PR in the Philippines

The sheer scale and power of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests in Iran were initially surprising. The protests, which started in 2022 and continued into January, provided a fresh look at Iranian society. Why did women's protests, in a country facing numerous economic hardships that also fueled protests in 2017 and 2018, gain such widespread solidarity and support? The answer highlights some less-known aspects of modern Iran. The 2022 protests initially broke out in response to the systematic oppression of women through mandatory hijab laws that enforced a strict Islamic dress code. However, they gradually exposed deeper social issues. At their peak, the protests fostered a unique sense of unity, with diverse voices heard from Kurdistan and Baluchistan to Tehran, including social, civil society, and political groups. Consequently, the fight against gender oppression became linked to the struggles of marginalized ethnic groups, labor unions, and civil organizations. This suggests that Iran is experiencing a series of interconnected protests, each more intense than the last. The 2022 protests showed that women, along with other oppressed and disadvantaged groups, are central to these movements and will be key in shaping Iran's future. Even now, a large number of Iran’s political prisoners are women, and three women—Pakhshan Azizi, Varisha Moradi, and Sharifeh Mohammadi—have been sentenced to death. Despite the state's harsh repression, the 2022 protests have had some positive effects. After months of debating a new “Chastity and Hijab” bill, the Iranian government ultimately decided not to enforce it, fearing more protests. Simultaneously, despite government coercion, women have successfully asserted their right to choose their own clothing. Men have also joined the resistance against mandatory hijab, refusing to support government policies and opposing the repression of women protesters. Thus, the women’s struggle has not only forced the Islamic Republic to back down but has also created fissures in the patriarchal structures of Iranian society. Violence against women persists, often perpetrated by husbands or male relatives. However, the fight for gender equality has undeniably challenged traditional concepts like “honor” and “family dignity.” In the past, most women advocating for gender equality or freedom of dress felt compelled to prove their adherence to traditional values. Today, they no longer feel obligated to demonstrate allegiance to religious and cultural norms. Women’s activism has disrupted the traditional patriarchal family structure, lessened the influence of certain Islamic laws, and weakened religious and traditional values. By demanding their rights, women have played a vital role in Iran’s secularization and democratic aspirations. Iranian women's resistance dates back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially during the Constitutional Revolution. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, women's status declined in both private and public life. Almost immediately after the Islamic Republic was established, women faced demands for mandatory hijab. However, on March 8, 1979, International Women’s Day, women protested, chanting, “In the dawn of freedom, there is an absence of freedom,” forcing the government to retreat. Around that time, secular women’s groups started to organize. However, in the chaos of the post-revolution period and, particularly, the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War, these groups were suppressed. Not only was mandatory hijab enforced, but the regime’s anti-women laws were also institutionalized. Combined with the eight-year war, state suppression temporarily silenced the women’s movement. But resistance continued in different forms. The sociologist Asef Bayat has examined the impact of everyday resistance against the Islamic Republic’s repression, which gradually challenged both the clerical establishment and traditional patriarchal beliefs. Because much of the violence against women stems from the ideological foundations of the Iranian regime, the women’s movement has directly confronted the government's dominant ideology and its religious laws. In this context, it becomes clear that women's leadership in the 2022 protests was not sudden or spontaneous but rooted in a long history of public organizing and resisting oppression in daily life. My sisters, women’s rights activists, and feminists across the globe, the time has come for us to unite and criminalize gender apartheid as a crime against humanity. Our strength lies in solidarity, in sisterhood, and in standing together to realize women’s rights. Recently, I had an inspiring conversation with Margaret Atwood via TIME Magazine about gender apartheid and the similarities between what we face today and the dystopian world of her historic novel The Handmaid’s Tale, which I read in prison. What has been happening in Iran is a reminder of resilience of women in the face of oppression. Listen to the experience of women in Iran and Afghanistan—help us fight with gender apartheid by amplifying this fight. As March 8 approaches, let’s join hands and stand together for a world free from violence against women and gender apartheid. Let’s fight for equality, democracy, and freedom. Let’s remember that the shared path to “Woman, Life, Freedom”—Jin, Jiyan, Azadî—knows no borders. ```

Almost a year after protests occurred on college campuses nationwide, Columbia University, which experienced significant student demonstrations, has initiated investigations. Columbia's Office of Institutional Equity is reportedly issuing notices to students for actions like writing opinion pieces, participating in art exhibits related to campus encampments, and sharing political views on social media, according to the Associated Press. While these investigations are within the university’s rights, as the First Amendment only restricts government actions, some experts are questioning their appropriateness. Nadine Strossen, a professor at New York Law School, stated that while private institutions like Columbia are not legally bound by the First Amendment, the university should still uphold its principles. These investigations coincide with federal actions against student protesters, especially those critical of Israel. The Trump Administration recently announced the withdrawal of over $400 million in federal grants to Columbia, citing the university's inadequate response to antisemitism. Strossen suggests that Columbia's actions may be a result of pressure from the federal government, which could be interpreted as a governmental infringement on free speech. Following a surge of pro-Palestinian demonstrations last year, several university presidents were summoned to testify before Congress about antisemitism on campus. President Donald Trump then signed an Executive Order addressing “anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.” Palestine Legal criticized the directive as a "McCarthyite crackdown" intended to create fear and suppress pro-Palestinian speech, potentially chilling critical views of Israel and support for Palestinian rights. Despite the investigations, student activists remain active. Pro-Palestinian protests occurred at Columbia and Barnard College on Thursday, following the arrest of nine individuals the previous day during the dismantling of a campus encampment by local police. The First Amendment protects speech unless it constitutes bullying or harassment targeting specific individuals or groups. Strossen argues that holding up a poster or sharing social media posts does not meet this threshold for unprotected speech. A Columbia representative informed TIME that the university refrains from commenting on specific cases or ongoing investigations. A report from Columbia’s task force on antisemitism in August 2024 found that Jewish and Israeli individuals at Columbia often faced ostracism and humiliation. The report defined antisemitism to include calls for divestment from Israel and exclusion based on perceived connections to Israel. Columbia’s free speech policy affirms the right of students, staff, and others to protest and express themselves freely on campus. Strossen also notes that over 100 higher education institutions have formally endorsed the “Chicago Statement,” a policy supporting free speech. Last September, Columbia introduced a new policy addressing discrimination and harassment, stating that speech about a country's policies or practices that includes discriminatory comments about people from or associated with that country may be considered Discriminatory Harassment. The “Chicago Statement” clarifies that while the freedom to debate ideas is essential, individuals cannot say anything they want, anywhere they want. The University can restrict expression that breaks the law, is defamatory, or constitutes a genuine threat or harassment. However, these restrictions should be narrow and consistent with the University's dedication to open discussion. Strossen argues that the mere act of investigating students can be intimidating, even if they are not ultimately penalized. This intimidation can discourage individuals from expressing similar views, creating a chilling effect beyond those directly investigated. ```

NEW YORK — As some recently laid-off federal employees struggle to find new employment and healthcare coverage, they face an unexpected challenge: lack of support, and even outright celebration of their job loss, from family members. The deep political divisions within the country are now infiltrating personal relationships, manifesting in text messages, social media posts, and tense discussions as Americans grapple with the consequences of governmental cost-cutting measures. Instead of finding sympathy, some dismissed workers encounter family and friends who firmly believe in the necessity of reducing what they perceive as excessive government spending. “I feel like the government has turned me into a public enemy, and that sentiment is now affecting my family relationships,” says 24-year-old Luke Tobin, who was let go from his technician position with the U.S. Forest Service in Idaho’s Nez Perce National Forest last month. Tobin’s dismissal prompted him to rush to refill his prescriptions before losing his health benefits and to complete numerous job applications for any available work, including positions at fast-food restaurants. However, the reactions from some family members, who view his firing as “a necessary step to make the government great again,” have been particularly disheartening. “They are unable to separate their political beliefs from supporting their own family members,” Tobin states. Kristin Jenn experienced a similar reaction from relatives after learning that the National Park Service ranger position she was about to start had been temporarily suspended due to a hiring freeze implemented by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). She anticipates the position will be eliminated entirely. As she expressed her disappointment over the potential loss of her dream job, some of her predominantly conservative family members unfriended her on social media, while others are giving her the cold shoulder. Most of them support the budget cuts, even if she is directly affected. “My world is falling apart because I’m unable to work in my chosen field,” says Jenn, 47, from Austin, Texas. “The lack of family support on top of that is incredibly painful.” The discord has even affected Jenn’s relationship with her mother, a former federal employee. When Jenn criticizes the administration’s actions, her mother simply expresses her support for the president. “She has somehow come to believe that public servants are unproductive parasites, even though she herself was one,” Jenn explains. The federal job cuts are a result of DOGE's efforts to identify and eliminate perceived waste within government agencies. While an official count of the firings has not been released, estimates suggest that thousands of employees across various parts of the country have been affected. More layoffs are anticipated as DOGE continues its work. Eric Anderson, 48, of Chicago, was still reeling from his dismissal from his biological science technician role at the National Parks Service when he saw his aunt’s social media post celebrating the DOGE cuts. According to Anderson, the post conveyed the sentiment, “It’s wonderful to see all this waste being eliminated.” He becomes agitated when he thinks about it. “Do you consider me waste?” he asks, his voice rising as he recalls the post. “Many people are suffering right now who are not waste.” Erica Stubbs, who worked as a forestry technician with the U.S. Forest Service in Boulder, Colorado, is avoiding social media to avoid the negativity directed towards federal employees. Although most of her acquaintances have been supportive since her firing, some have made casual remarks about the need to eliminate positions like hers. “They tell me that it’s simply cutting out the excess spending and that my job wasn’t that important,” says 27-year-old Stubbs. “I’m not claiming it’s the most crucial job in the world, but it’s my livelihood. It’s important to me.” Social media is filled with posts celebrating the layoffs and encouraging DOGE to continue the cuts. In a deeply divided nation, many view the cutbacks through their own political perspectives. One person’s misfortune, it seems, can be another’s satisfaction. Riley Rackliffe, formerly an aquatic ecologist at Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada, was encouraged by the outpouring of support he received after his firing, with numerous friends and relatives offering to share his resume, contact their representatives, or even contribute to his mortgage. However, this was mixed with animosity. When his firing was reported in the local news, a Facebook post of the article generated a flurry of comments disparaging him and applauding the layoffs. One commenter referred to Riley, who is 36 and holds a Ph.D., as a “glorified pool boy” whose job could be performed by anyone. Even some of Rackliffe’s friends tempered their condolences with support for cutting jobs they considered to be unnecessary government bloat. “Hey, I’m sorry you lost your job, but I think we really need to eliminate some of this government waste,” Rackliffe recalls one friend texting him, expressing support for DOGE’s goals. “He essentially said, ’We’ve got to do this. We’ve got to rip off the Band-Aid.” What hurts most, Rackliffe says, is the implication that people like him were lazy and unproductive, collecting substantial salaries for meaningless work. “It’s truly hurtful for the president to suggest that you don’t matter or that your job consisted of sitting at home doing nothing and getting paid,” he says. “I’d like to see him searching for parasitic snails in spiny naiad in 120-degree weather. He’s the one who plays golf at taxpayer expense. I don’t even know how to golf.” ```

New Mexico state health officials reported on Thursday that an adult in the state with a measles infection has died, though it hasn't been determined if the virus caused the death. According to a health department spokesperson, the deceased individual was unvaccinated and did not seek medical treatment. Specific details such as age were not immediately available. The individual resided in Lea County, which borders West Texas, where a significant measles outbreak has occurred, resulting in 159 cases and the death of a school-aged child last week. New Mexico officials have stated that there is no confirmed link between the Texas outbreak and the case in Lea County. This marks the 10th confirmed measles case in Lea County. Seven of these individuals were unvaccinated, while the vaccination status of the remaining three is unknown. Six cases are adults, and the others are children under 17. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced on Tuesday that a team would be deployed to Texas to assist local health officials in managing the outbreak, which started in late January. Measles is a highly contagious respiratory virus that can linger in the air for up to two hours. Exposure to the virus will result in infection in approximately 90% of susceptible individuals. The MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps, and rubella, is considered safe and highly effective. The first dose is recommended for children between 12 and 15 months of age, and the second dose is recommended between 4 and 6 years of age. Dr. Chad Smelser, the deputy state epidemiologist, emphasized the importance of vaccination, stating, “We don’t want to see New Mexicans getting sick or dying from measles. The measles-mumps-rubella vaccine is the best protection against this serious disease.” ```

DENVER — On Friday, a federal judge will hear arguments regarding a request to prevent immigration agents from making arrests at schools. This request is in response to a Trump administration policy, which has not yet been implemented. Denver Public Schools is urging U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico to issue an injunction against immigration enforcement in schools nationwide. This request is part of an ongoing lawsuit challenging the new policy. The lawsuit asserts that the potential for regular immigration arrests in schools has caused a decline in student attendance. It also states that the district has been forced to allocate resources to address student and family anxieties stemming from the removal of long-standing restrictions on immigration enforcement near sensitive locations such as schools and churches. “This includes offering mental health services to students, shifting administrator focus from academic matters to immigration concerns, and providing support to students who have missed school to help them catch up,” the school district's lawyers stated in their request to halt the new policy. The previous “sensitive locations” guidelines generally required officers to obtain approval before conducting enforcement actions at these locations, although exceptions were made for issues like national security. The policy modification, announced in January by the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement, emphasized that field agents should use “common sense” and “discretion” when carrying out immigration enforcement activities without needing a supervisor's authorization. According to a court document filed by lawyers representing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the head of ICE later issued a directive requiring supervisory approval for immigration arrests at sensitive locations like schools. Such arrests have been infrequent. Lawyers for Denver schools cited ICE data indicating that between 2018 and 2020, only two immigration arrests occurred in schools, with an additional 18 arrests taking place near schools. A filing submitted last week by the Council of the Great City Schools in support of Denver's lawsuit stated that there have been no arrests at schools under the new policy as of last week. The federal government argues that Denver schools have not demonstrated direct harm resulting from the policy change and therefore lack legal standing to pursue a lawsuit. Last month, a federal judge in Maryland prohibited immigration agents from conducting enforcement activities in places of worship for Quakers and a few other religious groups after they filed a lawsuit challenging the directive. This order is limited to the religious groups involved in the lawsuit. It remains uncertain when Domenico, a Trump appointee and former Colorado solicitor general, will issue a ruling.

A potential positive outcome of the interaction between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky recently was that it appeared to cast doubt on a minerals agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine. However, it seems more reasonable perspectives are now taking precedence. Zelensky stated on Tuesday that he is "reviving" the deal, and Trump has praised Ukraine's willingness to do so. Officials from both nations have suggested they will meet next week to discuss the war in Ukraine and the agreement. Based on available information, the proposed agreement would establish a fund using proceeds from Ukrainian mineral sales for Ukraine's post-war reconstruction. It would also compensate the U.S. for aid to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and generate opportunities for U.S. mining companies, allegedly reducing U.S. reliance on China for minerals. American officials have lauded the agreement as a "win-win," beneficial for both the U.S. and Ukraine. While enabling Ukraine to rebuild using its own resources and creating opportunities for U.S. businesses are both positive, Trump should be cautious of the minerals trap. This involves the potentially costly and unrestrained pursuit of rare-earth minerals, which can lead great powers into strategic difficulties. The allure of resources partially explains why U.S. forces remained in Afghanistan long after their initial objectives were met. It may also explain the continued U.S. military presence in Syria under uncertain circumstances, despite the declared defeat of the Islamic State in 2019. Trump stated that year that American forces would remain "only for the oil." Russia has also recently fallen into the minerals trap in Africa, facing the risks of overextension as its soldiers become entangled in low-level conflicts to maintain access to resources. In the past six months alone, numerous Russian mercenaries have died in Mali protecting mines. Minerals also played a significant, but often overlooked, role in Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which has proven costly for Moscow. Instead of fixating on repayment from Ukraine, Trump should prioritize U.S. security interests and carefully assess the costs and benefits of pursuing Ukrainian minerals. On the benefits side, the potential gains may be limited, as much about Ukrainian minerals remains unknown. The U.N. estimates that Ukraine possesses a notable share of the world's rare earth minerals, including those most critical for national security. However, these assessments are based on outdated surveys that may not be accurate. Furthermore, the investment and development time required to establish operational mines (averaging 16 years) are substantial. Location is also a major concern. Some of the mineral deposits are believed to be in eastern Ukraine, the epicenter of intense conflict since 2022 and clashes between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists since 2014. U.S. mining companies should be wary of making significant, long-term investments in the Donbas region. Beyond the questionable economic benefits, the costs of securing Ukrainian minerals could be excessive. If U.S. companies invest, they will require protection from attacks by Russia and its local allies. Trump has suggested that the mere presence of U.S. workers in Ukraine will deter Russia due to the fear of harming Americans. As Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent noted, "The more assets that U.S. companies have on the ground, the more security it creates for the Ukrainian people." This is overly optimistic. Aside from the ethical considerations of using U.S. miners and engineers as a security force, deterrence does not function in this manner. History suggests that autocratic states like Russia are only deterred by a strong counterforce that poses a threat to their survival. Without offering such a counterforce, U.S. miners and engineers would become attractive targets for Russian special forces or pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine who oppose Kyiv or U.S. mining operations. If attacks occur, Washington will face pressure to respond, either out of anger, to maintain credibility, or both. The U.S. might then provide Ukraine with the advanced weaponry Zelensky has requested, or even deploy U.S. troops to protect the mines. Both are scenarios the U.S. should avoid. Ultimately, U.S. leaders need to approach Ukraine's mineral resources with a healthy dose of pragmatism. Numerous other friendly nations and territories—Canada, Australia, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, among others—possess a wealth of rare-earth minerals and could potentially form partnerships with Washington. As for Ukraine, its minerals are not worth the risk to U.S. security. Trump, a self-proclaimed deal-maker, should recognize a poor deal when he sees one.

BANGKOK — The U.S. State Department stated on Friday that the United States and other nations repeatedly offered Thailand opportunities to resettle over thirty Uyghur men before their deportation to China. Rights groups fear they could be subjected to torture and other abuses upon their return. Last week, the 40 Uyghurs, who had been held in Thai custody since 2014 after fleeing state repression in China’s Xinjiang region, were secretly transported from a detention center in Bangkok. The State Department, responding to inquiries from The Associated Press, said, "We have been working with Thailand for years to prevent this situation, including making consistent and repeated offers to resettle the Uyghurs in other countries, including, at times, the United States." Earlier in the week, Thailand’s Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, Russ Jalichandra, stated that there had been no substantial offers to accept the men. He told reporters, "If a third country was genuinely committed to taking them, it should have also negotiated with China to allow Thailand to send them to that third country." The State Department condemned Thailand’s decision as a violation of its commitment to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. It also asserted that the U.S. and other countries did not need Beijing’s approval to offer the Uyghurs asylum. The State Department stated, "The obligation to ensure that individuals at risk of persecution or torture are not refouled is not subject to negotiation with the persecutor country," using the term for the forced return of asylum seekers to a country where they are likely to face persecution. It added that a "number of allies and partners" had been involved in the resettlement plans over the years but declined to provide further details. Russ suggested that Thailand agreed to return the Uyghurs to China partly out of concern that Beijing would retaliate if they were allowed asylum elsewhere. He said, "The impact that Thailand would face from sending them to a third country would be huge. It was unrealistic." According to U.S. officials and human rights organizations, China has imprisoned over 1 million people, including Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic groups, in an extensive network of indoctrination camps. Individuals have been subjected to torture, sterilization, and political indoctrination, as well as forced labor, as part of an assimilation campaign in a region whose inhabitants are ethnically and culturally distinct from the Han Chinese majority. China has refuted all allegations, asserting that its policies in Xinjiang are aimed solely at promoting economic and social development in the region and combating radicalism. It also rejects criticism of what it deems its internal affairs. In 2014, Thai police apprehended over 200 Uyghurs in southern Thailand near the Malaysian border and charged them with immigration violations. Smaller groups were also detained elsewhere around the same time. In 2015, approximately 170 Uyghur women and children were released to Turkey, while over 100 Uyghur men were deported to China, sparking international condemnation. The remaining individuals remained in Thai detention until February 27, when, shortly after 2 a.m., most were secretly transported in trucks with blacked-out windows and flown to Xinjiang. Eight are believed to remain in Thailand, and their status is uncertain. Human Rights Watch and other NGOs denounced the deportations as a violation of domestic and international law, stating that "these men are now at grave risk of being tortured, forcibly disappeared and detained for long periods by the Chinese government." United Nations human rights chief Volker Türk also stated that Thailand had violated international human rights laws and standards, and called on the country to ensure the remaining Uyghurs are not returned to China. He called on China to disclose their whereabouts and to "ensure they are treated in accordance with international human rights standards." Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian retorted that Türk should "refrain from interfering in national judicial sovereignty" and denied that China or Thailand had violated any laws. He said this week, "China is always committed to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of its citizens." "The repatriated individuals, who had been detained abroad for a long time, have had their legal rights fully protected according to the law and have returned to normal life." —AP writer Jintamas Saksornchai contributed to this story. ```

LOS ANGELES — A $10 million reward is being offered for information leading to the arrest of Ryan Wedding, a former Canadian Olympic snowboarder accused of leading a vast international drug trafficking operation and ordering multiple murders connected to it. The FBI added 43-year-old Ryan Wedding to its most wanted list on Thursday, coinciding with the U.S. State Department’s announcement of the $10 million reward. Akil Davis, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, stated that Wedding allegedly transitioned from Olympic snowboarding to distributing cocaine across the U.S. and Canada. Davis added that Wedding is considered extremely dangerous due to the alleged murders of his rivals. The FBI notes that Wedding also goes by the aliases "El Jefe," "Public Enemy," and "James Conrad King." Wedding was initially charged with murder and drug-related offenses last June. These charges were expanded in September with an indictment alleging that Wedding and his associates orchestrated the annual shipment of approximately 60 tons of cocaine between Colombia, Mexico, Southern California, and Canada using semi-trucks. The FBI announced in October that a dozen individuals had been apprehended in connection with the case. U.S. authorities claim the group murdered two members of a Canadian family in a case of mistaken identity as retribution for a drug shipment theft, as well as two other individuals, according to officials and court documents. Wedding placed 24th in the parallel giant slalom event at the 2002 Olympics. ```