Protect Water Protectors

Fossil fuel advocates ignore First Amendment rights

Evers failed to protect the protectors

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers turned his back on environmental protectors, including major supporters and Wisconsin’s federally enrolled Native tribes, when he failed to veto Assembly Bill 426 and signed it into law as Act 33.

The bill, co-sponsored by Washington County Rep. Rick Gundrum, expanded the definition of energy provider under state law and made peaceful protest on property owned, leased, or operated by companies engaged in oil, water or gas production or transmission a felony offense, punishable by up to a six-year prison sentence and up to a $10,000 fine.

The bill was modeled after proposals by ALEC, the ultra-conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Council of State Governments in response to the protests at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Wisconsin became the tenth state to pass similar legislation. Evers’ press release echoed the ALEC and oil and gas industry talking points, indicating the bill was needed to “ensure each energy provider is treated the same under the law while still protecting the right to exercise free speech and the right to assembly.” Evers added that he wanted the Legislature to work with Wisconsin tribal nations in the future “before developing and advancing policies that directly or indirectly affect” them. Given the final language of the new law, neither the tribes nor many of the state’s environmental groups were satisfied.

Maria Haskins, of the tribal advocacy group Menikanaehkem Inc., noted, “neither the energy industry nor the state of Wisconsin has consulted any tribal government about how this legislation would infringe on the sovereignty of Wisconsin’s twelve Indian Nations.”

Thirty-six groups signed letters delivered to the governor urging him to veto the bill. They included the ACLU, Sierra Club, the landowner group 80 Feet is Enough and others. Their concerns included claims that the new law infringes upon constitutional rights to protest and a loss of landowner rights. The letters point to the possibility of more people of color being sent to prison trying to protect our water.

Fourteen more national groups including Greenpeace, the National Lawyers Guild, PEN America, Defending Rights and Dissent anhers also asked Evers to veto the bill. Their letter concluded, “special protections designed to protect the energy industry from protests, including non-violent civil disobedience, do nothing to protect the public or worker safety. They do threaten our democracy by chilling dissent.”

Elizabeth Ward of Sierra Club-Wisconsin called out the governor for failing to protect the environment and make good on his campaign promise to address climate change. “Governor Evers had the opportunity to demonstrate leadership on climate change, and he opted not to. The need to stand up for water protectors, Tribal members, and landowners with oil pipelines running through their property has been crystal clear with the recent pipeline fights in Wisconsin and around the country. It’s disappointing that the governor was unwilling to do so and instead supported this bill that helps the fossil fuel industry continue to lock us into a climate catastrophe,” she noted.

Chris Ott, the executive director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, vowed to monitor the enforcement of this law and “oppose any attempts to infringe on the freedom of speech or criminalize people for making their voices heard.”

Unfortunately, Governor Evers sent a conflicting message by signing this bill into law. He previously appointed a task force to focus on actions to combat climate change led by Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes. In doing so, Evers signaled his support of efforts to rein in the destructive impact the use of fossil fuels has on our environment. His failure to veto this “pipeline protection” bill undercuts his own task force and calls into question Evers’ commitment to protecting our environment.

Human Beings Are Not Mascots

Human Beings are not Mascots
Teach Respect Not Racism

Imagine a high school choosing to name its sports mascot an “Old White Guy” or a “Crazy Christian.” The surrounding community would rise up as one to say how inappropriate and demeaning to the elderly Caucasian or the practicing Christian. We would not tolerate such an insult, even us old white guys who might find it mildly amusing to be so honored.

It amazes me that surrounding community members still find it appropriate to continue to use Native American figures as mascots and school symbols and name their sports teams after them when it is clear that many indigenous peoples are offended by these portrayals and object to their continued use.

The Wisconsin Association of School Boards, the organization that represents and serves public school boards across Wisconsin, is circulating a resolution requesting those few public-school districts still using Native American names and mascot imagery to change their names and mascots to create more inclusive and welcoming learning environments for their students. So far, 17 districts have signed on and others have voluntarily changed their practices. Some districts have learned from the past and made the change. But 31 districts across the State still use their Indian or Chief names and mascots, including Menomonee Falls High School and the Kewaskum school district.

The Menomonee Falls district has taken up the challenge and is holding community listening sessions to gauge public support. The district’s superintendent has come out in favor of changing their mascot and name. Community members have spoken in favor of the change while other have voiced support for continued use. Community groups have urged the board to change the mascot and imagery, including the American Civil Liberties Union. The school board will vote on the issue in December.

My community, Kewaskum, has ducked the issue so far. Here the problem is larger as the village is named after Chief Kewaskum, a Potawatomi chief. The school mascot is an Indian as are those who play sports for the school. Kewaskum shares an even bigger issue because both the village president and a member of the school board who is also a Republican member of the state Assembly have been vocal adherents of the “let’s stop with the political correctness” defense of continuing use of the name and imagery. Rep. Tim Ranthum, the school board member, even wants to put larger Indian chief logos on school sports field fences, claiming the name as a matter of community pride. He recalls proudly when prominent community members used to attend sporting events in full native regalia. He claims to be honoring the past chief, even though his descendants see no honor in the practice.

There have been been published studies showing that Native American students enrolled in schools that use people like them as mascots and terms like Indian for members of the school’s sports teams do not feel welcomed or included in their learning environments and do not do as well academically as similar students in schools with mascots and sports team names that do not appropriate their likeness or heritage.

Wisconsin law used to make it relatively easy for marginalized students to challenge the use of their heritage or racial identity. They did not have to show actual harm in order to prevail. In 2013, Wisconsin changed the law shifting the burden to the student aggrieved to show harm and also added a requirement for a community petition signed by 10 percent of the district population to force a change. This change did not end the controversy as Wisconsin tribes continue to lobby for teaching respect, not racism. So far, the Republican Legislature has not listened or acted with respect toward those who find the mascots, names and images offensive and insulting.

This is also a national problem, especially when you consider the NFL’s Washington Redskins and Kansas City Chiefs. Not to mention the Atlanta Braves baseball team and the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team. Pressure has been mounting on these franchises to change their identities and demeaning use of native names, images and heritage.

Those who lived on these lands long before the invasion of the Anglo-Europeans deserve more respect than they are given. We need more robust curriculums on Native American customs, history and environmental stewardship in our schools. With a deeper understanding and appreciation of indigenous people and how we might benefit from many of their ways of living in harmony with their environment, perhaps we can find better and less offensive mascots and sports team names.

Recusal Required

Senator Johnson Must Recuse in any Impeachment trial involving Ukraine

Wisconsin’s Republican U.S. Senator Ron Johnson has put himself in a box that is impossible to get out of when it comes to impeachment proceedings in the Senate involving President Trump’s call to the Ukrainian President. 

As Chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations sub-committee on Europe and a member of the Senate’s bipartisan Ukraine caucus Johnson was smack dab in the middle of the conversations and meetings being considered by the House of Representatives for an article of impeachment against President Trump that involve withholding of U.S. military aid in exchange for Ukrainian help with investigations of 2020 presidential candidate and former Vice-President Joe Biden and Biden’s son, Hunter. 

Johnson has been quoted in newspaper accounts as having learned of the withholding of the military aid to Ukraine and that it was done to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. He had direct communications with President Trump who assured him that there was no “quid -pro-quo” for the aid to flow and Ukraine going forward with the desired investigations. Johnson also met with Ukrainian officials who claim that Ukraine assisted Democrats in the 2016 election. Johnson attended the inauguration of the Ukrainian president who spoke with President Trump. Johnson also unsuccessfully lobbied Trump to let the Ukrainian military aid flow. He stated publicly that he was satisfied with Trump’s statements to him that there was no “quid pro quo” involved with the aid and a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens. 

In order to understand the problem, it is important to understand the process of presidential impeachment. The U.S. House of Representatives is charged with bringing articles of impeachment forward. Think about articles of impeachment as similar to charges in a criminal complaint or indictment filed by a prosecutor. The articles then form the outline for a trial in the United States Senate where two-thirds of the Senators have to vote to convict in order for the president to be removed from office. In that trial, each Senator sits as a judge or member of a jury, and has to decide if the facts presented are first, true and second, sufficient to warrant impeachment and removal of the president from office. 

If you were facing a criminal trial, would you want one of the witnesses to the facts of your case to then turn around and act as the judge or member of the jury charged with determining if those facts are true?  Would you want that same person to then determine if those facts were sufficient to establish your guilt? I bet you would not.

The rules governing criminal and even civil trials in the United States strictly prohibit witnesses from serving as fact finders and judges in the same trials where they give testimony. The reasons are clear and obvious. We want our trials to be free from bias or even the appearance of bias by those charged with making credibility decisions and applying the law to facts determined to be true. If such a situation arose in our courts, the judge who had first-hand knowledge of the facts of a case before her or who actually gave evidence in the case would be required not to decide the case and to step aside from all decisions in the matter.

In this particular case, Senator Johnson was asked directly if he would step aside, or recuse himself, from his judicial role in any impeachment trial involving the Ukrainian allegations. On Tuesday, Johnson indicated that his close involvement would not cause him to recuse himself from an impeachment trial of President Trump. He claimed that he would “listen to the case very respectfully” and “not prejudge anything.”

Senator Johnson, that just is not good enough. If you want the trial to be fair, you must step aside and not vote on any allegations involving Ukrainian matters or the solicitation of foreign governments to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. Wisconsin voters expect fair and unbiased proceedings, regardless of party loyalty.

Vos violated the ADA

Respect is optional; the ADA isn’t

Vos flouts Americans with Disabilities Act in dust-up with Anderson

Wisconsin state Rep. Jimmy Anderson, D-Fitchburg, has substantial physical disabilities and is confined to a wheelchair. He is still able to speak, think and act as the representative of his constituents. In order to carry out his legislative duties, Anderson has repeatedly asked Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, to allow reasonable accommodations for his disabilities such as being able to participate in those legislative committee meetings where he is a member by phone instead of in person. Vos repeatedly denied Anderson’s requests until last week, even though the Americans with Disabilities Act requires the requested accommodations.

Vos offered Anderson a watered-down affirmative answer last week, but coupled it with changes to Assembly rules consolidating more power in the Republican majority, providing less input from the Democratic minority and increased opportunities to limit Gov. Tony Evers’ veto power. Anderson rejected the accommodations offered to him because they were coupled with these new rules.

Under the new rules, the Assembly now can take unlimited votes to try to override an Evers veto. The old rule only allowed one override vote. The new rules also prevent the Democratic minority from caucusing when surprise bills or amendments are introduced on the Assembly floor. In addition, the speaker now has the power to limit the time allowed for debate and to convene a surprise floor session to vote on bills even when a number of lawmakers are absent.

Needless to say, the response from Democratic Assembly members was quick and scathing.

Rep. Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, released a statement in response.

“It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Speaker would pass on the chance to do the right thing for the right reasons. The effort to tie accommodations for Rep. Anderson to rule changes that silence the minority and undermine the governor is an insult to every single voter. It means that voters aren’t represented equally in the legislature, because some representatives are allowed less of a voice,” Neubauer said.

“Disability accommodations should never be a political process and changing the rules in the Assembly to water down the Governor’s veto and silence the minority — these changes undermine our democracy and each person’s right to equal representation in Wisconsin, regardless of party or ability,” she noted.

Assembly Democratic Leader Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, also criticized Vos’ actions.

“The decision to not allow these basic accommodations without attaching an unrelated power grab is unnecessarily cruel, anti-democratic, and leaves a permanent stain on this legislature. Not every decision has to be political, but it is to Robin Vos. No single legislator has been more damaging to this institution and to our democracy,” Hintz stated. “It’s clear Republicans don’t want us to debate the issues. They don’t want to address the challenges facing our state. Instead, Republicans are solely focused on ways to consolidate their own power and stick it to Governor Evers.”

“Apparently Republicans are not capable of the simple decency of accommodating their colleague without attaching rule changes that have literally nothing to do with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The fact that throughout this process none of Rep. Anderson’s GOP colleagues reached out to him to offer even their minimal support tells you everything you need to know,” Hintz concluded.

Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison, also weighed in on the controversy.

“AR 12 ties disabilities accommodations for a member of the Assembly to other rule changes that consolidate power of the majority party, including allowing unlimited attempts to override a veto and giving sweeping new powers to the Speaker.

“Accommodating individuals with disabilities serving in the Legislature is an issue of basic respect and should not be treated as a political matter up for debate. Yet, Speaker Vos has spent months denying our colleague, Rep. Jimmy Anderson, and his constituents the respect they deserve.

“Speaker Vos’ petty refusal to provide the same reasonable accommodations to our colleague that we would expect and require of any employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act has been a mind-boggling embarrassment to himself and our entire institution. Now his motive is clear — He was unwilling to do the right thing unless there was something to be gained for himself and his caucus.

“Republicans have treated what should be nonnegotiable — accommodating the full participation of individuals with disabilities — as a negotiation. Their refusal to act on Rep. Anderson’s request for reasonable accommodation without getting something for themselves in return is nothing short of shameful.

“Instead of holding ourselves accountable to the same standards under the Americans for Disabilities Act that we require of all other employers in the state, Republicans have used this as an opportunity to hide their naked power grab and change the rules for their own benefit. Speaker Vos and Assembly Republicans shamefully put themselves first in a flagrant act of disrespect for our colleague and other individuals with disabilities,” Subeck said.

When we thought that our society was better for the contributions of those less physically able, Speaker Vos shows we still have miles to go before we have a truly inclusive democracy where the contributions of all are welcomed and honored.

Farewell Famiy Farms

Farewell to the Family Farm
Trump Abandons Farmers

The Trump Administration just told Wisconsin’s family farmers to get bigger or go out of business. Wisconsin family dairy farmers, already facing steep competition from large corporate farm operations, are leaving their fields, selling their herds and going bankrupt in record numbers rather than grow themselves out of work. Wisconsin has lost over 1,000 dairy farms in the last two years.

On Monday, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Purdue addressed the World Dairy Expo in Madison. He said family farm survival depended on their getting bigger in order to catch up with the large corporate operations. “In America, the big get bigger and the small go out,” Purdue said. This not the first time Purdue has put small farmers down. He recently called farmers “a bunch of whiners” at Minnesota Farmfest.

In a press conference after the Expo, Jerry Volenec, a dairy farmer from Grant county said, “What I heard today from the secretary of agriculture was there’s no place for me.”

The Wisconsin Farmers Union strongly condemned Purdue’s remarks in a press release. WFU President and third-generation dairy farmer Darin Von Ruden runs a 50-cow organic dairy farm in Westby. He noted that the “bigger is better” mantra has not panned out well for rural Wisconsin in recent years. 

“The mindset that has been pushed on farmers to continually grow is ultimately pushing them out of business as overproduction forces market prices down,” Von Ruden said. 

Farm losses have accelerated in recent years, ripping farm communities apart. The loss of revenues in rural areas is reaching their Main Streets causing banks to close along with post offices and grocery stores, Von Ruden noted. 

At the press conference, Von Ruden said, “When there’s no money in the farming community it doesn’t stay in that farming community and so it disappears and the local community disappears.” “We need to look at something that will benefit all of our rural America, not just corporate rural America. 

Democratic Representative Ron Kind noted that the Trump administration’s Market Facilitation Program that was supposed to help struggling family farm operations has, instead, favored large corporate farms. Kind wrote to Purdue complaining that the top one percent of large farms received an average of $183,000 in trade aid while the bottom 80% received under $5,000. He also told Purdue that 82 large farms received more than $500,000 and 95 percent of all payments went to the top 50 percent of farms. 

The Market Facilitation Program was developed in response to the Trump trade war with China when China responded to Trump imposed tariffs with tariffs on American farm exports that hit small farms, including those in Wisconsin, especially hard. 

Rep. Kind’s letter to Purdue asked the Secretary to make sure that the next round of payments to farmers harmed by the trade war went to those actually harmed by it. Kind noted that $38 million of the last round of payments went to addresses in American cities indicating they were made to corporate farm owners and not family farmers. 

The facts are grim for farmers. “Between July 2018 and June 2019, the number of farms that filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy rose by 13 percent over the previous year,” according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Loan delinquency rates have reached a six-year high. And nearly 13,000 farms disappeared in 2018 according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” the Federation noted. 

Politico reports, “Farm exports in fiscal 2019 are down nearly 7 percent from 2018, exacerbating one of the toughest periods for agriculture since the 1980s farm crisis.”

Finally, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, “The fallout continues as farmers, on the cusp of spring planting, decide whether to invest in seed, chemicals, fertilizer and other supplies needed to raise the crops they feed to their cattle. More than 300 Wisconsin dairy farms shut down between January and May, including 90 -three a day- in April alone.”

Family farms are the backbone of Wisconsin’s rural economy. If we continue to lose these farms and their surrounding communities to the corporate mega operations that sell cheap and take their profits home, some to foreign countries, and continue to invite retaliatory tariffs on farm exports in a needless trade war, we will all suffer

Rejectionists

Rejectionists Fail to Learn from History
Canadians Got it Correctly

My wife and I are visiting our middle daughter in Owen Sound, Ontario. It is a small waterfront community on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, nestled in Georgian Bay. We went to a local park where a memorial to the African-American slaves who fled the American South prior to the Civil War via the Underground Railroad and ended their journey in that community. 

Many came north fleeing oppression and confinement through Wisconsin and crossed Lake Michigan and came into Canada. Others came north through New England and crossed Lake Erie into Ontario. Some estimates put the number of former slaves who crossed into Canada during those tumultuous times at between 15 to 20 thousand. They came to Canada because that country refused to extradite former slaves back to their former owners in the States when claims were made for their return. 

The memorial in Harrison Park in Owen Sound recounts the contributions these earlier immigrants made to local life and economic growth. It showcases the coded signals families along the Underground Railroad sewed into quilts hung on fences or clotheslines that told travelers which way to proceed along their journey north. One symbol used a star pattern to remind travelers to follow the North Star to freedom. A sailboat pattern warned of a large body of water ahead that would need to be crossed. A flying geese pattern of triangles used north pointing wings to show the way. A crossroads pattern warned of potential dangers from people traveling in a different direction. Others warned of dangers or obstacles and some indicated safety.

The park later became a gathering place for the descendants of those early escapees to meet for annual reunions each August and celebrate their continuing freedom. The gathering date notes the passage of legislation granting permanent freedom to all former slaves throughout the British Commonwealth. 

In Wisconsin, abolitionists created safe houses for escaped slaves traveling the Underground Railroad to rest along their journey north to freedom before the Civil War and President Lincoln’s signing of the Emancipation Proclamation permanently freeing all those held in slavery in our Southern states. Abolitionists were common in Waukesha, Milton and Burlington. Crowds gathered in Racine and other communities to demand the release of captured runaway slaves. They stood up to the bounty hunters sent from slave owning communities to bring owners’ “property” back home. Wisconsin sent the Iron Brigade to fight with the Union Army in the Civil War to put a final end to enslavement of fellow human beings. They mustered at Camp Randall in Madison before traveling south to free fellow human beings.

All this history has come full circle once more as we struggle to find solutions for those fleeing oppression and punishment in foreign lands. The United States is in conflict once more about what to do with brown skinned people who want to be free and see our country as their last best hope for a better, safer life than they have in their South and Central American homelands. 

Many of us would welcome these new immigrants and encourage their integration into the American fabric. We know that successive waves of immigrants, including those with different colored skin or different languages and cultures, have successfully entered life in this country and made significant contributions to our economy and culture. There are others, stoked by fear and hatred of those with different skin tones or who speak different languages, who want to build walls to keep the “invading hoards” from taking our jobs and raping our women. Canada, in stark contrast, has let it be known that it will accept all those that we refuse to admit. 

The new American rejectionists refuse to even consider the possibility that the new freedom seekers might just be able to help us out. They fail to recognize the contributions those from south of our borders already make to agriculture, the food processing industry, restaurants and nursing homes where they do much of the hands-on care of our elderly and infirm. The do not remember when we actually invited the Braceros to come north to work in the fields picking crops and following the migrant trail to work the fields from south to north when those already here refused the work. 

It always amazes me when we fail to learn from our history and fail to see the opportunity in welcoming new workers and their families into our communities. We are better than our rejectionist past and those who share that belief need to stand and be counted at the ballot box when we choose the next round of representatives to speak for us in Madison and Washington.

Free Speech?

Is Speech Free on UW Campuses?
Crafting a solution in search of a problem

In November, 2016, Ben Shapiro, a conservative activist and author was scheduled to give a public speech on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. As he was starting his speech, several people in the audience disrupted his talk with chants of “Shame” and “Safety.” Shapiro responded by writing “MORONS” on the blackboard and gave the audience a double middle-finger salute. Students surrounded the stage for a short time and prevented Shapiro from speaking. The protesters were shown the door and Shapiro was able to finish his speech.

In 2017, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill aimed a punishing those who disrupt speeches on UW campuses subjecting them to harsh penalties, including expulsion for a third offense. The bill failed to pass in the state Senate after the UW Board of Regents passed temporary new rules that provided much of what the Assembly bill contained. The Regents are currently in the process of formally promulgating these rules to be part of the state’s Administrative Code which will need final approval by the legislature and the governor before they take final effect.

Notwithstanding this march towards curtailing speech on our state university campuses, four members of the current legislature have introduced a new bill more draconian than the first one. Republican Representatives Cody Horlacher, Robin Vos and Dave Murphy were joined by Senator Chris Kapenga in sponsoring the new bill. The new one goes further than the first by allowing recovery of attorney’s fees and damages if a violation is found.

In an accompanying memo, the sponsors declared, “Campuses across the country have erupted in protest, including violent riots, as the growing debate over who has the right to speak threatens our nation’s first amendment.” Their memo, aimed at finding legislative co-sponsors for the measure, continues claiming free speech violations have taken place on several UW campuses, including Madison, Oshkosh, Stout and Stevens Point. The memo offers no details of these alleged violations and none of the four sponsors provided any details when asked if there were any other events than the one involving Shapiro. 

Mark Pitsch, a spokesman for the UW System, confirmed that there have been no free speech rights violations on any of the state’s 13 universities and 13 branch campuses since the Regents adopted the current rules in 2017.

It appears that our GOP controlled legislature is proposing solutions to a problem that does not exist. 

Even if it was a problem, passage in our current divided government is far from certain. Governor Tony Evers sat on the UW Board of Regents as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction when the first rules were passed. He cast the sole dissenting vote on the new rule indicating it would chill free speech rights of those opposed to a speaker’s views. His current spokeswoman indicated that his position has not changed, signaling a probable veto of the bill and new Regent rules should either pass.

State Senator Chris Taylor (D-Madison) claims the new bill is being pushed by the Republicans knowing it will be vetoed in order to use it for political messaging. Taylor indicated they will claim Evers and Democrats are anti-free speech when, in fact, the new bill is anti-free speech. 

The bills both appear to track model language suggested by the Goldwater Institute, an Arizona right-wing think tank funded by the Bradley, Walton and Koch foundations, among others. So far, 17 states have enacted a variant of the model campus free-speech legislation with bills pending in several others. 

A key provision requires state campuses to “remain neutral …. on the public policy controversies of the day.” The clear intent of these bills is to take our universities out of the debates on current public policy issues. They are based upon the discredited notion that universities are inherently liberal and anti-conservative and skew instruction to match those views. 

To the contrary, our universities are places where all can come to learn and develop their own world view based on history and accumulated knowledge. There is no better place to develop personal views about the policies and debates that form our society and culture. Universities can supply the instruction that links the past to current issues of public interest and concern.

You cannot understand racism without knowledge of our history of slavery and the post-civil war efforts to keep newly freed slaves in bondage. You cannot understand why oil and gas pipelines are being protested by Native American tribes as threats to their very existence without an understanding of the history of the attempts to obliterate Native people and their cultures. You cannot understand the current fascism of the right without knowing the history of European fascism and our involvement in two World Wars to end it. The birthplace of the modern environmental, civil rights and anti-war movements was on university campuses across the nation.

After learning these foundational histories, it is only proper that protests over the current iterations of these evil movements be not only allowed, but encouraged, on our campuses and in our communities. Punishing people who stand up against oppression is the wrong message.