BBC:

Some demonstrators tied themselves to the White House fence, risking arrest

An estimated 10,000 people gathered from across the US, organisers said.

Lauren Pierce, 33, an attorney from Dallas, was among them, travelling some 1,300 miles (2,100km) to attend the demonstration.

„There’s nothing, to me, more worth fighting for than this cause – our fundamental right to have bodily autonomy,“ she said. „If that means taking up space and getting arrested then I think it’s worth it.“

These women and men are unafraid, and they are ungovernable. You might think they are governable, but if you think that, you’re wrong. They are ungovernable. They are so ungovernable, in fact, that they have gone to the White House, residence of the head of the executive branch of government to loudly shout that they don’t care about the government they’ve gone to the center of to declare their lack of interest. Some of these people are so ungovernable that they have taken the radical step of tying themselves to the White House fence, impeding access to that fence for anyone who might want to climb over at that point. They might face arrest, fines, possibly even a few days in jail, but these possible penalties are worth the powerful statement made by loudly tying oneself to a fence. These are some pissed people. They will take up space. The powers that be may not want that space taken up, but these are ungovernable people. They will take up space. They will take up space, they will wear green, and they will be ungovernable.

Francesca Newton, Tribune:

Johnson is currently expecting to head out of Number 10 in the autumn. As that autumn turns to winter, millions of people will be facing another £800 hike on their energy bills. Food banks are at capacity. Children across the country are going hungry. There is only really one thing to say about a media and political class that has spent years conspiring to bring us to this point, and would do so again in a second: don’t let them get away with it.

„Them“ is here referring to the political actors who control wealth, power, and so the media in the UK. The paragraph above closes an article detailing how the UK’s wealthy classes are able to rehabilitate the reputations of members of the ruling party while fending off any threat to existing power structures. Newton draws a contrast between the UK’s state and that of „a functional political culture“: the UK is dysfunctional, and no prospective challenge is on the horizon.

I don’t disagree with her assessment of the UK’s situation, however that makes her closing sentence quite a non sequitur. Given a Labour which threw over Corbyn for Starmer these millions of people facing another £800 hike on their energy bills are not in a position to prevent „them“ from getting away with anything.

Tribune:

The successors to Boris Johnson are already lining up – but none of the ghouls who might follow him will tackle the cost of living crisis that is tearing the country apart.

…

Amazingly, Jeremy Corbyn remains the spectre at the establishment’s feast, more than two years after his tenure as Labour leader ended. Hence Nadhim Zahawi—Chancellor for all of forty-eight hours this week—smeared Corbyn as a ‘dangerous antisemite’ in his resignation statement, though without mentioning his name. Outgoing health secretary Sajid Javid, meanwhile, thanked Johnson for ‘seeing off the threat of Corbynism’; certainly, the ‘threat’ of a functioning welfare state, publicly-owned utilities, and trade union rights has been seen off, at least for now.

…

It was left to Jeremy Corbyn, inevitably, to make the obvious point that the reason the Tories have gone through so many leaders in recent years is that none of them have any substantial answers to the major crises facing the country, economic and environmental. Instead, they continually rebrand themselves to hoodwink the electorate, each time giving the impression of a fundamental shift in direction every time they choose a new leader.

Mohamed Elmaazi, Consortium News:

The British Parliament is debating a national security bill which could undermine the basis of national security reporting and ultimately throw journalists in jail for life.

A person convicted under the new offense of “obtaining or disclosing protected information,” defined in Section 1 of National Security Bill 2022, faces a fine, life imprisonment, or both, if convicted following a jury trial.

A review of the parliamentary debate on the bill makes clear that work by press outlets such as WikiLeaks is at the heart of Tory and Labour MPs’ thinking as they push to make the bill law.

As currently written, direct-action protests, such as those conducted by Palestine Action against U.K.-based Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems Ltd, could also be captured under the offences of “sabotage” and entering “prohibited places” sections of the bill.

Whistleblowers, journalists and publishers focusing on national security related matters may be most at risk of being prosecuted, though any person who “copies,” “retains,” “discloses,” “distributes” or “provides access to” so called protected information could be prosecuted.

“Protected information” is defined as any “restricted material” and it need not even be classified.

Under this bill, leakers, whistleblowers, journalists or everyday members of the public, face a potential life sentence if they receive or share “protected information” which is widely defined.

That does not mean imprisonment from one day “up to” a life sentence. If a judge determines a fine isn’t suitable enough punishment the only alternative is life in prison. Following a conviction, a judge would have no choice but to either issue a fine or hand down a life sentence, or both.

There is no public interest or journalistic defense in the bill, a fact noted by some of the parliamentarians during the debates.

Ω Ω Ω

The bill can be seen as part of a growing crackdown in both Britain and the United States against legitimate journalism that challenges establishment narratives.

In many respects, the proposed law, which applies to people both inside and outside the U.K., shares many elements with the draconian 1917 Espionage Act, which the U.S. government is using to prosecute WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

Ω Ω Ω

As is the case with the U.S.’ Espionage Act, no evidence of actual harm needs to be proven by prosecutors in order to secure a conviction under the National Security Bill.

There is a broad test of whether the defendant knows or “ought reasonably to know” that their conduct is “prejudicial to safety or interests of the U.K.”

What is, or is not, “prejudicial” to the “safety” or “interests” of the U.K. is also to be determined by the government of the day, according to long established case law from the U.K.’s highest court.

This could include anything from environmental, energy, climate and housing policy, to policing, foreign affairs or military policy.

Deutsche Welle:

Julian Assange: Bundestagsabgeordnete fordern Freilassung

Über 80 Abgeordnete des Deutschen Bundestages wenden sich in einem offenem Brief gegen die Auslieferung des Wikileaks-Gründers an die USA. Die Auslieferung wäre ein „fatales Signal für die Pressefreiheit“.

Wikipedia:

Frank Schwabe (* 12. November 1970 in Waltrop) ist ein deutscher Politiker der SPD und seit 2005 Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages.

After years of seeing Assange’s support team release statements from Bundestag Abgeordnete that were almost wholly Die Linke reps I am very glad to see an SPD spokesman given center stage.

Kamala Harris often seems to be working hard at remaining expressionless, perhaps pursing her lips to keep from laughing.

This November perhaps a massive Blue Wave will gush across the land. A tsunami of mighty woman power will envelop and overcome all recalcitrant Republican males who dare attempt to withstand the righteous Democratic wrath. It could happen.

BBC:

A law in the US state of Arizona will ban people from filming police officers at short distances, with possible fines or jail for those who don’t comply.

Critics call the law a threat to free speech and the right to a free press.

Police are often filmed by bystanders and footage has occasionally resulted in officer misconduct being exposed.

The law comes into effect on 24 September and will make it illegal to film police officers in the state within a distance of 8 feet (2.4m).

People who ignore a verbal warning and continue filming risk a misdemeanour charge and up to 30 days in jail.

The law, however, makes exceptions for people interacting with police, or in enclosed area on private property.

State representative John Kavanagh – who sponsored the bill – has argued it is necessary because „groups hostile to the police“ sometimes „get dangerously close to potentially violent encounters“.

Tribune:

Responsibility for Johnson’s ability to rise as far as he has lies not with some personal quality, but with a political class that allowed him to get away with it. The Conservative MPs that now denounce him—claiming their ‘honour’ demands they resign from his Cabinet—knew what he was like when they campaigned to make him Prime Minister. What has changed is that now he is a busted flush, an electoral liability for the Conservatives and a threat to their political careers.

…

Johnson’s premiership served a purpose for the political establishment, expressed clearly by Sajid Javid in his resignation letter, in which he wrote that Johnson ‘will forever be credited with seeing off the threat of Corbynism’.