By Caroline Wilson
The calculated detention, interrogation, and search of David Miranda brings into sharp relief the draconian legal frameworks that define security and policing in the United Kingdom. These events highlight not only the imperilled state of privacy rights and free expression in Britain, but the breakdown of the democratic institutions that should be protecting individuals not only from terrorists, but from unrestrained government power.
Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was detained at Heathrow Airport on Sunday, August 18th. He was subjected to almost nine hours of questioning for being associated with a writer and newspaper that has blown the lid off of the overreaching activities of Western intelligence agencies. Miranda also had several of his electronic devices seized, including his laptop, USB thumbdrives, mobile phone, camera, and gaming consoles.
With the additional news that Government officials oversaw the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian newsroom, in a failed attempt to prevent journalists from reporting on clandestine GCHQ and NSA intelligence operations, it is clear that the UK government has resorted to bullying tactics with little regard for the democratic values it purports to promote.
According to the Home Office, “Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning. ” The British government is now equating support of civil liberties and the rule of law to supporting terrorism. Their actions suggest that they believe the fundamental right to privacy is no more than the reserve of violent criminals, and free expression a threat to the public and national security.
We know from past experiences, however, that such aggressive denials are a symptom of a weakened position. For the Home Office, the Miranda affair represents the dramatic climax of a scandal that has been building since Snowden’s revelations began in early June. For the people, it is the tipping point. The Government’s most recent actions undermine what little trust the public may still have in the State.
We must question the government’s promises that State intrusion into our lives is making us safer and instead demand the return of human rights to our democratic society. We must ensure that surveillance activities are prescribed by law, accessible, foreseeable, and overseen by independent oversight mechanisms. We must hold the private sector to account for its role in supporting government surveillance that violates human rights. And we must push back against the government’s attempts to use overbroad laws to increase its reach into our online and offline lives in the name of national security.
Below, we take a look at one of those laws – Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
What is Schedule 7?
The examination of David Miranda is a high-profile example of a dirty secret in both the democratic and undemocratic world: nowhere do people have less rights than they do at the border.
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows certain examining officers to stop people at UK ports and borders in order to question them to determine whether they are engaged in acts of terrorism. The examining officer need not have grounds for suspecting that the person he is stopping is in fact involved in terrorism. Yet once detained, the subject of the interrogation must cooperate fully, “giv[ing] the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests.” The examining officer in turn has the power to “search anything which [the subject] has with him, or which belongs to him” that has been or is about to be on a ship, aircraft or vehicle.
As several commentators have pointed out, the purpose of this Schedule 7 examination is to determine whether the subject “is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.” But the Miranda incident seems to indicate the UK government has interpreted these provisions as allowing it to detain whoever it wants, for whatever reason, and to examine their electronic devices, so long as they happen to be traveling through a UK airport, seaport or other border area.
As described in a recent report released by the UK government’s independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, between April 2012 and March 2013 over 61,000 people were examined under Schedule 7. It is hard to believe all of those people were engaged in terrorist activities. The government’s own statistics justify this skepticism – of those 61,000 people, only 670 (or around 1%) were actually detained beyond the initial interrogation, indicating the government had some semblance of a reason to believe they might be a threat. Less than 0.04% of those examined under Schedule 7 are likely to be arrested: in 2010/11 there were 31 terrorism-related arrests at ports; in 2011/12 there were only 24.
Seizure of mobile phones and other devices
With such loose standards, it would seem that any of us who travel into or through the UK could be subject to examination under Schedule 7. Allowing the government such free rein undoubtedly leads to arbitrary and discriminatory invasions of our privacy that are neither necessary nor proportionate to the government’s legitimate aims.
As the Sunday Telegraph reported back in July, one of the most troubling aspects of Section 7 is that the UK government is using it to seize computers and mobile phones of travellers without cause, and retain the data indefinitely. The UK justifies its actions as a natural extension of its powers to examine a traveller’s paper documents. But mobile electronic devices carry so much more intimate information about us than we would have previously hauled around in our luggage. Everything from a list of contacts, to photos of loved ones, to financial and medical documents, to trade secrets might be contained on a traveller’s computer.
Such breadth and depth of content should not be accessible to the government without safeguards against an abuse of power. At the very least, border agents should be required to articulate a reasonable suspicion as to why the person whose electronic devices are being seized may be involved in terrorist activities. This is the minimal standard the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently articulated for the intrusive, forensic analysis of a laptop computer seized at the US border. While such an invasive search of a computer really shouldn’t occur without probable cause, it is very troubling that the UK is resisting implementing even the US’s nominal standard.
Within the UK, the statutorily-appointed Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, agrees that Schedule 7 powers need to be dependent upon reasonable suspicion and to include “safeguards governing the practice of copying and retaining data from laptops and mobile phones.”
Changes, but for the better?
Indeed, it is an open question as to whether Schedule 7 even authorises examining officers to access and seize information from electronic devices. Currently, the law allows officers to examine anything a person “has with him, or which belongs to him” for the purpose of determining if the item concerns or has been used in terrorism. But it is not at all clear the government can copy or retain any electronic content it locates during that examination.
Acknowledging that Schedule 7 may not extend to copying and retention, the government is seeking to amend Schedule 7 to explicitly permit such activities. But the newly proposed legislation, part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, does little to address concerns regarding necessity and proportionality. There are no new limits placed on examining officers’ ability to search, copy or retain data from electronic devices. No reasonable suspicion is required. And any acquired content may be retained for multiple purposes – not only if it helps determine if the subject is a terrorist, but also if it might be needed as evidence in criminal proceedings or for the purposes of making a deportation decision. In short, the proposed amendment to Schedule 7 regarding copying and retention makes things worse, not better.
If you have been detained by UK border agents and had your laptop, mobile phone or other electronic devices seized, we would like to hear from you. You may contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Original Source: Privacy International
The Governorship Elections in Venezuela. The PSUV Wins By a Landslide, Opposition in Disarray
A political Analysis on the recent electoral victory for State governorship by the governing party of Venezuela, the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela
By Nino Pagliccia and Armold August
The governing party of Venezuela, the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), has recently obtained a resounding electoral victory for State governorship. The election was called by the CNE (National Electoral Council) at the instance of the ANC (National Constituent Assembly). Soon after, the opposition group MUD (Democratic Unity Coalition) seemed to be in disarray. Enrique Capriles of Primero Justicia (Justice First) party, for example, resigned from the MUD coalition questioning Henry Ramos Allup of the AD (Democratic Action) party who in turn expelled the four AD governors who dared to be sworn-in in front of the ANC in acceptance of the election results.
I asked Canadian author Arnold August to give his assessment of the political significance for the Bolivarian process.
Question: In the last elections of October 15 for the 23 state governorships in Venezuela, the governing party won 18 states. What is your analysis of this result in the context of the political process in Venezuela?
Arnold August: Not only did it win the 18 states, but the PSUV substantially increased its popular vote compared with the National Assembly elections held in December 2015, when the opposition won by a wide margin. Thus, in a short period of time, the Bolivarian Revolution reversed the situation. These latest October 2017 state elections, therefore, are of great historical significance not only for Venezuela but for the whole region. The U.S. is hoping to subvert the Bolivarian Revolution and use it as a springboard to weaken, and even destroy, other left-wing movements and governments in the area. The latter represent an alternative to capitalism and they, along with other powers such as Russia, China and Iran, flourish as a major multi-polar challenge to the U.S. goal of world hegemony.
Thus, because of the domestic and international importance of this resurgence in the last elections, the analysis is still ongoing. Any serious observer is obliged to continue to reflect upon and investigate the upset victory, as you are striving to do now with this interview.
Nevertheless, there is one ongoing conclusion that I have been exploring since the elections. The election results marked a watershed in Venezuelan democracy. The majority of the people and the Maduro government crossed the Rubicon from participatory democracy toward protagonist democracy. They may not have yet reached terra firma on the other shore of the Rubicon, but Venezuelan democracy is firmly on the path toward protagonist democracy as the main feature of its political system.
Some Bolivarian Revolution sympathizers and activists in Venezuela and outside may raise their eyebrows in surprise, and even suspicion, with regard to my view. The analysis may seem, if looked at superficially and dogmatically, as an underestimation of the outstanding Bolivarian experience in participatory democracy.
However, this is far from being the case. For example, in my 2013 publication Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion, there is a section dealing with Cuba’s neighbour titled “Venezuela: New Experiments in Participatory Democracy” that provides a very positive analysis.
And, more importantly, consider this. Hugo Chávez very clearly stated that “socialism means participatory democracy but above all protagonist democracy” (Comandante Chávez, “El Socialismo es la Democracia Participativa y sobre todo la Protagónica,” posted March 19, 2013).
Protagonist democracy means that the people are reaching the stage of consciousness and action – individually and collectively – to exercise on a daily basis their rightful protagonist role in their own revolution.
We saw this in the massive uprising by the Venezuelan people. A civic–military alliance overturned the U.S.-supported April 11, 2002 coup d’état against the Chávez government only two days later on April 13. This is how the now legendary Chavista slogan came into being: “Every 11th has its 13th!” The people themselves are able to overcome even the most adverse situation and seemingly hopeless obstacle by taking affairs into their own hands.
This growing protagonist feature of the Bolivarian Revolution’s democracy goes hand in hand with its development of socialist measures. It has been evolving over the years at a steady pace despite the economic war waged by the U.S. against Venezuela. Alongside this evolution, protagonist democracy has deepened and broadened to increasingly become a daily feature in the lives of the people. The Chávez thinking on this progression, as expressed above, is crucial to viewing today’s Venezuela from his perspective: socialism cannot be defended nor, even less, be developed without a political and electoral system based on protagonist democracy. Nonetheless, this developing level of consciousness is not tied to elections. On the contrary, the electoral process is just part of the battle of ideas that is being waged nationally and internationally in favour of socialism.
Out of necessity, this political movement in Venezuela increasingly becomes “daily” – perhaps not literally but very close to it since the death of Hugo Chávez. Ironically, Obama and Trump, by striving to subvert the participatory and protagonist people’s political defence of its Bolivarian Revolution and the biggest oil reserves in the world, have contributed to pushing the revolution to convert democracy toward, as Chávez said, “above all protagonist.” Thus, the paradox: Venezuela is now anchored in an even more favourable position to defend and expand its revolution, as the state election results glaringly exposed.
The 2002 American policy of blatant interference, as exemplified in the coup d’état, has become a daily staple in other more “smart power” forms feeding the unrest and crisis in Venezuela. This approach began to take shape after President Obama refused to recognize Nicolás Maduro as the constitutionally elected successor to Chávez on April 14, 2013. There has been virtually no let up since, with Obama handing the U.S. Venezuela game plan over to Trump on a silver platter. Only the form of the 2002 attempted coup has changed. It has become a slow-motion coup but with the same intent: to smash the socialist program. The response is that, metaphorically, every day in Venezuela is lived with the slogan “every 11th has its 13th” at the forefront.
However, unlike the military coup d’état attempt in 2002, now the “11th” is represented by the slow-motion coup that the U.S. has been fomenting since April 2013 to date, while the “13th” is the day-to-day people’s revolutionary struggle during this time to maintain political power. It was – and is – either that the Venezuelans will be the authors of their own revolution or that the revolution will be subverted.
Question: And what was the role that the National Constituent Assembly plays in the country?
AA: On May 1, 2017, the Maduro government announced the daring convening of elections to the National Constituent Assembly (NCA) to be held on July 30, 2017. The country was in the throes of the U.S.-provoked crisis. This was the only way out for the well-being and peace of the entire nation. The time had come to “re-found” the Bolivarian Revolution, just as in 1999 with the new Constitution after the election of Chávez, who founded it as a first step.
Please allow me to pursue the “crossing of the Rubicon” metaphor. The successful NCA elections, its dramatic convening and the results work together to represent the first plunge into the Rubicon: the protagonist feature of the Bolivarian Revolution overtook its complementary participatory characteristic to become what Chávez said was “above all” the need for being protagonist and not only participatory.
The NCA itself constitutes the highest expression of a protagonist system whereby the people themselves govern. It thus provided the orientation and confidence for the state elections only two-and-a-half months later in order to propel the Bolivarian Revolution further toward crossing the river to the shore. This new form of people’s power is the basis for safeguarding and further developing Venezuela’s socialism.
Thousands march in Seattle to denounce white supremacists
When Seattle anti-fascists of many political persuasions massed to protest a “Patriot Prayer” rally on Aug. 13, police prevented them from marching to the site of the far-right gathering. But they made their message heard regardless.
Police attack protesters trying to counter far-right rally
SEATTLE, Washington.- Downtown Seattle was awash with opponents of white supremacy on Sunday, August 13 as a diverse crowd of 2,000 marched in opposition to a rightwing “Patriot Prayer” rally at Westlake Park. Participation swelled dramatically as the counter-protest also became a response to the August 12 car attack on anti-racist demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia. Although police blocked the main protest from entering the park, the demonstrators’ message of solidarity reverberated through downtown canyons. In addition, several hundred protesters managed to enter the park and shout down the rally attended by 75 or so Trump supporters, Proud Boys, and militaristically clad allies.
The “Patriot Prayer” gathering was planned weeks earlier by Joey Gibson, of Vancouver, Washington, who claims to oppose racism, but whose events consistently draw white supremacists and neo-Nazis. He previously visited Seattle on June 10 as part of an anti-Muslim rally in Seattle that drew hundreds of counter-protesters.
Many of the organizations that came together in an ad hoc coalition to defend the Muslim community in June joined forces again for the August 13 march. Organizers and endorsers included Greater Seattle IWW General Defense Committee, Freedom Socialist Party, Organized Workers for Labor Solidarity, Veterans for Peace Chapter 94, Seattle Solidarity Network, Radical Women, ANSWERSeattle.org, SAFE in Seattle, Party for Socialism and Liberation, and Clifton Wyatt, former president of the International Association of Machinists Local A 751.
The M.L. King County Labor Council encouraged unionists to attend with a note stating, “If we are not fighting racism, sexism, homophobia we are not really fighting for workers’ rights.” Speaking for an endorsing union, Washington Federation of State Employees Local 304, Steve Hoffman addressed the key role of the labor movement in opposing the far right and roused the crowd before the march began with the slogan “An injury to one is an injury to all!”
Approaching the city core, marchers became frustrated as Seattle police repeatedly blocked their access to Westlake Park. Scores of police in riot gear, with bicycles, batons, tanks and other vehicles, blocked all intersections and alleyways leading to the park. They lobbed flash-bang grenades and pepper-sprayed protesters in unprovoked attacks on a crowd that included elders, children, and people with disabilities. In response, protesters chanted, “Who do you protect? Who do you serve?” and “Cops and Klan work hand in hand!”
“We need to protest to Seattle’s mayor and police chief for essentially taking the side of the racist reactionaries by teargassing locals who came to take a stand against them, while providing a military-type escort for the bigots,” said Patrick Burns, a union carpenter who was a marshal for the counter-protesters’ march.
“I urge everyone to call the City Council and demand that the police be brought under control,” said Annaliza Torres of Radical Women. Torres said sixty organizations and community leaders signed onto a letter protesting “biased policing” at the June anti-Muslim rally. She said police allowed the Proud Boys to repeatedly attack the anti-racist rally, but then pepper-sprayed and arrested the people who attempted to defend themselves. “We haven’t yet had a reply to our complaint. Instead, we got intensified police harassment today,” said Torres.
Su Docekal of the Freedom Socialist Party, one of the march organizers, said, “The police and the city absolutely violated our constitutional rights to protest and free speech. We know from experience with the Aryan Nations and others here in the Pacific Northwest that the way to prevent fascism from taking root is through direct, disciplined confrontation when they come out in public to recruit. Our goal is to build a broad, democratic united front able to stop them in their tracks.”
Source: Freedom Socialist Party LA
I Am the World’s First Abortion Refugee: a woman Salvadoran
Maria Teresa Rivera is the first Abortion Refugee from El Salvador
By Jorge Rivas
In 2011, María Teresa Rivera was arrested in El Salvador. She was accused of having an abortion and sentenced to 40 years in prison on the charge of “aggravated homicide.” Rivera claims she had a miscarriage and did not even know she was pregnant. Attorneys were able to free her, but not before she served four and a half years of her sentence. She fled the country when a prosecutor appealed the judge’s decision to a higher court.
On March 20, the Swedish Migration Agency granted Rivera and her 12-year-old son political asylum. She is believed to be the first person in the world to be granted asylum for abortion persecution.
Splinter spoke with María Teresa Rivera in her new home near Stockholm in June. Interview has been edited and condensed.
The nightmare started in November 2011 in San Salvador, El Salvador. It was the night before my son’s elementary school graduation and I went to bed late preparing food and ironing his outfit. A few hours later I woke up with stomach cramps. I went to the outhouse because I felt like I needed to go poo-poo. I just remember feeling like something in my stomach collapsed. When I went to clean myself I noticed I was bleeding. I walked back to the house and my mother-in-law called the ambulance for help. I was losing blood and it took so long to get me to the hospital that I fainted. I don’t remember anything after that.
I mentioned to a co-worker in January 2011 at the factory I worked at that I was worried my period was late. Later she came to testify in court to say I knew I was pregnant. But the prosecutor claimed I had an abortion in November. That’s illogical because it would have meant I was 11 months pregnant at the time of the abortion.
I’ve always said that if I wanted to have an abortion I would not have waited 11 months. It just makes no sense to condemn me for an 11-month pregnancy.
I was sentenced to 40 years in prison for a homicide I did not commit.
When the judge gave me the sentence, I felt like it was all over. The first thing I thought was, “How old is my seven-year-old son going to be in 2052 when I leave prison?” I did the math and told myself, “He is going to be 47 years old and he’s going to hate me. He is going to blame me for missing his life.” I thought about all the things that can happen to my child in that amount of time. It was very difficult.
The truth is I’ve had a hard life, but that’s also what gives me strength. I was five when my mother disappeared during the civil war in El Salvador. We never heard from her again. My grandmother raised my brother and me. She used to take us to work with her. We helped clean vegetables at the market. But when she got sick family members juggled us around. I was eight when I was raped on my way home from school. I had to walk through a dark road and my aunts blamed it on me. My brother and I ultimately ended up in an orphanage for children of the disappeared.
I never watched the news on TV, much less read newspapers. I didn’t want to poison my mind with bad stories. I’ve had to live through my own stories. So when I got to prison I assumed I was the only women in prison for having an abortion or miscarriage.
I was all over the news, so the women in prison recognized me. It turned out there were a lot more women in prison who were accused of having abortions. Some of them had 30-year sentences, others were sentenced to 35 years. But I got the most severe sentence. I was the first to get a 40-year sentence, so my story made international headlines.
In prison it just takes one person to recognize you and then word travels. Rumors spread.
The women in prison called me the “mata niños”—the baby killer. They threatened to kill me just like I had killed my son. Luckily they never physically attacked me; it was all just emotional stress.
But I met other women in prison, some as young as 18, who were incarcerated for having an abortion. All of them were poor. The women who have money pay private doctors for the procedures or they fly out of the country for an abortion.
Women would come to me and tell me they were in there for an abortion. I’d get their names and share them with my lawyer.
[At least 129 women were prosecuted for abortion-related crimes in El Salvador between 2000 and 2011, according to Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto (Citizens’ Coalition for the Decriminalization of Abortion), an advocacy group that also helped fight Rivera’s case. Of these, 23 were convicted of receiving an illegal abortion; 26 were convicted of homicide. There are at least 21 women in Salvadoran prisons serving time for abortion related charges.]
I met 11 of these women during my four years in prison. We all had similar stories. We came from poor and working-class families. Some of them had little schooling. Some of the women were raped. There were cases of incest and miscarriages.
We all lived through this very difficult experience and only we know how we feel.
We made a pact and promised each other that the first one to be freed was going to become a spokeswoman for all of us. There were 11 of us who made the agreement. We all thought the other person would be freed first. But it turned out to be me.
Now I have that responsibility, and I cannot break that commitment. I don’t speak out so people know who I am—I speak out so that people learn what’s going on. My commitment to the women who are still incarcerated are what give me power to keep going now.
When I heard the judge say he was overturning my case I felt like I was dreaming.
The judge ruled there was not enough evidence to prove the charges against me. He annulled the sentence and ordered the State to pay damages for sending me to prison for almost five years.
The judge’s decision made headlines again, but the stories focused on how the prosecutor would appeal the ruling. One of the largest newspaper included graphic details in the story about the annulment. They said I had cut my own umbilical cord, removed the newborn and threw it into the latrine while it was still alive. They never quoted the judge who freed me.
I tried to get work immediately but I quickly realized I wasn’t really free. I’ve had to work since I was a young girl. I’m a hard worker and willing to do anything so I could provide for my own son. I’ve never had fear of any work. In prison I would stick my hands in toilets to clear them up. I’m not afraid of an honest job.
But I’d walk into businesses that had hiring signs on their windows and they’d look at me and tell me the position has been filled. People recognized me and didn’t want to hire me.
I told myself I wouldn’t speak to reporters again. The media in my country only used my story against me. They never printed anything in my favor.
Then officials announced they were going to appeal the judge’s decision to annul my case. That’s when I knew I had to leave.
I was invited to speak at a conference in Stockholm. That was my way out. People in Sweden who I’ve never met raised money and paid for the flight for my son and me.
I feared they wouldn’t let me fly out of the country because the prosecutor was after my case. I knew my sentence was annulled and felt more secure when I was able to get a passport without any issues. But at the airport I was still anxious. I was shaking when they scanned my boarding pass to enter the plane. In the end we didn’t have any problems getting out of the country.
The first flight in my life I went from El Salvador to Panama, Panama to Amsterdam, Amsterdam to Stockholm. I didn’t know anything about Sweden before I got here. All I was able to gather when I looked at a map is that were a lot of lakes.
I arrived in Stockholm in October last year in the evening and the next morning I applied for asylum. They were very kind to me. I know that other women like me have fled to the United States without authorization. Some of them are undocumented or still going through the asylum process.
There was a sense of relief when I arrived here but it’s also been very difficult. I can communicate with very few people and all I have here is my son.
I live in immigration housing provided by the Swedish government. It’s in a rural town and two bus rides and a train ride away from Stockholm. But I’m walking distance from a lake. We’re the only Spanish-speaking family around here. I knew we were going to struggle and have to fight to start our lives here but sometimes I feel like I don’t even know where to start.
I’ve met other Salvadorans who have asylum here. Many of them fled during the civil war in the 1980s and early 1990s and some of them are missing limbs. They’ve formed a community here and have been supportive, even extending invitations to dinners.
Right now I’m learning Swedish using the internet. My son has started school and he teaches me words, too. We don’t have internet at home. When I can afford cell phone service we use my phone but sometimes we have to go to shopping centers with free wifi to get online. I’m not allowed to work until I get my work permit.
People who heard I was coming to Sweden through advocacy groups have donated a few things. My neighbor also let me have his old TV. He’s from Syria, a single dad with three girls.
I’ve also done a little shopping myself. When I went to the immigration office I was walking by and saw a big ad on the side of a retail building. I looked at my son and I said, “Let’s go in there.” It’s a place called Ikea. I got my dishes there. I had never heard of Ikea but I saw people going in and out and I just went inside to see what we’d find. The first thing I said was, “Wow this place is big. We don’t have anything like this in El Salvador.” But you know, the most important thing for me right now is price.
It’s been five years since the judge declared I was guilty of aggravated homicide. That was in July 2012. And this is still happening.
[On July 5, a Salvadoran judge sentenced 19-year-old Evelyn Beatriz Hernandez Cruz to 30-years in prison for giving birth to a stillborn baby in a toilet. She was at home on April 6, 2016 when she felt sharp pains in her stomach and went to the restroom. She later fainted and woke up in the hospital. Medical staff at the Hospital Nuestra Señora de Fátima in Cojutepeque reported her to law enforcement officials.
Prosecutors could not provide evidence to determine whether the fetus died in utero or moments after delivery, but she was still charged with aggravated murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison.]
I’ve told my son that when the time is right I want to him to share his story with reporters, too. I want the world to know what these laws and the stigma are doing to the families of these women. I’m not afraid to speak out anymore. I don’t care what people say about me. I’m going to speak and talk about the lives that Salvadoran women are living.
Original Source: Splinternews.com
La violencia tolerada de los youtuberos: el caso de las activistas de CDMX
Un relato feminista en Don Quijote de la Mancha
El talento de Freddie Mercury, a 29 de años de su partida
Sobreprecio millonario en dólares de la Línea 12 del Metro, autorización de Mario Delgado en 2009
Secretario del Trabajo del expresidente Felipe Calderón y parte de SEDENA en la red del Cártel de Sinaloa
Segunda hija de Hugo Alberto Wallace, adolescente, otra prueba de su falso secuestro
Investigaciones1 mes ago
Sobreprecio millonario en dólares de la Línea 12 del Metro, autorización de Mario Delgado en 2009
Fabricación de culpables5 meses ago
Secretario del Trabajo del expresidente Felipe Calderón y parte de SEDENA en la red del Cártel de Sinaloa
El Caso Wallace1 mes ago
Segunda hija de Hugo Alberto Wallace, adolescente, otra prueba de su falso secuestro
Investigaciones3 semanas ago
Guerra en redes contra Mimenza por denunciar homicidios quintuplicados y expropiación de terrenos en QRoo
El Caso Wallace1 mes ago
Sobrino de Isabel Miranda reportó amenazas y secuestro por revelar abuso sexual de parte Hugo Wallace
El Caso Wallace1 mes ago
El turbio papel de Ricardo Raphael en el caso Wallace
El Caso Wallace3 semanas ago
Expareja de Hugo Alberto Wallace confirma que en 2005 no fue secuestrado ni asesinado
Justicia pendiente3 semanas ago
Capitán de la Sedena que denunció red de corrupción es propuesto para recibir medalla Belisario Domínguez