|
The Apparent Poisoning of a Pussy Riot Member |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=46742"><span class="small">Masha Gessen, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 23 September 2018 12:56 |
|
Gessen writes: "New details have emerged in the apparent poisoning of Russian activist Pyotr Verzilov, a member of the protest-art group Pussy Riot, and they may shed light on the deaths of three Russian journalists who were shot in the Central African Republic in July."
Pussy Riot member Pyotr Verzilov, seen here attending an appeal hearing at a court in Moscow in July. (photo: Getty Images)

The Apparent Poisoning of a Pussy Riot Member
By Masha Gessen, The New Yorker
23 September 18
ew details have emerged in the apparent poisoning of Russian activist Pyotr Verzilov, a member of the protest-art group Pussy Riot, and they may shed light on the deaths of three Russian journalists who were shot in the Central African Republic in July. Verzilov had apparently been working with the journalists before they travelled to Africa, and before he fell ill he’d been investigating their deaths, which the Russian government said had occurred as a result of a robbery.
Verzilov, who is thirty, fell ill on September 11th. In the course of several hours, he lost his eyesight and his ability to speak, became delirious, and lost consciousness. He was hospitalized in Moscow in critical condition. Four days later, after he had stabilized, Verzilov was flown to Berlin, where he is now being treated at Charité hospital. On Tuesday, members of his German medical team held a press conference, during which they confirmed that Verzilov had probably been poisoned. He is recovering, but still hallucinating.
Also on Tuesday, one of Russia’s many quasi-anonymous, semi-underground online publications on the publishing and messaging platform Telegram—the contemporary version of samizdat—reported that Verzilov had been working on an investigative story about the deaths of the three Russian journalists, Alexander Rastorguev, Orkhan Dzhemal, and Kirill Radchenko. The three had been in the Central African Republic reporting on a mercenary force linked to a close associate of President Vladimir Putin. The suggestion that their deaths were connected to their investigative work surfaced as soon as they died, but the Russian Foreign Ministry slapped it down, branding a Dutch newspaper that mentioned the mercenaries “fake” news.
Verzilov, who studied philosophy at Moscow State University, is a conceptual artist and activist. He was married to Nadya Tolokonnikova, a founder of Pussy Riot, who was jailed along with another member, Maria Alekhina, in 2012 for staging a protest at a Moscow cathedral. After the women were released, the next year, they founded a prisoners’-rights organization and an online publication, Media Zone, that focussed on prison and law-enforcement issues. Verzilov became its publisher, and Media Zone quickly established itself as one of the country’s most reliable sources of information. About a year ago, the team behind Media Zone decided to transform it into a general-interest publication. (As one of the editors told me at the time, every story about Russian law enforcement was dreary in the same way as every other.) They began covering protests, the Russian involvement in Syria, and other news of the day.
In an e-mail to me on Tuesday, Tolokonnikova confirmed that Verzilov had been slated to join the reporting trip on which the three men died, but he stayed in Moscow to organize and take part in a protest during the final match of the World Cup. He was arrested and jailed for fifteen days after the action, along with the three other protesters. The four were released on July 31st, the day after the Russian journalists died in the Central African Republic. One of the three who died, Rastorguev, had been a close friend of Verzilov.
According to the report on Telegram and in the semi-independent Moscow newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Verzilov raised money to mount an investigation into the journalists’ deaths. He had an additional connection to the C.A.R. through the Voice Project, a freedom-of-expression organization that got its start by working with musicians in Eastern and Central Africa in the two-thousands and later raised money for and campaigned on behalf of Pussy Riot. According to the Russian reports, Verzilov expected to receive some documents pertaining to his investigation the day that he fell ill.
Also on Tuesday, another Russian publication, the St. Petersburg-based Fontanka, published a story on its own reporters’ trip to the C.A.R., undertaken to trace the steps of the three murdered journalists. “If reading this leaves you with a sense of chaos, then we’ve done our jobs,” the subhead on the story said. The most remarkable finding in the story is the apparently large role that Russian paramilitaries play in the C.A.R., but the story shed no light on the deaths of the journalists.
In the past decade and a half, Russian journalists have been beaten to death, shot, thrown out of windows, and poisoned. Yuri Shchekochikhin, a journalist and member of parliament, had been investigating the deadly September, 1999, apartment-building explosions in Russia for Novaya Gazeta when he was lethally poisoned, in 2003. Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist who was shot dead in 2006, had survived a poisoning attempt two years earlier. Russia consistently ranks in the top ten on the Global Impunity Index maintained by the Committee to Protect Journalists—it is one of the world’s most dangerous countries to be a journalist, and those who kill journalists usually get away with murder.

|
|
The Brett Kavanaugh Case Shows We Still Blame Women for the Sins of Men |
|
|
Sunday, 23 September 2018 12:53 |
|
Solnit writes: "We have been here before. We have been here over and over in an endless, Groundhog Day loop about how rape and sexual abuse happen."
Brett Kavanaugh. (photo: Chris Wattie/Reuters)

The Brett Kavanaugh Case Shows We Still Blame Women for the Sins of Men
By Rebecca Solnit, Guardian UK
23 September 18
From Anita Hill to the victims of Cosby and Weinstein, women are disbelieved, powerful men excused. When will we learn?
e have been here before. We have been here over and over in an endless, Groundhog Day loop about how rape and sexual abuse happen: offering the same explanations, hearing the same kind of stories from wave after wave of survivors, hearing the same excuses and refusals to comprehend from people who are not so sure that women are endowed with inalienable rights and matter as much as men – or, categorically, have as much credibility. We are, with the case of Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s nominee for the US supreme court, who has been accused of sexual assault, revisiting ground worn down from years of pacing. Kavanaugh denies Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that he forcibly held her down and assaulted her when both were at high school. We have only the accounts of the participants, and these, it seems, will always contradict each other. The allegation and the denial put us back in a familiar scenario.
The last five years have been an exhaustive and exhausting crash course in how abusers and rapists (and attempted rapists) and their victims behave, and how they are perceived and treated, but the learning curve of the wilfully oblivious resembles the period at the end of this sentence.
We know why victims don’t report rapes. We know that a minority of rapes are reported; and of those, a small percentage result in arrests; and of those arrests, a small percentage result in prosecutions. Only a very small percentage result in convictions and sentences. We know that the woman who accused the basketball player Kobe Bryant of rape years ago received death threats and extensive character assassination, as did some of Judge Roy Moore’s accusers, one of whom had her house burned down after she spoke up.
We know that women have been portrayed, ever since Eve offered Adam an apple, as temptresses, more responsible for men’s acts than men themselves are, and that various religions still inculcate this view, and in recent times various judges and journalists have acceded to it, even blaming female children for “seducing” their adult abuser.
We know that we – well, some of us – are just beginning to emerge from an era of women being routinely discredited, shamed, blamed, and disbelieved when they speak up about sexual assault. We are, of course, seeing it again with Professor Ford. Her credibility and character were being preemptively attacked even before we knew who she was; she was promptly doxxed when the Washington Post revealed her identity. We know why the more than 60 women who say Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them, from the 1960s through recent years, mostly didn’t speak up before 2014, and how those who did were disbelieved and punished while Cosby’s career sailed on. We know why Harvey Weinstein’s alleged victims didn’t speak up, and how a whole apparatus existed – of threats, lawyers, spies – to keep them silent. We know that the teenage victims of the gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar who spoke up were, for the most part, not believed by the school, by the police or even by their parents. We know that a groundswell of feminism made it possible for many women to be heard for the first time, starting last October with the cataclysm of testimony we call #MeToo. Why should we now expect an ordinary schoolgirl to have succeeded where Olympic athletes and Hollywood actors failed to get a hearing or justice?
We have seen this all before. We saw it 27 years ago with the discrediting and harassment of Anita Hill. Hill was called “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty” for testifying against the supreme court nominee Clarence Thomas, and that one of the ways she was smeared was as a fantasist: “Do you think it a possibility that Professor Hill imagined or fantasised Judge Thomas saying those things she has charged him with?” said Senator Arlen Specter. “Her story’s too contrived. It’s so slick it doesn’t compute,” said Senator Orrin Hatch, blaming her for being coherent, as he would have undoubtedly done for being incoherent, and then he offered some truly loopy reasons why he thought she fabricated her reluctantly told tale. Some of the same people – notably Hatch – are now gearing up to attack Ford.
We know that the worst things that happen to us can be among the most indelible, so the argument that the accuser can’t possibly remember events from the early 1980s doesn’t hold up. In the late 1990s, I knew a Marine lieutenant colonel who was haunted by the civilian he had, under direct orders from a general, shot during the Korean war more than 40 years before, in circumstances he described in detail to me. A few years ago, a woman in her 60s, moved by the feminist conversation we’re having now, wrote to me in detail of her rape in the 1960s – the first time she had unpacked the trauma she couldn’t escape.
I asked David J Morris, the Marine corps veteran and author of The Evil Hours, a powerful book on PTSD, about trauma and memory, and he replied: “Most men have no idea how truly traumatic sexual assault is. The science on the subject is pretty clear: according to the New England Journal of Medicine, rape is about four times more likely to result in diagnosable PTSD than combat. Think about that for a moment – being raped is four times more psychologically disturbing than going off to a war and being shot at and blown up. And because there are currently no enduring cultural narratives that allow women to look upon their survival as somehow heroic or honorable, the potential for enduring damage is even greater. A traumatic event like the one Christine Blasey Ford is alleging fractures the self, destroys one’s sense of time and place in the universe and generally changes a person completely. It is literally an encounter with death. To suggest that she wouldn’t remember it flies in the face of reason. No sane person would suggest that someone wouldn’t remember the time they were in an airplane crash. From a neuroscientific standpoint, being raped is more traumatic than war, not to mention plane crashes.” Ford reports fearing she might be killed in the conflict.
We know that as a society we hold people responsible for “youthful indiscretions”. The same Republican politicians who have been trying to dismiss an allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh as boys-will-be-boys stuff support a president who, in 1989, placed full-page ads in four newspapers calling for the death penalty for the five non-white boys – two of them 15, one 14 – falsely convicted of the 1989 Central Park jogger rape and beating. (Donald Trump even asserted they were guilty in 2016, long after their exoneration.) We treat many juveniles accused of crimes as adults, sentence some to life without parole, and saddle them with felony convictions and/or put them on registers of sex offenders for life. We do not excuse them for being drunk or high. The infamous Stanford rapist Brock Turner was 19 when he was arrested for felony sexual assault, banned from the Stanford campus, and given a six-month sentence and a lifetime on the sex offenders registry.
We know that too many men are full of empathy – for perpetrators, not victims – when stories such as Kavanaugh’s emerge, and that apparently they cannot imagine what it is like to be a woman who has been assaulted, because they’ve never tried. We know that Kavanaugh is not facing punishment for a crime, just consideration of whether he deserves not only a reward but power over the lives of all Americans. This week in the Atlantic, the writer Caitlin Flanagan told of her own near-rape. It was an exceptional story – in that the perpetrator approached her to apologise wholeheartedly when they were both still young. Her story was about an incident in the late 1970s that she remembers with painful clarity – and she says that she believes Professor Ford. I believe in redemption and forgiveness – as things that must come after atonement and transformation.
We know who lies about rape, routinely, regularly: rapists. Criminals tend to deny their crimes. Which doesn’t mean everyone accused is guilty, only that claiming innocence is a habit of the innocent and guilty alike, so it doesn’t tell us much. We know that, on the other hand, false rape accusations are extremely rare (and that they are often lurid stories about recent events, not about a fumbling attempt decades ago). We know this witness was reluctant to come forward and that she was essentially forced out by the journalists pursuing her after details of her letter emerged. We know multiple people vouch that she told the story long before Kavanaugh’s nomination.
We know there is virtually nothing a straight white man can do to discredit himself, especially if he has elevated status. We routinely see plagiarists, domestic violence perpetrators, liars, thieves, inappropriate masturbators, gropers, and incompetent men put forward as reliable sources and respectable citizens. Ken Starr took sexual assault very seriously when he let the Whitewater investigation into Bill Clinton veer over into Clinton’s sexual misconduct. Yet he overlooked sexual assault when, as president of Baylor University, he was responsible for protecting female students. In 2016 the university fired him after an independent report showed a “fundamental failure” to respond to student sexual assault allegations. Now, on Kavanaugh, Starr is treated as a credible source. He told a news site: “I’ve known him since 1994. I’ve worked alongside him – this is so wildly out of character.”
We’ve heard men testify like this before – for example, in 2011, Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s pal Bernard-Henri Lévy asserted, “the Strauss-Kahn I know, who has been my friend for 20 years and who will remain my friend, bears no resemblance to this monster” his victim described. Other women came forward to report being sexually assaulted by the monster Lévy had not met. We have been here before.
We are going to go there again, when the case goes to a Senate hearing. Let us proceed to that drama with what we have learned.

|
|
|
FOCUS: The Boys' Club That Protects Brett Kavanaugh |
|
|
Sunday, 23 September 2018 11:44 |
|
Witt writes: "According to many graduates of Washington prep schools, the party culture described in yearbooks often created occasions for sexual harassment and assault. More than a thousand women who attended Holton-Arms, the girls’ school from which Ford graduated, have signed a letter that describes the alleged assault as 'all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves.'"
At élite institutions like Georgetown Prep, where Brett Kavanaugh was a student, high school doesn't end when you're eighteen; it's a lifelong circle of mutual support. (photo: Mark Peterson/New Yorkers)

The Boys' Club That Protects Brett Kavanaugh
By Emily Witt, The New Yorker
23 September 18
C-SPAN clip has been circulating online. It dates from September 6th, the third day of the Senate hearings to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In the video, John Neely Kennedy, the Republican senator from Louisiana, asked Kavanaugh about his time at Georgetown Preparatory School, the Jesuit boys’ school he attended.
“I can tell from your testimony those were formative years for you,” Kennedy said, in his Southern drawl.
“Very formative,” Kavanaugh replied.
In a statement following his nomination, on July 9th, Kavanaugh referred to the Georgetown Prep motto, “Men for others.” Several dozen of his former classmates signed a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying that “he remains the same grounded and approachable person that we met in High School.”
“What was it like for you?” Kennedy asked. “What were you like?”
Kavanaugh appeared to blush slightly. He made eye contact and nodded at someone unseen. He half laughed, as if unsure whether the question was serious.
“Were you a John-Boy Walton type, or a Ferris Bueller type?” Kennedy probed.
Kavanaugh laughed more, encouraged by others laughing around him, but he didn’t answer. By all indications, he was not the bookish, responsible John-Boy Walton. (That more accurately describes Justice Neil Gorsuch, who also graduated from Georgetown Prep.) Kavanaugh said, “I loved sports, first and foremost.” He played football and basketball. He furrowed his brow as he became more reflective. He worked hard at school, he continued. He had a lot of friends. Some of his friends had been attending the hearings.
“You left out the trouble part. I was waiting for that,” Kennedy said.
Kavanaugh looked uncomfortable. “Uh, right,” he said. “That’s encompassed under the friends.” He tried smiling again.
“Now, see, I was going to ask the judge, if not him but any of his underage running buddies tried to sneak a few beers past Jesus or something like that in high school,” Kennedy said. “But I’m not going to go there.” Kavanaugh smiled.
Ten days later, Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor at Palo Alto University, publicly accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a high-school house party in Bethesda, Maryland. Ford described Kavanaugh as “stumbling drunk” at the time of the assault. He has flatly denied the accusation. His defenders point out that she dates the assault to thirty-six years ago, when Kavanaugh was only a teen-ager. But Kavanaugh has made his high-school years a very prominent part of his personal narrative. In a speech three years ago at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law, Kavanaugh said, “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep,” adding, of himself and his friends, “That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.” When he answered Kennedy in the Senate hearings, Kavanaugh mentioned that Jim Fegan, his high-school football coach, had texted him just three nights before, and that since being nominated he’s been running on the Georgetown Prep track on the weekends. Some people put high school behind them. Kavanaugh has not.
Kavanaugh managed to avoid testifying on whether he snuck a few beers past Jesus. But, as has been widely reported, the inside jokes on his high-school yearbook page list him as the treasurer of the “Keg City Club” and a member of the “Beach Week Ralph Club,” and make reference to “100 Kegs or Bust.” Close readers of his yearbook page have debated whether “Have You Boofed Yet?” refers to the practice of anally ingesting alcohol or drugs. According to many graduates of Washington prep schools, the party culture described in yearbooks often created occasions for sexual harassment and assault. More than a thousand women who attended Holton-Arms, the girls’ school from which Ford graduated, have signed a letter that describes the alleged assault as “all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton. Many of us are survivors ourselves.”
Now the rest of us are learning about the hierarchy of Washington private schools—about what it meant, in the eighties, to go to Georgetown Prep as opposed to Landon or Gonzaga, and about the girls’ schools Stone Ridge, Visitation, and Holton-Arms. By all appearances, the kids from these prep schools almost exclusively socialize with one another, and that social network informs their identities for the rest of their lives. As reporters have investigated Kavanaugh’s high-school years, many alumni have expressed fear about going on the record and alienating themselves from a close-knit community. “I guess you could call it a fraternity between a bunch of rich kids,” an anonymous alumnus of Georgetown Prep, who overlapped with Kavanaugh there, told the Huff Post. “All this shit happens, and then nobody really wants to talk about it, because if one person crumbles, the whole system crumbles, and everybody tells on everybody.” I spoke with another Georgetown Prep alumnus, who hated high school but still didn’t want to go on the record about what it was like there. Even for those who take less pride in the institution, what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep.
In 1990, seven years after Kavanaugh graduated, four students were expelled from the school for participating in a hazing ritual called “butting.” According to the Washington Post, which reported on the fallout from the expulsions, in the ritual, “a student is held down while another student places his naked buttocks close to the victim’s face.” One of the students, whose father was an alumnus, filed a lawsuit with his parents contesting his expulsion, arguing that he and his classmates had taken the fall for a common practice at the school. When a county judge rejected the lawsuit, the boy’s father, who told the Post that nineteen family members had attended Georgetown Prep, said, “I don’t think too kindly of the school,” adding that he planned to have his name struck from the alumni rolls. It was an extraordinary display of privilege, and of the protections that people think they will receive for expressing loyalty to an institution.
During the past week, Georgetown Prep has defended its reputation, publishing a letter from its president, the Reverend James Van Dyke, to “the Prep Community.” It is a strange document, in which Van Dyke describes this as “a time to continue our ongoing work with the guys on developing a proper sense of self and a healthy understanding of masculinity, in contrast to so many of the cultural models and caricatures that they see.” The reasons for any bad behavior, it seems, lie outside the school. “That we are elite, we cannot deny,” he writes. “That we are privileged, we also cannot deny.” But, Van Dyke continues, “We are not entitled, and one of the most important lessons we strive to live and teach our students is an ethic of service and compassion and solidarity with those in need.” Georgetown Prep students are framed not as citizens but as benevolent patriarchs: their good behavior is a form of service. Van Dyke speaks of a need to show “respect for women and other marginalized people.” These are unfortunate constructions. Before the alleged assault, Ford wasn’t necessarily “marginalized”; she wasn’t “in need.”
What Kavanaugh appears to have been taught, as a young person, is that goodness is working at a soup kitchen or volunteering on a mission to a poorer country; it’s granted to other people as an act of charity. Meanwhile, less good behavior would be tolerated, as long as it happened under the veil of drunkenness, or as a joke. The Jesuit fathers would turn a blind eye to the yearbook, and U.S. senators would chuckle at frat-boy antics. In this world, high school doesn’t end when you’re eighteen; it’s a lifelong circle of mutual support, an in-crowd that protects itself.
One quote on Kavanaugh’s yearbook page is an apparent reference to his friend Mark Judge, who Ford says was in the room when Kavanaugh assaulted her. Judge, who says he has “no memory” of the incident and that he does not want to testify, is the author of a 1997 memoir called “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk.” The quote is from Benjamin Franklin; the emphasis is Kavanaugh’s: “He that would live in peace and at ease must not speak all he knows, nor JUDGE all he sees.” The next few days will show whether Kavanaugh was right to place his faith in this system.

|
|
RSN: Lessons Never Learned |
|
|
Sunday, 23 September 2018 10:48 |
|
Cory writes: "On March 17, 1973, All in the Family aired the episode 'Gloria the Victim.' The storyline is that Gloria barely escaped a rape attempt on her way home. The family debates what to do - to report it or not to report it."
Orrin Hatch. (photo: Kristin Murphy/Deseret News)

Lessons Never Learned
By John Cory, Reader Supported News
23 September 18
“I’m just a human being trying to make it in a world that is very rapidly losing its understanding of being human.”
— John Trudell
n March 17, 1973, All in the Family aired the episode “Gloria the Victim.” The storyline is that Gloria barely escaped a rape attempt on her way home. The family debates what to do – to report it or not to report it. The talented Charles Durning plays a cop who demonstrates what is going to happen to Gloria if she goes to court. How were you dressed? Short skirt? Do you have lots of men friends? Do you always parade in front of wolf-whistling construction workers? And worse.
Edith tells Gloria of her own experience when she was young and how she escaped a similar fate by using a knee to the groin. She never told anyone, ever, but she always wondered if some other girl found herself in the same position but maybe wasn’t able to get away. Maybe she should have said something. And so Edith and Gloria decide to report it.
In the meantime, Michael and Archie have listened to the cop detail how Gloria will be smeared and attacked, and how she will be made out to be the one who was at fault for all of it, and so they decide that it’s best for Gloria that she doesn’t report the assault.
The last camera shot of that decision is a close-up of Gloria’s tormented face.
1973. Forty-five years ago. 45 years.
Today I read that the Deputy Chief of Staff for Orrin Hatch apparently colluded with his friend Ed Whelan in making a spurious charge that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was a confused woman who got her attempted rapist mixed up with someone else who looked like Brett Kavanaugh. Poor woman was just emotionally unable to tell the difference. Whelan even named an innocent man and suggested he was the attempted rapist. Wow.
Turns out none of that was true. Surprise!
45 years and what have we learned?
Congressman Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) during a debate this week made a joke: “Did you hear about this? Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out saying she was groped by Abraham Lincoln.” What an asshat. And yes, he’s a Republican.
There are so many levels of wrong in this verbal vomit that it boggles the mind, and yet it appears that attempted rape, sexual assault, or sexual harassment are just one big joke to the real men of the GOP.
You see, their rule is very simple: A penis always trumps a woman.
45 years and what have we learned?
We’ve learned that a man who listens and laughs at a man bragging about sexual assault gets fired from his TV job, while the guy bragging about shoving his tongue down women’s throats and grabbing them by their privates gets elected President.
Bill Cosby learned that roofies are best for memory loss when it comes to sexual assault. Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, and Les Moonves learned that having power and money gives them the right to do what they want with a woman and then threaten her career and reputation if she tells.
Even young men from a college wrestling team claimed they told their coaches that the team doctor had sexually assaulted them and those coaches did nothing. They now find themselves on the receiving end of character assassination and denial by a coach, Jim Jordan, a member of Congress the GOP wants to be the next Speaker of the House. Shades of Dennis Hastert anyone?
The GOP leadership is so afraid of courageous women who refuse to be silenced by weak-kneed, fickle men who lack principle they’ve decided that sacrificing decency to maintain autocratic rule is more important than protecting sex-crime victims. That getting Kavanaugh in a position to overturn Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act and selling America to the corporations trumps everything and anything that gets in their way. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are so deep in the slop and swampy sty that they can’t even smell the stench of corruption emanating from their very core.
45 years later and what have we learned?
Not enough.

|
|