The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Trans Rights demonstrations throughout Great Britain

The London government’s refusal to pass Scotland’s Gender Recognition Reform Bill makes Scottish independence more likely.

Dave Gilchrist
28/01/2023

In December the Scottish government decisively passed the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) bill with support from all parties. The bill makes it easier for Trans people to gain legal recognition of their gender by acquiring a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), which allows for the changing of their sex identity on birth certificates.

A GRC also allows Trans people to have their gender recognised on their marriage license and death certificate. It takes away the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria to acquire a GRC and lowers the minimum age of application to 16 from 18.

However, the bill was prevented from gaining royal assent, needed in UK law, by the Tory Westminster government on 17 January – which saw Section 35 of the Scotland Act used for the first time in its history. Scottish secretary in Westminster, Alister Jack, said the bill was being blocked as he believed it would have “adverse effects on the Equality Act”. Section 35 gives the Secretary of State for Scotland, a Tory appointed minister, the power to, in certain circumstances, veto legislation enacted by the devolved Scottish Parliament.

This has led to protests from Trans people and their allies in many towns and cities across England and in Scotland too.

About 1,000 people protested in Glasgow on Saturday the 21st, while at the same time, similar numbers protested outside Downing St, the home of the British Prime Minister Rushi Sunak and the heart of the Westminster government. Up to 2,000 protesters had shown their anger in central London the previous Wednesday night. Other protests included Bristol and York.

Trans activists are furious about this development. Many point out that even though the reforms in Scotland do not include nonbinary people, they nevertheless are a step on the road to making life easier for Trans people. They also deny that Trans rights cut across or harm the rights of women. Many point out the closure and under funding of resources for women and the recent rape and murder of women by the British Police forces by policemen such as David Carrick and Wayne Cousins as representing the real threat to women.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon replied to those that say the Gender Reform Bill would make it easier for “predatory men” to access women’s single-sex spaces, saying,

“I don’t believe that will be the case. You have some of the groups that are subject to violence by predatory men – Rape Crisis Scotland, Women’s AID Scotland, Zero Tolerance Scotland. These are groups that work with vulnerable women every single day. These organisations support this legislation, so it’s important to be clear. Actually, most of the key women’s organisations in Scotland do support this legislation.”

Sturgeon also pointed out that no one needs to show their birth certificate at present to enter women only spaces, “the point is this bill does not give a predatory man any more ability to abuse women than that predatory man already has.”

It seems likely that the Scottish government will pursue this through the courts and ask for a Judicial Review.

They point out that Westminster politicians are weaponising a vulnerable section of society, Trans people, in order to appeal to core Tory voters at a time when the government looks weak.

The move by the Tories has fuelled anger in Scotland at the Westminster government. A poll carried out for a national newspaper by Find Out Now suggested that 54% backed Scotland leaving the UK, with 46% in favour of remaining.

Many people living in Scotland are increasingly disgruntled with the UK government and the Tory party. They feel that they did not vote for the Tories, yet have to put up with their increasingly economically harsh and authoritarian rule. Many now support calls for Scottish independence.

The use of the Section 35 ruling has been hailed by some as “the end of devolution.” The devolved Scottish parliament was supposed to satisfy the feelings of Scots that they should be able to control their own affairs. However, the use of a veto by Alister Jack to block legislation that the Tory Party does not like will seem to many as a major step backwards regardless of their views on the GRR.

This comes only a couple of months after Westminster ruled in a court judgement that the Scottish Parliament did not have the right to call a referendum on independence for Scotland.

Scottish Civil Society Organisations have issued this statement.

2023’s Czech presidential election is a Post-Soviet farce

In Saturday’s election, Czechs are being asked to choose between a billionaire and a former chair of NATO

Vitek Prokop
26/01/2023

Members of the Politburo once asked Stalin which communist deviation was worse, the right-wing one represented by Bukharin or the left-wing one led by Trotsky. Stalin immediately replied: “both are worse – each in their own way.” Surprisingly, this classic Soviet joke also applies to our choices in the current Czech presidential election. Which of the two finalists is worse? Both. Each in their own way.

On January 14th, former prime minister and billionaire Andrej Babiš and former NATO military chairman Petr Pavel advanced to the second round. In the foreign press, the role of the Czech president is often described as purely ceremonial. Of course, Czechia has a parliamentary regime, and presidential powers are primarily representative, but historically the president has always enjoyed a great deal of informal influence. This includes the ability to raise policy issues and shape the nature of political debate in Czechia.

Contender 1: Petr Pavel – the General

The first round of the election was narrowly won by Petr Pavel, who garnered 35.40% of the vote. His campaign was backed by a long list of Czech capitalists. He was financially supported by Martin Hájek, the 21st richest Czech according to Forbes magazine, Dalibor Dědek, the 59th richest, and Ondřej Fryc, the 91st. Their generous donations to Pavel’s campaign had a hidden purpose. It doesn’t hurt to have a man in the Czech presidential palace who owes you a favor.

Pavel, known among his supporters simply as “the General,” built his campaign on the slogan “Let’s Return Order and Peace to the Czech Republic.” One cannot but describe this slogan as fascistic – which is perhaps why so many capitalists support it. But what is Pavel’s idea of order anyway? It is hard to say, since the General’s ideological development has shifted throughout his life. Although his campaign marketing experts try to portray him as a champion of the mythical Western values of which the Czech bourgeoisie speaks so fondly, this was not always the case. In 1983 Pavel joined the Communist Party. Just before the fall of the proto-socialist regime he was trained as a military intelligence agent. His political testimony survives in archives, where his thorough knowledge of Marxism-Leninism is documented.

For years, the Czech bourgeoisie portrayed members of the Communist Party as being morally decrepit at best and criminal at worst. Now “their” candidate is a former career Communist – something Pavel shares with his opponent. Andrej Babiš was also a Communist Party member and, according to archival material, actively cooperated with the secret police (he vehemently denies any cooperation himself).

This will be the first time in the existence of the independent Czech Republic that the president will not be a militant who actively participated in the Velvet Revolution, which ended the proto-socialist regime in Czechoslovakia in 1989. The career Communist background of both candidates shows the utter impotence, ideological emptiness, and lack of coherent vision for the future offered by the current liberal capitalist system, which has been unable to nurture a new generation of political leaders for 30 years.

Contender 2; Andrej Babis – the “Czech Donald Trump”

Andrej Babiš won 34.99% of the vote in the first round of elections this year. Originally from Slovakia, he is the fifth richest Czech according to Forbes. Apart from the media, his business empire also includes the agricultural conglomerate Agrofert, whose subsidiaries include the Vodňanské kuře poultry farm, notorious for employing agency workers from Bulgaria and Vietnam. These workers often reside in the Czech Republic illegally and are forced to work 12- to 14-hour shifts in freezing temperatures with noise levels that exceed standards set by the Labour Code.

Babiš has described himself as the Czech Donald Trump. Like Trump, his political career has been marred by a series of scandals. Just before the first round of the presidential election, a court found him not guilty in the Čapí hnízdo farm case, where there was reasonable suspicion of misuse of EU funds. Babiš is currently under investigation in France on suspicion of money laundering and tax evasion based on findings from the Pandora Papers. However, the ongoing investigation did not prevent French President Macron from receiving Babiš on a visit just before the elections. Before that, Babiš managed to have breakfast with Bernard Arnault – currently the richest man on the planet. One can only wonder what the two billionaires discussed over coffee and croissants.

After chaotically failing to contain the pandemic (another parallel to Donald Trump) in 2021, Babiš narrowly lost the parliamentary elections when two opposition coalitions formed against him: the Spolu (Together) coalition uniting three right-wing parties and the centrist Pirates and Mayors coalition. The current government, composed of both coalitions, is a classic neoliberal government – it is planning to charge for certain health care premiums, at a time when it is difficult to provide any standard health care at all in some peripheral zones of Czechia. It is also considering raising value added tax on selected products such as medicines, which are now in short supply in the Czech Republic. It is not too surprising that of all European leaders, the Czech Prime Minister enjoys the least trust in his country.

How did we get here?

Before the presidential elections began, the ruling trio in the Spolu coalition expressed support for three different presidential candidates, one of whom was Petr Pavel. This is now Babiš’s strongest weapon in the campaign. He describes Pavel as a pro-government candidate and warns that if he were to become president, the right-wing would control all centers of power since it already has a comfortable majority in both houses of parliament. By admitting that he voted for the Spolu coalition and using right-wing arguments in his attacks against Babiš, Pavel essentially gives his opponent the benefit of the doubt.

Babiš defines himself against the right and effectively styles himself as the protector of the poor – after all, it was his government that increased pensions and salaries of state employees. Now however, due to rampant inflation, wages are falling in real terms. Given that no left-wing party has been represented in the Czech parliament since the last elections, Babiš’s posturing as a friend of the people is working well in the media. According to polls, his voters associate him with sensitivity to social conditions, despite the notoriously appalling treatment of rank-and-file employees in Babiš’s companies.

Given the unpopularity of the current government, Babiš is probably counting on the fact that his ANO movement, which he founded in 2011 as a center-right formation, could win the next parliamentary elections. If Babiš were to become president, he would probably put a non-confrontational technocrat at the head of his ANO party who would have no problem forming a government. With the presidency and government under his direct control and his vast business empire under his hand, his position of power would be unshakeable.

What we can expect

There is no need for a complex analysis to understand what the Czech presidential election really represents. It is a struggle between two feuding groups within the Czech oligarchy. On the one hand there is the business tycoon Babiš, who calculated that it would be cheaper to enter politics directly instead of influencing it from behind the scenes. On the other, there is a cohort of smaller oligarchs who fear that Babiš might gain a hegemonic position. and influence Czech politics from the shadows in a more traditional way .

Realizing that much is at stake, both are campaigning in an incredibly brutal way. The hidden problems of the Czech Republic are coming to light in these elections – disregard for poor periphery regions and latent racism are on full view. After the first round of the election, Czech Twitter, which is mostly used by the middle class, was flooded with insults against people living on the periphery who mostly voted for Babiš. The Dekomunizace (Decommunization) Association displayed a banner with a photo of Communist president Gustáv Husák – the only Slovak president in the history of Czechoslovakia – hanging behind a half-naked Babiš with a caption above both: “No more Czecho-Slovaks!” The internet is full of similar racist attacks on Babiš’s origins.

Pavel describes the election as a battle between two worlds – his, who holds the upright pro-Western views, and Babiš’s, who is dishonest and pro-Russian. Pavel is thus deliberately helping to polarize society – a polarization which even led to someone sending a bullet to Babiš’s wife in the mail. Babiš, of course, is not lagging behind in this regard. Indeed, immediately after the results were tallied he compared Pavel to Putin, saying that, like the Russian president, he was a Communist spy.

This atmosphere of heated hatred is completely unnecessary. The Czech Republic will continue to be an oligarchy. As The New York Times described with the detached insight of an outside observer, “No matter which of the top two candidates […] eventually triumphs, the departure of Mr. Zeman, the Czech president for the past decade, should put the country’s foreign relations back on an unambiguously pro-Western path.”

Conclusion

Although it is difficult to maintain an impartial position during a period of highly visible nationwide campaigning, the Czech Left should not forget that it does not have a horse in this race. We now have a great opportunity to observe the situation calmly and to analyze machinations of manipulative oligarchs in Czech society. At the same time, this election is also a warning to us. Unless we redouble our efforts and succeed in bringing the left back into Czech parliamentary politics, the next elections will be yet another clash between different shades of the right.

Translated and edited by Florent Marchais, freelance journalist and activist based in Paris, France

Roars from the Leopard – But What Lies Behind its Spots?

Germany’s reluctance to supply Leopard tanks is a proxy for its geopolitical tussles with the USA

Hari Kumar
25/01/2023

Ukraine, in the midst of desperately battling the Russian invasion, increasingly and fervently demands more weapons. Zelensky calls for 300 tanks urgently. But a seasoned USA war-lord – ex-Lt Gen Ben Hodges – the previous commander of European based NATO forces Ben Hodges to caution: “There is no silver bullet out there. There is no one thing that’s just going to completely change the whole conflict.”

Meanwhile intense political pressure focuses on Germany. Why? This observer believes two facts explain this. First the invasion of Ukraine has unmasked inter-imperialist tensions within NATO; and secondly the particular history of Germany following the Second World War. We can address these after comparing the real capability of the tanks in question, and the differing views within the US establishment.

What is in contention?

Of three suppliers of modern heavy tanks: British Challengers, US Abrams, or German Leopards; the two leading contenders are the USA and Germany. Britain has committed after long delays 12 Challenger tanks, but these are not the most sought after tanks: “The German-made Leopard 2 is one of the most well-reputed battle tanks in the world, perhaps second only to the U.S.-made M1 Abrams tank, military arms experts said.”

The potential of the tanks lies in breaking Russia’s hold on the Crimea: “With tanks from the West, Ukraine could create an armored brigade that could serve as “the spearhead of a force that could break through those Russian defenses down towards Mariupol,” Hodges said. “The purpose is to continue the isolation of Crimea from everything else.”

Much to the fury of the US Pentagon, the German leadership has explicitly linked sending of German tanks to sending of US tanks. A last minute surprise replacement of the German Defence Minister, the gaffe-prone Christine Lambrecht, installed an evidently tougher Boris Pistorius. After the NATO-USA led Ramstein conference of 20 January, 2023, Pistorius simply said: “officials were still evaluating the pros and cons of sending the tanks… I am very sure there will be a decision in the short term,” he said.

…which European country will be the lead within EU, serving as the primary ‘façade’ for the USA. Since Brexit, that ‘prestigious seat’ remains unfilled.

Why the US Pentagon is refusing to send Abrams

The argument against ceding Abrams was given by Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh:

“The maintenance and the high cost that it would take to maintain an Abrams — it just doesn’t make sense to provide that to the Ukrainians at this moment.”

However:

“Scholz wants to be in lockstep with the US Rep. Seth Moulton told CNN after discussing the matter with Scholz this week in Davos. “I think the US should give a few tanks if that is what is required for Germany. That is called leadership.”

How do the two tanks compare?

I compiled the following table to make clear that the only difference is in the fuel used; and the cost of each tank (See

Comparison Brennan Newsweek; and compare tanks EU ).

Production started	Abrams 1980 Chrysler	Leopard 2 1979 Krauss-Maffei; MTU Friederichshafen
Number built since	3,600	10,700
Deployed	Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq War, Yemeni Civil War	Afghanistan, Syrian Civil War
	Jet-fuel	Diesel
Used by	9 nations	21 nations
Top speed	42 mph forward; 25 reverse 25 mph	42.4 mph forward; 19.2 mph reverse
Range pre re-fueling	264 miles	173 miles
Armor thickness	classified	classified
Direct losses in battle	None	‘Several’ in Turkey
Range and number of 120 mm shells	>2.5 miles; 40	Around 3 miles; 42
Unit cost	$8.58 million	$5.74 million

However, new German tanks are backlogged:

“German weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall, which supplies the Leopard 2’s cannon and electronics and has dozens of older models, has warned it would not
able to deliver its tanks to Ukraine until 2024 due to the need to refurbish and repair them.” It is impossible to provide new Leopards quickly for historical reasons: “it is all but impossible to buy a large amount of Leopard 2 tanks quickly. Germany’s defence industry is banned by law from producing them for stock-keeping. Countries ordering new tanks need to be prepared to wait two to three years for delivery. Even if production were ramped up, experts say it could take at least two years for the first new tanks to leave the factory.”

Hence those countries who have previously purchased them are urging Germany to release their contract, enabling them to send their own purchases to Ukraine. Germany has not been forthcoming – why not?

Two potential reasons for German insistence on combined aid

The first reason is quite simple – Germany was itself devastated by the Second World War it’s fascist leaders had led. The anti-war feeling in a large part of the population that remained is not to be scoffed at. It is quite true that after the last year, the majority resisting tank aid to Ukraine has decreased to just under a half of the surveyed population. Yet the anti-war sentiment in Germany is still strong, and fears of a new European war are high. Kiev is not far from Berlin. And assurances by the USA of defence against a further provoked Russia, might seem the tissue of lies it is. Currently after all, the USA ‘fights to the last Ukrainian’ – and Germans see this visibly. The largest refugee population from Ukraine is in Russia, then Poland and then Germany.

But a second explanation lies in inter-imperialist tensions. These have several facets. Previously I discussed the principal one which invoked the war in the first place – between the USA and Russia. I also pointed previously out a division within the German ruling class to either becoming more pro-USA or more pro-China (and thereby also Russia). To add to these are continuing rifts within the EU itself.

France under Macron had escalated tensions over the tanks, even after an agreement between Biden and Scholz had resulted in new units. That supposedly represented a “turning point in the West’s positioning towards increased arms deliveries to Ukraine.” Finally the attempt to ‘de-industrialise’ Germany and Europe by the American wooing of German and European firms, is a major spur to France and Germany settling any disputes between themselves. A secondary matter is still potentially of importance: which European country will be the lead within EU, serving as the primary ‘façade’ for the USA. Since Brexit, that ‘prestigious seat’ remains unfilled.

How will this play out?

As pragmatists argue, it is likely that both USA and Germany will send tanks. This is predicted by Ukraine:

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba is quite certain that this is imminent: “Even if Germany should have certain rational arguments for not doing it, Germany will do it anyway at a later date. We have already seen this with the self-propelled howitzers, with the IRIS-T anti-aircraft system and most recently with the Marder and Patriot systems. It’s always a similar pattern: first they say no, then they vigorously defend their decision, only to finally say yes.”

The shrewdest American politicians urge the Pentagon to bend the knee – even if only for a few token tanks.

“Representative Michael McCaul the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Sunday that the U.S. should send at least one of its M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine to push Germany to allow for its own tanks…” Delaware Sen. Chris Coons spoke with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Coons echoed McCaul’s view “I think it’s urgent … If it requires our sending some Abrams tanks in order to unlock getting the Leopard tanks from Germany, from Poland, from other allies, I would support that,” Coons said. “I respect that our military leaders think the Abrams is too sophisticated, too expensive a platform to be as useful as the Leopards, but we need to continue to work with our close allies and to move forward in lockstep.” [1] “Pressure is mounting in some corners for the US to go ahead and send Abrams tanks simply as a way to get the Germans on board.

Ben Hodges, that retired Lieutenant General says the maintenance and logistics concerns are BS. “The U.S. should stop being so condescending

when talking about how difficult this would be for the Ukrainians, to meet the fuel requirements,” he says. “The Ukrainians will sort that out. They’ll MacGyver a solution as they’ve been doing for months—just give them the capability they need.”

Post Script

It seems every 6 hours something breaks out. As the New York Times reported on 24th January 2023: “Defense officials have repeatedly used the fuel issue to explain in part why the administration was not rushing to send the Abrams tanks to Kyiv. But while it is true the tanks have gas turbine engines that burn jet fuel, it is not the whole story, tank experts say. Abrams tanks, they say, can run on any type of fuel, including ordinary gasoline and diesel. The Pentagon press secretary, Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, would not confirm on Tuesday news reports that the administration is on the verge of providing Ukraine with the M1 Abrams tanks…. “He did not refer to the jet fuel issue.”

Antifeminism and the women at the centre of bolsonarismo

Brazilian researchers Aline Beatriz Coutinho and Camila Galetti look at the articulations of the far-right in Brazil and its connections to gender and violence

Aline Beatriz Coutinho
24/01/2023

As of writing, 493 women have been arrested for actively participating in the invasion of the Planalto, the seat of the Executive Power, the National Congress and the Federal Supreme Court in Brazil on January 8th. In total, 1,166 people have been arrested for the attempted disruption of the Brazilian democratic order, meaning 42% of those arrested are women. These women are on average 48 years old and at least six of them have political careers, one of them being a city councilwoman and the other four, deputy legislators at the municipal, state and even federal level. This information may confound expectations that the vast majority of those involved were men, despite the extreme antifeminism articulated via bolsonarismo in Brazil.

Such context is consistent with the results of the 2018 elections, which were marked by a 15% increase in female representation in the House of Representatives. That is, of 513 deputies, 77 were women. However, most of the increase in the number of female deputies came from the far-right, mainly in former president Jair Messias Bolsonaro’s Social Liberal Party (PSL). In previous elections, the PSL did not elect any women deputies and only one man, but in 2018 the party became the second largest bench in the House of Representatives, even electing 9 female deputies. This rise is directly linked to Bolsonaro and his political influence who at the time was affiliated to the PSL, although the former president has since joined the Liberal Party (PL) in 2021, which in the 2022 elections won the largest bench in the House, having 17 women elected.

In their speeches during the 2018 election campaign, and over the course of their mandates, the elected far-right female deputies mainly mobilized antifeminist narratives and attacks on the supposed ‘gender ideology’, which has found one of its main bases in Brazil. These narratives are articulated in defence of the notion that the natural family is uniquely formed by heterosexual couples, with the social function of women being mother and wife and the goal of marriage being procreation. As such, most of the advances acquired over the decades by the feminist and LGBTQIA+ movements, such as reproductive and sexual rights, are seen as dangerous and even wrongly linked to ‘communist acts’ that are intended to destroy society. In addition, antifeminism has also become stronger, structuring a new political subject. It homogenises the category of woman and assumes that society is not based on inequalities of gender, sexuality, class and race. It is from these perspectives, of the attempt to preserve a patriarchal, colonial and capitalist power, that the electoral campaign of extreme right-wing Brazilian women candidates becomes evident when they mobilised around the Bolsonaro.

Even before the 2018 presidential election, there were several actions that can be considered glimpses into the escalation of far-right violence that took place on January 8 in Brasilia. One incident occurred in 2017 during philosopher Judith Butler’s visit to Brazil. Dozens of people gathered in front of the place where Butler was going to give a lecture, among them, young mothers organised in favor of homeschooling and other women shouting slogans such as “man is man, woman is woman, and here in Brazil you don’t do what you want!” and “burn the witch!”, the latter at the moment they set on fire a life-size doll with a picture of the philosopher’s face, dressed in a witch’s hat.

Such actions were indications that far-right discourse were spreading through a part of Brazilian society, which holds that the best way to have power is via violence. Even data on this mobilization show that 73% of the people who spoke out against Butler totally or partially agree with the statement “a military intervention could help Brazil” and that 62% of these people would vote for Jair Bolsonaro for president in 2018. Moreover, the anti-gender discourses show their strength already at this moment, with 86% of these people placing themselves against the discussion of gender in schools, reaching 96% the position that it should be the family’s responsibility to take care of teaching about sexuality to children. The demonstration against Butler’s visit to Brazil ended after four hours with the women involved sweeping the street. This could not be more symbolic of the true position of women within these conservative movements is: reiterating the roles established by patriarchy and exalted in authoritarian regimes.

It is interesting to note how much bolsonarism has captured a significant section of the female electorate. In the last elections in 2022 it was evident in the messaging of the electoral campaign of the former president, even though Bolsonaro’s record in government saw a 94% fall in investment in policies to combat violence against women. Furthermore, the unification of the Women’s Ministry with the family and human rights agenda promoted the conservation of the family nucleus, even though this was the main site of domestic violence against women and children.

Many of these women remain ardent supporters of bolsonarismo, and this can be seen in the terrorist act that took place on January 8th, where women carried out terrorist actions. These include the elderly Bolsonarist Maria de Fátima Mendonça Jacinto Souza, 67 years old, who appears in the videos proudly depredating the Supreme Court. Despite all the talk about defending “the family” or Brazil, this woman had been previously convicted of drug trafficking. Another woman, coming from the state of Minas Gerais and identified in her statement to authorities after her arrest as I. I. P., 57 years old, declared that she participated in the coup attempt because “if there were many people, I would have the support of the Army to avoid the installation of communism in Brazil,” showing her idealization of a military coup. Even in the orchestration of the acts, women were in the front line operationalizing the situation, as the example of Elizângela Cunha Pimentel, 48 years old, who turned herself in after being accused of organizing and financing the terrorist acts in Brasilia and Ana Priscila Azevedo, arrested later on the same charge with the additional charge of inciting more than 30 thousand followers via a Telegram channel, telling them “We are going to collapse the system, we are going to besiege Brasília, we are going to take the power by assault, the power that belongs to us.”

The terrorist acts of January 8th in Brazil demonstrate how the extreme right seeks to create a shared collective identity. Regarding female participation in these acts, it is important to note that although the extreme right is sexist and misogynist, it bets on female figures, thus strengthening a supposed femonationalism – which, while producing a destabilization of gender boundaries, has as one of its main agendas the promotion of the strengthening of antifeminist ideals and the fight against the supposed existence of ‘gender ideology’. Finally, it is possible to state that the extreme right strategically pushes the mobilization of women in their actions, thus producing a certain ’empowerment’ among them. This ’empowerment’ has the purpose of maintaining patriarchy and its premises, and in the case of Brazil, it also produced an attempt at political destabilization of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government that fortunately did not succeed – although its discourses continue to spread.

Aline Beatriz Coutinho is an associate researcher at Lab on Social Differences and Inequality and a Master’s student in History, both at the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), where she researches Reproductive Rights, political disputes over abortion’s issues, and gender.

Camila Galetti, is a sociologist, doctoral student at the University of Brasilia, and a researcher at the Elected Women Project (LAPPCOM-UFRJ)

In Peru the Fight Against Dina Boluarte Continues

Continued repression in Peru means that the resistance must carry on

The Left Berlin
23/01/2023

By the Communist Party of Ecuador – ML.

The protests of the Peruvian people against the dictatorial government of Dina Boluarte have been going on for more than a month and, in recent days, have taken on higher, more combative and generalized forms. Road blocks and important demonstrations in several regions of the country have been the order of the day, highlighting those that have occurred in Puno, Arequipa, Junín, Cusco and Apurímac.

The unanimous cry of the people raised in protest is to demand the resignation of Boluarte, the closure of Congress, the immediate call for elections and the freedom of Pedro Castillo. If these demands are not met, the protests will continue in a combative manner. For their part, representatives of the government have not been able to hide a series of highly repressive measures, which seek to maneuver the circumstances and control the crisis created by the ruling classes of the neighboring country.

The police have tried to unblock the roads taken over by the thousands of demonstrators who have used stones and the burning of tires; this has been responded to in a cowardly way with abundant tear gas and, most seriously, the use of firearms by the police and military. These have already left more than 50 dead and hundreds injured and detained. The “protectors,” who have taken over public buildings and airports and carried out brutal repression against the people, have not been able to stop the protestors. They have not been intimidated and, on the contrary, their demonstrations have become more forceful, despite the warnings of the Boluarte government. It maintains the state of emergency, as the main mechanism to control the social discontent that has been seen again in the streets and plazas of the country. Everything indicates that the struggle in Peru will not decline until the demands have been met.

The exhortations of President Boluarte have been in vain. She accuses the people of “retreat, pain, economic losses,” thereby trying to hide the fact that the crisis in Peru has been caused by the anti-popular governments that are subservient to the interests of imperialism and the Peruvian ruling classes. The crisis has greatly worsened with the illegal dismissal of President Pedro Castillo through a coup d’état, supported and engineered by US imperialism.

The decision of the people is to continue with the protests despite the violent repression and the political maneuvers that have been developed by the authorities to stop them. “They must all go”, the resignation of Boluarte, the closure of Parliament, the holding of a constituent process to change the 1993 Constitution, and the call for immediate new elections are the banners that are held high.

The Peruvian Prosecutor’s Office has been forced to initiate a process of investigation into Boluarte for the crimes that have been committed against the people. However, the people do not trust that the process will be fully carried out; it may well be part of the manoeuvres that try to reduce the intensity of the struggles. Boluarte, for her part, cynically calls for peace and accuses those who protest of violence.

Originally published on En Marcha #2033, January 18-24, 2023. Translation: American party of Labor. Reproduced with permission