Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Dutch Government Collapses Over Plan to Further Limit Immigration

      by

      Prime Minister Mark Rutte, one of Europe’s longest-serving leaders, had struggled to reach an agreement with his coalition partners about migration, including more restrictions.The Dutch government collapsed on Friday after the parties in its ruling coalition failed to reach an agreement on migration policy, underlining how the issue of asylum seekers coming to Europe continues to divide governments across the continent.Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who was overseeing his fourth cabinet and is one of Europe’s longest-serving leaders, told reporters on Friday that he would submit his resignation to the king.“It is no secret that the coalition partners have very different views on migration policy,” Mr. Rutte told reporters in The Hague on Friday. “And today, unfortunately, we have to draw the conclusion that those differences are irreconcilable.”The disintegration of the government triggers new general elections in the fall, and a caretaker government headed by Mr. Rutte will remain in place until then.For months, the parties in the coalition government had struggled to come to an agreement about migration, debating terms of family reunification and whether to create two classes of asylum: a temporary one for people fleeing conflicts, and a permanent one for people fleeing persecution. .Dutch news organizations reported that Mr. Rutte had called for limiting the entrance for children of war refugees who were already in the Netherlands and for making families wait at least two years before they could be reunited. Mr. Rutte denied those reports, according to the Dutch broadcaster NOS.But arguments about migration policy continued to split the Dutch government, which already has tougher immigration policies than some other E.U. nations. This week, two parties in the governing coalition, the Christian Union and the centrist D66, determined that they could not come to terms with Mr. Rutte’s party, leading to a crisis in the government.“One of the values that are important with the proposals is that children grow up with their parents,” a statement by the Christian Union party said. “As a family party, that is what we stand for.” The party said it wanted to work with “heart and soul for a humane and effective migration policy.”Migration has proved an intractable issue among many European voters and political parties, fueling the popularity of nationalistic and right-wing parties around the continent, and leading to sharp criticism from rights activists over how governments have treated migrants. Last year, Dutch aid agencies struggled to help hundreds of asylum seekers who were living in a makeshift camp outside an overcrowded reception center, in what aid workers described as dismal conditions.Last year, more than 21,000 people from outside the European Union sought asylum in the Netherlands, according to the Dutch government. More than 400,000 people immigrated to the Netherlands overall in 2022, the office said, an increase from the year before.The large numbers of arrivals have strained the Netherlands’ housing capacity, which was already suffering a shortage for the country’s more than 17 million people.The ruling parties of the Dutch government had met repeatedly in recent days to try to find common ground, and Mr. Rutte’s cabinet met late Friday for its own talks.“We talked for a long time, we are coming here tonight because we did not succeed,” the defense minister, Kajsa Ollongren, told reporters as she walked into the cabinet meeting, according to The Associated Press.“Everybody wants to find a good, effective solution that also does justice to the fact that this is about human lives,” the finance minister, Sigrid Kaag, a member of the D66 party, said before the talks began.Aid workers handing out blankets and other supplies to asylum seekers in Ter Apel, the Netherlands, in August 2022.Vincent Jannink/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesOver the last decade, as thousands of people have sought asylum in the European Union from Africa and the Middle East, far-right parties that oppose immigration have gained popularity across the 27-member bloc. In some countries, their success has pushed center and right-wing parties to lurch further to the right on immigration and asylum policy.In June, Spain’s far-right Vox party did better than expected in regional elections, and last fall, the Sweden Democrats, a party with roots in the neo-Nazi movement, won 20.5 percent of the vote in Sweden, becoming the second largest party in Parliament.In France, the far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who has long held an anti-immigration stance, reached the final round of the presidential election last year. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has clung to power in part by railing against immigration.And last year Italy elected a hard-right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni, whose long record of criticizing immigration and the European Union has sown concern about the nation’s reliability in the Western alliance.Mr. Rutte had supported European Union efforts to limit migration, visiting Tunisia last month with Ms. Meloni and a top E.U. leader, Ursula Von der Leyen. In a joint statement, the leaders said the European Union would provide 100 million euros, or about $109 million, to Tunisia for “border management” and search-and-rescue and anti-smuggling efforts.The last time Mr. Rutte and his cabinet resigned was in 2021 over a report highlighting systemic failure by his government to protect thousands of families from overzealous tax inspectors. But Mr. Rutte weathered that crisis, emerging as the Netherlands’ leader yet again after nine months of negotiations that December. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Indian Court Dismisses Rahul Gandhi’s Defamation Appeal

      by

      The defamation case, stemming from a comment Rahul Gandhi made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, could go to the Supreme Court. It may hurt his ability to run in upcoming elections.Rahul Gandhi, India’s top opposition leader, faced another setback on Friday when a court in the state of Gujarat denied his request to stay his conviction in a defamation case, a move that leaves him at risk of imprisonment and possibly unable to run in national elections next year.Mr. Gandhi, the most prominent leader of the Indian National Congress party, was sentenced to two years in prison in March in connection with a 2019 campaign speech in which he likened Prime Minister Narendra Modi to two Indians accused of swindling money who shared the same last name.A member of Mr. Modi’s party, who also shared the Modi name, argued that the remark was offensive and filed a lawsuit. The sentence, the maximum for defamation cases, automatically disqualified Mr. Gandhi from his seat in Parliament. Members of the opposition have called the case politically motivated.The Gujarat High Court, where Mr. Gandhi had filed a petition seeking a stay on his conviction, said there was no reasonable ground to suspend it. “The conviction is just, proper and legal,” said Justice Hemant Prachchhak, who heard the review plea at the high court.Mr. Gandhi, 53, is out on bail, and his last option is to advance the case to India’s Supreme Court for final review. His party has said he will do so.His case is the latest example of what opposition parties have long accused Mr. Modi of: using branches of the government, including the police and the courts, to quash dissent and bog down political opponents and critics of his government.One of India’s premier law enforcement agencies that answer indirectly to Mr. Modi, the Enforcement Directorate, is being increasingly accused of conducting raids on places connected to political opponents of Mr. Modi’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party, or B.J.P.Mr. Gandhi is among the most vocal of the national opposition leaders, and his legal woes are stymieing him at a time when he was trying to build momentum and to unite various political opposition groups around his party. He had rallied the public with a grass-roots march across India — some 2,000 miles over five months — during which he railed against Mr. Modi’s power.In actively seeking the public’s support, Mr. Gandhi, the scion of a once-mighty political dynasty, positioned himself as a main challenger to Mr. Modi, who remains popular with Indian voters.After his conviction in March in a lower court, Mr. Gandhi approached the high court in Gujarat seeking a stay of the conviction. As long as that conviction stands, Indian law bars him from competing in elections and from Parliament. “The use of defamation law is being utilized to crush a voice,” Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a member of the Indian National Congress, said after the high court verdict. “But that doesn’t mean Rahul Gandhi is afraid. He will continue to walk on the path of truth.”Lawmakers from the B.J.P. praised Friday’s ruling.One of them, Ravi Shankar Prasad, said Mr. Gandhi’s remarks were a direct attack on members of lower-caste groups, including the one with which Mr. Modi is often associated, who have faced discrimination in India for centuries.“It has become a chronic habit of Mr. Rahul Gandhi to abuse, to defame and shower the worst kind of abuses against eminent leaders and organizations,” he said. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Guatemala perderá la batalla por la democracia?

      by

      La democracia de Guatemala está bajo ataque. En los últimos cuatro años, un grupo de élites poderosas vinculadas con el crimen organizado, conocido como el “pacto de corruptos”, ha ido desmantelando las estructuras democráticas de Guatemala mediante la cooptación de las instituciones judiciales y el arresto y exilio de fiscales, jueces, periodistas y activistas en favor de la democracia. Ahora, como siguiente paso para consolidar su poder, están tratando de manipular las votaciones nacionales, que están en proceso.De cara a las elecciones de 2023, el presidente Alejandro Giammattei nombró en las cortes y en el Tribunal Supremo Electoral funcionarios fieles a él. Luego, el régimen gobernante y sus aliados usaron estas entidades para distorsionar la Constitución y corromper los procesos electorales con la finalidad de inclinar la balanza política a su favor. El poder judicial hizo lo propio: anuló una prohibición constitucional para permitir que la hija de un exdictador aspirara a la presidencia, permitió que se postularan como candidatos algunos aliados del régimen que han sido acusados y condenados por delitos y descalificó a sus rivales con base en cargos fabricados.Es por eso que ni siquiera los observadores más experimentados de la política guatemalteca podrían haber predicho que Bernardo Arévalo —un reformista moderado que se postuló con una plataforma anticorrupción y que tenía tan solo el 3 por ciento en las encuestas antes de la votación— sería uno de los dos candidatos con más votos en la primera vuelta de las elecciones presidenciales, celebrada el 25 de junio. Con el 12 por ciento de los votos, obtuvo un lugar en la segunda vuelta electoral del próximo mes. Su rival, Sandra Torres, del partido Unidad Nacional de la Esperanza, quien consiguió casi el 16 por ciento de los votos, fue primera dama, se ha postulado a la presidencia en tres ocasiones y está alineada con el “pacto de corruptos”. En 2019, se le acusó de financiamiento ilegal de campaña, y a su partido se le ha vinculado con el crimen organizado.El 1 de julio, la Corte de Constitucionalidad de Guatemala ordenó una nueva revisión de las actas donde se certificaron las votaciones en la primera vuelta presidencial luego de que el partido de Torres y sus aliados impugnaron los resultados, incluso cuando otros candidatos ya los aceptaron y las misiones internacionales y nacionales de observación electoral declararon que el proceso fue justo y limpio. Muchos temen que este fallo pueda sentar las bases para más impugnaciones falsas que podrían llegar a anular los resultados, demorar la segunda vuelta o excluir a Arévalo de la contienda. Las denuncias de fraude hacen recordar las que circulaban en Estados Unidos tras la victoria del presidente Joe Biden en 2020, aunque, con todo el aparato judicial de su lado, los negacionistas de las elecciones en Guatemala tienen más probabilidades de salirse con la suya.La situación está generando incertidumbre política, pero los guatemaltecos han demostrado que no están dispuestos a permitir que su democracia muera así de fácil. Los autócratas del país han desplegado toda la fuerza del Estado para robarse las elecciones, pero no son los únicos que se están movilizando. Los ciudadanos están alzando la voz para defender su derecho al voto. Si triunfan, habrán demostrado que es posible resistirse al ascenso del autoritarismo. Este podría ser un momento crítico para los guatemaltecos, uno que resuene en otras partes del mundo donde la democracia está bajo amenaza.Arévalo, exdiplomático, sociólogo y actual diputado en el Congreso de la República, surgió en un paisaje abarrotado de candidatos presidenciales. Venció a su contrincante más cercano, el candidato del partido Vamos de Giammattei, por más de 200.000 votos. Arévalo es miembro del partido de centro Movimiento Semilla, cuyos integrantes tienden a ser jóvenes y está conformado en su mayoría por estudiantes universitarios, profesores, ingenieros y propietarios de pequeñas empresas.Bernardo Arévalo de Movimiento Semilla celebrando los resultados electorales con simpatizantes en Ciudad de Guatemala el 26 de junio.Moises Castillo/Associated PressSandra Torres del partido Unidad Nacional de la Esperanza en Ciudad de Guatemala el 25 de junio.Luis Acosta/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPese a ser relativamente desconocido, es el hijo del estimado expresidente Juan José Arévalo, quien en a mediados de la década de 1940 inició un periodo de gobierno reformista en Guatemala conocido como la primavera democrática. En 1954, un golpe de Estado respaldado por la CIA puso un fin abrupto a ese proyecto y dio paso a cuatro décadas de guerra y dictadura represiva.Dado el legado político de su padre, la oleada de popularidad de Arévalo y Semilla en este momento, si bien causa sorpresa, responde a una lógica colectiva. El partido se formó como respuesta a la serie de escándalos de corrupción que convulsionó a Guatemala en 2015. Como movimiento, encauzó el descontento popular para formar un consenso amplio entre quienes se sentían decepcionados de los políticos depredadores y los que estaban desesperados por un futuro político distinto. Tras convertirse en un partido político en 2018, Semilla se ha mantenido fiel a su misión de combatir la impunidad y fortalecer la democracia.En la primera vuelta, demostró ser una alternativa conveniente para los electores frustrados. Aunque el partido en el poder trató de eclipsar a los candidatos ajenos a la clase política dominante y preservar el statu quo, sus maniobras antidemocráticas fueron contraproducentes. Muchos esperaban que las tasas de abstención fueran más altas de lo normal, pero al final el 60 por ciento de los guatemaltecos acudió a las urnas. Casi una cuarta parte de quienes se presentaron votaron en blanco o anularon su boleta para manifestar su enojo ante lo que perciben como un sistema amañado. Ellos, junto con quienes decidieron votar por el último candidato reformista que quedaba, impulsaron a Arévalo a la segunda vuelta.El éxito de Semilla y el contraataque que suscitó incitaron un movimiento ciudadano que está trabajando para asegurarse de que la voluntad del pueblo sea escuchada. Estos ciudadanos han iniciado una campaña en redes sociales, donde publican los registros de las mesas electorales escritos a mano para rebatir las denuncias de fraude. Hay voluntarios supervisando las auditorías del conteo de votos que ordenó la corte. Las organizaciones indígenas prometieron realizar manifestaciones pacíficas en todo el país si las autoridades intentan manipular las elecciones. Hasta miembros de una comunidad empresarial históricamente conservadora declararon su apoyo al movimiento prodemocrático, con un llamado a respetar los resultados electorales y a garantizar que el proceso de la segunda vuelta electoral, programada para el 20 de agosto, transcurra según lo planeado.Ciudadanos protestaron frente al Tribunal Supremo Electoral contra la suspensión de los resultados de las elecciones, en Ciudad de Guatemala este lunes.Esteban Biba/EPA vía ShutterstockLa comunidad internacional también respalda esta iniciativa civil. La Unión Europea, la Organización de los Estados Americanos e incluso Estados Unidos, que se ha mostrado reacio a enfrentarse públicamente con el gobierno de Giammattei, afirmaron la legitimidad de los resultados y denunciaron la interferencia electoral. Otras personas que respaldan la democracia en América Central también están apoyando el movimiento ciudadano emergente en Guatemala, el cual podría servir de modelo para las iniciativas de resistencia ante sus propios dirigentes cada vez más autocráticos.Guatemala encarará obstáculos políticos profundos en las próximas semanas. Aunque los resultados electorales se declaren válidos, Arévalo tendrá que consolidar una alianza amplia antes de la segunda vuelta que pueda unificarse en torno a una apuesta política común, algo que no será nada sencillo en un país que desde hace mucho vive con divisiones étnicas, socioeconómicas e ideológicas.Pero el país ya ha superado obstáculos como estos. Las protestas contra la corrupción de 2015 convocaron a un movimiento popular diverso que derrocó a un presidente y a una vicepresidenta en funciones. Si bien los ocho años transcurridos desde entonces han traído retrocesos brutales hacia la autocracia, la paciencia y perseverancia de los líderes de oposición prepararon el camino para este nuevo impulso democrático.Aun si el calendario electoral continúa según lo planeado y se le permite contender a Arévalo, la campaña de desinformación que pretende vilipendiarlo y sembrar miedo solo se va a intensificar. Además, si logra ganar en la segunda vuelta, su bancada minoritaria en el Congreso y el arraigado poder institucional de la élite corrupta dificultarán sus intentos de gobernar con eficacia.Pero ya habrá tiempo para preocuparnos por las complicadas labores de la gobernanza. Por ahora, los riesgos políticos son más grandes que nunca. Si los negacionistas de las elecciones prevalecen, Guatemala habrá perdido la batalla por la democracia. Pero si sus defensores tienen éxito, esto supondrá un duro golpe para detener la regresión en un país donde, no hace mucho, el ímpetu autócrata parecía irreversible.Anita Isaacs es profesora de ciencias políticas en Haverford College. Rachel A. Schwartz es profesora de estudios internacionales y regionales en la Universidad de Oklahoma, además de autora del libro Undermining the State From Within: The Institutional Legacies of Civil War in Central America. Álvaro Montenegro es un periodista guatemalteco. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Guatemalan Election Deniers Are Trying to Overturn Democracy

      by

      Guatemala’s democracy is under assault. Over the past four years, a group of powerful elites tied to organized crime, known as the “pact of the corrupt,” has been steadily dismantling Guatemala’s democratic guardrails by co-opting judicial institutions and arresting and exiling prosecutors, judges, journalists and pro-democracy activists. Now, in their next step to consolidate power, they are trying to manipulate the national elections that are underway.In anticipation of the 2023 elections, President Alejandro Giammattei packed the courts and the electoral tribunal with loyalists. The ruling regime and its allies then enlisted these entities to distort the Constitution and tamper with election procedures to tilt the political playing field in their favor. The judicial sector delivered — overruling a constitutional ban to permit the daughter of a former dictator to run, certifying the candidacies of regime allies charged and convicted of crimes and disqualifying rivals based on manufactured charges of malfeasance.That’s why not even the most seasoned observers of Guatemalan politics could have predicted that Bernardo Arévalo, a moderate reformist championing an anti-corruption platform and polling at just 3 percent before the vote, would be one of the two top finishers in the June 25 general elections, securing 12 percent of the vote and a spot in the runoff next month. His rival, Sandra Torres of the National Unity of Hope party, who garnered nearly 16 percent of the vote, is a former first lady and three-time presidential contender and is aligned with the “pact of the corrupt.” In 2019, she was indicted on a charge of illicit campaign financing, and her party has been linked to organized crime.On July 1, the Constitutional Court ordered electoral authorities’ ballots from the first-round presidential election to be reviewed after Ms. Torres’s party and allies challenged the results — even though other candidates have already conceded and international and domestic observer missions deemed the elections clean. Many fear the ruling could pave the way for additional spurious challenges that could eventually overturn the results, delay the second round or exclude Mr. Arévalo from competing altogether. The cries of fraud echo those in the United States after President Biden’s 2020 victory, although, with the entire judicial system on their side, Guatemala’s election deniers stand a better chance of pulling it off.The situation has fueled political uncertainty, but Guatemalans have shown that they aren’t willing to let their democracy die without a fight. Though the country’s autocrats have now deployed the full force of the state to steal the elections, they are not the only people mobilizing. Ordinary citizens are raising their voices in defense of their sacred right to vote. If they triumph, they will have shown that it is possible to resist rising authoritarianism. This could be Guatemalans’ moment — and one that reverberates in other parts of the world where democracy is under threat.Mr. Arévalo, a former diplomat, sociologist and current representative in the national legislature, emerged from the middle of the crowded presidential field. He beat the next closest challenger, Mr. Giammattei’s Vamos party candidate, by over 200,000 votes. Mr. Arévalo is a member of the centrist Movimiento Semilla, or “seed movement,” party, which skews young and is made up largely of university students, professors, engineers and small-business owners.Bernardo Arévalo of the Semilla party celebrating the election results with supporters in Guatemala City on June 26.Moises Castillo/Associated PressSandra Torres of the National Unity of Hope party in Guatemala City on June 25.Luis Acosta/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThough relatively unknown, he is also the son of the beloved former president Juan José Arévalo, who in the 1940s initiated Guatemala’s decade of reformist government known as the Democratic Spring. A 1954 C.I.A.-backed coup abruptly ended that experiment and ushered in four decades of war and repressive dictatorial rule.Given his father’s political legacy, Mr. Arévalo’s and Semilla’s surge of popularity at this moment, while surprising, is fitting. The party formed in the wake of corruption scandals that convulsed Guatemala in 2015. As a movement, it channeled popular discontent, seeking to build a broad consensus among those disillusioned with predatory politicians and desperate for a different political future. After transitioning to a political party in 2018, Semilla has remained true to its mission, aiming to combat impunity and strengthen democracy.Last month, it proved to be a welcome alternative for frustrated voters. Though the ruling party tried to sideline outsider candidates and preserve the political status quo, its anti-democratic maneuvering backfired. Many expected abstention rates to be higher than usual, but in the end 60 percent of Guatemalans turned out to vote. Nearly a quarter of those who voted cast a blank or voided ballot to register their anger at what they perceived as a rigged system. This, combined with those who chose to vote for the last reformist candidate standing, propelled Mr. Arévalo into the runoff round.Semilla’s success and the subsequent backlash have galvanized a citizen-led movement that is now working to ensure that the will of the people is heard. These citizens have started a social media campaign, posting the handwritten, precinct-level vote registries challenging claims of fraud. Volunteers are observing the court-mandated auditing of vote tallies. Indigenous organizations have vowed to stage peaceful, countrywide demonstrations if the courts attempts to manipulate the election. Even stalwart members of the historically conservative business community have endorsed the pro-democracy movement, urging respect for the electoral results and demanding that the runoff proceeds on Aug. 20 according to plan.Citizens protested in front of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal against the measure to suspend the results of the general election, in Guatemala City on Monday.Esteban Biba/EPA, via ShutterstockThe international community is rallying behind them. The European Union, the Organization of American States and even the United States, which has been reluctant to publicly clash with the Giammattei government, have affirmed the legitimacy of the results and denounced electoral interference. Fellow democrats in Central America are also rooting for Guatemala’s emergent civic movement, which could provide a blueprint for efforts to resist their own increasingly autocratic leaders.Guatemala faces profound political hurdles in the weeks ahead. Even if the court declares the results to be valid, Mr. Arévalo will have to consolidate a broad alliance before the runoff that can unite around a shared political project — no easy feat in a country long divided along ethnic, socioeconomic and ideological lines. But it has surmounted these obstacles before. The 2015 anti-corruption protests marshaled a diverse popular movement that toppled a sitting president and vice president. Though the eight years since then have brought steep autocratic regressions, the patience and persistence of opposition leaders laid the foundations for this new democratic moment.Even if the electoral timetable proceeds according to schedule and Mr. Arévalo is allowed to run, the disinformation campaign to vilify him and stoke fear will only intensify. And if he can pull off a second-round victory, his minority congressional delegation and the entrenched institutional power of the corrupt elite will hinder his efforts to govern effectively.But the messy work of democratic governance is for another day. For now, the political stakes could not be higher. If the election deniers succeed, Guatemala will have lost the battle for democracy. But if its defenders prevail, democratic backsliding will have been dealt a powerful blow in a country where not long ago, the autocratic momentum seemed irreversible.Anita Isaacs is a professor of political science at Haverford College. Rachel A. Schwartz is professor of international and area studies at the University of Oklahoma. She is the author of “Undermining the State From Within: The Institutional Legacies of Civil War in Central America.” Álvaro Montenegro is a Guatemalan journalist.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Conspiracy Theories Go Beyond Vaccines

      by

      A longtime vaccine skeptic, Mr. Kennedy is leaning heavily on misinformation as he mounts a long-shot 2024 campaign.He has promoted a conspiracy theory that coronavirus vaccines were developed to control people via microchips. He has endorsed the false notion that antidepressants are linked to school shootings. And he has pushed the decades-old theory that the C.I.A. killed his uncle, former President John F. Kennedy.Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, is a leading vaccine skeptic and purveyor of conspiracy theories who has leaned heavily on misinformation as he mounts his long-shot 2024 campaign for the Democratic nomination.But as voters express discontentment at a likely rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump, Mr. Kennedy has garnered as much as 20 percent of the vote in recent Democratic primary polling.Mr. Biden and the Democratic National Committee have not publicly acknowledged Mr. Kennedy’s candidacy and have declined to comment on his campaign. Nevertheless, the public scrutiny that accompanies a White House bid has highlighted other questionable beliefs and statements Mr. Kennedy has elevated over the years.Here are five of the many baseless claims Mr. Kennedy has peddled on the campaign trail and beyond.He has falsely linked vaccines to various medical conditions.Mr. Kennedy has promoted many false, specious or unproven claims that center on public health and the pharmaceutical industry — most notably, the scientifically discredited belief that childhood vaccines cause autism.That notion has been rejected by more than a dozen peer-reviewed scientific studies across multiple countries. The National Academy of Medicine reviewed eight vaccines for children and adults and found that with rare exceptions, the vaccines are very safe, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Seen by many as the face of the vaccine resistance movement, Mr. Kennedy has asserted that he is “not anti-vaccine” and seeks to make vaccines more safe. But he has advertised misleading information about vaccine ingredients and circulated retracted studies linking vaccines to various medical conditions. At a rally in Washington last year, he compared the vaccination records some called “vaccine passports” to life in Germany during the Holocaust, a statement he later apologized for. And he falsely told Louisiana lawmakers in 2021 that the coronavirus vaccine was the “deadliest vaccine ever made.”Children’s Health Defense, an organization Mr. Kennedy originally founded as the World Mercury Project, has frequently campaigned against vaccines. Facebook and Instagram removed the group’s accounts last year for espousing vaccine misinformation, and Mr. Kennedy has often lamented the perils of “censorship” in campaign speeches since.Mr. Kennedy, who many see as a prominent representative for the vaccine resistance movement, attended the New York Rally for Vaccine Injury and Vaccine Rights in Albany in 2019.Desiree Rios for The New York TimesHe has made baseless claims about a connection between gender dysphoria and chemical exposure.In an interview last month with Jordan Peterson, a conservative Canadian psychologist and public speaker, Mr. Kennedy falsely linked chemicals present in water sources to transgender identity.“A lot of the problems we see in kids, particularly boys, it’s probably underappreciated how much of that is coming from chemical exposures, including a lot of sexual dysphoria that we’re seeing,” he said. He referred to research on an herbicide, atrazine, in which scientists found that it “induces complete feminization and chemical castration” in certain frogs.But no evidence exists to indicate that the chemical, typically used on farms to kill weeds, causes the same effects in humans, let alone gender dysphoria. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Most people are not exposed to atrazine on a regular basis.”He has falsely linked antidepressants to school shootings.Drawing on longstanding dubious claims, Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly endorsed the idea that mass shootings have increased because of heightened use of antidepressants.“Kids always had access to guns, and there was no time in American history or human history where kids were going to schools and shooting their classmates,” he told the comedian Bill Maher on a recent episode of the podcast, “Club Random With Bill Maher.” “It really started happening conterminous with the introduction of these drugs, with Prozac and the other drugs.”While both antidepressant use and mass shooting occurrences have increased in the last several decades, the scientific community has found “no biological plausibility” to back a link between the two, according to Ragy Girgis, an associate professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University.Antidepressants often have warnings that reference suicidal thoughts, Mr. Girgis said. But those warnings refer to the possibility that people who already experience suicidal ideation might share pre-existing beliefs aloud once they take the medicine as part of their treatment.Mr. Kennedy, however, has pointed to such warnings as evidence of the false notion that the drugs might induce “homicidal tendencies.”Several high-profile figures, including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, have amplified similar claims following recent mass shootings.Most school shooters were not prescribed with psychotropic medications before committing acts of violence, a 2019 study found. And even when they were, researchers wrote, “no direct or causal association was found.”He has bolstered a conspiracy theory that the C.I.A. assassinated his uncle.Former President John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy, the former first lady, are shown in the back of a car minutes before Mr. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.Bettmann, Getty ImagesMr. Kennedy has long promoted a conspiracy theory that the C.I.A. killed his uncle, President John F. Kennedy.He claimed, without evidence, during a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity in May that Allen W. Dulles, a C.I.A. director fired by President Kennedy, helped cover up evidence of the organization’s involvement when he served on the Warren Commission, convened in 1963 to investigate the Kennedy assassination.Referencing a House committee inquiry in 1976, he said: “Most of the people in that investigation believed it was the C.I.A. that was behind it because the evidence was so overwhelming to them.”But even that investigation, which found that President Kennedy was “probably” the victim of a conspiracy of some kind, flatly concluded that the C.I.A. was “not involved.”The Warren Commission found that the killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, acted alone and was not connected to any governmental agency.And he has said that Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election.Mr. Kennedy told The Washington Post in June that he still believed that John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, had won the 2004 presidential election.Mr. Kennedy first promoted that idea in a 2006 article in Rolling Stone, asserting that Republicans had “mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people” and assure the re-election of President George W. Bush. He claimed that their efforts “prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted.”But it is one thing to complain of vote suppression; it is another thing to demonstrate that Mr. Kerry won more of the votes cast.Mr. Bush defeated Mr. Kerry by a margin of 35 electoral college votes nationally; he carried Ohio and its 20 electoral votes by more than 118,000 ballots.The Times reported in 2004 that a glitch in an electronic Ohio voting machine added 3,893 votes to Mr. Bush’s tally. That error was caught in preliminary vote counts, officials said. But the event, alongside other voting controversies nationwide, spurred widespread questions about election integrity that caught traction with people like Mr. Kennedy.Mr. Kerry, however, conceded the race a day after the election. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Yusef Salaam Is Declared Winner of Harlem City Council Primary Race

      by

      Mr. Salaam was one of the Central Park Five who were wrongly convicted and then exonerated in the rape and assault of a jogger in Central Park in 1989.Yusef Salaam, one of five Black and Latino men whose convictions were overturned in the 1989 rape and assault of a female jogger in Central Park, cemented his victory in a highly contested City Council primary race in Harlem, according to The Associated Press on Wednesday.Mr. Salaam, 49, held a commanding lead on Election Day, with more than twice the number of votes over his closest rival, Inez Dickens, a state assemblywoman. The New York City Board of Elections began tabulating ranked-choice votes on Wednesday, and the new ranked-choice tabulation now shows Mr. Salaam with almost 64 percent of the vote to Ms. Dickens’s 36 percent.“This is a victory for justice, dignity and decency for the Harlem community we love,” Mr. Salaam said in a statement. “It’s a victory in support of not turning our backs on those in need, for saying we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers and for saying the only way for all of us to thrive is to believe in the promise we all have.”In addition to Ms. Dickens, Mr. Salaam defeated another sitting member of the Assembly, Al Taylor, who is serving his sixth year in the Legislature. Mr. Salaam is not expected to face a serious challenger, if any, in November.He will succeed Kristin Richardson Jordan, a democratic socialist who was one of the most far-left members of the City Council. She dropped out of the primary in May, but her name still remained on the ballot and she will serve out her term.All three candidates were moderates who sought to distance themselves from Ms. Jordan’s far-left views on issues such as policing. Mr. Salaam cast the election as an opportunity for a generational shift in Harlem, which was once the center of Black political power in New York City but had ceded that title to Brooklyn.During the race, Mr. Salaam spoke frequently about his conviction, exoneration and persecution by former President Donald J. Trump, who in 1989 took out full page ads in The New York Times and other papers calling for the death penalty in the Central Park jogger case. During debates or forums, Mr. Salaam often referenced his conviction and the nearly seven years he spent in prison.In a recent interview, Mr. Salaam said his victory restored his “faith in believing that what happened to me was for this very moment.”Issues in the district include a lack of affordable housing, the loss of Black residents and the saturation of drug treatment and social services facilities. One of the major issues during the election was the fate of a proposed affordable housing project on Lenox Avenue and West 145th Street.Ms. Jordan initially opposed the project and rejected it because it was not affordable enough for Harlem residents. The developer instead opened a truck depot on the site. Mr. Salaam said he supports the development of housing at the intersection and will work with area residents to make sure the project meets their needs.“The problem that we are experiencing in Harlem right now is that we are being pushed out,” Mr. Salaam said. “They’re saying that we’re leaving, but the truth of the matter is that we are being priced out and therefore we are being pushed out.”Mr. Salaam received a warm reception while walking around Harlem recently with passers-by who wanted to shake his hand and take selfies with him, including Janice Marshall, a consultant and lifelong Harlem resident, even though she said Mr. Salaam was not her first choice.“I’m happy because it’s justice for him and I’m happy for the new energy,” Ms. Marshall said. “I’ve heard of his story and I just wish him well.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Stumping on July 4, Trump’s Rivals Pitch Themselves to Early-State Voters

      by

      Donald J. Trump loomed large over the campaign trail, even though he was among the few G.O.P. contenders who stayed away from it.At a high school cafeteria in Merrimack, N.H., on Tuesday, where patriotic music blasted from the speakers and the lunch tables were decked in star-spangled napery, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota mingled with families who were digging into eggs, sausage and pancakes at a Fourth of July breakfast hosted by the local Rotary Club.Nelson Disco, 88, one of the prospective voters in the small crowd, had a couple of questions for him. What was he running for? And with which party?“You’ve got some competition,” Mr. Disco exclaimed, as the North Dakota governor told him he was seeking the Republican nomination for president.But Mr. Burgum was undeterred: “Feeling great” about the race, he said.It was the final Fourth of July before New Hampshire’s first-in-the nation Republican primary, set for February, and the famed kingmaking caucuses in Iowa — plenty of time to make up ground, but it was clear for the darkest of dark horses who were burning shoe leather on Tuesday that there was a lot of ground to make up.Some better-known competitors were in New Hampshire too. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is in a distant second place in the Republican primary polls to former President Donald J. Trump, walked in two parades, including one that also drew Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is still well back in the pack. The weather was less than agreeable: Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Scott and others walking in the afternoon parade in Merrimack, N.H., were soaked when a rainstorm swept through.Independence Day campaigning is a tradition in New Hampshire and Iowa, as old as the caucuses and the primary in those states. That would be more than a century of front-runners and also-rans at the parades, picnics and pancake breakfasts of the Granite State. This year, however, there was a twist: The prohibitive front-runner, Mr. Trump, skipped the hustings, staying home with his family and firing off vulgar social media posts.Yet the minions of his campaign and his own bulky shadow still hung heavily over his competition.Former Vice President Mike Pence greeted spectators at an Independence Day parade in Urbandale, Iowa.Jordan Gale for The New York TimesIn Urbandale, Iowa, where Mr. Trump’s former vice president and current competitor, Mike Pence, was marching in the parade, spectators broke into a chant — “Trump, Trump, Trump” — as he passed by.Melody Krejci, 60, of Urbandale, said: “My whole family is Trump supporters, even down to our grandbabies. They also wear Trump clothing and Trump hats.” There are posters of Trump in their rooms, too, she said.She added, “I think Pence is a coward,” alluding to the erroneous belief, still pushed by Mr. Trump, that his vice president could have rejected enough electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, to send the 2020 election back to the states, and possibly overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.In the old days — before super PACs flooded the airwaves, social media brought politicians’ messages directly to voters’ smartphones and partisans were glued to their favored cable news shows — showing up on the Fourth of July really mattered.“Retail has always been mostly theater, but now it’s all a performance for the cameras, not about meeting regular people and listening to their concerns,” said Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee.This year, Mr. Trump’s rivals hoped it still did matter. In Merrimack, N.H., volunteers and supporters backing Mr. DeSantis waited to walk with their candidate in the Fourth of the July parade there, standing near a dance troupe in hot pink shirts, a wooden float filled with members of the Bektash Shrine Clowns and a yellow school bus decorated as the boat from the Boston Tea Party.But it was another Republican presidential hopeful, Mr. Scott, who caused a stir first, showing up on the parade route trailed by a passel of photographers and television cameras.“Hopefully some of those voters will become our voters,” Mr. Scott told reporters when asked his thoughts on the people in DeSantis and Trump gear who were coming up to shake his hand. “But at the end of the day, we thank God that we have folks that are committed to the country, committed to the concept that the conservative values always work.”Outside a pancake breakfast in Merrimack, N.H., former Representative Will Hurd of Texas and his wife, Lynlie Wallace, mixed with runners at a road race.Mr. Hurd, a moderate Republican and a fierce critic of Mr. Trump’s who is trying to get his fledgling presidential campaign out of the starting gate, said he had just finished touring the northern border near Vermont, which he said faces problems similar to those at the southern border in his home state: low resources and increased drug trafficking. Those were the sorts of issues he wanted to tackle, he said. But for now, he added, he was just happy to simply be out shaking hands.“Today is about meeting people, right?” Mr. Hurd said. “Not everybody is doom scrolling on social media or consuming cable news.”And Trump? “I’m sure people are thankful he’s not out,” he said. “He comes with a lot of baggage.”If there were glimmers of hope for the dark horses, it came from voter acknowledgment of that baggage, which now includes felony charges in New York connected to the payment of hush money to a porn star and federal felony charges in Miami accusing him of misusing highly classified documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them.Senator Tim Scott joked with a Trump supporter before walking in the July Fourth parade in Merrimack, N.H., on Tuesday.Reba Saldanha/Associated Press PhotoIn Iowa, Jim Miller, 73, was sitting along the Urbandale parade route with his wife and other family members. He said he had voted for Mr. Trump twice but had been disappointed in his attitude. He wants a candidate who puts being American ahead of being a Republican or a Democrat.Asked to compare Mr. Pence with Mr. Trump, Mr. Miller said: “Not even close. I’d take Pence any day.”As for Mr. Burgum, he expressed an understanding of just how steep his climb would be to even get into contention for his party’s presidential nomination. The name recognition challenge is “familiar,” he said. But he also noted that people had underestimated him when he left a lifelong career in the private sector to run for governor in 2016.He won that race by 20 percentage points, and he has not been seriously challenged in North Dakota since.Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota in Iowa last month. Mr. Burgum was among a number of Republican presidential hopefuls who spent the July Fourth holiday in New Hampshire.Charlie Neibergall/Associated PressNot everyone was in the dark on his campaign. A volunteer, Maureen Tracey, 55, rushed up from the back of the room to ask for a selfie with him. She said she liked Mr. Burgum because, like Mr. Trump, he seemed “different from a politician.” But unlike Mr. Trump, she added, Mr. Burgum seemed to be someone she could trust.Mr. Trump “has hurt too many people, and when you hurt so many people, there is no trust,” Ms. Tracey said.Mr. Burgum, contrasting himself with the highest-profile Republican in the race, Mr. Trump, without mentioning him, said that he had decided to run because the country needed a leader who would work for every American, regardless of political affiliation.“Republicans, Independents, Democrats — they all drive on the U.S. roads, they all go to U.S. schools, they all get health care in America,” he said. “Today’s the day to really reflect on that.”Ann Hinga Klein More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Macky Sall, Senegal’s Leader, Says He Won’t Run for Third Term

      by

      Macky Sall had considered seeking a third term in the West African country despite a constitutional limit of two.President Macky Sall of Senegal said on Monday that he would not seek a third term in office, putting an end to months of tensions over a hypothetical candidacy that many say would have violated the West African nation’s Constitution.“My dear fellow citizens, my decision after long consideration is to not be a candidate in the election on Feb. 25, 2024,” Mr. Sall said in a televised address. “My 2019 term was my second and last term.”Mr. Sall’s speech came a month after at least 16 people died in government protests that were fueled, in part, by his refusal to say whether he would run for a third term next year.Thousands of demonstrators, most of them young, had taken to the streets to protest against what they saw as an authoritarian drift from Mr. Sall’s government, and against the conviction of his main political opponent, Ousmane Sonko, on charges that his supporters said had been an attempt to sideline him.The violence, reminiscent of deadly protests in 2021, raised concerns among the Senegalese public and international observers that Senegal was no longer the beacon of political pluralism and stability it had long been regarded as in a region known for its frequent coups and aging leaders clinging to power.That made Mr. Sall’s announcement all the more welcome to many.“A time bomb was just deactivated,” Alioune Tine, a renowned Senegalese human rights figure, said about Mr. Sall’s renouncement. “It’s a huge relief for Senegal and the African continent.”Mr. Sall’s decision not to run was unusual for West and Central Africa, where some leaders have in recent years curbed their countries’ laws to stay in power.In 2021, President Alassane Ouattara of Ivory Coast was elected for a third term despite a constitutional rule limiting presidents to two. In the Central African Republic, President Faustin-Archange Touadéra is also seeking a third term through a constitutional referendum scheduled this month.Senegal, which has never experienced a coup since gaining independence from France in 1960, considers itself a model of democracy in Africa. Many feared that Mr. Sall might change that.Mr. Sall, 61, was first elected in 2012 for a seven-year term and again in 2019 for five years after he modified the Constitution, which limits presidents to two terms. He argued that the constitutional change had reset the clock to zero, but legal experts in Senegal and abroad dismissed the contention as fallacious.Since 2012, Mr. Sall has presided over the development of one of Africa’s fastest-growing economies, focusing on major infrastructure projects like a new international airport, a train linking the capital, Dakar, to its suburbs and a new metropolis aimed at alleviating congestion in Dakar.He has also overseen the development of a gas field off Senegal’s northern coast that is expected to start production next year. It could make the country of 17 million people a major producer of natural gas in Africa.Yet, Senegal’s health care system remains underdeveloped, while youth unemployment is widespread. And under Mr. Sall’s leadership, hundreds of political opponents have been jailed and journalists arrested.Senegal now faces an open election in less than eight months.The future for Mr. Sonko, Mr. Sall’s main opponent, remains uncertain. Last month, he was sentenced to two years in prison for “corrupting youth” after a massage parlor employee accused him of rape in 2021. Mr. Sonko was acquitted of rape and other charges, all which he denied.Mr. Sall has yet to name a political successor. On Tuesday evening, he said, “Senegal exceeds my person, and is full of leaders capable of taking the country to the next level.” More