Donald Trump, politics, Uncategorized, united states

Trump’s Travel Ban in Deep Waters, Again.

In what will turn out to be a great setback for the Trumpian government, a federal appeals court upheld the ruling against the government’s ban on travellers from six Muslim-majority nations into United States. In a stunning 10-3 ruling, judges seemed to side with the lower court’s initial decision to stop certain parts of Donald Trump’s executive order, promulgated in March, which barred people from 6 countries, namely Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria from entering the United States for 90 days. The order also sought to to suspend the refugee program for 120 days.

People decried the revised executive order for being discriminatory in nature against a religious community. Although the revised order was milder in tone and extent of applicability, it still did not go down well with human rights activists. Trump tried to argue that since only a few countries were in its ambit, the order could not be considered a blanket ban on Muslims. However, that’s a laughable prospect. The second ban only eliminated Iraq from the initial 7-country list; US has for long worked on the front with Iraq in battling the ISIS and other counter-terrorism activities.

Still the ban profiles the individuals of a community as threats under the guise of national security. People were however vary of the fact that it might be hard to challenge the ban in court. Those in opposition of the ban would’ve had to prove that the ban would have done ‘real harm’ if not nullified which would’ve been harder to prove since the ban was not permanent in nature but only dealt in temporary denial of visas. Also, foreigners do not generally have a claim to sue. Selection of the countries, which is a political decision considering Trump’s earlier rhetoric on Muslim, is clearly discriminatory. Trumpian government is planning to continue to fight the decision in court, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions promising to take the matter to the Supreme Court. The court read between the lines and found deep connection between the campaign statements made by the President and his subsequent action of promulgating the travel ban. His extremist ideology and firm stance on the issue is what bought him a surge of supporters and the travel ban seems to pander to the whims of a scared bigoted public. ACLU, which fought the ban in court, terms this as a big win and it sure is. All hopes are now pinned on the Supreme Court which should ideally uphold 4th Circuit’s decision and overturn this prejudiced travel ban.

art, article, Donald Trump, HATRED, Journalism, social media, Uncategorized

Creative Resistance- How Art is fighting back Donald Trump

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Illma Gore knows that these words hold water. Having suffered backlash for her nude portrait with a micro-penis of the now incumbent President of the United States, Donald Trump, she began work on a piece of art, painted with human blood– 20 pints donated by those who share her cause- in association with activist collective INDECLINE as a protest against the election. Hers is not the sole crusade against the anti-feminist, anti-inclusion tainted president who now reigns as the leader of the free world. Another prominent artist, Shepard Fairey, released three politically charged posters, featuring an African-American, a Muslim and Latino women, titled “We the People”. All the three religious/ethnic groups had previously come under ire from the erstwhile presidential candidate, and Fairey felt the need to visually depict the same, in order to highlight their imminent vulnerability under his administration.

Another piece of art came under the political spotlight and it belonged to Richard Prince, an artist whose Instagram picture featuring Ivanka Trump, had earned him a $36000 bounty. In an act of protest, he denounced the work and returned the payment. His argument stated that as a means of an honest protest, he had to exercise his discretion regarding the Trumps, and that they ’are not art.’ Mr. Trump himself is apparently not an art person at all, his government planning on drastic cuts in the spending,including a probable elimination of National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities, The Hill reported. The massive outburst against the palpable concerns of a population that considers the election as a national catastrophe is majorly pivoted around the same issue, if not having stemmed from it.

What prompts these protests? Such a collective response to an election, on a scale that has never been witnessed before, prompts an intense soul-searching, although it doesn’t take long for the water to boil. The populace that voted against Trump and his policies are now trying to galvanize fear and angst against his election and stand in opposition to his decrees. Many artists supported a strike on January 20th, which called for an “act of non-compliance” and urged museums, galleries, theatres and galleries to remain closed for the day. The J20 Art Strike witnessed response from places around the country albeit in different ways. While mass outspoken dissent has taken over the stage prior and following the election result, those whose voices have no public platform for outcry have taken to social media and visual medium to cut across barriers. Dozens of banners with messages of inclusivity and anti-racism adorned the buildings across Philadelphia and Atlanta on the Inauguration day.

All the dissenters speak one tongue, inspite of different mediums which emphasizes non-acceptance of divisive attitude, corrosive of the ideas of equality enshrined in a democracy. The paradigm shift in the concept of identity and the argument of white supremacy that underlines Trump’s narrative is the fodder that fuels the artistic cannons, whose call for arms is loud, distinct and unavoidable.

cover picture: fusion.net