities. For example, in Tennessee, lawmakers passed a bill this year that facilitates employees, students and parents in recovering “monetary damages for all psychological, emotional, and physical harm suffered”. A person who prevails on a claim brought pursuant to this section is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs.” This can mean that , if a school lets a transgender individual in a bathroom when there are other people in it, private citizens may sue the institution. Another example is how Kansas has implemented a new law involving lawsuits over mask mandates and other public health measures related to COVID-19 this year. The law permits people to go to court over mandates on face coverings, business operation restrictions, and limits on the sizes of public and religious gatherings. Its constitutionality is currently being contested by the Supreme Court. This summer, lawmakers in Missouri passed legislation allowing individuals to sue police departments that enforce federal gun laws that are not already written in state law. A Missouri judge declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of a new state law forbidding local police from enforcing federal gun laws, with attorney general Eric Schmitt declaring he would “defend the law.” This reflects a trend towards civil litigation - private citizens have become vehicles through which the law is enforced. Legal scholars, according to The Los Angeles Times, predict “that the law in Texas will lead to a rush of similar efforts in other states, prompting local legislators to pursue new measures on gun rights, immigration, and other divisive political issues, all in an effort to sidestep the federal government.” Evidently, the laws percolating prior to S.B. 8 and the states following in its structure work to support this supposition. Returning to S.B. 8, abortion is an essential form of healthcare, and by barring individuals from accessing the procedure, the government puts them at greater risk. These restrictions also disproportionately affect minorities - people of color, low income communities, those with disabilities, and, in general, populations for whom legal and systemic barriers already exist are already disadvantaged when it comes to seeking abortions. Above all, it is a fundamental infringement on bodily autonomy. Moreover, this enforcement of the law by private individuals is undoubtedly foreboding in many respects, with implications beyond bodily autonomy. To allow the law to be controlled by the people is not a fully flawed concept - however, it is used far too often to oppress and disadvantage marginalized communities when it should be used to uplift them. A law like Texas’ S.B. 8 is dangerous - it enables private individuals to infringe upon another’s liberty under the pretense of justice. As New York senator Zellie Myrie puts it, “Texas’ new law is ingenious in its cruelty, depriving women of needed reproductive health care and turning ordinary people into bounty hunters against their neighbors.” This is an egregious display of injustice. It is in and of itself unconstitutional to infringe on another’s personal liberties and freedoms. Editors: Evie F., Raniyah B., Adele L., Amber T. This article was orignally published in November 2021 Image Credits: Sergio Flores/Getty Images

At 8 p.m. EST on Tuesday November 2nd, the city of Boston anxiously awaited the results of a historic election that would define the city’s direction for the next four years. Two candidates, Michelle Wu, former council member, and it’s first Asian American Council President, along with Annissa Essaibi George, a fellow city council member and Boston native, were on the ticket for Mayor. A position which had been held exclusively by white men since the city's first mayor was elected in 1822. The city broke this trend in March 2021 when then mayor, Marty Walsh, resigned after being confirmed as the Secretary of Labor in President Biden's Cabinet. City council president, Kim Janey, was then promoted to acting mayor of the city in a historic move making her the first woman, and person of color, to have the position in the city. Janey, along with several other candidates, however, were unable to secure enough votes in the preliminary election on September 21 to be a candidate in the general election. This narrowed the race to Wu and Essaibi George as the two candidates that were going to square off for the mayoral seat. The two candidates, both democrats, but running unaffiliated with any political party, shared similar concerns on the same issues, but often differed on how to address them. Wu, a clear progressive, while Essaibi George, more moderate, described herself as a candidate that would take a more “pragmatic” approach. Both candidates shared concern for issues such as housing, infrastructure, and public safety, but often disagreed on how to address it. In their final debate, both candidates shared their plans on how they would address many pressing issues in the city, one in particular being an ongoing humanitarian crisis around the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Melnea Cass Boulevard, also known as Mass and Cass. Wu mentioned that she would perform an audit on properties to see which can be repurposed as housing. Essaibi George agreed, mentioning opening up a former detention center run by the county sheriff, while also using a local hospital to provide more accommodation. The two differed in opinion when Essaibi George emphasized rebuilding a bridge that was closed down in 2014, cutting off access to houselessness and addiction services for many. Wu said that rebuilding the bridge would cost too much money and take too long to address the current issue. Emphasizing a need for expediency in the matter. When asked about quality of life issues, Essaibi George pressed Wu on her “Bold Vision” with the Green New Deal plan for the city, stating: “We need to fill potholes, we need to repair sidewalks, we need to make sure the trash gets picked up and the lights get turned on every single evening. It’s not fancy, but it’s important.” Wu pushed back by stating that her proposed Green New Deal has a big vision approach on everyday affairs, from infrastructure to public transportation. However, both candidates were most divided on the topic of policing. The Boston police facing some major scandals in recent months, and following the months of protest in the summer of 2020, the topic of how to go about reforming the department was a big concern. Essaibi George wanted to forge partnerships and had pushed against reallocating money from the department budget. She also called for adding 200-300 new officers to a force of over 2000. Her campaign has, however, called for a police contract that “lays out a clear disciplinary process” enabling the commissioner to fire officers for bad behavior. She has received the endorsement of former Boston police commissioner William G. Gross, the first Black officer to oversee the department and the public face of a super PAC supporting her candidacy. But refused to receive endorsement from the local patrolman's union stating, “because we aren’t in a good spot in which I feel they’re fully embracing the work that I’d like to see them do.” On the other hand, Wu believes in performing a complete overhaul of the contracts with the Police Department, which had expired, and pushed for reinvesting in more community resources, a move that is likely to cause friction with her administration and the department. In a WBUR forum, Wu expressed her views while pushing back against her opponent stating: “There is a clear choice in this race, about the willingness and the boldness that each of us is presenting for truly tackling police reform” Wu also has a history of voting for measures that restricted police power as a city counselor. In the summer of 2020 as social justice protests occurred all over the U.S. in response to George Floyd’s murder at the hand of a police office, several measures were proposed that Wu supported with the exception of a proposal to reduce police overtime spending by $12 million in his operating budget. Wu voted against it stating, “It’s not enough to just put a specific number. We need to ensure accountability and that our resources are allocated in the right way, but that has to come with clear plans and with a commitment to execute those plans.” In the months leading up to the General election, Wu was ahead of Essiabi George by about a 30 point margin, according to several polls taken in the Boston area. On the night of November 2nd, Associated Press made the call that declared Wu the winner of the mayoral election. Wu, the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants, was born and raised in Chicago. She attended Harvard for her undergraduate degree in 2003, returning to Chicago afterwards to take care of her mother who had developed late onset Schizophrenia. While in Chicago, Wu opened up a small tea shop to try and make ends meet. Wu eventually would return to Boston to attend Harvard Law School, where she studied contract law with Elizabeth Warren. Warren, who endorsed Wu for mayor, recalled, “a bright student who sat in the front row, and who later worked on her first campaign for the Senate.” Wu graduated in 2012 and made her leap into politics that same year, winning an open city council seat in 2013, joining Ayanna Pressley, and eventually becoming the first Asian American city council president. Wu ran on a progressive platform that focused on rent stabilization measures, implementing rent control, removing fares for public transportation, improving city infrastructure, and overhauling contracts with the police department. Wu’s win made headlines, both within Boston and across the country. It not only broke the historically long streak of electing white men as mayor, but also represented a progressive shift in one of America’s oldest cities. Wu’s win shows that the city's demographic along with its politics is starting to change. The win also is a victory for the Asian community, and women. In her victory speech Wu stated: “One of my sons asked me the other night if boys can be elected mayor of Boston. They have been, and they will again some day, but not tonight. On this day, Boston elected your mom because from every corner of our city, Boston has spoken.” She then followed up by mentioning her goals for the next four years: “We are ready to meet this moment. We are ready to become a Boston for everyone. We are ready to become a Boston that doesn’t push people out, but welcomes all who call our city home. We’re ready to be a Boston where all can afford to stay and to thrive. And, yes, Boston is ready to become a Green New Deal city.” Since her victory on Tuesday, Wu has hit the ground running as the reality of becoming mayor-elect settles in, meeting with Acting Mayor Kim Janey and the city council the very next day, learning the ins and outs of being in the position. Wu began to lay out plans for the future of the city, as well as how she plans to push forward with her agenda, beginning with building out her team which she says, “should reflect Boston’s diversity...all of Boston’s expertise and move with urgency on the issues that our families are facing.” Wu also shares her historic win with another Asian American, Aftab Pureval, who was elected to be the next mayor of Cincinnati the same day. The election of Asian Americans as mayors of some of America’s largest cities signals a shift in politics. A demographic which historically has had some of the lowest turnout levels nationally, last year in 2020, was higher than it has ever been. And as more Asian Americans are becoming eligible to vote, and hold office, we are beginning to change the faces of what this country's leadership can look like. Editors: Adele L., Rachel C., Raniyah B., Sarah H.

In August 2021, the House of Representatives passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R. 4), designed to reinforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Named after the civil rights leader who passed away last year, John Lewis’ work focused largely on enfranchising voters. He was also elected to represent Georgia on the House of Representatives, and oversaw multiple renewals of the Voting Rights Act. Right now, voter suppression primarily affects minorities, poorer communities, and people of color. These people do not have the power or the means to advocate for themselves and initiate reform. This bill would address racial discrimination and help the federal government block state election laws that discriminate against people of color. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed to ensure districts didn’t enforce laws or procedures that negatively affected minority voters, preventing districts from changing their election laws without authorization. However, in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the Act was no longer necessary because the discrimination it was supposed to protect against no longer existed—allegedly. This ruling removed crucial protections against voter suppression and discrimination. The John Lewis Act updates the Justice Department’s ability to allow election law changes in districts that have a history of discrimination against minority voters. Ultimately, it would make it harder for states to restrict voting access in the future. Even though the bill has passed in the House, there is a slim chance of it passing in the evenly politically divided Senate. Almost no Republicans are likely to support this legislation, which means it falls short of the votes needed to send the bill to President Joe Biden’s desk. Previously, Republicans in the Senate have blocked other voting rights bills. In June 2021, the For the People Act, which would have ended gerrymandering and established reforms that change campaign finance laws, and facilitate voting by expanding voter registration and access. Such rulings make it easier for minorities to be marginalized when they try to vote. Already, several Republican-led states have implemented alternative election laws that make it increasingly difficult to cast a vote, citing election fraud as justification for these changes. According to a report by the Brennan Centre for Justice, voter fraud is actually very rare. However, changes like stricter ID laws, shorter voting windows, and voter roll purges all provide barriers to voting and are particularly harmful to poorer communities and people of color. In other words, the marginalized are further disenfranchised. If not all people can have their voices fairly protected and heard, this cannot be a democracy and voting is not enough. So far, multiple recent Supreme Court decisions have made it harder to change laws that discriminate against certain voters. In the 2020 election, many lawsuits were filed regarding certain voting restrictions. Several lower courts granted these requests, yet the conservative justices often overrode these and reinforced voting restrictions. If passed, the John Lewis Act would prevent justices from enforcing voter suppression laws across the United States, and prohibit the Supreme Court from reversing lower court decisions that protect voting rights. Essentially, it is court reform that restricts what the Supreme Court can do to disenfranchise voters. Currently, the people in charge of decision-making maintain power by restricting the rights of opposing groups. The conservative supermajority has shown that now, more than ever, there is an urgent need for sweeping reform. Editors: Evie F., Sarah H., Raniyah B., Chris F. This article was originally written in September 2021 Image Credit: Mark Wilson - Getty Images

TW: Violence, Gender-based violence Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, at the Taliban’s first press conference following their acquisition of Afghanistan, added a pledge for the women of Afghanistan stating: “we are guaranteeing all their rights within the limits of Islam.” What occurred in the subsequent weeks included ordinances for women to stay home, school closures, and movement restrictions. The disconnect between actions and words ultimately proved that the Taliban’s promises were empty ones - what exactly constitutes as women’s rights according to the group themselves is extremely narrow, with not only limits to women’s personal freedoms but unjust cruelty as well. Human Rights Watch notes, in their study into women’s rights in Afghanistan, noted that punishments go beyond taking away their liberty, including stoning, lashing, and amputation - all things one might be subject to if merely going for a walk without a male chaperone, or mahram (a member of one's family considered unmarriageable). These examples of extreme and corporeal punishment have been features of Taliban authority, as Human Rights Watch’s reports in an article observing the Taliban. Women’s rights in Afghanistan have been in a precarious position very often because of the Taliban presence. However, with their recent rise to power, it is abundantly clear that the fragile conception of Afghani women’s liberty has been shattered. It is an act of injustice, afflicting a range of victims. The Taliban rule affects the freedoms of all citizens. While some are being displaced from their homes, others are experiencing extreme poverty as the economy worsens. Because of the political situation, local currency, the afghani - which was already low in value - is now worth even less. This is a plight suffered by all Afghanis. Still, it is women who suffer disproportionately. Unchanging Agenda Since the Taliban’s ascent to power, women with professional careers who financially support their families are unable to return to work. 26-year-old Zahra of Herat expressed her shock and sorrow at the Taliban’s takeover to The Associated Press. Zahra worked with local nonprofit organizations to raise awareness on women’s rights. In the weeks leading up to the Taliban’s takeover, Zahra worked remotely from home as militant forces marched towards Herat. Unfortunately, ever since Taliban fighters broke through Herat’s defenses in mid-August, she has been unable to work at all. Zahra lamented the possibility of being unable to return to her office, saying, “How can it be possible for me as a woman who has worked so hard and tried to learn and advance, to now have to hide myself and stay at home?” There are women who have built careers for themselves, dedicating specific skill sets to their professional abilities. They are now expected to stay home and find new jobs despite all the work they have put into their ambitions. 43-year-old Noor Khatera, an accounts department employee at Azizi Bank explained this problem to Reuters. “I taught myself English and even learned how to operate a computer, but now I will have to look for a place where I can just work with more women around.” What this ultimately represents is a regression of rights - the transitional period from Taliban rule in 1996 to 2001 gave women in urban areas of Afghanistan the rights to learn and pursue careers. Marianne O’Grady, Kabul-based CARE International deputy country director, attested that the accomplishments of women over the past 20 years have been so dramatic that going back to the way things were seems out of the question. “You can’t uneducate millions of people.” Still, there is a looming sense of dread felt by many of the women in Afghanistan. Their education, ambition, and successes can all be taken away overnight. Such an experience is devastating, especially after knowing a life without such restrictions. “I feel we are like a bird who makes a nest for a living and spends all the time building it, but then suddenly and helplessly watches others destroy it,” said Zarmina Kakar, a 26-year-old women’s rights activist in Kabul. The education ministry announced that boys from grades 6-12 were to return to school, along with their male teachers. There was no mention of girls. This situation is acting as a major talking point on an international scale. UNESCO’s Director General Audrey Azoulay added her voice to the growing concern over the Taliban’s limitations on girls after only boys were told to go back to school. “Should this ban be maintained, it would constitute an important violation of the fundamental right to education for girls and women,” Azoulay said in a statement upon her arrival in New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly. The question of whether or not the Taliban have reformed their policies pertaining to women and abolished their misogyny has a clear and concise answer. Despite the gentler rhetoric used by Mujahid, it's obvious through actions like requiring a mahram when in public and suspending women from their careers and schools that there is only a little hope for women’s freedoms to be restored. There have been overseas suggestions that, before one should be critical of the Taliban’s policies, the group should be given time to lay out a more specific and functional government. However, no evidence suggests that any of their acts of oppression will be adjusted. There is more recent evidence of the contrary. Western Imperialism in Discussion In Kabul, the Taliban set up the ministry for the “propagation virtue and prevention of vice” in what used to be the Women’s Affairs Ministry. These offices, as reported by the New York Times, have been repurposed for the religious morality police, who once instilled dread in Afghanistan for their suppression of women.” This feels strangely symbolic - as if the final blow to the fragile structure of women’s rights. Another troublesome fact comes from what the new ministry represents. Such extremist ideals bar women from all facets of life under the guise that doing so is doing right by religious virtue. The foundations of Taliban thought are defined by extremist religion, which can lead to some unfortunate leaps in logic. This is something that is subject to unnecessary conflation and is worth being aware of - especially when such injustice reaches an international scope of awareness. The religion of Islam should not be conflated with the oppression of women. What becomes oppression stems from radicalization and extremism, embodied by the Taliban. Conversely, western culture should not be conflated with liberation. There is an egregious amount of rhetoric that suggests women in makeup and western fashions makes them far more liberated. The standard of what a “free” woman is should not be defined by her creed, religion, or how she dresses, but by the agency she is granted. The blatant exploitation of Muslim women as conduits to forward a message of white supremacy is a method that has been utilized for far too long. Western powers weaponised their image to sell a war - the burqa became a garment that represented oppression. Not only is this a terrible approach to supporting women but it is also reductive to suggest that there is only one way to be liberated, or even that there is a best way to do so. Editors: Evie F., Sarah H., Raniyah B., Chris F. Image Credits: Kiana Hayeri via the New York Times

“[It was] like I was on a ride … The bed was shaking. My balcony doors opened. And it felt like the longest thunder I had ever heard in my life,” Susana Alverez, a survivor of the Surfside condo collapse, said. Her room was located on the tenth floor of Champlain Towers South. On June 24, the 12-story condominium in Surfside, Florida, experienced a partial progressive collapse. At approximately 1:25 a.m. EDT, part of the building collapsed. Nine seconds later, units northeast to that section collapsed as well. Less than two weeks later, the rest of the building was demolished using small explosives over concerns that parts of the damaged structure could fall on rescue crews operating below. Over the course of one month, rescue crews lifted 14 million pounds of concrete and debris in an attempt to rescue, then recover the bodies of former residents. With a death toll of 98, the Surfside condo collapse is one of the deadliest structural collapses in United States history. 242 people lived in the complex. 97 residents died during the collapse. Only one person was rescued alive—to die as a result of injuries in a hospital. On June 26, Daniella Levine Cava, the Mayor of Miami-Dade County demanded an audit of five-story buildings older than forty years as well as all buildings developed by Champlain Towers South Associates. The next day, Surfside hired structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer to investigate the collapse. Kilsheimer has worked on cases like the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Florida International University bridge collapse. “What you’re looking for is the condition of the materials and the design of the building, and then you’re looking for a trigger because something started this … The key is to find the trigger,” said Kilsheimer. His team is currently investigating potential causes of the collapse—including degraded concrete in multiple areas of the building, a problem that Morabito Consultants, a company the condo association hired to assess the building, first reported in 2018. In 2018, engineers from Morabito Consultants noted “major structural damage” to concrete below the building’s pool deck as well as within beams of the underground parking garage. The company provided the board with a report warning that extensive repairs were ""needed to ensure the safety of the residents and the public."" According to the report, developers had failed to adequately waterproof parts of the building, and as a result, concrete was rapidly deteriorating. This could have destabilized the building’s foundation, meaning unheeded reports contributed directly to the fateful collapse. Even if Kilsheimer confirms that a different trigger or triggers led to fatal collapse on June 24, the report from Morabito Consultants should have pushed the condo association to implement repairs. In 2018, the aforementioned repairs would have cost an estimated $9 million. That amount ballooned as the years passed, and condo association board members decided not to act. In October 2019, a board member resigned, then wrote a letter saying, “The building is falling apart … Somebody can be injured or killed with the state of the concrete.” It was only facing mounting costs and a recertification assessment prior to the building’s 40-year anniversary that in April 2021, condo association president Jean Wodnicki sent residents letters alerting them to the fact that without a $15 million cash pool for repairs, the concrete deterioration and damage would get much worse. The association asked construction companies to submit repair proposals by July 7. Unfortunately, the bid or repair process was never initiated. Before the date could arrive, Champlain Towers South collapsed. There’s a high chance the collapse was preventable. The warning signs were all present. It took the Surfside condo association three years to begin to act. Even then, they were most likely responding to a deadline as opposed to a genuine desire to protect residents given the details of the 2018 report. Whether or not the water levels or corrosion were contributing factors to the collapse, they highlight the negligence of the condo association and the importance of reform. Developers should pay more attention to engineers’ structural concerns instead of negating them for monetary purposes. Perhaps developers will act more cautiously after the Surfside condo collapse, but awareness should not have had to be raised at the cost of human lives. Moving forward, there is much that has to be done. Editors: Adele L., Evie F., Lillian H., Raniyah B. This article was originally written August 2021.

CW: mentions discussion of drug abuse Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte is a relatively controversial figure. There is much to discuss concerning his term (started in May 2016), from his approach to foreign policy, to his handling of COVID-19, or even his general execution of democracy in the Philippines. What concerns today’s discussion is a human rights crisis that has been left unaddressed for far too long. While the issue has piqued media interest in spurts over the years of Duterte’s term, the long-lasting consequences of his policies still remain within the social climate of the Philippines. As the end of his term approaches , it is pertinent to reflect upon a major aspect of his presidency: Duterte’s War on Drugs. The Policy and its Execution It is impossible to discuss the War on Drugs without emphasizing its true goal: to effectively lower crime and illegal drug use in the Philippines. And, to its credit, Duterte’s policy worked. The number of drug users in the Philippines has declined 50% after three years of Duterte’s term according to a 2019 survey conducted by the Philippines’ Dangerous Drug Board. But it is a very extreme plan. Unlawful killings of alleged drug abusers are carried out by police without any kind of due process. Victims are killed under police custody rather than tried. Vigilantes are encouraged to incur violence if it means eradicating all drug use. The number of drug suspects killed in anti-drug operations has increased to 5,856 since the crackdown began in July 2016, according to recent data from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). That number has likely risen, as this anti-drug campaign is an extremely intensive program that Duterte intends to continue throughout the full run of his term. Duterte’s last State of the Nation address defended the war on drugs, saying that “we still have a long way in our fight against the proliferation of drugs.” The true essence of Duterte’s drug policy is best captured through his direct quote. “Hitler massacred 3 million Jews ... there's 3 million drug addicts. There are. I'd be happy to slaughter them.” These words give the perfect snapshot of Duterte’s ideologies. He is a man passionate for his country, verbally threatening to kill those who “destroy [his] country,” or “destroy the young people of [his] country.” He uses violence to achieve his goals, no matter the cost, even when that violence is heavily disproportionate to someone’s crime. That is what makes him extreme and even dangerous. International Status On June 14th, 2021, Fatou Bensouda, the high prosecutor of the International Crime Court (ICC) requested for an investigation into the drug crackdown in the Philippines after a preliminary examination into the situation was conducted. There was reasonable suspicion, as stated in the report, that “Police and other government officials planned, ordered, and sometimes directly perpetrated extrajudicial killings.” The ICC reviewed reports of police killing thousands during the official law enforcement operations. They also noted that “state officials at the highest levels of government also spoke publicly and repeatedly in support of extrajudicial killings, and created a culture of impunity for those who committed them.” Vigilante justice was a common method of Duterte, which meant allowing private citizens to kill any alleged drug abusers. In some cases, the ICC reports that certain private citizens were paid off to do so. The ICC’s request is still being processed. In the same month, ex-mayor Montasser Sabal was killed in police custody in a rather brutal and ambiguous manner. Sabal was identified as a narco-politician and he allegedly shot an officer during his transportation to Manilla. Details about the officer who was shot were not released, and an investigation led by Alfegar Triambulo is currently underway This casts some suspicion on the Philippine National Police . They hold a vast amount of power, evidenced in the fact that extrajudicial violence is approached as a solution to crime. The police have become the courts and executioners in one There is also potential that they could be corrupt as Human Rights Watch (HRW) research found that police were falsifying evidence to justify these killings and Amnesty International observed impunity and brutality towards those taken into police custody. Interviewed families of victims expressed the inability to fight for justice. A barangay official told Rogie Sebastian to surrender to the police because he was on the “watch list” as a drug user. He had given up drug use months earlier, so he resisted. Two weeks later, three armed masked men wearing bulletproof vests arrived at his home in Manila and handcuffed him. “I could hear Rogie begging for his life from outside the room,” a relative said. “We were crying and the other armed man threatened to kill us as well.” Additionally, the relatives of Edward Sentorias, a jobless father of three killed by the police in Manila, said they had no hope for an investigation: “I saw one of the police go inside with an aluminum briefcase.… [He took] out the gun and some [shabu] sachets, and placed them there [by Sentorias’ body]. I went back to where I was, and was totally shocked. I couldn’t even complain. If we go complain, what is our chance against the authorities?” Duterte’s war on drugs can be viewed in many contexts. Some may say he’s achieving his goals, regardless of the means. Others are shaken by the tragedy of losing friends or relatives so swiftly and brutally. One fact remains clear: this is a violation of human rights. Such brutality is a grossly disproportionate punishment. Public Opinion These policies affect the Filipino public, which is why it’s very important to directly gauge the opinions of his constituents. I managed to interview a man who will simply be referred to as ‘Leoj’ for the remainder of this article. He has lived in the Philippines his whole life, is part of a younger demographic, and an average Filipino citizen. Because of those facts, his analysis and opinions are still valuable insights into the internal workings of Philippine society. On Duterte, Leoj stated that he perceived the president as “a man with a plan that just got ruined with everything that happened in the world.” He indicated an understanding that Duterte carries out his policies with a love for the Philippines in mind - something Duterte has mentioned himself. Leoj presents the impression that Duterte is imposing, straightforward, and powerful - an idea that can be twisted to both positive and negative viewpoints. This is perhaps the reason why Duterte is so controversial. Power can mean many things. “I think that society has something to think wise[ly] about now,” continued Leoj. “Or Filipinos, rather. Duterte’s term caused fear or something to look up to. It’s a borderline between those two.” When asked about alternative plans to squash illegal drug abuse, Leoj said “from a simple guy like me, I don’t have a brain for that, but I think the source of that problem is poverty...and I don’t know how to solve that.” Leoj brings up an extremely relevant issue. To solve a problem, in this case, drug abuse, you must trace it back to the start. Otherwise, you’ll be stuck trying to combat issues that were simply the problem’s effects. Drug abuse goes hand in hand with poverty. Although Duterte characterized his drug crackdown as an operation that targeted drug lords and drug dealers, a report from HRW revealed that many of those killed in police raids were “unemployed or worked menial jobs.” Duterte’s drug plan disproportionately affects poor and urban communities - in fact, prior to his presidency, his policies in Davao City also reflected this. His “Davao Death Squad” earned him a formidable reputation as they often murdered drug abusers, petty criminals, and even street children. This is very telling: the root issue of drug abuse is the impoverishment of the Philippines because the targeted drug abusers share the same background of poverty, being working-class citizens. Whether or not these people were drug abusers is irrelevant. The punishments these victims face is disproportionate to their alleged crimes. Their killings are unlawful and carried out without any investigation. At last, I asked Leoj if he thought that the drug war was a human rights crisis. “I do think so, yes,”...“Even if his intentions are good, he cannot control all of the people.” Reflection Within A Reflection It is noticeably difficult to find direct sources related to public opinion about Duterte within the Philippines. When researching this article, I wanted to get a bigger idea of how Duterte was perceived within the country. However, I could find no opinion pieces published by Philippine media outlets. They were all news sources like DW, Bloomberg, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc. This is a result of media censorship, another effect of Duterte’s presidency. A major example that relates to the war on drugs is the case of Rappler founder and executive editor Maria Ressa. Ressa was declared guilty of cyberlibel, or defamation, back in June 2020. The Rappler had long been a Philippine news source that had earned a reputation of being critical of the war on drugs and, overall, critical of the Philippine government. However, this case worked to silence those voices on the basis of government defamation, effectively squashing free speech. I find this to be a very troubling fact, especially in relation to the U.S.A. The Philippines was never truly foreign soil. Trade relations run deep with that little archipelago, which used to be U.S. territory. There is no expectation for the U.S.A. to be the Philippine’s savior. ​​There is, however, the expectation that American society should protect the basic freedoms all human beings hold- including freedom of speech. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. It seems history has proven to be a failsafe frame of reference. The results of World War II run parallel to the War on Drugs - along the same line of American ignorance. Manuel Quezon, a prominent Filipino nationalist, captured this anguish back in the late 1930s : “How typical of America to writhe in anguish at the fate of a distant cousin, Europe, while a daughter, the Philippines, is being raped in the back room!" The blatant abuses presented by Duterte, from his extremism to his violence, paint a portrait of a dangerous man. His drug policy is not something born out of malicious intent. The goals were made clear: eradication of crime and drug abuse. It is the execution that remains the issue. The roots of the problem were not what was attacked. Focus was brought to the reactionary consequences. It is like hacking at the blossoms of a dandelion rather than pulling it from its root. Sure, on the surface, the most obvious problems are gone, but the weeds still remain, choking out your country. Editors: Adele L. Evie F. Raniyah B. This article was orginally written in August 2021. Image Credits: https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/philippine/philippines-journalist-killed-07222021134202.html/@@images/684146e4-378b-4ee4-813f-c5992be1143b.jpeg

The power of TikTok is a force to not be reckoned with, second only to BTS stans. As a platform, it allows for a quick rise to fame for new artists, the sell-out of previously underrated products, and most importantly, the attention brought to various social causes. In particular, #FreeBritney started trending after TikTok user ‘blueshoulderpads’ commented on Britney Spears’s video that if the popstar needed help to “wear yellow in [her] next video.” This comment was one of the top ones due to the thousands of likes it initially received and the influx of more after Britney posted an Instagram video of her dancing in a yellow crop top along with another post of her in it captioned: “[y]ellow is my favorite color.” While this started off as just a TikTok conspiracy theory, recent events revealed that Britney is being held under a conservatorship. A conservatorship is when the court appoints a guardian or guardians to manage someone due to mental or physical limitations. Her father James ”Jamie” Spears was in charge of both the financial and personal aspects of this conservatorship up until 2019, when he stepped down as personal conservator and was replaced by Jodi Montgomery, an experienced conservator. Let’s start from the very beginning. Britney Spears became a household name after the 1999 debut of her hit song “Baby One More Time” to premiere her album. Things were about as normal as they can get for someone who becomes a pop star at 16-years-old until 2007. In a custody battle with her ex-husband Kevin Federline, Britney locked herself in the bathroom. The infamous head shaving took place. Subsequently, she was sent to a mental hospital where she was held for 24 hours. The conservatorship did not begin until 2008, where Britney’s continuous struggle with mental health had her hospitalized. Upon release, a court granted James a temporary conservatorship that was later extended to a permanent one under the pretense that Britney was mentally unable to take care of herself. Under this conservatorship, everything Britney does is regulated. She cannot see her friends, drive with her boyfriend in his car, was forced to take lithium, cannot have therapy in privacy, and has an IUD (a form of birth control) in her that she cannot remove. In November of 2020, Britney filed a request to remove her father as co-conservator. Ultimately, the court denied it, stating in the filings that ""[t]he conservator's request to suspend James P. Spears immediately upon the appointment of Bessemer Trust Company of California as sole conservator of estate is denied without prejudice” (not dismissed forever). Countless celebrities are showing their support for Britney. Iggy Azalea shared her strange experiences with James where he forced her to sign an NDA before performing and watched the amount of sodas Britney drank. Madonna and other celebrities are even setting up a legal fund for Britney. On the other hand, James’s response to the #FreeBritney movement was calling it a “joke” and claiming that “[a]ll these conspiracy theorists don’t know anything” (Page Six). During the July court hearing, Britney told the judge that she wanted to press charges against her father for conservatorship abuse. Since, Jodi Montgomery and James began a court dispute regarding her mental health and a potential 5150 psychiatric hold. Montgomery, through her lawyers, claims that she never said Britney qualified for the hold in their phone call, but James misrepresented her concerns for Britney’s mental health even stating that, “Jamie Spears continuing to serve as her Conservator instead of a neutral professional fiduciary is having a serious impact on Ms. Spears' mental health” (TMZ). In a recent court filing, James states that there are “no grounds whatsoever” for his removal as co-conservator. James can argue all he wants to prove his “innocence” and “love” for his daughter. However, there is something exploitative and evil about Britney being forced to release albums, perform at award shows, and go on tour without any of her own freedom and access to her own finances from the revenue she generates. Despite James’s doubts of the movement and removal, it appears that public pressure finally got the best of him. After Britney’s new attorney filed a petition, James finally agreed to step down from the conservatorship on August 13th, but only after an orderly transition and a “resolution of matters” (AP). It’s still unclear when exactly this will happen. Although Britney will still remain under a court conservatorship, it’s a step in the right direction. On August 5th, Britney received her first iPad, and shared her excitement on Instagram. It’s great to see Britney finally be able to buy her own things, but also equally heartbreaking to know that she has not been able to all these years. The fact that she has been under this conservatorship and is still struggling to remove it even with all the public pressure raises questions about non-famous women who also have to suffer under the control of others. While Britney is stripped of her reproductive rights with a forced IUD, it is still legal in many states for disabled women to undergo non-consensual sterilization. Every woman out there deserves complete autonomy--especially regarding reproductive rights. “I deserve to have a life” -Britney Spears. Editors: Amber T., Lillian H., Raniyah B.

Chants of “Libertad (freedom),” “We want change,” and “Down with the dictatorship” rang as protests rocked the streets of Cuba for the first time in over 60 years. Citizens protested the lack of access to food and water, skyrocketing prices of necessities such as medicine and fuel, and power outages amid rising coronavirus cases. On July 11th, thousands of Cubans flooded the streets in San Antonio de los Baños to march against the Cuban government and the communist regime. Since then, more than 40 cities and towns have seen a surge of protests, all triggered by the Cuban government’s poor response to the COVID-19 pandemic and a shortage of basic goods and services. The protests represent one of the largest anti-government demonstrations on the island since 1994. In response to the demonstrations, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canal deployed security forces throughout the country – detaining, beating, and pepper-spraying protestors. He has even encouraged government supporters to go out and confront protestors on national television. Authorities have reportedly detained many journalists and activists, and more than 100 people have been arrested or have gone missing. Footage of protesters being arrested or injured by security has been uploaded onto social media and spread far and wide. Díaz-Canel’s government has also reportedly disrupted communication by halting internet service run by the state-owned telecommunications company Etecsa. Access to social media and messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and Telegram has been restricted in an attempt to stifle unrest and media coverage. This reflects the alarming willingness of the Cuban government to suppress citizens’ calls for civil liberties as well as economic and political accountability. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cuban economy suffered greatly, with the Cuban Minister of Economy, Alejandro Gil, stating the economy shrunk by about 11%. In addition to a significant decline in the tourism industry, many families stopped receiving remittances – which are both major sources of revenue for the country. As a result, many citizens had to wait in long lines for basic necessities like food, medicine, and hygiene products. Additionally, the constant electricity cuts amid the July heat added to the tension. ​​While the economic crisis created by COVID-19 arguably sparked the protests, the government’s instability is also a result of the economic and political history between Cuba and the U.S. In the late 19th century, when Cuba first became an independent nation, the U.S. implemented neocolonialist policies in many Latin American countries to protect their own economic interests. The Platt Amendment, which defined U.S. and Cuban relations from 1902-1934, stated: “The government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power of powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba.” Additionally, “The United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty.” The Cuban economy became dominated by American economic interests. Natural resources from Cuba were exported to the U.S. for manufacturing purposes, and in turn, Cuba became economically dependent on the U.S. At this time, the Cuban government supported the U.S. in their interference, with little consideration for the Cuban people. The U.S. and the Cuban government benefited greatly while Cuba’s domestic economy became increasingly weak. In 1959, a revolutionary movement led by Fidel Castro, overthrew the U.S. backed government and allied itself with the country’s communist party making Castro the head of the state. Throughout the following decades, the ineffective communist dictatorship failed the Cuban people, who were unable to protest the wealth and race inequalities along with the lack of economic prospects without risking violent retaliation from the authoritarian government. Quickly, relations between the U.S. and Cuba soured as Castro nationalized American owned property, and refused to cooperate with U.S. economic demands. The U.S. also grew wary of a Soviet-aligned Cuban government not far from its shores in the quickly escalating Cold War. This caused the U.S. to impose a historically long embargo on Cuba, greatly harming the Cuban economy as it banned American businesses from working in Cuba. The tensions of the Cold War also led to violence between the two countries. After the Soviet Union fell in 1991, Cuba continued its communist regime, despite their deteriorating economy after losing Soviet backing. Even though the regime was largely supported by Cuban citizens due to Castro’s use of anti-U.S. rhetoric and propaganda, over time, Cuba’s instability and use of surveillance and police control to quell citizen protests led to a desire for the end of the authoritarian government in Cuba. When Miguel Díaz-Canel was appointed President of Cuba in 2019, many citizens found themselves lacking loyalty towards him because he was the first leader not from the Castro family. Although President Miguel Díaz-Canel acknowledged that Cuba needed to liberalize its economy to maintain stability, the gradual changes implemented by the regime were ill-equipped to prepare the country for the disaster that would be the COVID-19 pandemic. The government still heavily controlled much of it’s private sector while the economy was already suffering due to the strict economic and political trade restrictions re-implemented by the Trump administration. Cuba was ill-equipped to handle a global pandemic. When COVID-19 struck, all tourism (which made up 10% of Cuba's economy) collapsed, and the Cuban economy subsequently contracted. According to the World Food Programme, Cuba also imports about 70-80% of its food, and a drop in global trade and imports to the country created a scarcity of basic resources. This, on top of spreading COVID-19 infections drove people to take to the streets to make themselves heard. While Biden had planned to follow through with his pledge to loosen the U.S.-Cuba trade embargo, he claims that President Miguel Díaz-Canel’s refusal to listen to his people is currently preventing these promises from becoming a reality. But instead of just punishing Cuba’s president, these trade restrictions are hurting the people of Cuba, once again demonstrating the neo-imperialist power dynamic between the two countries. Even though discontent with the state of Cuba’s economy already existed, the effects of COVID-19 have heavily exacerbated the consequences. The historic protest has accelerated calls for change in Cuba but has also applied pressure to the U.S. to change its stance and treatment of the country. While President Biden has openly stated his support of the protestors, he is yet to enact changes that reverse the harmful policy of his predecessor. One of President Obama’s biggest foreign policy achievements was his ability to establish diplomatic relations with the small island nation again in 2015. However, when Donald Trump became president in 2016, he slowly began reversing many of Obama’s stances on Cuba, re-implementing many sanctions that Obama had eased or lifted, and eventually redesignating Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The protests are the result of multiple issues that have come to a head in recent years, from decades of suppression from the Cuban government to the tense relations between the U.S. and Cuba steeped in a deep history of U.S. imperialism and neocolonialism. We must continue to push for change from both the U.S. and Cuban government by holding the Biden administration to its promises to ease economic sanctions and provide economic support, while supporting the protestors in their fight for greater personal freedoms and better quality of life. The Cuban government must answer the call from its people, and take accountability for its part in the crisis. We all must continue to uplift Cuban voices and support the community both in Cuba and the U.S. in their fight for change. Editors: Rachel C., Raniyah B., Amirah A., Nava E., Roshni C., Tee N., Vishal P.

June 4th, 2021 marks the 32nd anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre – and the first year since the 1989 massacre where no formal commemoration event will be held as per government-sponsored censorship rules. Following a tumultuous year of pandemic restrictions, civil and political unrest, and government censorship, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has deemed vigils to commemorate the deaths of up to several thousand peaceful protesters an “unauthorized political act.” Some of the most notable vigils in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan were restricted and, in Hong Kong, the national security law was invoked warning people to stay away. While censorship of sensitive words, photos, numbers, and symbols that reference the massacre has always been the case in the PRC, the government suppression of voices has recently expanded into Hong Kong. Since 1990, Hong Kong has held two vigils every year to remember the bloodshed of peaceful protests at Tiananmen. The past two years, however, have seen increased government suppression: those taking part or promoting vigils could face more than 5 years in jail, activists have been silenced through enforced “holidays,” online events have been shut down, and tighter security has been applied to the Beijing square. To understand the significance of seeking accountability for the Tiananmen Massacre, it is important to address the events that led up to the massacre. While China’s rapid economic success after the end of the Cultural Revolution and Mao’s death in 1976 introduced foreign ideas of western democracy and liberalism, it also provided opportunities for corruption within the government. In the 1980s, then Secretary-General Hu Yaobang implemented many reforms that overturned several Mao-era policies. He opened up the country to new ideas including those of free-market capitalism and was sympathetic to student’s demands for democratic reform. However, the government's lack of transparency and suppression of the press, in addition to rising inflation, cultivated dissatisfaction among youths, causing widespread and small-scale pro-democratic protests to erupt as early as 1986. This eventually led to Hu’s forced resignation as many other party leaders blamed him for encouraging social instability due to his ‘liberal’ views. In April 1989, Hu Yaobang's death sparked a large-scale pro-democracy movement with calls for better education, freedom of the press, and the right to protest. Tens of thousands of students arrived at Tiananmen Square on the day of his funeral. In the following weeks, the number of protestors grew to be more than 300,000, many of which were university students that came from different cities. Some began hunger strikes as a means of gaining worldwide attention and sympathy to pressure the Chinese government into meeting their demands. The protests divided the Chinese Communist Party internally into those who wanted to reach a consensus with the students and those who wanted to enact martial law to disperse them. On May 20, martial law was declared and the military was mobilized into the square. On June 1, Premier Li Peng issued a report justifying the strong military action against the students, claiming that American forces were involved in the student movement and attempting to overthrow the Communist Party. On the night of June 3rd, the military opened fire on the protestors. The violence lasted well into the next day, as troops used tear gas and machine guns to try and disperse the protest. The magnitude of deaths that occurred during the Tiananmen Square Massacre is still debated today. Reports from the Chinese State Council count the number of deaths to be around 300 people, while other groups claim that it is as high as 4,000. In one night, hundreds, possibly thousands, of protestors were murdered. However, the true number of deaths is at risk of being lost. Because of ongoing censorship, the names, fates, and stories of the victims are largely unknown as it is nearly impossible to openly discuss the events. Chinese social media and search engines filter out any mention of the events taking place and showing remembrance or commemorating the event is considered an act of defiance. By erasing the Tiananmen Square Massacre from history and denying it ever happened, the Chinese government is avoiding not only the responsibility for its use of violence but any remorse or apology for what occurred. Today, freedom of speech and assembly is still denied and the families of those who were killed are closely monitored. Activists have been imprisoned or exiled, and discussions bring the threat of detainment. Three decades and several successions of power later, the government has gone as far as rewriting the history books in an attempt to portray the student protestors as rioters and foreign infiltrators. Mainland China has banned any public events in remembrance of the massacre and has suppressed any voices that try to speak out. Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan are some of the few places where vigils and gatherings are commonly held every year. The local government in Hong Kong this year, however, had decided to ban any public gatherings relating to the anniversary, citing public health concerns and possible violations of the National Security Law imposed after the 2019 pro-democracy protests.The law, which banned many forms of public gathering and criminalized many forms of protest and political dissidence in the city, has bolstered police power and presences in regards to political events. Before the pandemic, thousands of Hong Kongers would gather in a yearly vigil at Victoria Park to light candles and sing songs to honor those who were killed in the massacre. This year, the Hong Kong Police closed down the park, placing barricades around the football fields and increasing police presence to guard and prevent any gathering. Two days before the anniversary, the June 4th Museum, which had opened earlier in the week, closed down after it was placed under investigation over the validity of its licenses to conduct a public exhibition. On the morning of the anniversary, police arrested Chow Hang-tung, the Vice-Chair of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, alleging that she had used social media to organize a public event banned by the police. The park stood empty, but that didn’t stop several organizing efforts from activists, community leaders, and government officials to find other ways for people to commemorate the event. In Causeway Bay and Mong Kok, several people came together in spontaneous gatherings, lighting candles or flashing the lights on their phones despite heavy police presence. Police said they had arrested at least six people gathered near the park and in other places. In other locations, people gathered in churches, where religious leaders held services in remembrance of the events. In Taiwan, leaders called for China to “return power to the people.” Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen stated, “I believe all Taiwanese people who are proud of freedom and democracy will never forget this day in history and will hold tighter to our convictions.” However, Taiwan was unable to host any vigils or gatherings this year, as the island is facing a spike in coronavirus cases. To acknowledge the anniversary of this historical event is crucial, as the expression of conflicting political voices in China is as precarious as ever before. Commemorating the 4th is an act of defiance in face of a government actively trying to stamp out any memory of what occurred, an ongoing feat of resistance in a time where people are still being silenced. We must remember the Tiananmen Square Massacre because it was not a crackdown, or incident, or counter-revolutionary riot. It was a massacre. Remembering the event not only pays tribute to those who were killed – it garners much needed recognition and support for those who can not speak up themselves, while carrying on the spirit of freedom and democracy of the 1989 protestors. - Current Events Editorial Staff Cover photo: https://time.com/5601995/tianenmen-square-china-legacy/