Quantcast
Channel: VICE CA
Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live

Toronto Sisters Accused Of Sextorting A Nigerian Billionaire Reportedly Disappeared Before Their Court Date

0
0

The glamorous Toronto sisters accused of setting up a website to extort the wealthiest men in Nigeria were reportedly MIA for their court date this week.

Jyoti and Kiran Matharoo failed to show up to face their charges of extortion, cyber-bullying and blackmail, according to local news outlet Politics Nigeria. Fellow accused Babtunde Oyebode was in court, but said he had no idea where the Matharoo sisters were located.

The sisters set up the gossip site NaijaGistLive and are accused of using it to threaten to expose the affairs of wealthy men, including Femi Otedola, a businessman whose estimated net worth is $1.2 billion.

Politics Nigeria said the girls recorded "conversations and sex romps with their rich clients" and, after the fact, used a third party to approach them men "threatening them to pay thousands of dollars or risk the release of the recordings/pictures/videos online through their website."

The Matharoos, whose Instagram feeds are littered with photos of their luxury vacations—and butt shots, were originally sent to jail in December and then released on bail for $2,151.

At the time, Global Affairs Canada confirmed to CTV News that it was providing services to "Canadian citizens who have been detained in Lagos, Nigeria."

After they were charged, the duo issued a video apology in which they said, "Most stories (on the website) were sent by close friends or associates of people being written about. The intention was not to hurt anyone or be malicious; the intention was not to extort anyone."

But they are believed to still be in possession of compromising photos, Politics Nigeria reports.

On Wednesday, after their failure to appear, the judge issued a bench warrant for them and asked their sureties to show cause. He also requested the matter be transferred to high court in Lagos.

The case has been adjourned until March.

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.


What Will Happen to British Institutions When the Queen Dies?

0
0

(Top photo: UK Parliament, via)

The official line on the Queen dying is: don't mention the Queen dying. When I call up Buckingham Palace with routine questions about the procedures in place for when her royal highness pops her clogs, the press officer laughs down the line. "The Queen is expected to live for a long time yet," she says, before curtly informing me she has no information to offer about what will happen after that.

The Queen is 90 and has been in ill-health. She was recently seen at a church service at Sandringham after missing her Christmas engagements and staying out of the public eye for a month. For the hardest working monarch in British history, this is a pretty drastic absence. Even with all the top drawer medical expertise available, it's going to take some next level science to prevent the inevitable.

Anyway, we already know a plan exists. It even has a special codename. In 2004, Stuart Neil, a former Buckingham Palace secretary, had his car broken into at Heston Services on the M4 near Heathrow Airport. The thieves reportedly made off with a laptop and a briefcase containing plans for the Queen's funeral under the codename "Operation London Bridge". Neil, perhaps wanting to put the incident behind him, did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

The contents of that plan are classified, but we have a reasonable idea of what's likely to happen based on previous royal events and common sense.

IMMEDIATE IMPACT

Flowers laid after Princess Diana's death (Photo by Maxwell Hamilton, via)

The Queen remains incredibly popular. Ipsos Mori polls taken around the time of her 90th birthday in 2016 showed that more than three-quarters of the British public are in favour of the monarchy. Her death is likely to cause public trauma not just in this country but throughout the Commonwealth.

Diana's death prompted a period of national mourning on a scale never seen before. The flowers laid at the palace were five feet deep and composting on the bottom. In some ways, the death of the Queen, a nonagenarian who's spent 65 years on the throne, may come as less of an emotional shock. Nevertheless, many expect the country's period of mourning to outpace anything that has come before.

"The outpouring of grief will be much greater than when Diana died," says Charlie Proctor, editor-in-chief of Royal Central, a news site focused on the monarchy. "The Queen is not only the UK's head of state, she is also the Queen of 16 other nations. Hundreds of millions of people will mourn her loss and, when televised, the funeral will be the most watched programme in recent times."

The palace has reason to be nervous. Brexit jitters have sent the pound trading near lows not seen since the mid-80s, and every time Theresa May is scheduled to open her mouth about Article 50 the FTSE 100 takes a dive. Markets, to quote a cliche, hate uncertainty, and one thing that could add to the uncertainty gripping the country right now is the death of its longest serving monarch, the single constant public presence in most people's living memory.

KING CHARLES

The royals of yore were pretty well attuned to the fact that you should never leave a country without a ruler. So when a monarch dies, the next in line automatically ascends the throne immediately – hence the phrase, "The King is dead, long live the King." Some have speculated that Prince William, who is more popular with the public than his father, the Prince of Wales, could leapfrog the line of accession and take the crown. But experts on royal convention think this is highly unlikely. "All of the signs point to Charles taking up more of his mother's duties," Proctor says. "Recent examples include the Prince and Camilla attending the state opening of parliament and the Commonwealth heads of government meetings."

"I can say with 99.9 percent confidence that Prince William will not leapfrog his father," agrees Penny Junor, a royal biographer.

THE MEDIA

After the Palace has announced the news it will be reported immediately by the BBC and other news services. Presenters probably already have black ties on hand for such an event, following a row that broke out in 2002 when Peter Sissons wore a red tie to announce the Queen Mother's death.

The BBC, as the national broadcaster, is expected to switch to rolling coverage as soon as the announcement is made, but it's likely all the networks will follow suit. After King George VI died in February of 1952, the BBC stopped showing comedy shows and only resumed after the royal funeral had taken place. These days we can only dream of that kind of respite from Mrs Brown's Boys.

THE FUNERAL

Princess Diana's funeral (Photo by Paddy Briggs, via)

Experts say the royal funeral would take around 12 days to organise. The Queen gets a state funeral, an extremely rare honour only given to a dead monarch or when decreed by Parliament. The last non-royal to get a state funeral was Winston Churchill in 1965.

The cost of recent royal events, including Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding, have been borne by the royal family themselves. But the taxpayer pays for security to be provided for the royals, senior politicians and diplomats. It's estimated to cost more than £100 million annually, and it's likely the police and Ministry of Defence would be on high-alert for a state funeral.

An estimated 2.5 billion people watched Princess Diana's funeral. With modern technology, especially in the developing world, the number watching the Queen's funeral could be even higher.

HOLIDAYS

The day of the funeral will be deemed a day of mourning and a national holiday, meaning the stock market and banks will close. According to 2012 figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, each national holiday costs the UK economy £2.3 billion in lost productivity. I asked if they had any more up-to-date statistics but they told me they got such a bad rap for hating on bank holidays that they've never repeated the research.

It could take more than a year after the death of the Queen for Prince Charles's coronation because it's seen as bad taste to do it too quickly. In 1952, Prime Minister Winston Churchill decided to wait 16 months to throw the party for Queen Elizabeth. This time you can imagine Theresa May getting on with the coronation as quickly as is respectfully possible, to quell uncertainty at a time when we've already thrown out the rulebook on Europe. When the coronation comes around, we get another national holiday.

CASH, STAMPS AND SIGNS

via Collect GB stamps

In the meantime, a massive rebranding exercise must take place, with all banknotes and coins redesigned and switched, not just in the UK but in the other commonwealth countries that bear the monarch on their currency. New stamps will have to be issued featuring the bust of the new monarch. The national anthem will be immediately changed to "God Save the King". HM Revenue and Customs, Her Majesty's Prisons and other services bearing the name of the monarch would be swiftly changed to His Majesty.

The death of the Queen may expose the lack of enthusiasm for the Commonwealth, which the British government has recently accused of being poorly-managed and underperforming. Britain has threatened to pull funding unless there are major reforms, and other members may feel the Queen's death creates an opportunity to rethink their relationship with former colonial powers.

This, though, seems unlikely. Prince Charles might be less popular than his mother, but he still has a 60 percent approval rating with the public. Unless he really manages to balls something up, it's likely the royals will still be in business for some time to come.

@hazelsheffield

More on VICE:

How Would the UK Actually Scrap the Monarchy, and What Would Happen Next?

Brits Explain Why They're Obsessed with the Queen

Prince Philip Is Punk as Fuck

Sylvester Stallone’s Instagram Is the Only True Art Left in This Cold, Ugly World

0
0

There is an important montage in Rocky IV that tells you all you need to know about the Rocky movies, namely: they are not about boxing. I mean, yes: Rocky is a boxer and literally every Rocky film ends in a boxing match, which Rocky either wins ( II, III, IV) or valiantly just-barely loses ( I, Balboa), and he is then presented with a microphone, his face just a large pink piece of meat now, with red and Vaseline on it, and sweat all down him, and someone decides now is the best time to talk to him, and so he sort of gags something into the mic – "If I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!" or something like that, sounding a lot like you do after you've just thrown up at a party and you're desperately asking your mate to fetch you some water – and the crowd all cheer and his wife sniffs once and cries. This is every Rocky film. So you would be forgiven for thinking the Rocky films are about boxing. They're not.

So I could go on some sort of saccharine naval-gazing bit about how Rocky films are about heart, and family, and overcoming adversary, and that hard work can trump natural athleticism, and that getting punched really hard and repeatedly in the head is superbly heroic, or the importance of running up steps, but as the Rocky montage from Rocky IV tells you: no, the Rocky films are about one thing, and one thing only: being insane and strong in a field is a better training technique than actually working out in a gym, always.

Consider: Rocky I, he fought to a draw by punching meat in factories, being raced by children and chasing a chicken around a yard. Rocky II: okay, he worked out in a gym and he won. Discount that. Rocky III: Rocky got cocky, got beaten by a much younger and fiercer fighter, and to regain his old form had to go do homoerotic shuttle sprints on a beach with Apollo Creed and go swimming for a bit. Rocky IV: just fucking run through snow a lot. Balboa: be really old and strong in a dimly lit gym, extended saxophone solo soundtrack.

So the lesson to be learned from the Rocky films is this: not everything, on the surface, is exactly what it seems. Not everything is about what you think it is about. Sometimes you have to peel back a flap of skin to see the true, red, raw beating heart within: what's on the surface won't tell you everything you need to know about something. Let's take an example: you might think Sylvester Stallone's Instagram account is just an Instagram account. But you are wrong. It is actually art.


I think to truly appreciate Sylvester Stallone's Instagram account for what it is we have to consider it from the point of view of what it isn't. Namely: this is not an Instagram account in any sense of the word. Go look at your Instagram, now: a carefully curated colour palette of warm homeware shots, pictures of single cocktails you ordered at bars, a plate of brunch, a photo where you look cute. This is Instagram: a self-curated feed of what you eat, drink, look like and where you live. How many dogs you have met this week. A sign you saw, once, or some graffiti. Decent sunsets. That's it. There is that overriding idea – spawned from a Thought Catalog piece about two years ago, if we want to apportion blame – an idea that social media is "just the highlights reel", a focus on the good and a careful sidestepping of the bad, and no more is that so than on Instagram: we never cry on Instagram; we are rarely melancholy. We are never hungry and we have never eaten "just toast" for dinner. Our hair is always perfectly coiffed and never wet from the rain. Say you sit in a small pool of cum in the back of a taxi – and we've all done it! – that will not make it to Instagram. Instagram is about the light, not the shade. Is it the best of us all with no flaws.

So Sylvester Stallone's Instagram feed is not like that. Because Sylvester Stallone's Instagram feed, roughly:

— Short videos where Sylvester Stallone is harassing his brother, Frank (*1), who looks like what Elvis's inevitable endgame would have been had he lived long enough to get to that point. You Either Die as Elvis Or Live Long Enough to See Yourself Become Frank Stallone;

— Short videos where Sylvester Stallone tells impenetrable dad jokes to his model daughters, who are tired of this but trying not to show it;

— 30-year-old behind-the-scenes Rocky stills, because as discussed the Rocky films are the greatest &c. &c. &c.;

And I find this consistency soothing, like a pill. I feel this is important. So let's take a look through a few of Sylvester Stallone's greatest Instagram hits, and then all at the end agree that I am right and that this is the most perfect art currently available in the world, amen.

ART #1: 'SYLVESTER LOCKS THE DOOR'

So I mean at first you are watching this and thinking, 'This is not art. This is two ancient, strong, smooth-faced men quarrelling with half-banter like 12-year-olds. This is not art at all.' Wrong! Watch the video again, for it is a mess: Frank's talking over Sly; Sly's saying shit like, "Hey Frank, can you swim? Why–why don't you do a backflip, into that puddle?" Like, I mean, these jokes are awful, and also Frank is dressed like some insane dude they just pulled out of a jungle to tell him the Vietnam War ended 42 years ago and can you please stop fighting now. And then it comes to a close: perfect-focused rain drops on glass; Frank, gauzy in the background, immaculate golf swing; and then the words, "The Idiot". I'm pretty sure that's the end of every French arthouse film ever made.

ART #2: 'A PORTRAIT OF A MAN AT PEACE'

Think about Sylvester Stallone in the quiet moments of his life. Sylvester Stallone, old and strong and with a hairline like iron, just puttering about his palatial LA home. He eases onto a sofa and makes a creaking sound. He puts on a small pair of glasses to look at an iPad. Maybe Sylvester Stallone makes a pasta sauce, carefully chopping an onion with his gigantic hands. When do you think Sylvester Stallone last cried in the shower? I bet it's been decades. When do you think he last got mad about a parking fine? There's no need to. I like to think of him as a man of peace, as he is here: so calm he has forgotten a word, so zen he can zig-zag through traffic while simultaneously delivering an Instagram sizzler about Expendables 4. And this one's really fun because he has to do a whole move at the end to turn the recording bit off and looks for a second like a strong but ancient Honey Bun Baby:

So that's art.

ART #3: 'SYLVESTER STALLONE IS THE STRONGEST DAD IN THE WORLD'

When I was a kid, at primary school, we always used to settle fights like this: we would brag about how hard our dads were. You know how it goes: someone throws your cheese sandwich on the floor, or stomps on your Babybel, or calls you a poo-head or something, and you lock them square in the eyes and say: "My dad could beat your dad up." Or: "Oh yeah? Well my dad's harder than your dad." I mean, I never actually did this because, even at seven, I sort of suspected my dad was a pussy and would last a flimsy four to seven seconds in any sort of violent situation with anyone else's dad. "Car Park Pagga Called Off," the headlines would say, "After Joel's Dad Got So Scared He Pissed His Jeans." Or: "Tony Golby's Thick Nerd Glasses Split Perfectly in Two By Single Dad-Punch, Also He Is Still Unconscious Somehow." That sort of thing.

The hardest dad in the world, though – the dad who could beat all other dads – is Sylvester Stallone. But it is important that you know he is still a dad. This is why he reminds us by filming these videos with his gazelle-like daughters. I don't know how many daughters he has, because they are all identical, but I think it's somewhere between three and 40, and they all get a sort of fleeting look of panic in their eyes when he turns the front-facing camera around on them – the subtext, I think, of Sylvester Stallone's Instagram, is that he videos a good eight, ten hours of his day, but the ones we see are just the ones he deigns to put online – an "Ah, no, not this shit again" eye-roll. And this is a perfect example of that: a simple, pure, family moment (daughter dancing foolishly) hijacked by 20 consistent seconds of daddery ("No, come on… you're going to pull something") for absolutely no reason at all, then topped with the cherry of a joke that makes absolutely no sense at all and isn't by any traditional metrics a joke, but is delivered like a joke so I guess it is a joke?, and that joke is: "Yeah. DANCING WITH THE BARS."

Sometimes art doesn't have to make sense.

ART #4: STRENGTH

At one point you just get so strong you can only do this pose in photos, as per the written rules of the law, and just look how flawless this is. Look. It's like Sylvester Stallone is so strong his own spine is struggling to contain the strength of him. How many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of photos are there of Sylvester Stallone doing a single fist to the camera? Scientists cannot calculate that number. Art.

ART #5: 'THIS IS HOW YOU KILL FRANK STALLONE'

Have you ever thought what it might be like to murder Frank Stallone? No, me… me neither. What about murdering Frank Stallone while uttering a semi-weak Elton John joke, sort of like in 80s cop-buddy movies where you have to say something smart after you shoot or arrest someone? No, I–… I have never done that, either. But if you ever wanted to envision what that would be like, then it would be like this. This is what strangling Frank Stallone looks like. It would be art.


I just like it, you know? Every celebrity – and, indeed, every person alive; you don't necessarily need to be famous to only post the good selfies on Instagram – curates, retouches, polishes their online presence, runs it through a team, tweets their initials on the rare times they actually say what's been attributed to them, lives a distant life, far removed from the rest of us. But not Sylvester Stallone. Sylvester Stallone is really fucking about on Instagram. He basically just spends his time mildly irritating the people closest to him and then does a big fist about it at the camera.

We all need a bit of an escape, sometimes, don't we, in this cold, cold world, and that's where art comes in. Art can be expensive and it can be challenging; it can be obtuse and it can be provocative. It can be difficult to decipher. But it could just be Sylvester Stallone looking sad about Drake in the back of a taxi. Hard to know.

@joelgolby

More on VICE:

Sylvester Stallone's £500 Sheffield 'Meet and Greet' Was Completely Fucking Weird

I Met Vinny Paz, the Boxing World Champion Who Broke His Neck but Kept on Fighting

Meet the Black Widow, the UK's Queen of Amateur Boxing


1* Frank Stallone, side-note, is a keen collector of Trump merchandise so niche I can't even believe it exists. Does he own a red MAGA cap? He does not. He owns a camo-print MAGA hat, because that is more American. On the day of the election, Frank Stallone donned an eerie rubber full-head Trump mask (a thing?) then made a video of himself, as Trump, thanking himself, Frank Stallone, for his vote. He put a tiny cardboard MAGA hat decorative on his Christmas tree. He owns a boxed vinyl toy of Hillary Clinton in prison, which… I mean, I don't even know where you would even go about buying that thing. Anyway, yes: my 9,000-word article, "A Deep Dive Into Frank Stallone's Trump Merch Collection, and the Lessons We Can Learn Within" is due to come out next week.

Mary Tyler Moore Was a Progressive Hero

0
0

It began with a scandalous pair of Capri pants.

The 1960s casual-clothing staple was too much for American TV audiences to handle, at least when placed on actress Mary Tyler Moore, who was playing housewife Laura Petrie on The Dick Van Dyke Show. Not only were there the bare calves to contend with, there was also a phenomenon actually discussed by the show's shocked advertisers as "cupping under"—the pants' ability to fit closely to Moore's backside. To please the advertising execs, the show agreed to limit Moore's pants-wearing to one scene per episode.

The pants had been Moore's idea. A relative unknown when cast as Van Dyke's TV wife in 1961, Moore brought her own ideas to the role. Her obvious comedic talent inspired creator Carl Reiner to expand her presence on-screen to almost equal her TV husband, and her chemistry with Van Dyke made them one of the first TV couples that simmered with sexual energy. They were still forced to sleep in separate beds by network censors, but Moore suggested another way to make her character more realistic: She should, she insisted, wear pants. "I said I've seen all the other actresses, and they're always running the vacuum in these little flowered frocks with high heels on, and I don't do that," she told NPR in an interview. "And I don't know any of my friends who do that. So why don't we try to make this real?"

This commitment to reality in her roles would make Moore, who died this week at the age of 80, into a pioneer of progressive television. Her best-known character, The Mary Tyler Moore Show's Mary Richards, is perhaps TV's greatest feminist icon—she of the signature beret toss at the end of her message-heavy theme song: "You're gonna make it after all!" But her legacy extends to other progressive issues as well. Her passion for realistic, challenging programming helped her and then husband Grant Tinker, who ran the production company bearing her name, to expand how TV portrayed not only single women but gender roles in marriage and the workplace, gay characters, sex workers, divorce, infidelity, AIDS, addiction, and flawed police work—among many other issues.

Moore's pants-wearing, banter-y take on the wife role was just the beginning. The Dick Van Dyke Show taught her lessons in progressiveness that she'd later apply as founding principles of The Mary Tyler Moore Show. That landmark series, which ran from 1970–77, nudged dozens of boundaries in a way that mirrored Moore's earlier stand on Capri pants: It was always done in a tasteful, entertaining way that made anyone who complained look like the one with the problem.

The show's progress on women's issues, of course, was legion and apace with the burgeoning women's lib movement of the time. Suddenly America's sweetheart was staying out all night on dates (shown going out in an evening gown and not returning until the morning after, wearing the same dress). She admitted to taking the pill. She struggled to take control of the newsroom where she worked when her boss left her in charge. She complained about being the token woman at the office. She asked for equal pay.

But through other characters, the show bearing Moore's name explored other social frontiers. Mary's boss, Lou Grant, got a divorce after his wife was inspired by the movement to leave him and find herself. Mary's co-worker, Sue Ann Nivens, had an unapologetic affair with the husband of Mary's neighbor, Phyllis. Mary's best friend, Rhoda, fought bitterly with her own mother, experienced anti-Semitism, struggled with her weight, and pursued a man who turned out to be gay.

This was all the more remarkable because the show was produced by Moore's own company, MTM Enterprises. She started the company with Tinker when she signed on to make The Mary Tyler Moore Show for CBS. The decision to produce it herself proved critical. She and Tinker fought the network often, especially in the first season, to focus on real issues instead of standard sitcom fluff. Network executives sent the show's co-creators, James L. Brooks and Allan Burns, a stern note: "Mary should be presented with a problem. Toward the end she should solve that problem in a surprising and comical manner." They further suggested a storyline or two: Perhaps, they said, Mary could meet a visiting prince! Moore's control allowed the producers to ignore these early meddlings and focus instead on realistic plotlines generated with the help of their writing staff, which also happened to include more women than ever previously assembled on one show.

The show also helped spread a new progressive, issues-oriented approach across the TV dial in the early 70s. Its success in reaching the desirable young, urban, affluent demographic fueled a revolution in programming. All in the Family hit the airwaves in January 1971, four months after The Mary Tyler Moore Show premiered. Its explosive, argumentative approach to modern issues laid waste to the remaining lightweight programming in primetime. Over the next decade, All in the Family producer Norman Lear and MTM Enterprises took over huge swaths of the primetime schedule with their two distinctive schools of progressive programming. Lear shows such as Maude, The Jeffersons, and Good Times attacked abortion, addiction, race, class, and more. MTM's The Bob Newhart Show, Rhoda, and Lou Grant dissected mental illness, divorce, nuclear proliferation, child abuse, rape, and journalistic ethics.

MTM Enterprises would go on to produce some of the greatest shows of all time, harbingers of the 2000s' "Golden Age of Television Drama." Because of the company's reputation for protecting its creative talent from network meddling, it attracted the best and produced an impressive stream of works: Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, and Newhart among them.

All of this adds up to one hell of a legacy, one that started with some Capri pants and spread far beyond that iconic beret toss.

Man Accused of Kicking J.F.K. Worker Wearing a Hijab Charged with Hate Crimes

0
0

A Massachusetts man has been charged with multiple hate crimes for allegedly attacking an employee at a J.F.K. airport lounge in New York on Wednesday, the New York Times reports.

Robin Rhodes, 57, apparently launched a tirade at Delta Air Lines employee Rabeeya Khan, who who was wearing a hijab, after deplaning from a flight from Aruba and waiting for his connection. Rhodes allegedly approached Khan while she was sitting in her office at Delta's Sky Club and asked her if she was sleeping or "praying" before punching the door open. Rhodes is accused of forcing his way into the office, kicking Khan in the leg, and blocking the door so she couldn't leave.

Someone then tried to calm Rhodes down, and Khan was able to leave the office and go to the front desk. But Rhodes followed her and got down on his knees to impersonate a Muslim praying before cursing about Islam and ISIS, according to law enforcement.

Rhodes then said, "Trump is here now. He will get rid of all of you. You can ask Germany, Belgium, and France about these kind of people. You will see what happens," according to the Queens District Attorney's Office.

When authorities arrived to arrest Rhodes, he reportedly told them, "I guess I am going to jail for disorderly conduct. I couldn't tell if it was a man or woman because their back was to me and they had something covering their head."

Echoing individual reports across America, there's been a major spike in hate speech and bias crimes in New York City since the November election. Such incidents were up 115 percent in the period between Election Day and early December of this past year compared to the same stretch in 2015, according to the NYPD.

"The bigotry and hatred that the defendant is accused of manifesting and acting upon have no place in a civilized society—especially in Queens County, the most culturally diverse county in the nation," Queens DA Richard Brown said in a statement. "Crimes of hate will never be tolerated here and when they do, regrettably occur, those responsible will be brought to justice."

Rhodes is currently awaiting arraignment in Queens Criminal Court and is accused of menacing, harassment, assault, and unlawful imprisonment as hate crimes. He faces up to four years in prison if convicted.

Trump's Government Isn't Going to Be Friendly to Legal Immigration Either

0
0

In Donald Trump's first week as president, he's made illegal immigration a top priority, using executive action to order that construction start on his famous wall and threaten to pull federal funds from "sanctuary cities." These moves, though aggressive, closely follow promises Trump made during the campaign and Republican policies generally—but less discussed are potential plans to narrow and restrict the avenues for legal immigration.

Workers come to the US a variety of ways, but one significant avenue is the H-1B visa, a permit intended to allow skilled foreigners to fill jobs in America that can't be filled by US residents. Often the visa lasts just a few years, but for some it is an avenue to permanent residency or citizenship.Every year the H-1B program brings in just shy of 100,000 skilled workers to fill roles in a host of progressions, from nursing to modeling. But the vast majority of slots go to Indian IT workers brought onboard by tech companies as coders and engineers—although these workers are highly skilled, Silicon Valley and outsourcing firms have been criticized for manipulating the program to bring in cheaper labor, making a mockery of its intentions. This has led, explains immigration lawyer Greg Siskind, to "bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress to address perceived abuses in the H-1B program… Even strong defenders of skilled worker immigration like [Republican] Darrell Issa and [Democrat] Zoe Lofgren are proposing changes."

There've been previous attempts to rein in H-1B abuses. The annual cap is about half of what it was about a decade ago and application costs went up last year to discourage spamming the lottery system used to allocate them. Yet while there is legislative consensus on the need for reform the system, there's debate on how to go about it: One bipartisan bill, which was first introduced last year but flopped, proposed upping the salary requirements for eligible jobs and lowering the number of slots available. Another (which likewise failed when first introduced) would have eliminated the lottery system, prioritized more highly skilled immigrants with highly salaries, and favored US-educated candidates. In both cases, these bills—like other reform attempts—languished after being sent to relevant committees, either because there was not enough willpower or bandwidth to consider them or because they simply lacked support.

Outside of Congress, observers likewise agree H-1B is a failure (Trump alluded to it in a speech shortly after his election), but few can agree on fixes. Chase Norlin, the CEO of Transmosis, a Silicon Valley group that aims to funnel skilled American workers into new training and open jobs, thinks the US should put a moratorium on the whole system because it "is fubar to begin with," he said. For him, the problem is that the H-1B process creates a stream of short-term immigrants who learn the ins and outs of US tech firms, then return home—instead, the US should be focusing on nurturing its homegrown talent

But the H-1B system, controversial and prominent as it is, is just one area of legal immigration that stands to be limited. Trump has already signaled he'll be ending or curtailing refugee resettlement, and others have proposed legislation seeking to reform things like birthright citizenship, the practice of granting status to people born on US soil.

"Legislation may be introduced to try to protect US workers from immigrants," Cornell Law School immigration expert Stephen Yale-Loehr told me, "either by reducing the number of green cards for lesser-skilled immigrants or by imposing higher wage requirements on employers that want to hire foreign nationals. There may also be proposals to eliminate the green card category for brothers and sisters of US citizens, since that is so backlogged."

These issues are on the back burner in a Congress mostly consumed with healthcare and illegal immigration at the moment; Yale-Loehr doesn't think there will be much time for legal immigration.

But Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration group, sees an executive push for action on the horizon. He noted that Jeff Sessions, who has a long history of voting to cap and limit legal immigration programs, will likely play a huge role in guiding immigration issues under Trump. "Senator Sessions led the effort to end immigration as we know it," said Noorani.

"I think the canary in the coal mine passed when Sessions was nominated to become the attorney general and his staff filtered through the administration," he added. "It's a clear signal the Trump administration is going to undermine the American economy by closing us off to the world."

Some hoped that Trump, who has at times acknowledged the value of bringing in good people to the country, would be moderated by pragmatism and pro-business, pro-skilled immigration voices in the administration. But aleaked draft of a potential executive action indicates that Trump may be considering making the US more hostile to numerous forms of legal immigration as part of the nativist, protectionist agenda set forth in his inaugural address. If enacted, this action would reverse several Obama orders that helped out the spouses of H-1B workers and people ineligible for green cards because they were once in the country illegally, review the impact of a bevy of programs on US workers, and increase monitoring on all foreign students and employees in the nation. All in all, it seems that Trump is set to go all-in on his "America first" stuff—not just deporting undocumented immigrants and building a wall, but making it harder for foreigners to gain legal status, all in the name of protecting American labor.

"There is a real clear message that immigrants and immigration are a harm to the country," said Noorani—not just illegal immigration, he added, but the presence of foreigners on US soil more broadly.

There's speculation that Trump will support some new forms of legal immigration, like a start-up visa to make it easier for entrepreneurs to come to and start businesses in America, and existing visas for potential job creators. Still, as Transmosis's Norlin told me, the natural extension of an America-first agenda is a push to restrict many forms of employment-based and skilled immigration. And the end result of that mentality is a world in which skilled and legal immigration is narrowed to a fine point, allowing in only those who by immigrating offer to employ Americans or those who are absolutely necessary for American businesses to function. Even allowing in that last cohort would just be a stopgap until Americans could be trained to fill those jobs.

As the H-1B program's problems show, immigration policy is tough to navigate. Any move to restrict legal immigration will face major pushback from those who believe (with evidence) that foreigners generally enrich and are the bedrock of the nation. But with Trump in office, a very different worldview is likely to become ascendant and be pushed hard in coming immigration debates.

Follow Mark Hay on Twitter.

Inside Mexico's Cartel Territory

0
0

It's been more than a decade since Mexico launched its war on the country's most powerful drug cartels. And though the government has touted some successes—most notably the recent extradition of Sinaloa Cartel boss Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman—the true impact of the costly campaign is better measured in the infamous Golden Triangle, a region long known for its marijuana and poppy production.

Deep in the Sierra Madre Mountains, signs of cartel control are everywhere. Young men sport caps with the number 701, a reference to the ranking Chapo once held on the Forbes list of billionaires. Clandestine airstrips cut out indiscriminate swaths of surrounding forest. Crosses mark the spot of cartel killings.

VICE News traveled into territory controlled by the Sinaloa Cartel to see how, despite the deployment of the Mexican military and billions in US funding to combat them, Mexican drug traffickers have nimbly responded to the biggest drug epidemic in US history by increasing their supply.

Today, Mexico is growing more poppy than ever. By US government estimates, poppy cultivation in the country has more than doubled in the last five years. And the boss here says the price of opium gum—the raw ingredient used to make heroin—has surged over the last decade, from about $500 a kilo to three or four times that amount.

Even with such high prices, the boss says, they have a hard time growing enough to keep up with soaring demand for heroin in the US.

According to the U.N.'s World Drug Report, the number of heroin users in the US reached around 1 million in 2014, almost tripling from the previous decade.

Read more on VICE News

The Rich and Ruthless Are Winning at Sundance

0
0

Hulk Hogan's penis is ten inches long, but Terry Bollea's is not. And Bollea, the man who has publicly performed the role of American Hero Hulk Hogan for decades, really wants to make sure that we're clear on that. Bollea's boasts to the media about his genitalia and sexual exploits were neither lies nor invasions of privacy because, according to Bollea's lawyers, they were all said by fictional character Hulk Hogan, who can have any size dick he wants because he isn't real and therefore is incapable of telling a lie or having his privacy violated. If the one-minute sex tape excerpt published by news blog Gawker in 2012 had featured Hulk Hogan, then there would have been no lawsuit at all, but what viewers in fact saw was private citizen Terry Bollea having sex with his best friend's wife, not Hogan; therefore, publishing the clip constituted not just a privacy violation, but also an intentional infliction of emotional distress. A Florida jury bought this argument over Gawker's claims that they had protection under the First Amendment, awarding Bollea/Hogan a settlement of more than $140 million in March 2016, effectively bankrupting Gawker, which closed its site by August of that year. Cut to Trump surrogate Katrina Pierson claiming that Trump's sexist remarks wouldn't stick because he'd made them as "a television character."

Brian Knappenberger's documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press, which was among the impressive number of Sundance documentaries picked up this week by Netflix, doesn't linger on the details of Bollea v. Gawker case, most of which are already well-known, nor does it tell us anything new about the necessity of a free press in a democracy. Instead, the documentary uses the trial as a sort of canary in the mine, warning us of the inevitability of further suppression of press freedom and how powerless we may be to stop it. The documentary has many scenes, all of which I'd seen before, featuring Trump's various condemnations of the press—including inciting his supporters to attack journalists covering his rallies and promising to "open up the libel laws" so that his administration could "sue [news organizations] like you've never got sued before." Also not new were the images of people in their MAGA hats wearing shirts that read: "Rope. Tree. Journalist." I'd seen all this when he was running for president, but the effect of re-seeing this footage days after Trump's inauguration—sitting in a press screening no less, surrounded by journalists from all over the country—was absolutely nauseating.

While some have expressed moderate skepticism as to Trump's ability to devastatingly affect libel laws, Nobody Speak reminds us that the complicity of our government's executive branch is not required to destroy press outlets. All that's needed is a billionaire with a vendetta, as Gawker discovered when it was revealed that Silicon Valley impresario Peter Thiel was bankrolling Hogan's legal team. Thiel—whose contributions to society include investments in Paypal, Facebook, and the book The Diversity Myth, which argues that racism is a problem invented by people who are just looking to be offended and that democracy has been outmoded since women got the right to vote—has had a turbulent history with Gawker ever since they outed Thiel as gay in 2007. He justified his involvement in the destruction of Gawker by calling it journalism at its very worst. But, of course, it doesn't matter if Gawker was deplorable or not. What matters is that an offended billionaire has the power to shut down a news organization that he doesn't like, a point the film also drills home by presenting the story of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which was covertly purchased in 2015 by most-coveted Republican donor and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. After the sale, the Review-Journal saw its best investigative reporters fired or pushed out, was forbidden to write about the Adelson family and their business dealings in Nevada, and became the first newspaper to endorse Trump for president.

Are you thoroughly depressed yet? If not, then go see Beatriz at Dinner, a not-at-all subtle film about capitalists and the people's lives they destroy in the pursuit of wealth and real estate. Salma Hayek stars as Beatriz, a Mexican immigrant massage therapist, who, after her car breaks down, is reluctantly invited to stay for a dinner party at the mansion of a wealthy client. Beatriz can claim the best ensemble cast at Sundance as Hayek is supported by Connie Britton, John Lithgow, Jay Duplass, Chloë Sevigny, and David Warhofsky who all turn in exemplary performances as horrible, rich white people. The casting of Hayek is brilliant, not just because of the grace and depth of character she brings to this role, making it easily one of the best of her career, but also because she is much shorter than the rest of cast, hammering home the obvious futility of the "little guy" against corporate giants. This particular visual is reinforced when Beatriz attempts small talk with real estate mogul, David, played by human giant John Lithgow who, at 6'4'', is over a foot taller than Hayek. David quickly asks where Beatriz is from. When she cites her neighborhood in Los Angeles, he looms over her like a lamppost and says, "No, where are you really from?"

Still from 'Beatriz at Dinner.' Courtesy of the Sundance Institute

The film delivers in many places on the kind of cringe-worthy dark humor that frequent collaborators Mike White and Miguel Arteta are known for, but ultimately it is a rather heavy-handed dose of despair for anyone left naïve enough to think a pleading voice for compassion matters in the face of profit. The impeccable acting and well-written dialogue make it a movie worth seeing, but maybe not until there's a class-conscious Democrat in office.

Neither Nobody Speak nor Beatriz at Dinner offers much in terms of hope or possible solutions to the problems we, as a society, face. Instead they both seem to be saying little other than: Rich people win. And none of this is going to end well.

Follow Chloé Cooper Jones on Twitter.


Look at All the Ridiculous Excuses This School Trustee Used After Calling A Parent the N-word

0
0

Sometimes, despite the best of intentions, words come out the wrong way.

But unless you're a racist, the N-bomb is not one of those words. York region school board trustee Nancy Elgie, 82, wants us to believe that's what happened to her, though.

Elgie, an elected official for Georgina, has found herself at the centre of controversy after she was overheard referring to a black parent as a "nigger" after a public meeting last November.

The parent, Charline Grant, has filed a human rights complaint against the school board alleging it discriminated against her son. Grant, who has three kids in the school system, was being interviewed by a TV reporter after a Nov. 22 meeting when Elgie, speaking amongst a group of fellow trustees and members of the school board, described her as a "nigger." Let that digest for a second—a mother who is fighting prejudice against her son was slurred BY A SCHOOL TRUSTEE literally as she was speaking about discrimination in the school system.

Grant didn't overhear the slur, but told the Toronto Star she found out about it later.

At first, Elgie told the Star "there is no merit in the accusation." When pressed, however, she didn't deny having said it, repeating, "I'm just saying there is no merit in the accusation." Er… OK. Her story got even stranger from there.

Read more: Canada Has A Race Problem And We Need To Talk About It

Following a weeks-long independent investigation into the incident, Elgie, who has been a trustee for 17 years, issued an email apology to Grant. According to the Star, she said "I was clumsily trying to refer to your concerns as reported in the media, not you personally… I felt heartsick and deeply ashamed to have said something so hurtful—even unintentionally—and so foreign to the values I have held throughout my entire life."

She told the Star, "It is clear that by using such a horrible word, even inadvertently, I breached the policy."

Yeah, no. The N-word is not a word that people use "inadvertently." You gotta make an advertent decision to drop that word.

Grant graciously told the Star she accepted the apology but said it's not enough.

"She didn't hurt me privately, she hurt me publicly. She didn't just hurt me, she hurt my family and she hurt my community."

On Tuesday, Elgie followed up with a letter to her colleagues, in which she, incredulously, seemed to blame her hate speech on a head injury.  

"On that day in November, still suffering from the after-effects of a head injury earlier in the fall, I struggled for words as I tried to identify Ms. Grant by referring to the concerns she and others had raised. The words came out horribly wrong, in the opposite way from what I had intended," she said. (I shudder to think of her "intended" phrasing.) "While I know that all of us have our words come out wrong way sometimes (particularly as we age), in this case the words were extremely hurtful ones."

In case you've lost track, Elgie's explanations for using the N-word now include: I didn't say that; I said it because I was talking about the concerns the parent mentioned; I used that word because I didn't know the parent's name; I had a head injury; I'm old.

The letter was released in time for a meeting that Elgie skipped due to "medical issues." Which is convenient, because she didn't have to deliver her apology in person, nor own up to a petition that has garnered more than 1,600 signatures calling for her to resign.

Elgie apparently can't be fired because she was elected. But she can be banned from meetings—a step the school board hasn't taken. So far, being required to take equity training—along with fellow trustees—is the only consequence she has faced.

Yesterday, Ontario's education minister Mitzie Hunter ordered a probe into allegations of systemic racism within the York region school board. Hopefully, something constructive will come out of that.

However, in the case of Nancy Elgie, another investigation won't change the fact that she can't keep her story straight or her racism in check. She should quit and spare all us the trouble of deciphering another incoherent apology.

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.

Trump's Executive Orders Are Scary, but Are They More Bark Than Bite?

0
0

Follow all the laws and executive actions Donald Trump is signing here.

The past week's news cycle has been dominated by Donald Trump's wave of executive actions, many of which referenced major campaign promises to build the wall, cut the size of government, and make life miserable for undocumented immigrants. As other outlets have noted, modern presidential administrations often have a busy first few weeks. But the tenor of Trump's actions has been more bombastic and his pace has been exceptionally rapid—and though his orders and memoranda might not ultimately achieve their goals, they indicate that he's basically leveraging executive power for maximum spectacle.

To recap a frenetic week: As of Friday afternoon, Trump had signed one fairly inconsequential law, four executive orders, eight memoranda, and two proclamations. (The difference between memoranda and orders is fairly technical—obscure enough that even the president himself seems to think he's signing orders when actually they're memoranda.)

One memorandum froze new regulations, which Andrew Rudalevige, a scholar of executive powers, told me any president would enact in order to get a grasp on the executive branch. A few other actions—a call to streamline environmental and other regulatory reviews, a federal hiring freeze, a reinstatement of the anti-abortion the Mexico City policy—might have been done by many Republicans. Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership was something Hillary Clinton said she would also do. And his decision to ask agencies to dismantle Obamacare as much as they could may have been a carbon copy of an action planned by 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

But his crackdown on illegal immigration, stated dedication to start work on a border wall, and plans to pull funding from "sanctuary cities" as punishment for those jurisdictions' protecting undocumented immigrants were all pure Trump.

"Many of the president's early orders are fairly broad," presidential powers scholar Joshua Kennedy told me, "but this is not uncommon. Executive orders seem to be following a trend of getting broader as time goes on."

The most notable thing about Trump's actions so far might be their unusual language.

"They reflect a campaign rhetoric-slash-press-release approach to some of these issues," said Rudalevige. "Some of them have a lengthy purpose section, which is not necessarily common... [In the one on sanctuary cities] there's a line about, 'sanctuary jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our republic.' That's not very legal language. That is a belief—and I'm not sure one that's widely shared."

To Rudalevige, this suggests the president isn't clearing actions with the Office of Management and Budget, which tends to demand tightly legalistic language and warns against bombast. That gels with emerging reports that Trump's actions may be mostly overseenby chief strategist Steve Bannon and advisor Stephen Miller, with little to no input from lawyers, lawmakers, or the agencies that will be responsible for implementing them. If true, this is unprecedented in the modern presidency: Ronald Regan was fairly unilateral in creating his 1981 executive actions, but even he cleared his drafts with the OMB.

That system would account for Trump's aggressive pace. He's the first president to sign an executive order on day one since Bill Clinton and seems to be outpacing the last few presidents. His highly publicized daily signings of forcefully worded and sound-bite ready actions serve to energize his base, giving the impression of rapid, solid actions on key issues.

But this pace and tone is arguably not the most sustainable path for Trump to accomplish his agenda. Executive actions can interpret law and direct departments and agencies to a degree, but they are limited by the vagaries of law and the need for legislative and administrative buy-in. It's hard to absolutely invalidate them, but easy for them to at least partially run aground. Review processes and legalistic language, Rudalevige explained, exist to help get everyone on board, let the president know what he can legally achieve, and protect him from the unintended consequences of imprecise language. Shirking that process increases the risk that these orders will fail; there've already been numerous reports about potential legislative and agency pushback or bottlenecks on some provisions in Trump's flashier orders and questions about the legality of others.

Many of Trump's actions are also peppered with variations on the phrase "to the extent permitted by law," which suggests a lack of clear plans for what should be done or knowledge of what could be done and boils most of his actions down to requests to other bodies to just do something. As Rudalevige put it, this "does make one wonder if the authors know what the law actually says."

For all the uncertainty that the bluster and rush of these actions entails, though, it is likely that some provisions in them will still have a rapid and real effect. Sanctuary cities may successfully fight Trump's effort to defund them in court or his wall may never actually get built—buthis instructions to broaden the definition of criminality in deciding which undocumented immigrants to deport will lead to a serious crackdown on that community. The Mexico City policy will definitely negatively affect healthcare availability for women in developing countries. The Obamacare executive order, though vague in its intentions, could lead to imminent changes in the healthcare market that will have real effects on millions. And the hiring freeze may harm the understaffed National Parks Service in particular.

The orders' primary purpose may not be to drive policy, but instead to serve as as just one more PR move from a real estate mogul who built an empire on optics.

"Even if these orders don't affect policy outcomes, the Trump White House can use these orders as leverage against Congress to claim that he acted even if Congress wouldn't," said presidential scholar Brandon Rottinghaus, "This puts Congress in a tough spot politically."

It's impossible to tell whether the Trump administration is issuing forceful and perhaps unilateral actions because they believe it's good and effective to sidestep bureaucracy and Congress, or if they just want to be able to take credit for making big moves even if the orders end up being more bark than bite. But it's always been hard to distinguish bull-headedness from cunning when it comes to Trump.

Either way, this week has been important insomuch as it sets a precedent for rule by assertion and display, rather than detail or final results. These actions will look good to the president's supporters, but also terrify marginalized groups like immigrants, and make Trump's political opposition nervous. What else should we have expected?

Follow Mark Hay on Twitter.

A Denver Deli Owner Is Making His Own Weed-Smoked Turkey

0
0

Smoked turkey, a staple of the deli aisle, is usually made by allowing the smoke of hickory, mesquite, or apple wood chips to aid in cooking the large bird. But one deli owner in downtown Denver has successfully fulfilled a stoner's Thanksgiving fantasy by basically hot boxing a turkey and creating his own marijuana-smoked piece of meat, local NBC affiliate WKYC reports.

However, the meat of the appropriately titled Mile High sandwich at Cook's Fresh Market probably won't get you stoned like some gourmet edible from a dispensary. Instead of using marijuana buds, owner Ed Janos says he used a bunch of stems from the plant, which don't carry THC.

"I was really surprised," Janos told WKYC of the final product. "It didn't smell like marijuana burning. It had a sweet aroma, like a cherry wood, and it was absolutely delicious." He added, "I tasted a couple of slices and didn't feel anything."

For those with their own stash of sticky stems at home who want to recreate the recipe, Janos prepped the bird by first brining it with sugar, salt, and spices, then letting it sit for three days. The smoking process then took about six hours at a low temperature.

"Some people are afraid to try it," Janos said of his creation. "Some people are like, 'Wow, this is really good.' So it's—people are kind of surprised, and they're talking about it."

If you want to try Janos's speciality product, you better get a plane ticket to Denver now because he's only keeping the Mile High sandwich on the menu while the first batch of meat lasts. But don't worry, he told WKYC he doesn't think his smoking process is illegal—Colorado only grants marijuana licenses to specific types of retailers—so he might keep making his delicious, revolutionary meat, provided the cops don't have a problem with it.

Watching the World Fall Apart with Cloud Nothings’ Dylan Baldi

0
0

Dylan Baldi, the lead singer and auteur of Cloud Nothings, was happy to meet me in New York City on election night—he said that he wanted to "compare the vibe" of the city to the atmosphere of his hometown of Cleveland on the night of World Series Game 7. And an hour earlier, when news began to filter through the bar that Florida was too close to call, the opportunity to talk about his band's new album seemed like a pragmatic escape. "An interview might be good," he said between sips of beer, sitting upright on his bar stool. "It takes the mind off depressing shit."

But an hour into our conversation, Baldi left the table and promised that, upon his return, we'd discuss his band's fifth studio album Life Without Sound, their first since 2014's Here and Nowhere Else. "I'm going to use the bathroom. Then I'll be ready to reckon with my demons." While waiting in line, he caught a glimpse of a TV showing that Pennsylvania was leaning towards Trump and now he's pushing his nose-length fringe around his right eyebrow, quietly fretting. "The country could be falling apart right now," he says, "and we're just talking about my demons."

Read more on Noisey

How Lifetime's Forgotten TV Series 'Any Day Now' Confronted Racism

0
0

In 1998, when television seemed to revolve around NBC's "Must-See TV" lineup, Lifetime—the network known for campy original movies like Mother May I Sleep with Danger? and No One Would Tell—quietly debuted Any Day Now.

The four-season series starred Annie Potts (Designing Women) and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange Is the New Black). Set in Birmingham, Alabama, Any Day Now tells the story of childhood friends Mary Elizabeth ("M.E.") O'Brien Sims and Rene Jackson who, in adulthood, attempt to rekindle their estranged friendship. Niece of a KKK member and aspiring writer, M.E. struggles to afford raising two children with her high school sweetheart, Collier. Newly single attorney Rene moves from Washington, DC, back home to Birmingham to take over the law practice of her deceased father, a local civil rights hero.

The genius of Any Day Now lays in its innovative telling. Each episode, shot primarily in the present day, flashes back to the girls' preteen years in the mid 1960s during the height of the civil rights movement. Both M.E. and Rene—who are equally complex, deeply flawed, and three-dimensional characters—must figure out how to maneuver their friendship, despite having to sit on opposite ends of a segregated bus.

Eighty-eight episodes sensitively and fearlessly take on a number of subjects that were especially uncommon on television then: rape, abortion, interracial adoption, interracial relationships, suicide, blackface, homophobia, and the assassinations of Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Although executives at Lifetime seemed initially apprehensive about airing a series with such intense storylines, according to co-creator Nancy Miller, "they went for it." Miller, who also served as showrunner and executive producer, spent her childhood summers in Birmingham, back when there were still segregated water fountains, and those experiences inspired the show.

Any Day Now, which did garner some critical acclaim, avoids using white savior plots and offensive, stereotypical characters such as black maids or black criminals. It critiqued white tears and cultural appropriation long before they became subjects for viral social media memes. And the series duly zeroes in on the impact of racism, rather than on an individual's intent.

This is likely due to the make up of the writers' room that, unlike many others, was extremely diverse. At least 50 percent of the writers of Any Day Now were people of color—almost all of them African American. "In the writing room, we got into knockdown drag-out fights, but there was always love and respect and humor," Miller said. "We knew M.E. and Rene could say what they wanted to say to each other about race. They could be honest with each other. They had conversations that we can't seem to have these days in real life."

"Our mandate was to go as deep as we could and not shy away," said Valerie Woods, who started as first executive story editor and later became co-executive producer. "We never wanted to take the safe route. We were not trying to write palatable television."

And so, Any Day Now seamlessly executed themes such as internal and systemic racism, the privilege to remain silent in the face of oppression, and racism-related trauma—themes that remain prevalent in our society, but not so much on our television screens.

One prime example is found at the end of season three, in a two-part episode titled, "Not Just a Word." Rene formulates a defense for an African American teenager named Richie West, who is charged with manslaughter after he accidentally kills a white teen for calling him "nigger." During the trial, one of the white witnesses testifies about his use of "nigga," as opposed to "nigger," allowing the show to really nitpick the debate surrounding the slur.

"One's a greeting, one's a racial slur," he says matter-of-factly.
"So when you called Richie West a 'nigga,' he was supposed to distinguish whether it was the 'a' word or the 'r' word?" Rene asks.

In that same episode, Collier Sims, M.E.'s well-meaning though aloof husband, can't cope with the fact that his teenage daughter marries her African American boyfriend after they learn she's expecting. Collier insists he's "not as bad" of a racist as M.E's Klan uncle, but the show drives home the point that when it comes to prejudice, degrees of bigotry are not a meaningful measure.

In another episode, "It's a Good Thing I'm Not Black," a cop pulls Rene over, forces her to lie down on the sidewalk, handcuffs her, and hauls her to jail for an alleged unpaid parking ticket. In a flashback, young Rene witnesses a police officer wielding his gun at her mother during a traffic stop. The episode linked traffic-stop violence during Jim Crow to the present day, years before mainstream media began consistently covering the epidemic of fatal police traffic stops for African Americans.

In one of the most memorable episodes of the series's run, "No More Forever," a Native American artist named Charlie Major (played by Litefoot) is commissioned to paint a Holocaust mural for a museum. Controversy arises at the mural's unveiling—the painting features images of the genocide of Native Americans on American soil alongside the genocide of Jewish people in Nazi Germany. Woods, who wrote the episode, hoped to illuminate the connection between these two heinous eras. (Hitler's idea for concentration camps came from the US Indian reservation system.) This theme—that the darkest chapters in history are often repeated—is one delicately and frequently rendered in the show.

Any Day Now is currently unavailable for streaming, though both Miller and Woods believe it should be. If there was ever a time to watch a television series's forthright and intrepid depiction of prejudice, hatred, and the long, windy, and sometimes backward road to justice, it's now.

Follow Anjali Enjeti on Twitter.

How Queer Films Learned to Put Sex Front and Center

0
0

Were it not so beautifully shot, you'd be forgiven for thinking the first sequence of Olivier Ducastel and Jacques Martineau's film Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo, out yesterday on limited release, was ripped from a gay softcore porn flick. Set in a Parisian sex club, audiences follow an unnamed man as he undresses and joins the throngs of naked and writhing men already enjoying themselves. Some are fucking. Others are sucking. Plenty are gawking. Eventually, the focus centers on two young men who lock eyes and seemingly tune out everything and everyone around them. The camera never obsesses over specifics, avoiding needless or gratuitous close-ups, but it also never shies away from what's taking place: hot and steamy gay sex. The sequence goes on for 18 minutes. It's as unabashed example of queer sexual desire as you're likely to find in a contemporary LGBTQ film.

What follows this sex-charged opening sequence is much more demure—mostly a breezy, modern gay take on Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise that tackles sexual health and same-sex intimacy in real time. But those images at the sex club linger. They serve, almost, as an affront to its audience, daring it to stick with the film past the hard-ons and the blowjobs. In that sense, Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo defies one of the unwritten rules of gay cinema: Tell, don't show.

Even as more and more queer stories flood our screens, gay sex remains mostly off-camera. Take Moonlight, the latest LGBTQ film to break through the festival circuit into the mainstream, earning no fewer than eight Oscar nominations on Tuesday. Barry Jenkins's film follows Chiron, a young black kid growing up in Miami who wonders aloud whether he's a faggot. When we meet him later as an introverted teen, and later still as a brooding adult, he teeters on the edge of same-sex intimacy, always curious but wary about that handsome friend who seems as eager to break their sexual tension as he is.

Focused on Chiron's anxiety over his homosexual impulses, it's not surprising that Moonlight ends in a tender embrace. The film carries us to the bedroom but resists the impulse to show us what's about to happen there. Jenkins's masterful film is at its most dazzling when visualizing Chiron's aching desires, catching how his first kiss both electrifies and disarms him, how his eyes linger on that "friend" at a diner, how his wet dreams turn again and again to that one night at the beach where he had that first kiss—the last time he was touched by a man. It's this titillation that makes Moonlight's narrative so powerful. But it's also what keeps it a buttoned-up affair. The film is sensual but not sexual.

While Moonlight's refusal to offer audiences the sex scene it's so obviously teasing is an appropriate and well-earned aesthetic choice, it nevertheless speaks to a long history of gay dramas that downplay or outright sidestep the issue of sex. For many years, an emphasis on identity (it's who we are, not what we do) in depictions of gay life was a politically strategic maneuver, allowing society to talk about and see gay people without having to see, let alone think, about gay sex. But as the politics of LGBTQ media visibility and representation continue to shift, explicitly sexual stories about gay men have remained a niche market, as if the more frank or explicit the depiction of gay male intimacy the less likely its mainstream embrace becomes. This might partially explain why Brokeback Mountain's romanticized and shrouded image of two closeted cowboys having sex in a tent is more widely known than the playful sexual acrobatics found in John Cameron Mitchell's sex-driven dramedy Shortbus.

Fortunately, that seems to be changing. Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo's opening sequence is clearly a limit case (as European in spirit as it can get), but its embrace of unabashed sex-positivity may be indicative of a new wave of queer storytelling. One need only look to group sex scenes in the Wachowski's sci-fi Netflix show Sense8, the neon-bathed porn-scene tapings in Sean Kelly's true-crime drama King Cobra, or even in porn studio Cockyboys's latest raunchy web series, Meet the Morecocks, to find queer content that's unafraid to place gay sex at the center of its narrative. And this year's Sundance Film Festival looks to have added a couple of titles that promise to heat up the queer cinematic canon; Luca Guadagnino's Call Me By Your Name, based on the sexy coming-of-age novel by André Aciman, and Francis Lee's autobiographical British coming out tale, God's Own Country, both feature blush-inducing scenes that pointedly put queer sexual desire front and center.

To confront viewers, gay and straight alike, with images of two (or more) men having sex remains an act of defiance. Where much of the activism that drives LGBTQ politics continues to privilege the sense that sexuality is a private affair, one that need not concern our politicians or our neighbors, these attempts at shamelessly grappling with gay sex are a welcome step forward. While there's much to be said about gains the LGBTQ community has made when it comes to media representation in the past couple of decades, there's something quite refreshing in the way Paris 05:59: Théo & Hugo demands that its audience deal with full-frontal erections before it offers its more romantic storyline. It's as if it were making clear the very hypocrisy that still runs through many squirming viewers, perfectly content with a gay storyline so long as it doesn't shove gay sex, as it were, in their faces.

In a 1980 essay on homosexuality in films for Forum magazine, particularly those that spoke almost exclusively to a heterosexual audience, writer John Rechy spoke of the perils of downplaying the more lurid details of gay life in the service of acceptance. The City of Night author, who built a career out of writing frankly about the types of sexual encounters witnessed in Ducastel and Martineau's opening sequence, cautioned that in doing so, "We may mistake liberation for surrender to what heterosexuals restrict us to." What we needed then, he wrote, "is a presentation of homosexual reality that doesn't apologize for its rich sensuality or splendid variety." We might finally be fulfilling that promise.

Here Are All the Roles Drake Can Play In His Return to Acting

0
0

Drake is pretty much king of the goddamn world these days—the dude can seemingly do no wrong.

In 2016 alone, Toronto's favourite son dropped a number one album, hosted SNL, headlined a massive tour, got more award nominations than a Paul Thomas Anderson film and, well, did a lot more stuff but this list has to end somewhere. But that said, there comes a time in every great pop artist career where they need a new mountain to conquer and become a truly transcendent "artist." (The world needs a new David Bowie.)

Turning his eyes to 2017, Drizzy is openly considering a return to his thespian roots ('cause why the hell not?) Speaking on John Calipari's, the head coach of the University of Kentucky basketball team, podcast he outlined his return.

"Acting is another thing that I just can't wait to really dive into," Drake said. "I think after I release More Life, which is this playlist I'm working on and finish this tour, I think I'm going to really start to position myself in the acting world and, hopefully, take some great roles."

Canada knows Drake can play the hell out of a rapping teenager in a wheelchair, but what other roles could he kill? Well, we here at VICE decided to put a little list together to help Drizzy pick his next role.

A Reimagining of a Classic Film

Everyone loves the Shawshank Redemption. If you don't you're a dirty filthy liar with no soul and may Andy Dufresne have mercy on your soul. Morgan Freeman's Ellis "Red" Redding is one of the most beloved characters in film history. However, why is Red in prison? Well, the answer is actually pretty goddamn sad. Red found himself behind bars because he cut the brake lines in a car that ended up crashing and killing his wife and three others. Now imagine Drake in the lead role of a Shawshank prequel tentatively titled So Was Red. It would have Oscar bait all over it. It would be a splashy period piece, probably feature a terrific director and the Academy might want to make up for giving all the awards to Forrest Gump instead of the original (or Pulp Fiction).

The Franchise Blockbuster

Give Michael Bay $500 million and a contract with Drake to do something Bad Boys style (like a Bad Boys remake!). In the end, we would have one good film followed by three mediocre ones. We know we would all go see them and Michael Bay can buy himself a new row of houses in Hollywood. Given that Drake does have second-tier The Rock-like charisma powers, he could easily turn a dumb franchise into something watchable, like Dwayne Johnson did for the Fast and the Furious series.

A Supporting Role in a Sure to be Classic Film

While we believe that Audrey Graham could easily carry a film, the smarter route might be to start small—not in the size of the movie, but in the size of the role. Much like Justin Timberlake found his greatest success acting in The Social Network as a secondary character, maybe Drake should just attach himself to the best director possible and take a smaller role to bury himself into. We can't think of a better director than Denis Villeneuve (Canadian) right now who understands how to tie classic indie sensibilities to big, tentpole movies (seriously, how hard did you cry in The Arrival and Sicario was dope).

The director has already finished the Blade Runner remake, and I just want you to imagine a dishevelled Drake playing a self-doubting replicant. He could also release a badass song called "Tears in the Rain" or something that would sell millions of copies.

The Ice-T/Ice Cube Route

It's been a long time since Toronto got some small screen love in the American market. What better way for the 6ix God to continue his journey of bringing Toronto back to relevance than starring as a young, plucky detective with a chip on his shoulder working to keep its streets safe. Here's a helpful tip for the CSI producers: A "The Seeker" remix would make for a killer intro song to the show.

The One Season Anthology Show 

Drawn out miniseries style shows are all the rage these days. You have Fargo and American Crime Story on FX and True Detective had a moment of glory, too. The advantage of the anthology season is big-name actors and directors don't need to get tied down, so Drake could take four months to shoot a show and then return to his music career. Could we suggest that Netflix remakes Heat into a super-expensive series that runs twelve episodes (and spends an inordinate amount of time on the character of Waingro—which would be fucking dope) Drake could play the role of, I don't know, let's go with Pacino and the Rock could play DeNiro. (Imagine the new diner scene!) If you tell me you don't want to watch that show, well, you're as big of a liar as those Shawshank deniers.

The 'Against Type' Role

Yes, he's very good looking, a bit too swole, and has a constant smile on his perfect face. But wouldn't you like to see Drake chew up some scenery Heath Ledger/Joker-style as a disfigured villain in a dystopian western? Imagine Drake facing off against some of Hollywood's most generic A-listers: the Ryans, the Hemsworths, the Chris Pines, etc. God damn, that's a good movie.

Himself in Atlanta

It would be very, very good. I don't have to explain it to you because you know it would be very, very good.

The Rom-Com

No, no, not what you think: Casting him opposite Rihanna would be wayyyy to easy. Rom-Coms get a bad rap (mostly because so many of them are bad) but think of what they did for Tom Hanks' career. Drake certainly has that easy-going charm and is the perfect age for playing a romantic lead. He could go down a couple routes here, there's the traditional forgettable rom com, but it's pretty easy to see Drake fall into the lead of the latest Judd Apatow project (Paul Rudd, you have had your day!). We do recommend a long-distance relationship Rom-Com, so he doesn't need a ton of chemistry with the lead actress (plus, sexting jokes are easy).   

Untitled VICELAND show

I don't know what this would be, but it would make bank—maybe the aforementioned Shawshank Redemption reboot? Just say the word and we'll bang out a script. Get at us Drizzy, let's make some money.  


Scammers Are Reportedly Using Gay Hookup Apps to Blackmail Users

0
0

Usually when you meet a guy off a gay hookup app like Grindr or Scruff (or Hornet or Jack'd or DaddyHunt or Recon or GROWLr), the worst thing that can happen is finding out that he's used a profile picture from five years earlier, when he had more hair and less gut. But that's not the case in Canberra, Australia, where a ring of three to four men are reportedly using the apps to meet men and then blackmail them.

According to the Australia Broadcasting Corporation, the local AIDS Action Council has received at least two separate reports from men who say that when they went to meet users they had been talking to on the apps, they were threatened to hand over cash. Sometimes, the altercations have turned violent.

"[The scammers said] they're going to exploit them, if they don't give them money they're going to tell their friends and family what they're doing," Philippa Moss, director of the council, told ABC News. "There has been some indication of potentially meeting them and then beating them."

It's not totally clear from the reports if men are being extorted solely because of their sexual orientation, or if the blackmailers are threatening to expose their activity on the apps. The Action Council does, however, believe there are even more men who have been targeted, but have yet to come forward because they're too embarrassed.

"People don't necessarily admit that this is what they're doing," Moss said. "There is stigma and discrimination attached to using these apps for hookups."

Gay blackmail scams go as far back as the closet itself. For example, in 1954, Wyoming senator Lester Hunt killed himself after Joe McCarthy told him to drop his reelection bid or he would reveal that Hunt's son tried to solicit an undercover cop for sex. As long as there is a stigma attached to LGBTQ identity and homosexual sex, they are sure to continue.

The reports from Australia come a week after an Idaho man, Kelly Schneider, pled guilty to the hate-motivated murder of a gay man who he met by posting an ad posing as an escort on Backpage.com last April. Schneider confessed that he lured Steven Nelson into a remote area, robbed him, and kicked him so many times with his steel-toed boots that Nelson died shortly after in the hospital. (Backpage closed down its adult classified section earlier this year.)

The perpetrators of gay blackmail schemes aren't always straight men. In 2015, Teofil Brank—a gay porn star known as Jarec Wentworth—made headlines when he was sentenced to six years in prison for trying to extort $500,000 from a wealthy businessman who paid him for sex and used him to arrange paid encounters with other adult video models.

Hookup apps and other online sex tools can definitely be a lot of fun, but make sure that, if you use them, you're taking precautions for your safety. The AIDS Action Council has reached out to those who might be affected by the scheme to come in if they need help.

"Come and have a chat, we've got lots of councillors here who can guide them in the right direction," Moss said.

Team Obama Quietly Bolstered Protections for Trans Inmates Last Week

0
0

Two days before the inauguration of Donald Trump, the federal Bureau of Prisons quietly released a new employee manual laying out a variety of protections for transgender inmates.

The document, which was posted on the BOP website without fanfare, mandates specialized training for federal prison guards on how to treat transgender inmates, says trans inmates should be allowed to shower separately from other inmates, and requires that housing placements give "serious consideration" to transgender inmates' own sense of where they might be safest.

Many of these policies were already in effect as a matter of practice, but the new manual makes them clearer for guards and prison staff—and perhaps more likely to be followed. Jennifer Levi, a project director at the LGBT legal rights group GLAD, says that's important because current treatment of transgender inmates varies widely across the federal prison system's roughly 150 facilities.

"It's pulling together a range of policies in one place," Levi explains. "Transgender inmates are currently facing inconsistent treatment across the country, between different facilities and even different staff members.... So I look at this as a positive step to making sure these policies get implemented."

The Bureau of Prisons said in a statement that the manual had been in progress for a long time. "BOP has been working on establishing official guidance on this issue for nearly three years," a spokesperson told VICE.

Of course, the manual's release can also be seen as a last-minute effort to lock in protections for trans inmates before the Trump administration took over. Jeff Sessions, Trump's nominee for attorney general, is a staunch opponent of LGBT rights. If confirmed, he will oversee federal prisons across the country, and could start to roll back some of these policies.

"I'm very concerned," Levi said. "There's a huge amount of misunderstanding and bias towards transgender people who are incarcerated, and that potentially gets much worse when there are leaders who have disregard of civil rights and civil liberties."

Transgender inmates in the federal system face severe challenges including subpar healthcare services and highly elevated levels of sexual abuse. In a 2011-2012 survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than one in three trans inmates in state and federal prisons said they had been sexually assaulted within the last year, compared to only about one in 25 inmates among the overall population.

However, trans inmates won important rights and protections over the course of the Obama years. In 2011, a lawsuit brought by a federal inmate represented by Levi led to the BOP allowing inmates to receive individualized gender dysphoria treatments like hormone therapy. Previously, the bureau's "freeze-frame" policy prevented inmates with gender dysphoria from getting any treatment regimen that they hadn't already started when they entered prison.

The Trump administration will have a tough time erasing hard-won protections like that, which came from a court settlement. "That can't just be wiped off with the stroke of a pen," Levi told me.

Check out President Obama's visit to a federal prison as documented by VICE.

The regulations in the manual aren't radical and reflect the growing consensus of corrections leaders around the country, according to Harper Jean Tobin, the director of policy at the National Center for Transgender Equality. "The BOP is right in line with federal law and regulations and where the field is going," Tobin said. "I suspect this is not going to be seen as something highly controversial within the Bureau—this is something we would expect is going to stick around."

The release of the manual also came just a day after President Obama commuted the sentence of the most famous transgender inmate in America, Chelsea Manning, who was convicted of leaking state secrets to Wikileaks. Manning was serving a 35-year sentence in a military prison—which is not under the jurisdiction of the BOP—and the harsh life she faced as a trans woman living in a men's prison helped galvanize support for her cause. It also brought more visibility to transgender inmates around the country, advocates say.

Under Obama, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division also intervened in several cases involving state inmates, urging courts to guarantee them medically required treatment and other rights.

Will that kind of proactive civil rights enforcement continue under Trump when it comes to the most vulnerable people in America's prisons? Early indications suggest that's unlikely—the new boss of DOJ's Civil Rights Division, John M. Gore, was one of the attorneys who defended North Carolina's transphobic bathroom bill in federal court.

Follow Casey Tolan on Twitter.

What it Was Like Making Television on the Front Lines at Standing Rock

0
0

The Standing Rock resistance camp that tasted victory in December remains under attack.

As one of his first orders of business as US president, Donald Trump signed an executive order this week to expedite the review process of the Dakota Access Pipeline—a pipeline the Indigenous resistance movement has fought, fearing the pipeline will contaminate the Sioux Standing Rock tribe's water downstream and disturb their sacred burial sites.

VICELAND's new show RISE, which travels to Indigenous communities across the Americas to meet people at the front lines of resistance, has been going on location at Standing Rock since last spring, when the movement was just ramping up. The crew and host Sarain Fox, who is of Anishinabe lineage, embedded with the Standing Rock occupation camps in North Dakota to understand the the full scope of what was at stake for the community (and Indigenous people at large).

The two-part episode, which airs tonight at 9 PM, is essential viewing as Trump's order aims to undo the Obama administration's denial of a key easement the pipeline needs in order to cross under Lake Oahe, which is under federal jurisdiction. Obama's government also ordered a full environmental review of the pipeline—a process that could take up to a year, although Trump's order means it could be sooner. For now, the company behind the pipeline, Energy Partners Limited, must bide its time until that process is finished.

Trump's order came as a rallying call for the Standing Rock resistance movement, which exists not only in the camp, but also online and in solidarity protests across the Americas.

VICE talked to Sarain Fox about her time at Standing Rock, and what the future holds for the resistance.

VICE: What was it like being at Standing Rock early on?
Sarain Fox: We got on the ground at Standing Rock last spring. When we first arrived there, it was not what people know Standing Rock to be. For me it it has become this defining moment for how I view myself in the Indigenous community and what it means to be an activist. And I think that all just happened because I grew up in a world where occupation and activism has been such a focal part of my life.

But to arrive on the ground at Standing Rock, I felt that there was no way that occupation was going to be able to sustain itself. It felt so small and so spontaneous, and from my perspective, from everything I'd seen in Canada and every occupation, I was so worried about the sustainability of that camp. When I arrived in Standing Rock, there was five families camped on the banks of the Cannonball River. And LaDonna [Allard] was running it by herself. The day that I arrived there was so insane, because everyone's living in tents and there's this central fire that's sort of the heart of the camp and that's where everyone meets. And the first time I went down there it was pitch black, and we came down over this hill. And there are not even roads, so it's super mucky, and i got out and the very first thing I did was meet all the people around the campfire.

I got to meet all of these amazing young people. And Bobbi Jean and her daughter were there and she so humble and so much a part of that group and she was listening to all those young people and learning from them and I had no idea that she had all of these ideas to sort of, to take the initiative to lead them. But the reason that that moment is so important for me that night was because I got to hear the youth from neighbouring communities talk about why they were fighting and why they had even started that camp. And they told me that first night about band camps and it was all these young women talking about how they no longer feel safe in their communities and it was the first moment that I realized that Standing Rock was about so much more than just water and the pipeline … Standing Rock was never about the pipeline to me as much as it was about the people because of these young women.

In your mind, what are the issues that are at the centre of the occupation, and what's on the line for community there?
Standing Rock is an occupation that was actually started as something that was called the Sacred Stone Camp. And the Sacred Stone Camp was started by LaDonna Brave Bull [Allard], she's actually a historian. She was the tribe's historian at the time. They were actually waiting for a decision from Army Corps of Engineers when they started that encampment and they had no idea when that decision was coming. So they started this encampment on the banks of the river to just sort of make their presence known and to start a fight to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline. So at that point, not many people knew what the pipeline was. Not many people knew the root of the pipeline or the history of it. The pipeline had actually been routed to go through Bismarck and the tribe was made aware that it was going to come within a mile of their community. [But] there was little to no dialogue with the tribe. They had this encampment and they knew that things were coming [but] no one knew what was going to happen. They started that camp in April and it was the beginning of August when the Army Corps of Engineers made that decision and said that they would grant the permit. At that point, Sacred Stone Camp became part of this larger issue that just became known as the Issue at Standing Rock.

How do you think that social media has functioned as a tool for activism?
Really [Standing Rock] was was a fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline so that the tribe could prevent the possibility of contamination of their main water source—the Missouri River and the Cannonball River. I think that along the way, they realized that not only the water would be at stake but also sacred sites and burial sites and the very sheer history of the tribe was at stake. And so it was LaDonna who got on a Facebook livestream.

I was actually in Hawaii when I saw that Facebook livestream, which was fucking amazing and incredible because here's this woman who started this camp. Who's using all her money, her own money, to make this camp. Who's inspiring young people to take a stand and to own their own role and using this tool. Like, social media is not a tool that she would have used. This is something that's brand new for her. So to get on a Facebook livestream and to make a call out for warriors is like the most legit and bad-ass thing to do as an Elder. There's no formula for doing that. She just did it. And she used those tools and that livestream is the reason why thousands of people showed up at Standing Rock. That-that one livestream.

While making RISE, what did you learn about having a platform that can amplify these voices?
With Rise I learned that my voice and being able to stand on a platform where that voice could be amplified was actually, was for me, just as important as being on the front line. And I think I had not understood the power of media and the power of amplifying activists' protectors voice in this way until I started to see the connections. Until I started to see what we were doing. I had no idea what RISE was this time last year. None.

RISE airs Fridays at 9 PM on VICELAND.

Trump Declines to Mention Jews in Holocaust Day Statement

0
0

In what was perhaps a mere mistake, like the misspelling of UK prime minister Theresa May's name on an official memo, the Trump White House released its International Holocaust Remembrance Day statement without mentioning the people the day is generally meant to remember: Jews.

Trump's memo does state, "We remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust," as well as "innocent people" who were targeted by "Nazi terror."

And it is important to remember that various people were targeted for murder by the Nazis—including Roma, LGBTQ people, the disabled, and political dissidents. But the Holocaust is generally understood to refer to Adolf Hitler's systematic annihilation of European Jews, ultimately claiming roughly 6 million of their lives.

Since it was designated by the UN in 2005, both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have released statements on the day, which marks the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, and mentioned either Jews or anti-Semitism. For example, Barack Obama said, "We are all Jews," in his address to the Israeli Embassy in 2016.

Jonathan Greenblatt, director of the Anti-Defamation League, called the move out on Friday on Twitter, deeming it "puzzling and troubling."

Catch the Premiere of 'RISE' on VICELAND

0
0

In our new VICELAND series RISE, we travel to different indigenous communities across the Americas to meet the people protecting their homelands and rising up against colonization. Catch the premiere episode tonight on VICELAND.

RISE airs Fridays at 9 PM.

Want to know if you get VICELAND? Head here to find out how to tune in.

Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images