SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
civil disobedience
Civil Discourse in a Time of Genocide
If there is to be a peaceful transition to a more just and equal world, it will not come through a polite exchange of views between the powerful and powerless.
Jan 01, 2025
Civil discourse is preferable to the alternatives of coerced silence and violence. Coerced silence means that one side has exercised power to end conversation—to say, in effect, there is no point in further discussion; be quiet and accept that our desires will prevail. Violence means that reason has failed and we are reduced to the condition of resolving disputes by means of fang and claw, rock and club, bullet and bomb.
Despite the dismal historical record of our species, as a professor I have held out hope that humans are capable of doing better. Ordinarily this would imply support for any effort, in universities or elsewhere, to promote civil discourse. But the efforts we see now—the selling of civil discourse as the solution to problems of polarization and rancor on our campuses and in society more generally—are a problem, because their main effect is to block change.
In recent years we’ve seen a proliferation of university-based programs ostensibly intended to promote civil discourse. There is the Civil Discourse Project at Duke; the Dialogue Project at Dartmouth; the Dialogues Initiative at Georgetown; the Civil Discourse Lab at Vanderbilt; ePluribus at Stanford; the Project on Civic Dialogue at American University; and School of Civic Life and Leadership at UNC-Chapel Hill. This is to name but a few.
If there is to be a peaceful transition to a more just and equal world, it will not come through a polite exchange of views between the powerful and powerless.
The claim most often made to justify these programs is that students today don’t know how to carry on mutually respectful dialogue or debate, and thus end up yelling at each other or, worse, yelling at administrators and members of university governing boards. An adjacent claim is that faculty—usually meaning leftist or liberal professors—have failed to impart these skills. And so it has been necessary, the argument goes, to create new programs and curricula devoted to teaching the arts of listening and of rationally exchanging views, especially about emotionally fraught topics.
Advocates of these programs have pointed to the campus anti-genocide protests last spring as evidence that special tutelage in civil discourse is needed now more than ever. The problem with those protests, civil discoursers allege, is that they were sometimes loud, got in the way of people moving about campus, made Zionist supporters of Israel feel unsafe, and were thus by definition uncivil. If students had only mastered the skills of polite civic engagement, no disruptions would have occurred, fewer feathers would have been ruffled, and more views would have been productively shared.
These appeals to make dialogue civil again are seductive. Of course we should strive to listen to each other carefully and speak to each other calmly and rationally. Of course we should try to hone our abilities to do these things, because these abilities in turn enable us to find the common good, identify what is just and unjust, and pursue change peacefully. Of course higher education should nurture these abilities. And yet, in the context of entrenched inequality, calls for civil discourse—and the university programs that sacralize it—are often conservative ploys to impede the pursuit of justice.
This is evident if we consider who is in a position to demand civility of whom, and who has the power to define what is civil. Historically, it has been those in power who demand civility from those who seek redress of grievances. “Speak politely, in soothing tones,” the subtext goes, “or we won’t listen to you at all.” The further message is that an inability to remain calm when trying to be heard, when trying to end an abusive state of affairs, will be taken as a sign of the irrationality of the demand. Today, we would call this gaslighting.
In the case of Israel’s assault on Palestinians, the call for civil discourse is cynical and galling, as if mere misunderstanding is what’s wrong.
Consider, for example, a request made by student protesters to discuss a university’s complicity in genocide. This would seem like an eminently civil first step. What is uncivil is the refusal on the part of administrators and governing bodies to engage in good-faith discussion of such matters. Which is exactly what we saw in last spring’s protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza. Protesters’ requests for dialogue were typically ignored, leading to escalation: louder voices, encampments, rallies, unauthorized postering, spray painting, etc. Administrators defined these actions as disruptive, calling in police to make arrests. That isn’t civility; it’s a reassertion of domination.
But what we are supposed to believe now, according to those who celebrate civil discourse, is that anti-genocide protesters—those who sought dialogue and a peaceful path to change—are at fault and in need of remedial instruction. Administrators who violently quash the expressive activity of protesters are lauded as voices of reason. Protesters who raise their voices in an attempt to be heard are dismissed as troublemakers undeserving of an audience. This smear tactic works because of differences in power between the groups confronting each other—ordinary people of conscience on one side, agents of the U.S. imperialist state on the other.
Another problem with most current calls for civil discourse is that the goal of discerning the truth is shunted aside. Instead, the goals are said to be a sharing of views, an exchange of stories, a chance to see things from the perspective of the other. Discourse itself, it seems, is sometimes the only goal. All this might be fine if the issues at hand concerned aesthetic judgments or quirks of personal experience. But what if we need to determine and agree upon the facts of the matter in a case of genocide? For this, sharing views is not enough.
I suspect that it is well understood, if seldom admitted by advocates of civil discourse, that sharing stories and views is not enough—that is, not enough to alter the behavior of political elites, the capitalist class, or the U.S. government. A feckless expenditure of energy is perhaps the real goal of the tactic: transform protest into well-contained talk so that business as usual can go on, leaving nothing changed at a larger level. Vent among yourselves if you like, share your views, but don’t get disruptive, or else the velvet gloves will come off.
In the case of Israel’s assault on Palestinians, the call for civil discourse is cynical and galling, as if mere misunderstanding is what’s wrong. Do the many anti-Zionist Jews who belong to Jewish Voice for Peace, If Not Now, and B’Tselem not understand the Zionist view? By now, does any adult who has read the news in the past year not understand the Zionist narrative about Israel? It offends reason to claim that the problems of land dispossession, apartheid, daily humiliation, and genocide will be solved by politely sharing views in university seminar rooms. These problems can be solved only by changing the behavior of the U.S. government and the behavior of the Israeli state in Palestine.
Vent among yourselves if you like, share your views, but don’t get disruptive, or else the velvet gloves will come off.
What’s required—what Frederick Douglass reminded us is always required when confronting power—are demands that will inevitably be defined as uncivil. That’s why protest movements tend to escalate from petitions to marches, from marches to boycotts, and from boycotts to strikes and other forms of civil disobedience. Only when the costs of carrying on business as usual become greater than the costs of making concessions will concessions be made. In the face of vast inequality, that’s how change occurs. Only among equals who cannot coerce each other is civil discourse alone likely to be enough.
None of this is to say that civil discourse is not to be strived for. I still hold out hope that we can do better than beat each over the head as we try to end oppressive social arrangements—in Palestine, in the U.S., and around the planet. But the reality is that those who benefit from inequality will not be rationally argued into relinquishing power and privilege. History leads us to expect no such thing. In the world today, the powerful will first respond rhetorically—calling insistent demands for change uncivil; demanding in turn endless debate about complexities and nuances and impossibilities—as a prelude to responding violently.
If there is to be a peaceful transition to a more just and equal world, it will not come through a polite exchange of views between the powerful and powerless. Nor will it come from sharing views in forums of the powerless, unless those forums are also aimed at discerning the truth, making plans for change, and putting those plans into action. Our best hope then is for collective action that disrupts the status quo not by violently confronting the powerful, but by withholding co-operation until the once powerful are left with no one to wield their guns, drop their bombs, or tell their lies. That is the kind of civility worth fighting for.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Madness of Luigi Mangione
A calculated and brutal murder of health insurance executive Brian Thompson has ripped open the skin enclosing a vast repository of popular rage.
Dec 12, 2024
Before hanging on December, 2, 1859, John Brown slipped a note to a jailer:
“I, John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty, land: will never be purged away; but with Blood. I had as I now think: vainly flattered myself that without verry much bloodshed; it might be done."
Many abolitionists had painfully reached the same conclusion – the institution of slavery had become too entrenched, powerful and emboldened to be disassembled by means of rational discourse, or moral appeal.
Slavery is not, in the literal sense, the issue today, but the decidedly inevitable manner in which present day events drag the suffering masses hopelessly along, evokes a parallel set of themes to those that confronted John Brown 165 years ago. At what point do crimes of wealth, power and profit, committed by the rulers of society at the expense of those who have no means of defense, reach a moral tipping point? When does the polite habit of acquiescence reach a place and time where a significant portion of the public accepts that the usual means of redress via debate and politics no longer offers relief from intolerable suffering? This question had a simple, unquestionable answer for John Brown.
Violence may be everywhere in the US - school shootings, random gun violence, chemical toxins, proxy wars, domestic abuse, suicides, drug overdoses and, pointedly, an epic and endless body count from systemic medical neglect - but we have not seen a single recent act of violence purposefully launched against the corporate powers that assault vulnerable people, until last week. Slavery and the genocidal obliteration of the indigenous population may be America's "original sins," but now we have an environmental catastrophe synchronized with growing levels of poverty and a US military budget that sucks up every spare dime of tax payer cash. Are we really on the cusp of Armageddon, and, if so, when does violent resistance become morally justifiable?
Mangione escaped on an electric bicycle, but the act appears to have peeled back the repressed veneer of passivity and resignation that characterize the mindset of America, and revealed a shocking substrate of U.S. collective distress.
Violent acts carried out on behalf of systematically brutalized victims have been so vanishingly rare in U.S. history, that John Brown's unsuccessful raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859 may well be the only such peacetime event that has ever had lasting impact on our national fate.
We know, of course, that Brown's attempt to arm slaves, and use captured weapons from the attacked federal armory at Harper's Ferry (as a means to spark a widespread insurrection against the economic institute of slavery) had been destined to fail. In the end, Brown and his men were quickly defeated and captured. Brown sustained serious wounds from a sabre and two of his three sons were killed in the fighting against soldiers led by Robert E. Lee. Frederick Douglas refused Brown's invitation to join the insurrection - Douglas deemed the plan to be suicidal. The Harper's Ferry raid was put down in days with 16 deaths—10 were members of Brown's group. The "raid" took place in October of 1859, Brown's trial unfolded in November, and he was hanged before a large assortment of soldiers and onlookers on December, 2, 1859. Nonetheless, Browns unsuccessful raid had attached itself to the gears and pulleys of history—slavery was done for.
I am, like most observers, struggling to find historical context for the absolutely remarkable events in the past few days in which a heretofore anonymous young man, Luigi Mangione, assassinated UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson on a New York City street. Mangione escaped on an electric bicycle, but the act appears to have peeled back the repressed veneer of passivity and resignation that characterize the mindset of America, and revealed a shocking substrate of U.S. collective distress.
Jokes, snark, celebration and the almost instant lauding of the assassin have reverberated across social media. For a nation so morally confused, lost and numbed that the public willfully handed a mandate to the mediocre, bumbling fascist, Donald Trump, a mere month ago, it appears almost surrealistic to contemplate both the quantity and the quality of resentment that smolders beneath our seeming national mood of defeat. The referendum on violence as a viable form of redress has been - as it was immediately following the events of Harper's Ferry 165 years ago - proven to be unresolved and ongoing.
Unlike John Brown, who had been a major public figure - a celebrity and vibrant voice on the issue of slavery long before his capture at Harper's Ferry - Mangione emerged out of nowhere to (perhaps inadvertently) represent millions of dispossessed, voiceless individuals. While the act of assassinating a major perpetrator in the bloodbath of the US predatory health insurance industry seemed, in retrospect, likely to open up societal rifts, few could have predicted how pitched and strident the public outcry would be.
Songs lauding Mangione's assassination of Thompson have gone viral on the internet. "Free Luigi," has become a meme. T-shirts with the slogan "Deny, Defend, Depose"—written on the bullet casings from Mangione's fatal shots—have been printed on t-shirts that sell for $25 on many sites. Other shirts have Luigi Mangione written in script across a picture of the video game character, Luigi, holding a gun. Another shirt portrays a child holding a machine gun with the slogan, "Universal Healthcare, Let's Give It A Shot". It is indeed ironic that Mangione’s anti-corporate deed should inspire so much entrepreneurial zeal.
One of the verses of a Jonathan Mann song posted on YouTube begins with the following verse:
You can draw a straight line
As straight as they come
From the misery of millions
To Brian Thompson
Under his leadership Profits rose
And all that it cost was a million gravestones
Some have labeled Mangione a folk hero, but if John Brown's legacy proves at all prophetic, pundits, politicians and anonymous keyboard warriors will battle to shape Luigi Mangione into a collection of caricatured interpretations.
Charles J.G. Griffin, offers this from a 2009 paper entitled, 'John Brown's "Madness"':
"But on one point, at least, a great many of Brown’s contemporaries were agreed: Brown himself was almost certainly “mad.” In pulpits, public meetings, and a significant number of the nation’s 4,000 newspapers, North and South, Brown was routinely judged to be “deluded,” “fanatical,” “maniacal,” or “crazed.”........Some pointed to heredity or personal tragedy as the source of Brown’s derangement, dismissing Harper’s Ferry as a frightening but isolated incident. Others saw Brown as a man driven to insanity by the words or deeds of others, arguing that the raid was representative of the increasingly chaotic and irrational state of the Union itself. And still others believed that Brown’s mania was divinely inspired, his raid a providential intervention into the nation’s affairs."
It would seem, from two of the most famous depictions of John Brown - by Frederick Douglas and by Henry David Thoreau - that those who lauded Brown regarded him as quite sane. Thoreau, in his "A Plea for John Brown," written shortly before Brown's trial said this:
"Many, no doubt, are well disposed, but sluggish by constitution and by habit, and they cannot conceive of a man who is actuated by higher motives than they are. Accordingly they pronounce this man insane, for they know that they could never act as he does, as long as they are themselves."
It should be noted that Thoreau's admiration for Brown was unequivocal. Unlike the pundits of today, who feel absolutely mandated to offer a condemnation of violence as a sort of rhetorical tic, Thoreau, well known as a seminal figure in the evolution of non-violent resistance, never tempers his admiration for Brown with doubts about the captured hero's chosen methods.
Frederick Douglass, speaking at the graduation ceremony at Storer College 21 years after John Brown's execution had this to say:
"The crown of martyrdom is high, far beyond the reach of ordinary mortals, . . . Cold, calculating and unspiritual as most of us are, we are not wholly insensible to real greatness; and when we are brought in contact with a man of commanding mold, towering high and alone above the millions, free from all conventional fetters, true to his own moral convictions, a “law unto himself,” ready to suffer misconstruction, ignoring torture and death for what he believes to be right, we are compelled to do him homage."
Douglass, like Thoreau, observed that ordinary human beings must contemplate heroes from behind a veil of their own limitations.
But what about Luigi Mangione? Should we be universally obligated to first offer a reflexive disavowal of violence before we even begin to unpack his significance? We are just beginning to learn a little bit about Mangione - that he comes from a privileged background, that he has a masters in engineering from an Ivy League school. We also have reason to believe that he is unusually thoughtful and cautious for a man who took the mortal risk that not one in 330 million US residents had taken. In his review of Theodore (The Unabomber) Kaczynski's manifesto he wrote:
"Fossil fuel companies actively suppress anything that stands in their way and within a generation or two, it will begin costing human lives by greater and greater magnitudes until the earth is just a flaming ball orbiting third from the sun. Peaceful protest is outright ignored, economic protest isn't possible in the current system, so how long until we recognize that violence against those who lead us to such destruction is justified as self defense."
While partial approval of the unabomber's societal formulations may not be a good look from a public relations standpoint, Mangione's assessment of the current human predicament rather follows the standard model proposed by any number of responsible climate scientists—the only difference is the proposal that violence may be the only intervention to stymy the fossil fuel extinction juggernaut.
Where do we set the moral threshold of violence?
I had suggested, as a thought experiment—before Mangione's capture—that we view the assassination of Brian Thompson as having a parallel to the 1942 killing of Nazi monster Reinhard Heydrich. Few of us would feel comfortable condemning Czech assassin, Jan Kubis, for hurling a fatal grenade at Heydrich's Mercedes in the May, 27, 1942 assault that took out the architect of Nazi genocide. Political violence summons violent retribution that ordinary people like myself have no willingness to risk. In Kubis' case, he met his last moments face to face with 800 machinegun wielding SS troops. Mangione is certain to spend the rest of his gifted life behind bars if he is not killed in custody.
Is it okay to kill Heydrich, but not Thompson? Where do we set the moral threshold of violence?
The quest has already begun to reduce Mangione to a generic lunatic. Cable news is awash with public psychiatrists eager to pronounce him with a neat mental health diagnosis. As such, the past effort to "insane wash" John Brown is being brought out of historical mothballs. The editors of Counterpunch have just published Mangione's alleged "manifesto," and I am struck by the measured, rational, modest tone of this single paragraph:
“To the Feds, I’ll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn’t working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”
In preparation for this piece I read the section in Martin Luther King's autobiography discussing the dialogue between MLK and Malcolm X—a rhetorical confrontation ironically cut short by the assassination of both men. I learned that MLK was not entirely comfortable with merely a "moral" argument on behalf of non-violence - he also felt compelled to make a practical point - that the Black community lacked the force of numbers and preparedness to challenge the militarized state.
As a lifelong believer in nonviolent civil disobedience, I am not comfortable at all advocating for political violence, but, like Thoreau, I feel that I have no right to condemn those like John Brown or Luigi Mangione who invest their entire being toward the goal of liberation. Objectively, I wonder if nonviolence and violence are opposites or, rather, shades of one another, complementary tactics working in tandem. When MLK was murdered, people rioted for almost two weeks and 43 people died.
It is likely true that a vibrant population might manifest its determination with both acts of civil disobedience and violence. The more fearful and repressive a society becomes, the smaller the window for civil disobedience. I suggest that political writers, rather than condemning violence as a glabella reflex, ought to be analyzing the viability of peaceful protest. Luigi Mangione tells us that peaceful protest has no effect on corporate malice.
It is too early to know how significant a historical figure Luigi Mangione will ultimately become. The American news cycle can obliterate almost any event in short order. It seems, at this point in time, that Mangione has ripped open the skin enclosing a vast repository of popular rage. One hopes that his violent act summons the force of sustained civil disobedience - general strikes, public protests, non-payment of taxes and a willingness to bring the corporate machinery of death to a grinding halt. The fact that people can suddenly imagine such improbable things is, in and of itself, astonishing. Two weeks ago we were effectively dead.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Says Pakistan Must 'Immediately Rescind' Shoot-on-Sight Order Against Protesters
Jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan commended "the Pakistani nation and PTI's political workers, who are fighting for their rights by participating in this peaceful protest."
Nov 26, 2024
Amnesty International on Tuesday joined people around the world in pressuring the Pakistani government to revoke the "shoot-on-site" orders given to troops responding to tens of thousands of protesters in Islamabad who are demanding the release of jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
Khan has been behind bars for over a year due to various charges that he and his allies argue are politically motivated. So far, at least six people, including four paramilitary soldiers, have been killed and dozens more injured as supporters of the 72-year-old and his political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), led by his wife Bushra Bibi, have converged on the country's capital in recent days.
In addition to Khan's release, the protesters "seek the resignation of the current government over what they call
rigged general elections this year," Reutersreported Tuesday. "Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's government has given no indication yet of bending to the demands. Authorities have used shipping containers to block major roads and streets in Islamabad, with police and paramilitary patrolling in riot gear."
NDTVexplained that "when the Pakistan Army stepped in, it issued 'shoot-at-sight' orders under Section 245—which is a clause meant for the armed forces 'to defend Pakistan against external aggression or threat of war.' The clause also gives the army an open hand as it nullifies any judicial intervention or future proceedings."
"Any use of force must be lawful and no more than is necessary and proportionate and the authorities must take all necessary measures to prevent arbitrary deprivation of life."
Responding to the developments on Tuesday, Amnesty's South Asia office said that "the government must fully protect and ensure the rights of protesters and immediately rescind the 'shoot-on-sight' orders that provide undue and excessive powers to the military... The authorities must exercise maximum restraint, aiming to prevent and de-escalate violence and to avoid the use of force. Any use of force must be lawful and no more than is necessary and proportionate and the authorities must take all necessary measures to prevent arbitrary deprivation of life, including by ensuring that law enforcement actions are adequately planned to minimize the risk to life."
"There must also be effective accountability for any unlawful use of force," Amnesty continued. "The severe restrictions on assembly, movement, and mobile and internet services as well as arbitrary detentions of thousands of protesters across Pakistan, particularly in Islamabad, are a grave violation of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, movement, and expression. As protesters enter the capital, law enforcement officials have used unlawful and excessive force including tear gas, live ammunition, and rubber bullets against PTI protesters."
"Even if protests become nonpeaceful, the authorities must respect and ensure the protesters' rights to life and freedom from torture and other ill-treatment," the group added. "The Pakistani authorities have obligations under international human rights law to provide an enabling environment for the protesters. Amnesty International urges the government to ensure that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is respected and protected. Those detained solely for exercising their right to peaceful assembly must be released immediately."
Pakistani poet and journalist Ahmed Farhad has used social media to share protest updates in Urdu, but also posted a message in English on Tuesday: "I don't know if I'll be alive or free to report further. I've been riding on bike for several kilometers to share these updates. I request international and national media to show the situation at D-Chowk. People are being shot at with heartless brutality. I don't know how many more people have been injured or killed by the time this post reaches you."
D-Chowk, a popular square in the capital near multiple government buildings, was "the final destination of PTI's main convoy," according toDawn. As midnight neared in Pakistan Tuesday night, the newspaper reported that "rangers have regained control of Islamabad's D-Chowk after beginning arrests and pushing back PTI protesters from the venue of the party's much-touted power show."
Meanwhile, Khan on Tuesday
issued a new statement from Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi, commending "the Pakistani nation and PTI's political workers, who are fighting for their rights by participating in this peaceful protest, and resolutely standing before the mafia that has imposed itself upon our country, to demand their rights and genuine freedom."
"My message for my team is to fight until the last ball is bowled. We will not back down until our demands are met!" he continued, taking aim at the Pakistan's interior minister. "On Mohsin Naqvi's instructions, paramilitary rangers and police relentlessly fired tear gas shells and even shot at our political workers, resulting in the martyrdom of and injuries to peaceful, unarmed citizens. Let me tell you, they will have to answer for this! The protesters were not only peaceful, but they even assisted the very police officers and rangers who were shooting and firing teargas shells at them (when they were in need of help)."
"My thanks go to overseas Pakistanis around the globe, who are not only mobilizing Pakistanis and contributing funds, but also holding historic protests in their respective countries," he said. "Social media warriors around the globe should continue to vigorously reiterate our demands and show the world the ongoing oppression in Pakistan! To those threatening to try me in military court: Do what you must; I will not back down from my stance. Those who haven't yet joined the protest must also head to D-Chowk. All Pakistanis participating in the protest must remain peaceful, stay united, and stand firm until our demands are met. Remember, this is a struggle for Pakistan's survival and true freedom!"
Several solidarity protests were held around the world on Sunday and multiple U.S. political leaders weighed in the past few days.
"The brutal repression of protesters in Pakistan and growing political violence is an attempt to suppress democracy and human rights," U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said Tuesday. "I stand with the brave Pakistanis who are rising up and protesting for change."
Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) declared Monday that "freedom of speech and the freedom to peacefully protest are essential to democracy—that holds true in the United States, in Pakistan, and around the globe. I stand with pro-democracy advocates in Pakistan as they fight for justice and human rights."
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) said Monday that "I am moved by the bravery demonstrated by the Pakistani people as they protest for electoral integrity, and judicial fairness—and I condemn any violent suppression of them exercising their fundamental rights. Everyone deserves to speak out and demand democracy."
In a pair of social media posts on Sunday, Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)
noted his support for recent letters led by Reps. Greg Casar (D-Texas), Susan Wild (D-Pa.), and John James (R-Mich.) "urging for the release of all political prisoners in Pakistan and for the U.S. to stand up for human rights," and specifically sounded the alarm about communications blackouts.
"Deeply concerned by reports that Asim Munir's regime in Pakistan is cutting internet, blocking roads, and abducting activists this weekend," he
said. "As the congressman for Silicon Valley, I am committed to standing up for freedom of speech including a free internet."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular