Latest news with #OnTyranny
Toronto Star
09-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Toronto Star
Toronto Star bestsellers: Comedian Brittlestar gives readers ‘Lessons From Cats for Surviving Fascism'
When the world feels like it's under siege, who are you going to turn to? Well, cats, according to a new book from Stewart Reynolds, the Stratford, Ont., writer and comedian also known as Brittlestar. 'Lessons From Cats for Surviving Fascism' landed on the Canadian non-fiction list this week at No. 9. According to Hachette Book Group, parent company of publisher Grand Central, it's like 'On Tyranny' — the 2017 book by Timothy D. Snyder about resisting the United States' turn toward authoritarianism — but with, well, cats.
Reuters
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Global instability isn't a distraction from sustainability work. It is the work
June 18 - As sustainability teams prepare for London Climate Action Week and eye New York's summit in September, a sobering question looms: will the international order even hold long enough to support a meaningful sustainability agenda? With wars, political assassinations, attacks on science and rising inequality and authoritarianism, global instability is escalating. But this is not a distraction from our work. It is our work. Sustainability has never only been about goals, metrics or technologies. It's about people – about protecting lives, livelihoods, rights and opportunity on a finite, fragile planet. If we ignore rising threats to life, freedom and justice, we are part of the problem. And yet the path forward isn't neat or certain. Many of us are asking: How do we lead in this moment? When the ground is shifting beneath us, what still holds? As we argue in our recent report, Competing in the Age of Disruption, there are no perfect answers. But here are some of the most important questions that we need to engage with, both individually and collectively, right now: When and how should we speak up? Many of us are part of institutions with influence. In moments of crisis, using that voice matters – thoughtfully, and where it carries legitimacy and weight. Professionals of all kinds have a duty to stand up for truth and reason in public life. As historian Timothy Snyder writes in On Tyranny, 'to abandon facts is to abandon freedom'. That abandonment is already well underway in some jurisdictions. But knowing when and how to speak up is not always straightforward. Silence can be complicity, but speaking without listening – or without credibility – can do harm. We are grappling with where our voices matter most, and how to speak in ways that build trust, not division. How do we build coalitions in a broken world? Geopolitical instability and democratic backsliding affect every effort to build a fairer, more resilient future. Many of the alliances we've relied on are under strain. Political divisions, mistrust and economic precarity make collaboration harder but also more urgent. We can't wait for consensus or calm to return, we need to engage now with the realities of shifting power, contested legitimacy and emerging centres of influence. That means working with those who are already shaping what comes next – not just defending what's being lost. Coalitions of consequence are forming where capability, legitimacy and intent align to drive meaningful change. These include mayors and city blocs reshaping infrastructure and inclusion; middle and emerging powers investing in green industrial growth and holding the line on multilateralism; cross-sector alliances building the sustainable industries of the future. What's our role in helping these new coalitions gain traction, legitimacy and practical impact in a fractured world? Can we stay with the messiness – without burning out or giving in? Systemic change is happening, and not always in ways that serve people or planet. Progress is never clean or uncontested. There is no end state, no single breakthrough, no moment when the battle is 'won', just a series of choices: to act or stay silent, to protect gains or make tactical compromises. Some messiness is unavoidable, but not all of it. Part of the work is knowing when to sit with complexity, and when to cut through noise, clarify direction and let go of what's no longer working. That constant negotiation takes a toll. The exhaustion comes not only from the scale of the task, but from navigating tough choices and moral grey zones day after day. But we know the long arc of history does not bend toward justice on its own. It bends because people pull it, counter-acting those that are pulling in the opposite direction. The work is to stay in the fight – not with illusions of perfection, but with a refusal to give up on what's possible. How do we navigate the battle for meaning and trust? The fight over sustainability was never just a technology or policy debate - it's a contest over meaning and values: who defines progress, who gets blamed, and what futures are seen as desirable. The contest won't be won with facts alone. We are up against powerful, coordinated forces - strategic disinformation campaigns, manufactured cynicism, populist manipulation. We need narratives that resonate - on progress, fairness, security, opportunity and belonging. Institutions – including businesses – also have a vital role to play, protecting access to evidence, fostering public trust and keeping space open for inclusive, democratic dialogue. Moral purity can't be a prerequisite for action. Institutions carry history. The same systems and countries that once upheld exploitation also nurtured the movements that fought back. What matters now is how those in power respond to today's defining challenges. What does leadership look like when the answers aren't clear? We are learning, often uncomfortably, that leadership in this moment involves difficult trade-offs and carries the risk of backlash, being misunderstood, even damaging the causes we care about. In such situations, institutions often default to caution, but caution alone will not meet this moment. We need to act with integrity, stay open and thoughtful, and try bold things without being paralysed by fear of saying the wrong thing or choosing the imperfect path. It's understandable to fear for our futures and those of our children, but we should try to make that fear a source of resolve, not retreat. And we must hold on to the possibility of success – not as naive hope, but as a reasoned belief that change is still achievable. It's a time to connect, adapt, act – and to hold fast to the values and principles that brought many of us into this work in the first place.
Newsweek
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Russia Feigns at Peace. Congress Must Sanction Putin's War Machine
Russia's ongoing rhetoric and military aggression make it clear that its aim is not peace, but domination and destruction. President Vladimir Putin and his regime are not merely opposed to NATO's expansion—they are actively pursuing the elimination of Ukrainian sovereignty and identity. In a televised address in February 2022, Putin questioned Ukraine's legitimacy as an independent nation. In September 2022, Putin announced the annexation of four Ukrainian regions—Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia. During a ceremony at the Kremlin, he declared that the residents of these regions were now Russian citizens "forever," emphasizing that their choice to join Russia was irreversible. In his book, On Tyranny, professor Timothy Snyder accurately said, "To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights." A soldier sits under a Caesar self-propelled gun, looking at the sky through camouflage netting, not far from the eastern frontline of Ukraine, in an undisclosed location, on June 9, 2025, amid the Russian invasion... A soldier sits under a Caesar self-propelled gun, looking at the sky through camouflage netting, not far from the eastern frontline of Ukraine, in an undisclosed location, on June 9, 2025, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. More FLORENT VERGNES/AFP via Getty Images One way to shift the tide is to squeeze the wallet. This is what Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) proposed with their Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 (S.1241), introduced in April. The bill would impose severe economic penalties on Russia and countries that continue to support its energy exports. Over 80 senators have voiced support for the bill, reflecting a strong bipartisan consensus. In addition to economic sanctions, Senators Graham and Blumenthal have introduced legislation to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, a move that would further isolate Russia diplomatically and economically. This is the common sense approach to the war against Ukraine, but so far, the sanctions package against Russia has been shut down at the highest level. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said that sanctions risk pushing Russia away from peace talks. What peace talks? Russia has yet to demonstrate in any significant way that it is actually interested in peace. Every time the various delegations have met to discuss "peace," Russia makes wild demands and simply gains more time to murder Ukrainian citizens—including many children. In June, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky proposed an unconditional ceasefire with Russia, aiming to halt hostilities until a direct meeting between the two leaders could be arranged. He expressed Ukraine's readiness to meet "any day" in locations such as Istanbul, Switzerland, or the Vatican. This proposal followed earlier efforts, including a call in May 2025. Russia did not accept the offer. Despite these initiatives, Russia consistently rejects Ukraine's proposals for an unconditional ceasefire, instead offering limited, short-term truces in specific areas. Ukrainians are a resilient and creative people. They stopped Russia's full scale invasion in 2022 and even reclaimed some of the captured territory with a surprise counter offensive in 2023. Ukraine has transformed the landscape of modern warfare in several significant ways, offering lessons not just in military tactics but also in societal resilience, digital innovation, and global alliances. The most recent example of this was Operation Spiderweb. The groundbreaking Ukrainian military operation targeted strategic air bases deep within Russian territory. This was a transformative moment in modern warfare and it will be studied for years to come. The reason that Senators Graham and Blumenthal must get their legislation through Congress is because people will continue to needlessly die unless Russia is stopped. Russia will not stop unless they run out of troops (unlikely), ammunition (also unlikely), or money (the most likely possibility). When everyone in Russia feels the collective cost and pain of this war, there may be enough pressure to topple President Putin or force him to change his approach. In the 2012 movie, The Hobbit, Gandalf, a protagonist wizard declared, "Some believe it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love." Few of us have the power to end a war, but God created all of us with the ability to display our love through action. Evil thrives when good people stay passive or silent. The world does not need more spectators: we need advocates, bridge-builders, and truth-tellers. The sanctions legislation proposed by Senators Graham and Blumenthal is not just policy; it's a declaration that the world still values truth over terror, sovereignty over tyranny. Now is the time for ordinary people to take extraordinary action. Write to your senators. Share verified information. Stand with the oppressed. Support your local refugee communities. Because when we refuse to look away—and choose to act—we become the resistance to evil, and the messengers of human dignity. Andrew Moroz, PhD, is a Ukrainian American pastor and the founder of The Renewal Initiative. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Ali Velshi: How Americans can defend our democracy against Trump
This is an adapted excerpt from the May 24 episode of 'Velshi.' In the wake of Donald Trump's second term, more and more Americans are asking a critical question: 'What can I do to defend democracy in America?' That question marks a shift away from the comforting illusion that courts, politicians or institutions will save America's democracy on their own. They won't. Institutions have failed us repeatedly, as we have learned that what we thought were guardrails are merely suggestions, reliant on goodwill, decency and the honor system. Real political change in America doesn't come from the top; it never has. It comes from the bottom, from ordinary people resisting in big and small ways. That's the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. The political scientist Gene Sharp, nicknamed the 'dictator slayer,' wrote something of a playbook for resisting authoritarian regimes. He didn't invent these strategies, but he observed them. For decades, Sharp studied how ordinary people challenged brutal regimes around the world, and what he found was simple, yet powerful: All rulers — even the most oppressive — rely on the cooperation of the people. Through fear, apathy or consent, they maintain power. But when people refuse to cooperate, when they disobey, that's when authoritarian systems begin to crack. That's why historian Timothy Snyder begins his book titled 'On Tyranny' with this warning: 'Do not obey in advance.' Because it's in those first, often invisible, acts of surrender that authoritarianism takes root. As we face creeping authoritarianism here at home, Snyder's advice stands as a call to action for Americans confronting Trump. History shows that the courage to stand up to authority and hold power to account has helped sustain our democracy and other democracies around the world. The historian Drew Gilpin Faust, a former president of Harvard University, captured that spirit in a powerful essay for The New York Times about the Union soldiers of the Civil War. She wrote: I have read dozens of these men's letters and diaries, windows into why they fought, into what and whom they loved and what they hoped for at the end of a war they knew they might not survive. Together they did save the Union … These men made our lives possible. They were impelled to risk all by a sense of obligation to the future. We possess a reciprocal obligation to the past. We must not squander what they bequeathed to us. We owe it to them, and every generation that came after them: women who won the right to vote, students who walked into newly desegregated schools under armed guard, trade unionists who faced violence for fighting for the rights of workers, those who fought for voting rights, reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ dignity. They didn't wait for permission. They disobeyed in advance. They withdrew their cooperation from injustice. Oftentimes, they blatantly and openly broke the law, as TV cameras rolled. Which brings us back to Sharp's basic premise, a very Gandhian premise. He believed that noncooperation, the deliberate refusal to obey or comply, is one of the most powerful ways to disrupt oppressive systems. Because when enough people stop participating in the machinery of control, that very system begins to break down. So, if you're wondering what you can do, here are some ideas that draw from proven strategies of resistance — adapted for today's world. In Missouri, a government-run tip line targeting the trans community was flooded with thousands of fake reports, including the entire movie script of 'The Bee Movie' submitted over and over again. The result? Total system collapse. Utah and Texas faced similar backlashes, with Utah shutting down its own surveillance hotline under the weight of memes and mass trolling. This, of course, is what undergirded the Civil Rights Movement in America, but here's a more recent example: In Idaho, a middle school teacher refused to remove a sign that read 'Everyone Is Welcome Here.' It didn't mention politics, race or gender, but was still deemed too controversial. After a monthslong battle, she resigned two weeks ago in protest. This can include using the opposition's own tools against them. In 2024, Oklahoma's Republican-controlled Legislature passed a law allowing parents to opt their children out of 'harmful' educational material. Now, a group of parents has turned that law on its head. In response to Superintendent of Public Education Ryan Walters' new curriculum, which includes conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and Christian nationalist ideology, a parent group called We're Oklahoma Education, or WOKE, is fighting back. They've created an opt-out form allowing families to withdraw their children from lessons on 'Judeo-Christian concepts of ethics and government' and 'discrepancies in 2020 election results.' Their approach is not only bold but legally savvy since the group is using the very law that conservatives passed, which was designed to shield students from so-called progressive content. The opt-out letter warns schools that failure to comply could result in legal action. This one, of course, is close to my heart. When Target pulled Pride merchandise and scaled back diversity, equity and inclusion commitments, thousands of Americans launched a boycott campaign on TikTok, Facebook and other platforms. The result? Target's quarterly profits dropped and the company admitted that backlash from both sides had harmed its bottom line. In Worcester, Massachusetts, viral footage of an aggressive U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid showed federal agents detaining a woman as her daughters clung to the car, one of them holding a baby. Bystanders, including a city councilor and a school board candidate, intervened. The video sparked immediate outrage and protests across the state. In response, Worcester officials released bodycam footage and then took action: The city issued an executive order barring city employees from cooperating with ICE or inquiring about immigration status. This is the final, and perhaps my favorite, form of disruption. Civil rights activist Bruce Hartford noted that humor and audacity go hand in hand: 'You can weaken, unbalance, and ultimately overthrow the king quicker by laughing at him than by futilely screaming fury at him.' Groups like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Satanic Temple have used satire to expose religious favoritism in public institutions. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose adherents refer to themselves as 'Pastafarians,' mocked efforts to teach intelligent design in public schools by proposing a noodle-based deity, highlighting the dangers of blurring church and state. The Satanic Temple, which is not to be confused with the Church of Satan and does not promote devil worship, took similar action, demanding equal representation when governments promoted religious symbols like Ten Commandments monuments or sanctioned prayer in public schools. Their logic forced officials to either accommodate all religions or retract their policies altogether. So if you're asking yourself what one person can do, these are ideas to hopefully get you thinking. And remember this final piece of advice from Snyder: 'Be as courageous as you can. If none of us is prepared to die for freedom, then all of us will die under tyranny.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘Get out sooner rather than later': Yale professors flee U.S. over fascism concerns
Yale professors Marci Shore, Timothy Snyder and Jason Stanley have made their careers studying authoritarianism across the globe. Now, they're sharing their concerns about the rise of fascism in the U.S, where they say the situation has become so dire that they have decided to leave the country and their posts at the prestigious university to teach in Canada, warning that America is facing a 'democratic emergency.' 'We're like people on the Titanic, saying 'Our ship can't sink. We've got the best ship. We've got the strongest ship,'' Shore said in a new video essay for The New York Times. 'And what you know as a historian is that there is no such thing as a ship that can't sink.' In the video, Shore also referred to Nazi Germany and said the 'lesson of 1933 is you get out sooner rather than later.' The high-profile professors' exits come as President Donald Trump continues his crackdown on higher education. In March, the Department of Education opened investigations into dozens of universities across the country over the schools' diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has also cut funding for several elite colleges over allegations of antisemitism following a wave of pro-Palestinian protests last year. Earlier this week, the administration announced it would cut another $450 million in grants to Harvard University. That's on top of $2.2 billion that was previously frozen. Since taking office, the president has used the power of the federal government to target political enemies and those who publicly disagree with his administration. Trump's attacks on universities are an extension of his campaign of retribution. Stanley cited concerns over possible persecution if he stayed, saying he was going to the University of Toronto "because I want to do my work without the fear that I will be punished for my words.' Stanley said that in times of fascism, it's 'essential to set up centers of resistance in places of relative safety.' Although he shares his colleagues' concerns, Snyder said he's not leaving the university explicitly because of Trump, citing personal reasons, including his marriage to Shore. In a piece for the Yale Daily News explaining his exit from the university, Snyder noted 'conversations about freedom and unfreedom' have become harder to have in the U.S. The author of 'On Tyranny' also offered a warning to Americans who believe fascism is only a problem abroad: 'Talking about American exceptionalism is basically a way to get people to fall into line.' 'If you think that there's this thing out there called 'America' and it's exceptional ... that you don't have to do anything, whatever is happening, it must be freedom,' Snyder said. 'And so then what your definition of freedom is gets narrowed ... and soon you're using the word 'freedom' but what you're talking about is authoritarianism.' This article was originally published on
