Justice – Pike & Hurricane

How Techno music can be militant

Aimée Niau Lacordaire — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:53:33 +0000

Techno is a form of electronic music that emerged in the United States in the mid-1980s. During the 1990s, techno developed into a real musical culture thanks to the welcome that England and especially Germany had for the artists of Detroit. Militant since its first days, the techno community has always used its influence to defend its vision of a more just and equal world. By relying on a worldwide network of sensitive music lovers and activists, techno has become a musical genre carrying socio-political avant-gardes.

“Daughter of immigrants”

In the 80s, the birth and the impulse of techno and techno clubs in West Berlin contributed to the fall of the Berlin Wall. More and more residents of East Berlin also wanted to be able to listen to and dance freely to the rhythm of techno that they were listening to illegally on Western radio stations. After the fall of the wall techno has also contributed to the reunification of young people from West and East Berlin because they could dance together without worrying about their different identities.

“The techno then releases a promise of freedom that echoes the fall of the wall. Where everyone can create his own universe.”

Techno for the gender liberation

Some clubs are developing the same freedom of techno, especially in Germany and in France. They proclaim a “safe space” where people can be who they want without being judged in particular regarding their sexuality or sexual orientation.

In France, Angel Karel, who is a techno DJ, created The Future Is Female, “a collective propelled by a desire to defend the place of women in the techno scene, hitherto too little emphasis on the local scene in Lyon. This community, in search of a space of freedom to express itself, makes a real turning point for the collective that proposes a first event without any gender rule or identity barrier.“

They organise a “No gender” party, which is a militant and activist, non-conformist event of the french scene, bringing together liberated souls in search of an alternative techno experience in a “safe” space where the rules are respect and tolerance. There, you can be dressed as you wish and free, to not wearing anything without the fear of being judged or touched without consent. Additionally, there is a darkroom where people can go to for privacy where it is forbidden to film or take pictures. This party is rhythm by a brutal and corporal techno, with artistic queers’ performances and only women or queer DJs.

More and more techno DJs are, claim to be politically engaged and militant, for example, Vikken who is a french trans-man and a militant against transphobia. Another example is “La Fraicheur”, a queer DJ and feminist who uses techno to deliver messages, like the speeches of “Angela Davis” in “The movement”. Her speeches denounce racism, homophobia, and transphobia. “Kiddy Smile” is a singer, DJ, producer, dancer and activist for LGBTQ+ rights. He played at Élysée with a T-shirt saying: “son of immigrants, black and gay”. These examples show that music is not only a way to make people dance but also to send strong messages which will make them move in the figurative sense.

These are just a few examples of an ongoing trend. More and more techno nights are queer or/ LGBTQ+ and participants are reminded of the rules (“No racism, homophobia, transphobia or sexism. No touching without asking and no means NO!“) under every facebook event of, for example, the techno club “Ved Siden AF” in Copenhagen.

If techno makes it possible to express who one is and to liberate oneself sexually, it is also a means of conveying political messages.

Techno for justice around the world

Sama is a young woman and the first Palestinian DJ. Her idea is to create “An area of artistic and political freedom”, to allow young Palestinians to forget the sadness of their lives on universal beats. Sama became a famous DJ on the European techno scene, because of her political engagement. In Palestine ,the Israeli state has subjected Palestinians to occupation since 1948, with several disastrous armed conflicts. In September 2018, they created the #DJsForPalestine campaign which marked the climax of this nascent relationship between techno and Palestinian resistance. Behind the hashtag, thousands of world-renowned artists, young DJs and alternative collectives around the world are now expressing their support.

In May 2018, in Georgia, one of the biggest techno clubs called the “Bassiani” in Tbilisi was subject of a big police raid. 200 members of the special forces, armed with machine guns raided the club during a legal event because of the recent drug related deaths of five individuals which the authorities claim are linked to Bassiani. But according to the director of the Bassiani this descent had no basis since none of the deaths occurred at the club. Instead it is believed that the deaths are being used to sustain a Soviet-era political regime. Georgia maintains “extraordinarily strict zero-tolerance drug policies.” Random drug tests by police are common, and small amounts of recreational drugs can get people into prison for years. To protest this, a group of hundreds of young people gathered in front of the parliament, demonstrating against the police operation and for their freedom: “we dance together, we fight together”! The most famous DJs from around the world have sent their support such as: “Ben Klock”, “Nina Kraviz”, or “Dixon”.

In France, on June 21st 2019, a techno fan named Steve Maia disappeared and was found dead in the Loire river after a controversial intervention by the police during a music festival. Every year in Paris, the Techno Parade is held. This year, on the occasion of its 21st anniversary, the Techno Parade wished to mount the sound “in a spirit more than ever militant and claiming“. It stood under the motto “Dance for Steve” and was a tribute to him and a way to protest against police violence and to ask for justice.

And for climate

Finally techno is now at the service of the fight against the climate crisis with some DJs who are engaged on the side of Extinction Rebellion (XR), to protest for a climate justice. For example “Inhalt der Nacht”, a German DJ, or the English duo “Orbital” show their support for Extinction Rebellion by mixing for XR Rave, techno nights to support Extinction Rebellion.

On the 1st November 2019, a Rebel Rave was organised. It was a warehouse party by Extinction Rebellion to celebrate and support the London Rebels who were arrested for showcasing the global climate emergency on the streets of London in April and October this year. All the profits of this event went towards legal aid for rebels awaiting court appearances and prosecution.

As the Palestinian DJ Sama said : “music will not bring peace but it unites people, it makes people think, it helps to understand.“

by Aimée Niau Lacordaire

Photo credits :

The post How Techno music can be militant appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Divided We Fall

Maya Diekmann — Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:09:34 +0000

On November 21, 2013, Senate Democrats confirmed Brett Kavanaugh as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Not literally, of course, yet the essence of Kavanaugh’s successful confirmation to the highest federal court of the United States can be traced back to the elimination of the filibuster, which took place on said November day.

“Filibuster Out”

What actually happened that day in 2013 was a historic amendment of Senate rules by the Democrat majority. Democrats, under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, eliminated the filibuster on executive and judicial nominations, with the exception of Supreme Court nominations, in response to a partisan gridlock caused by Senate Republicans repeatedly drawing on their right to indefinitely extend debate.

While filibustering itself is a long established tool in the Senate, its use has “skyrocketed to unprecedented levels during the Obama Administration” – 27 cloture votes have been invoked on executive appointments made by President Barack Obama. That is more than under the ten presidents before him. Combined.

Unsurprisingly, the move had caused great dissent among Republicans, who were convinced that “Democrats would ultimately reap what they sowed”. They eventually did: First, in 2017, with Republicans eliminating exceptions of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in order to move forward with the confirmation of President Trump’s appointee Neil Gorsuch.

And again, with the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh just a few days ago.

An Impartial Supreme Court?

One can see why Democrats thought it necessary to put an end to the filibuster’s unproductive political repercussions. Yet, eliminating such a powerful political minority tool can be considered a bold move. Especially, when the Executive and Legislative Branches are controlled by the same political party, overreaching into the Judicial Branch is now much easier than before. And we may be witnessing this first hand.

With Kavanaugh – appointed and confirmed by the Republican Party – replacing swing vote Anthony Kennedy, the court is now dominated by conservative justices, aligning with Republican ideology. The great partisan animosity carried by Kavanaugh places the Supreme Court in an equivocal position. Created to offer checks on the Legislative and Executive Branches, the supposingly apolitical court has suddenly become a part of what New York Times author Charlie Savage accurately titles Senators’ “tit-for-tat escalation of partisan warfare”.

Legitimacy of the Supreme Court rests with the faith of the American people and a potential shift of the Supreme Court towards a more conservative interpretation of the law is not unlikely to result in a loss of said faith among liberals, which, according to a 2017 poll, make up 46% of the American people. For the Supreme Court, losing back-up from almost half of the American population will have consequences of inconceivable magnitude.

The Future of Justice

So where do we go from here? The filibuster is dead and the consequences of this are real. If there is one positive effect of the dissension around Kavanaugh’s appointment, it is the reignited call for reform of the Supreme Court.

A popular proposal is the abolition of lifetime tenure and its replacement with single, staggered 18-year-terms. Not only would a faster turnover de-intensify confirmation battles in the Senate, it would also allow every president to appoint two justices per term, with a minimized risk of one party appointing a majority of the court. Rather than Supreme Court openings being “lotteries to be won by lucky presidents”, a guaranteed set of appointments per president adds a more democratic character to the nomination of justices.

Another widespread idea revolves around “packing” of the court. Rather than trying to run from its fate, according to Jacob Hale Russel, the Supreme Court should embrace the inevitable: politicization. A larger judicial body would increase representation and diversity, and generally be more productive. Justices would be less likely to get stuck on a bloc-voting pattern and coalitions would form more easily regardless of partisan divide.

Yay or Nay?

How likely is an actual reform of the Supreme Court? In theory, the Supreme Court as we know it today can be – more or less easily – reformed. The number of judges on the court is not defined in the Constitution but rather by a congressional act, correspondingly simple would be a change in terms of membership – also through a congressional act. Somewhat more complicated, but by no means impossible, is the introduction of limited terms, since lifetime tenure is indirectly provided for in the Constitution. A change in tenure would require an amendment to the Constitution, which certainly is significantly more time-consuming than an Act of Congress.

In practice, however, a reform of the Supreme Court may alter the legal framework but the core issue of politicization is likely to remain untouched. Washington Post’s Robert Barnes reminds us that, by definition, only those issues most difficult to resolve end up before the Supreme Court. That includes hot-button issues like gun control, abortion rights, death penalty – issues that have done a great deal in separating the people along partisan lines. Barnes is convinced that an honest judge should not only separate interpretation of the law from his personal political views but moreover judges in accordance to what’s best for the country. A deeply divided population cannot be considered to be in anyone’s best interest, yet Kavanaugh’s confirmation itself has further entrenched the gap between Republicans and Democrats. It will be in the hands of the Supreme Court to reverse the crisis Kavanaugh may have triggered for the judicial branch. After all, according to Barnes, a happy ending is in everyone’s best interest. Let’s just hope he is right.

By Maya Diekmann

Photo Credits:

The End Of The Government Shutdown 2013, Stephen Melkisethian, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Justitia, Tim Reckmann, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Filibuster Gorsuch, Master Steve Rapport, CC BY 2.0

The post Divided We Fall appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.