Sunday, July 27, 2025

Anchorage Man Tells His Story Of Redemption In Memoir



BY DAVID JAMES

“How did I, an Ivy League graduate from Dartmouth, become a crack-addicted drifter sleeping in a closet,” author Ken Miller asks in the opening pages of his memoir. Getting arrested in that cockroach-infested utility closet in a dilapidated Reno boarding house doesn’t sound like the springboard for redemption from a quarter-century maelstrom of substance abuse, crime and self-destruction on levels all but impossible to imagine. But it was.

How Miller survived and emerged from someplace far below rock bottom is what readers will discover in his bracingly honest and utterly compelling book, “Becoming Ken: One Black Man’s Journey from Ivy League to Prison and Back Again.”

Miller, founder and president of Anchorage fundraising and grant consulting company Denali FSP, tells his story in plainspoken language. It’s an account of his meteoric fall from seemingly unlimited potential to addiction, desperation, homelessness and degradation, followed by redemption. He offers it as both a warning of what can happen to a person regardless of their circumstances, and as an instruction manual for others on how to overcome their own setbacks, large or small. On one level, it’s a self-help book, but the tips offered at the end of each chapter are brief. It’s in the excruciating experiences that he details here that the real lessons lie.

Miller’s narrative begins in struggle. He was born to an unknown Black father and white mother — he would meet the latter near the end of her life — and surrendered to the state of New York. He was adopted from foster care at age 5 by a mother who loved him unconditionally and for life, and a violent alcoholic father.

Despite this rocky beginning, Miller excelled in school, which he attended in Anchorage after his mother brought him north. In 1980, his grades got him accepted at Dartmouth, but his bundle of insecurities, fears, questions about his racial identity and longing for acceptance went with him. And in a social atmosphere dominated by white kids from wealthy families, his background set him apart.

Having witnessed the example of his father, Miller abstained from alcohol and drugs throughout his school years. But at Dartmouth, seeking acceptance and escape, he began drinking. Drugs soon followed. Especially cocaine, his drug of choice. Blackouts became a norm. His behavior toward himself and others descended into an abyss. His grades suffered and he barely coughed his way through.

After returning to Anchorage, he began a teeter-tottering between abuse and recovery programs, which he made limited efforts at succeeding in. He and his mother moved to Seattle in 1988, where underemployment became his norm and his energies went toward sustaining his increasing voraciousness for drugs and booze. A home provided for him at the city’s Mount Zion Baptist Church became a crack house. His unreliability cost him jobs. He made one last stand in a friend’s apartment, but betrayed that trust as well.

In the ensuing chapters, we follow Miller through various missions and onto the streets. He drifts from Alaska to California, to Reno, Nevada, and then to Mississippi. A brief jail term brings an equally brief respite of sobriety, but upon release he relapses immediately.

As his rapid fall continues, Miller turns to crime, working as a crack dealer, prostitute, pimp and more. A failed marriage brings guilt and a sense of failure from which he attempts escape through further drug use.

Returning to Reno, he burglarizes his mother’s home despite her repeated efforts at rescuing him. She drops the charges, but because of his previous conviction, a failed drug test sends him behind bars once again.

Miller served his time, kept out of trouble and made parole. But he didn’t reform. Upon release he sought to establish himself as a drug kingpin. But as the warning cautions, he got high on his own supply. His dream business never left the ground. Soon he was panhandling instead.

His third arrest and conviction came in 2004, and this time he was finally ready to change. Miller treats his time in prison as a source of redemption. He slowly began breaking the bonds he had wrapped himself within since childhood.

Focusing on physical and mental health, he exercised daily and read books relentlessly. And when he was let back out, he immediately sought help, joining support groups and finding mentors, eventually becoming one himself. He stared down the demons that had led him along such a horrific road and quit blinking.

“The more I faced what I had avoided — debts, regrets, broken connections — the more I discovered that my biggest enemy was never someone else’s judgement,” he writes. “It was the lie that I wasn’t worthy of healing, of success, of closure. One by one, I’m learning to silence that voice and step boldly into every room that once had me trembling outside the door.”

Some of the lessons found in this book are macabre. Lessons most of us will fortunately not need to learn for ourselves, especially as Miller outlines their results. How to optimize panhandling. How to become an unsuccessful drug dealer. How to behave in prison.

But he also shows us how to dig oneself out of what can understandably be viewed as a bottomless hole. In his introduction, Miller writes that he hopes any reader, regardless of their struggles, will find hope and guidance in his own transformation.

Miller returned to Anchorage, where he worked at the Dena’ina Civic and Convention Center and was wildly successful spearheading fundraising for Bean’s Cafe, the local soup kitchen. He parlayed his new skills, coupled with business acumen he had ironically acquired through drug dealing, and founded Denali FSP in 2014. He’s now a respected community leader and mentor to young Black men.

Placing the word “journey” in the subtitle is, put mildly, an understatement. Miller’s story is an odyssey. One all of us should hope to avoid. But in sharing it, he gives readers cause to believe that they too can transcend the worst. This is quite a book.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Ceasefire Talks Collapse – What Does That Mean For The Humanitarian Catastrophe In Gaza?

Two year old malnourished boy Yazam Abu Ful in a refugee camp in Gaza City. Jehad Alshrafi/AAP

BY ALI MAMOURI
RESEARCH FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST
STUDIES, DEAKIN UNIVERSITY

Efforts to end the relentless siege of Gaza have been set back by the abrupt end to peace talks in Qatar.

Both the United States and Israel have withdrawn their negotiating teams, accusing Hamas of a “lack of desire to reach a ceasefire”.

US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff says it would appear Hamas never wanted a deal:

While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith. We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people in Gaza

The disappointing development coincides with mounting fears of a widespread famine in Gaza and a historic decision by France to formally recognise a Palestinian state.

French President Emmanuel Macron says there is no alternative for the sake of security of the Middle East:

True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine

What will these developments mean for the conflict in Gaza and the broader security of the Middle East?

‘Humanitarian catastrophe’

The failure to reach a truce means there is no end in sight to the Israeli siege of Gaza which has devastated the territory for more than 21 months.

Amid mounting fears of mass starvation, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Gaza is in the grip of a “humanitarian catastrophe”. He is urging Israel to comply immediately with its obligations under international law:

Israel’s denial of aid and the killing of civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food cannot be defended or ignored.

According to the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA, more than 100 people – most of them children – have died of hunger. One in five children in Gaza City is malnourished, with the number of cases rising every day.

Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini says with little food aid entering Gaza, people are neither dead nor alive, they are walking corpses […] most children our teams are seeing are emaciated, weak and at high risk of dying if they don’t get the treatment they urgently need.

The UN and more than 100 aid groups blame Israel’s blockade of almost all aid into the territory for the lack of food.

Lazzarini says UNRWA has 6,000 trucks of emergency supplies waiting in Jordan and Egypt. He is urging Israel – which continues to blame Hamas for cases of malnutrition – to allow the humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

Proposed ceasefire deal

The latest ceasefire proposal was reportedly close to being agreed by both parties.

It included a 60-day truce, during which time Hamas would release ten living Israeli hostages and the remains of 18 others. In exchange, Israel would release a number of Palestinian prisoners, and humanitarian aid to Gaza would be significantly increased.

During the ceasefire, both sides would engage in negotiations toward a lasting truce.

While specific details of the current sticking points remain unclear, previous statements from both parties suggest the disagreement centres on what would follow any temporary ceasefire.

Israel is reportedly seeking to maintain a permanent military presence in Gaza to allow for a rapid resumption of operations if needed. In contrast, Hamas is demanding a pathway toward a complete end to hostilities.

A lack of mutual trust has dramatically clouded the negotiations.

From Israel’s perspective, any ceasefire must not result in Hamas regaining control of Gaza, as this would allow the group to rebuild its power and potentially launch another cross-border attack.

However, Hamas has repeatedly said it is willing to hand over power to any other Palestinian group in pursuit of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. This could include the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which governs the West Bank and has long recognised Israel.

Support for a Palestinian state

Israeli leaders have occasionally paid lip service to a Palestinian state. But they have described such an entity as “less than a state” or a “state-minus” – a formulation that falls short of both Palestinian aspirations and international legal standards.

In response to the worsening humanitarian situation, some Western countries have moved to fully recognise a Palestinian state, viewing it as a step toward a permanent resolution of one of the longest-running conflicts in the Middle East.

Macron’s announcement France will officially recognise a full Palestinian state in September is a major development.

France is now the most prominent Western power to take this position. It follows more than 140 countries – including more than a dozen in Europe – that have already recognised statehood.

While largely symbolic, the move adds diplomatic pressure on Israel amid the ongoing war and aid crisis in Gaza.

However, the announcement was immediately condemned by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed recognition “rewards terror” and risks creating another Iranian proxy, just as Gaza became. A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel – not to live in peace beside it.

Annexing Gaza?

A Palestinian state is unacceptable to Israel.

Further evidence was recently presented in a revealing TV interview by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak who stated Netanyahu had deliberately empowered Hamas in order to block a two-state solution.

Instead there is mounting evidence Israel is seeking to annex the entirety of Palestinian land and relocate Palestinians to neighbouring countries.

Given the current uncertainty, it appears unlikely a new ceasefire will be reached in the near future, especially as it remains unclear whether the US withdrawal from the negotiations was a genuine policy shift or merely a strategic negotiating tactic.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Donald Trump Cannot Make The Epstein Files Go Away. Will This Be The Story That Brings Him Down?



BY EMMA SHORTIS
ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW, SCHOOL OF
GLOBAL, URBAN AND SOCIAL STUDIES,
RMIT UNIVERSITY, MELBORNE, AUSTRALIA

Conspiracy theories are funny things.

The most enduring ones usually take hold for two reasons: first, because there’s some grain of truth to them, and second, because they speak to foundational historical divisions.

The theories morph and change, distorting the grain of truth at their centre beyond reality. In the process, they reinforce and deepen existing divisions, encouraging hateful blindness.

US President Donald Trump is perhaps the most successful conspiracy trafficker in modern American history.

Trump built his political career by trading on conspiracy. These have included a combination of racist birther conspiracies about former president Barack Obama, nebulous ideas about the “Deep State” that conspired against the interests of regular Americans, and nods to a more recent online universe centered on QAnon that alleged a Satanist ring of “elite” pedophiles involving Hillary Clinton was trafficking children.

These theories all had their own grain of truth and tapped into deep-seated historical fears. For example, Obama does have Kenyan heritage, and his Blackness threatened many white Americans’ sense of their own power.

Revelations about disgraced financier Jeffery Epstein’s trafficking in children and the way in which that implicated the “elite” of New York seemed to confirm at least parts of the final theory. It tapped into the belief – one that does have some basis in reality – that America’s elite play by rules of their own, above justice and accountability.

In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Trump increasingly engaged with this online universe. He seemed to quietly enjoy suggestions that he might be “Q” – the anonymous leader who, according to the theory, was going to break the paedophile ring wide open in a “day of reckoning”.

Many of Trump’s perennially online supporters based their championing of him around these conspiracy theories. QAnon believers were among those who stormed the Capitol on January 6 2021. A core section of Trump’s base continues to believe his promises that he would at last reveal the truth – about John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the Deep State, and Epstein.

That it has long been public knowledge that Trump and Epstein had a longstanding friendship did not impinge on these beliefs.

Conspiracy theories have swirled around Epstein since at least his first arrest nearly two decades ago, in 2006. After allegations of unlawful sex with a minor, Epstein was charged with soliciting prostitution. This elicited suggestions he was receiving special treatment because of his elite status as a New York financier and philanthropist.

That pattern continued over the next decade as accusations multiplied, culminating in his arrest in 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking, including to a private island. The allegations touched the global elite, including former president Bill Clinton, the United Kingdom’s Prince Andrew, and Trump. In August 2019, Epstein was found dead in his cell, allegedly by suicide – adding further fuel to the already intense conspiracy fire.

Epstein’s arrest and death occurred during the first Trump administration. Since then, there has been a steady trickle of accusations and revelations that have increased pressure on the administration to declassify and release material relating to the case. Many of Trump’s most loyal supporters, including a set of influential podcasters and influencers, have built their audiences around Epstein and the insistence that the truth be revealed.

Early in the life of the current administration, Attorney-General Pam Bondi – whom Trump is wont to treat as his personal lawyer – said she was reviewing the Epstein “client list”.

In the past few weeks, however, the administration has indicated it will not release the list or other materials relating to the case. At the same time, more information about Trump’s relationship with Epstein has trickled out, including more photos of the two together. It’s hard to deny the sense there is more to come.

Trump’s posting about the issue, despite his apparent wish to divert from it, seems only to compel more interest. Sections of his online conspiracy base, including vocal supporters such as Tucker Carlson, are outraged at what they see as a betrayal. Reports suggest a significant rift developing between Trump and key backer Rupert Murdoch over the issue. Democrats, rightly, sense weakness.

Loyal Republicans seem rattled enough that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson called an early summer recess, sending congresspeople home in an apparent effort to avoid any forced vote on the issue.

The obvious inference – though it is inference only – is that Trump and Republicans are so worried about what is in the Epstein material they would rather cop strong backlash from the base, looking scared and weak, than release the information. If nothing else, that is a guaranteed way to fuel an already raging fire.

Trump’s tanking approval rating and the salience of this issue lead to an obvious question: is this going to be the thing that finally scratches the Teflon president? Will his base turn on him at last?

If history is anything to go by, that seems unlikely. Trump is remarkably resilient, using crises like this to consolidate his power. Trump commands loyalty, and he has it from Bondi, Johnson and others in this weakened and increasingly ideologically driven federal government. And his conspiracy-fuelled base is in so deep that turning on the president now is not just a question of admitting error, but one of core identity.

US mainstream media has long pursued a “gotcha” approach to Trump, driven by a model of journalism that still seeks out smoking guns and dreams of Watergate. Not unlike the conspiracy theories it reports on, this framing hopes for a neat, clear resolution to the story of US politics. But politics doesn’t work like that – especially not for Trump.

From the outside, Trump’s attempts to pivot on the issue and build on his existing conspiracies around Obama and Hillary Clinton might look feeble, but they are tried and true. Trump is now focused on fanning theories around Obama and Clinton, broadening them to include accusations of “treason”. Trump’s Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard went so far as to claim Obama had “manufactured […] a years-long coup against President Trump”. Even reporting on these claims with rightful incredulity adds fuel to the raging fire.

In the personality cult of an authoritarian leader, conspiracy is easily weaponised against enemies, perceived and real. In the febrile environment of US politics, these conspiracy theories tap into and encourage a long vein of white supremacy and racial revanchism that has shaped American politics since even before the nation’s founding.

Trump can morph and change conspiracy theories like no one else, building on fears and deepening existing divisions. He understands the power of pointing to “enemies from within”, and just how well that reinforces the narrative he has already so successfully ingrained in US political culture. We underestimate him, and the power of conspiracy theory, at our peril.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Friday, July 25, 2025

Deportation Tactics From 4 US Presidents Have Done Little To Reduce The Undocumented Immigrant Population

Men wait in a holding cell on June 21, 2006, in Nogales, Arizona. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

BY KEVIN JOHNSON
DEAN AND PROFESSOR OF INTEREST
LAW AND CHICANO STUDIES,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

All modern U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have attempted to reduce the population of millions of undocumented immigrants. But their various strategies have not had significant results, with the population hovering around 11 million from 2005 to 2022.

President Donald Trump seeks to change that.

With harsh rhetoric that has sowed fear in immigrant communities, and policies that ignore immigrants’ due process rights, Trump has pursued deportation tactics that differ dramatically from those of any other modern U.S. president.

As a scholar who examines the history of U.S. immigration law and enforcement, I believe that it remains far from clear whether the Trump White House will significantly reduce the undocumented population. But even if the administration’s efforts fail, the fear and damage to the U.S. immigrant community will remain.

Presidents Bush and Obama

To increase deportations, in 2006 President George W. Bush began using workplace raids. Among these sweeps was the then-largest immigration workplace operation in U.S. history at a meat processing plant in Postville, Iowa in 2008.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deployed 900 agents in Postville and arrested 398 employees, 98% of whom were Latino. They were chained together and arraigned in groups of 10 for felony criminal charges of aggravated identity theft, document fraud and use of stolen Social Security numbers. Some 300 were convicted, and 297 of them served jail sentences before being deported.

In 2008, Bush also initiated Secure Communities, a policy that sought to deport noncitizens – both lawful permanent residents as well as undocumented immigrants – who had been arrested for crimes. Some 2 million immigrants were deported during Bush’s two terms in office.

The Obama administration limited Secure Communities to focus on the removal of noncitizens convicted of felonies. It deported a record 400,000 noncitizens in fiscal year 2013, which led detractors to refer to President Barack Obama as the “Deporter in Chief.”

Obama also targeted recent entrants and national security threats and pursued criminal prosecutions for illegal reentry to the U.S. Almost all of these policies built on Bush’s, although Obama virtually abandoned workplace raids.

Despite these enforcement measures, Obama also initiated Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in 2012. The policy provided relief from deportation and gave work authorization to more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.

Obama deported about 3 million noncitizens, but the size of the undocumented population did not decrease dramatically.

The first Trump administration and Biden

Trump’s first administration broke new immigration enforcement ground in several ways.

He began his presidency by issuing what was called a “Muslim ban” to restrict the entry into the U.S. of noncitizens from predominantly Muslim nations.

Early in Trump’s first administration, federal agents expanded immigration operations to include raids at courthouses, which previously had been off-limits.

In 2017, Trump tried to rescind DACA, but the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s effort in 2020.

In 2019, Trump implemented the Remain in Mexico policy that for the first time forced noncitizens who came to the U.S. border seeking asylum to wait in Mexico while their claims were being decided. He also invoked Title 42 in 2020 to close U.S. borders during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump succeeded in reducing legal immigration numbers during his first term. However, there is no evidence that his enforcement policies reduced the size of the overall undocumented population.

President Joe Biden sought to relax – although not abandon – some immigration enforcement measures implemented during Trump’s first term.

His administration slowed construction of the border wall championed by Trump. Biden also stopped workplace raids in 2021, and in 2023, he ended Title 42.

In 2023, Biden sought to respond to migration surges in a measured fashion, by temporarily closing ports of entry and increasing arrests.

In attempting to enforce the borders, his administration at times pursued tough measures. Biden continued deportation efforts directed at criminal noncitizens. Immigrant rights groups criticized his administration when armed Border Patrol officers on horseback were videotaped chasing Haitian migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border.

As of 2022, the middle of the Biden’s term, an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants lived in the U.S.

A second chance

Since his second inauguration, Trump has pursued a mass deportation campaign through executive orders that are unprecedented in their scope.

In January 2025, he announced an expanded, expedited removal process for any noncitizen apprehended anywhere in the country – not just the border region, as had been U.S. practice since 1996.

In March, Trump issued a presidential proclamation to deport Venezuelan nationals who were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. In doing so, he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – an act used three times in U.S. history during declared wars that empowers presidents to remove foreign nationals from countries at war with the U.S.

Declaring an “invasion” of migrants into the U.S. in June, Trump deployed the military to assist in immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

Trump also sought to dramatically upend birthright citizenship, the Constitutional provision that guarantees citizenship to any person born in the U.S. He issued an executive order in January that would bar citizenship to people born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.

The birthright executive order has been challenged in federal court and is mostly likely working its way up to the Supreme Court.

Under the second Trump administration, immigration arrests are up, but actual deportation numbers are in flux.

ICE in June arrested the most people in a month in at least five years, roughly 30,000 immigrants. But deportations of noncitizens – roughly 18,000 – lagged behind those during the Obama administration’s record-setting year of 2013 in which more than 400,000 noncitizens were deported.

The gap between arrests and deportations shows the challenges the Trump administration faces in making good on his promised mass deportation campaign.

Undocumented immigrants often come to the U.S. to work or seek safety from natural disasters and mass violence.

These issues have not been seriously addressed by any modern U.S. president. Until it is, we can expect the undocumented population to remain in the millions.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Thursday, July 24, 2025

Immigration Courts Hiding The Names Of ICE lawyers Goes Against Centuries Of Precedent And Legal Ethics Requiring Transparency In Courts

Hiding of ICE attorneys’ names in court fits a broader pattern seen here outside a New York immigration courtroom of ICE agents wearing masks. AP Photo/Olga Fedorova

BY CASSANDRA BURKE ROBERTSON
PROFESSOR OF LAW AND DIRECTOR OF
THE CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
CASE WESTERN RESERVE U NIVERSITY

Something unusual is happening in U.S. immigration courts. Government lawyers are refusing to give their names during public hearings.

In June 2025, Immigration Judge ShaSha Xu in New York City reportedly told lawyers in her courtroom: “We’re not really doing names publicly.” Only the government lawyers’ names were hidden – the immigrants’ attorneys had to give their names as usual. Xu cited privacy concerns, saying, “Things lately have changed.”

When one immigration lawyer objected that the court record would be incomplete without the government attorney’s name, Xu reportedly refused to provide it. In another case, New York immigration Judge James McCarthy in July referred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorney as merely “Department” throughout the hearing.

New York immigration Judge Shirley Lazare-Raphael told The Intercept that some ICE attorneys believe it is “dangerous to state their names publicly.” This follows a broader pattern of ICE agents wearing masks during arrests to hide their identities.

This secrecy violates a fundamental principle that has protected Americans for centuries: open courts. Here’s how those courts operate and why the principle governing them matters.

‘Presumption of openness’

The U.S. legal system is built on openness, with multiple layers of legal protection that guarantee public access to court proceedings.

This tradition of open courts developed as a direct rejection of secret judicial proceedings that had been used to abuse power in England. The notorious Star Chamber operated in secret from the 15th to 17th centuries, initially trying people “too powerful to be brought before ordinary common-law courts.”

But the Star Chamber eventually became a tool of oppression, using torture to obtain confessions and punishing jurors who ruled against the Crown. Parliament abolished it in 1641 after widespread abuses.

By the time American colonial courts were established, the reaction against the Star Chamber had already shaped English legal thinking toward openness. American courts adopted this principle of transparency from the beginning, rejecting the secretive proceedings that had enabled abuse.

Today, the term “star chamber” refers to any secret court proceeding that seems grossly unfair or is used to persecute individuals.

In the U.S., courts have repeatedly emphasized that “justice faces its gravest threat when courts dispense it secretly.” The First Amendment gives the public a right to observe judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has ruled that “a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice.”

Every federal appeals court has recognized that this constitutional right extends to civil cases too, with some exceptions such as protecting “the parties’ privacy, confidential business information, or trade secrets.” Federal court rules require that trials be “conducted in open court” and that witness testimony be “taken in open court unless otherwise provided.”

Many state constitutions also guarantee open courts – such as Oregon’s mandate that “no court shall be secret.”

While there’s no explicit law requiring attorneys to be publicly named, there’s also no policy allowing their names to be kept secret. The presumption is always toward openness.

In response to these recent developments, law professor Elissa Steglich said that she’d “never heard of someone in open court not being identified,” and that failing to identify an attorney could impair accountability “if there are unethical or professional concerns.”

Rules for anonymity

Courts sometimes allow anonymity, but only in specific circumstances.

Juries can be anonymous when there’s “substantial danger of harm or undue influence,” as legal expert Michael Crowell writes – like in high-profile organized crime cases or when defendants have tried to intimidate witnesses before. Even then, the lawyers still know the jurors’ names.

Similarly, parties to a lawsuit can sometimes use pseudonyms like “Jane Doe” when the case involves highly sensitive matters such as sexual abuse, or when there’s a real risk of physical retaliation.

But these rare exceptions require careful court review.

What’s happening with ICE attorneys is different. There’s no formal court ruling allowing it, no specific safety findings and no established legal process.

Immigration courts have fewer protections

Immigration courts operate differently from regular federal courts. They are so-called “administrative courts” that are part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.

These courts decide claims involving an individual’s right to stay in the U.S., either when the government seeks to remove someone from the country for violating immigration law or when an individual seeks to stay in the country through the asylum process.

Immigration judges lack the lifetime job protections that regular federal judges have. As executive branch government employees, they can be hired and fired, just like other Department of Justice employees.

People in immigration court also have fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. They have no right to court-appointed counsel and must represent themselves unless they can afford to hire an attorney. The majority of immigrants appear without an attorney. Outcomes are better for those who can afford to hire counsel.

Immigration court records are also less accessible to the public than other federal court proceedings.

For years, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation’s highest immigration court, made less than 1% of its opinions publicly available. A federal court ruled that public disclosure was required; the Board of Immigration Appeals now posts its decisions online.

However, lower immigration court decisions are rarely made public.

Because immigration courts operate with less oversight than regular federal courts, public observation becomes more critical.

Open courts aren’t just about legal procedure – they’re about democracy itself. When the public can observe how justice is administered, it builds confidence that the system is fair.

Court watching protects transparency

Court watching has become an important way for citizens to ensure due process is honored, especially in immigration cases.

Observers can monitor whether proper legal procedures are being followed. They can watch for signs that attorneys are prepared, treating people respectfully and following court rules – regardless of whether those attorneys identify themselves.

Observers help track trends such as lack of legal representation, language barriers or procedural unfairness that can inform advocacy for reforms. This kind of public oversight is especially important in immigration court, where people often don’t have lawyers and may not understand their rights.

When community members bear witness to these proceedings, it helps ensure the system operates fairly and transparently.

Professional ethics and accountability

As a law professor who runs a law school’s Center for Professional Ethics, I can say that while there’s no specific law forcing ICE attorneys to identify themselves, they are still bound by rules of professional conduct that require accountability and transparency.

State bar associations have clear standards about attorney conduct in court proceedings. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct emphasize that lawyers are “officers of the legal system” with duties to uphold its integrity.

Immigration judges, despite being government employees rather than lifetime-tenured federal judges, are also bound by judicial conduct codes that require them to uphold public confidence in the justice system. When judges allow or encourage anonymity without formal procedures or safety findings, they risk violating these ethical obligations.

Bar associations can investigate professional conduct violations and impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to suspension or disbarment. While enforcement against federal government lawyers has historically been uncommon, sustained documentation by court observers can provide the evidence needed for formal complaints.

While government attorneys, judges and other court personnel may face real safety concerns, hiding their identities in open court is unprecedented and breaks with centuries of legal tradition that requires accountability and transparency in our justice system.

As pressure mounts to process immigration cases quickly, courts are ethically and legally bound to ensure that speed doesn’t come at the expense of fundamental fairness and transparency.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

The Incredible Impact Of Ozzy Osbourne, From Black Sabbath To Ozzfest To 30 Years Of Retirement Tours

Ozzy Osbourne photographed in London in 1991. Martyn Goodacre/Getty Images

BY LACHLAN GOOLD
SENIOR LECTURER IN CONTEMPORARY
MUSIC, UNIVERSITY OF THE SUNSHINE
COAST, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA

Ozzy Osbourne, the “prince of darkness” and godfather of heavy metal, has died aged 76, just weeks after he reunited with Black Sabbath bandmates for a farewell concert in his hometown of Birmingham in England.

His family posted a brief message overnight: “It is with more sadness than mere words can convey that we have to report that our beloved Ozzy Osbourne has passed away this morning.”

John Michael Osbourne changed the sound of rock music and leaves behind a stellar career spanning six decades, numerous Grammy awards, multiple hall of fame inductions – and a wave of controversy.

An agent of change

In 1969, from the ashes of various bands, Geezer Butler (bass), Tony Iommi (guitar), Bill Ward (drums) and Osbourne formed the band Earth.

Realising the name was taken, they quickly changed their name to Black Sabbath, an homage to the 1963 Italian horror anthology film.

With the Summer of Love a recent memory, Black Sabbath were part of a heavy music revolution, providing an antidote to the free loving hippies of the late 60s period.

Despite making their first two albums cheaply, Black Sabbath, released in February 1970, and Paranoid, released September that same year, they were a global success.

Their approach was laden with sarcasm and irony. American audiences mistook this for satanic worship, positioning them as outsiders (albeit popular ones).

After Black Sabbath’s early successes, they were managed by the notorious Don Arden, whose daughter Sharon Levy was the receptionist. More than any musical bond Osbourne had in his life, Sharon would be the most influential character throughout his life.

Osbourne recorded eight albums with Black Sabbath (some to critical acclaim) and was then kicked out (by Sharon) due to his troubles with drugs and alcohol.

Ozzy solo

Osbourne’s solo career has always been managed by Sharon. While recording his second solo album, Diary of a Madman, guitarist Rhodes died in a tragic light plane crash. Osbourne was close to Rhodes and fell into a deep depression, after never having lost someone so close.

Sharon and Osbourne married only months after this incident. His struggle with drug use did not stop him from making further solo records alongside various guitar players, continuing with moderate success throughout his career.

On the road, Osbourne put the John Farnham’s last tour trope to shame.

He held his last ever gig more times than one can count with names like No More Tours (1992–93), Retirement Sucks (1995–96) and No More Tours 2 (2018–19).

This lament for touring led to the most successful era of Osbourne’s career. After being rejected for the 1995 Lollapaloza festival bill, Sharon (and their son Jack) started Ozzfest; initially an annual two-day multiband festival headlined by Osbourne, held in Phoenix, Arizona, and Devore, California.

Subsequently becoming a national – and then international – tour, Ozzfest led to a successful partnership with MTV, which led to the reality TV show The Osbournes premiering in 2002. Here, his previous and ongoing battle with drugs was obvious, proudly on display – and ridiculed – to huge global audiences.

The spectacle of a rich rockstar and his family featured a constant barrage of swearing, battles with lavish TV remotes, canine therapy, never-ending chaos, and Osbourne constantly yelling “Sharrrooon” like a twisted maniacal loop of A Street Car Named Desire.

Struggles and controversies

Osbourne suffered multiple health conditions over the years, rarely concealing the state of his physical or mental wellbeing.

Notably he’s struggled with drug and alcohol abuse his whole career with drug recovery centres using Osbourne as an exemplar. In 2007 he disclosed he suffered from the Parkinson’s adjacent condition Parkinsonian syndrome. In 2019 he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

This resulted in him being unable to walk for his final Back to the Beginning show in Birmingham on July 5 2025.

And Osbourne’s career had more than its fair share of controversy. He bit the head off a dove and a bat (celebrated with a commemorative toy), and urinated on the Alamo cenotaph. He was taken to court multiple times, but was never convicted.

Ozzy and me

As a white middle-class boy growing up in the Brisbane suburbs in the 80s, heavy metal music appealed to my testosterone and pimple filled body.

Exploring the secondhand record shops of Brisbane, I would’ve bought my first copy of Black Sabbath around 1985. The sound of thunder and a distant church bell before the first drop-D riff enters seemed like the antithesis to sunny Queensland and 80s pop.

As my life became obsessed with the recording studio and the vociferous music scene in Brisbane in the post-Joh era, and those drop-D riffs influenced a new style that swept the world in the early 90s.

Osbourne’s influence was huge and through grunge, his sound was reborn. Grunge was a marriage of the Sabbath-like drop-D riffs with the energy of punk and the melody of the Beatles.

Listening to Black Sabbath and Ozzy records, equipped me with a sonic palette ready to capture the wave of alternative music emmerging from the Brisbane scene.

While Ozzy’s death is no surprise (except for those who never thought he’d last this long), we should take pause and remember an icon with an endless energy for entertaining, a passion for music, and changing the expectations of popular culture for more than 50 years.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

Bangladesh Sees Small Glimmers Of Economic Hope A Year After Longtime Autocrat Ousted In People’s Revolt

Protesters shout slogans as they celebrate Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s resignation in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on Aug. 5, 2024. AP Photo/Rajib Dhar, File

BY MOHMMAD ELAHEE
PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY

By the time a student-led protest movement erupted into a full-scale revolution in Bangladesh in July 2024, the country’s economy was already in free fall.

Years of rampant corruption, mismanagement and dwindling opportunities for young people – not to mention the brutal repression of its then-autocratic government – had left the country’s financial institutions on their knees.

The banking system teetered on the brink of collapse under the weight of massive bad loans and capital flight. Meanwhile, foreign reserves dwindled due to a worsening trade deficit and declining remittances from Bangladeshi migrant workers abroad.

The immediate aftermath of the toppling of autocratic leader Sheikh Hasina after 36 days of protest suggested that the country’s new leaders faced an unenviable task righting the economy. Law and order disintegrated, as large segments of the police and other law enforcement agencies — loyalists of the overthrown government — disappeared into hiding.

Meanwhile, several actions of India, Bangladesh’s powerful neighbor and major trading partner, further destabilized an already volatile situation. The government in New Delhi, which had been close to the Hasina government, began exerting economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Bangladesh after providing refuge to numerous leaders and activists from the deposed administration, including Hasina herself.

Despite this gloomy picture, however, things look brighter a year on. As an expert on international economics and Bangladeshi politics, I believe Bangladesh has achieved a remarkable degree of economic and political stability during Dr. Muhammad Yunus’ caretaker government. Yet massive domestic and international challenges persist and will need careful handling in the months and years to come.

Charting economic and political stability

At the urging of the student leaders leading last year’s protest movement, Yunus became the de facto leader of Bangladesh’s interim government on Aug. 8, 2024.

The 2006 Nobel laureate, renowned for his pioneering work in microloan and social business, formed a transitional administration comprising technocrats, civil society leaders and student representatives.

Its stated goals were restoring order, organizing free and fair elections, implementing democratic reforms and bringing accountability to those responsible for the killings of political activists during Hasina’s reign.

On the financial front, the country’s central bank – under the new leadership of a former IMF economist appointed by Yunus – has successfully steadied the banking sector through a series of painful but essential reforms, including changes to monetary policy and a restructuring that saw replacements of boards of 11 troubled banks.

Rising export earnings and increased remittances have helped stabilize foreign reserves, which climbed from US$20.39 billion as of July 31, 2024, to over $31 billion at the end of June 2025.

This recovery is particularly striking given that the country managed to rebuild its reserves while concurrently settling outstanding import arrears and servicing the substantial foreign debt burden inherited from the previous government.

The Yunus government has also brought greater stability to the domestic economy by reducing inflation from 12% in July 2024 to 9% in May 2025 and achieving a GDP growth rate of 3.9% in 2024-25 through better macroeconomic management.

In recent months, the interim government has also been able to curb the influence of powerful and politically connected business cartels that for years have largely controlled the prices of essential goods and services. In part this is due to legal action against corrupt business leaders and enhanced oversight by food inspectors.

Even during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, typically a period of sharp price increases, most consumers experienced no sudden surge in the cost of essentials such as rice, fish and poultry. Prices also remained stable during the Eid al-Adha, the second largest Muslim religious festival, marking a notable departure from previous years when festival periods brought dramatic price spikes.

The Yunus government has also scored some key diplomatic successes. Shortly after a March 2025 visit by U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Bangladesh secured a landmark agreement with Myanmar under which the latter agreed to repatriate some 180,000 Rohingya refugees who have been living in Bangladesh since fleeing a government crackdown in their homeland in 2017.

Bangladesh has also seen marked improvements in several bilateral relationships, including with China, its main trading partner. Given ongoing India-China tensions, the India-backed Hasina regime refrained from deepening its relationship with China to its full potential.

Her departure has freed Bangladesh to pursue trade with Beijing more aggressively. During Yunus’ official visit to China in March 2025, Bangladesh secured a pledge for a $2.1 billion loan from Beijing.

That agreement mirrors a number of other loan agreements Dhaka has struck with international creditors in 2025, including with the IMF, the Asian Development Bank, the Japanese government and a $850 million loan from the World Bank for boosting job training, enhancing social protections and increasing trade capacity.

All told, those deals represent billions in critical funds for budget support and infrastructure.

And the country continues to pursue other avenue of investments. In April it hosted a summit that drew over 400 participants representing global fund managers, multinational corporations and oil-rich Middle Eastern nations and secured investment pledges of $260 million.

Alongside promise, the remaining perils

Despite the progress, there remains a slew of internal and external challenges that threaten the country’s short- and long-term economic prospects.

For one, the law-and-order situation remains fragile. Meanwhile, political parties including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the country’s largest party, are resisting the interim government’s reform agenda and demanding immediate elections.

Recognizing that any gains not secured through a functioning democratic and legal system are likely to be short-lived, the Yunus government has announced a road map for general elections by no later than April 2026.

Another major challenge has been trying to recover $234 billion of assets laundered by bureaucrats, politicians and business tycoons associated with the fallen regime. The total exceeds the country’s total foreign debt. But the interim government has yet to secure meaningful cooperation from key countries, including the U.S., United Kingdom, UAE, Canada and Singapore, where much of this money is believed to be invested in real estate and financial markets.

External pressures compound these domestic challenges. India Prime Minister Narendra Modi has adopted an increasingly aggressive stance toward Bangladesh, canceling airport transit facilities for Bangladeshi exporters, banning imports of Bangladeshi products through land borders and suspending visa issuance for Bangladeshi travelers.

The Indian government has also intensified deportations of alleged “illegal Bangladeshi migrants,” many of whom are reportedly Muslim Indian citizens.

And then there’s the U.S. under Trump.

Washington’s move to cancel the vast majority of U.S. foreign aid is already impacting various sectors in Bangladesh, particularly health care. More significantly, the imposition of 35% additional tariffs on Bangladeshi imports threatens catastrophic damage to the economy, especially the crucial textile and garment sector, given that the U.S. is Bangladesh’s primary export market. Although Bangladesh is currently holding bilateral trade negotiations with the U.S. to avert steep tariffs, the volatile trade policies of the Trump administration may create serious long-term planning difficulties for Bangladeshi businesses.

While overcoming these challenges would be formidable under any circumstances, the Yunus government’s ultimate success depends on three interconnected objectives: conducting free, fair and inclusive elections followed by peaceful power transfer; implementing the recommendations of various reform commissions to strengthen economic and political foundations; and delivering justice for victims of the previous government’s persecution.

Achieving all three satisfactorily will be extraordinarily difficult. A year in, Yunus has shown a remarkable ability to weather difficult circumstances. But what happens next will most likely be determined by both domestic and international factors out of his control.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

PBS And NPR Are Generally Unbiased, Independent Of Government Propaganda And Provide Key Benefits To US Democracy

A host and guest in July 2024 sit inside a recording studio at KMXT, the public radio station on Kodiak Island in Alaska. Nathaniel Herz/Northern Journal

BY STEPHANIE A. (SAM) MARTIN
FRANK AND BETHINE CHURCH
ENDOWED CHAIR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY

Champions of the almost entirely party-line vote in the U.S. Senate to erase US$1.1 billion in already approved funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting called their action a refusal to subsidize liberal media.

“Public broadcasting has long been overtaken by partisan activists,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, insisting there is no need for government to fund what he regards as biased media. “If you want to watch the left-wing propaganda, turn on MSNBC,” Cruz said.

Accusing the media of liberal bias has been a consistent conservative complaint since the civil rights era, when white Southerners insisted news outlets were slanting their stories against segregation. During his presidential campaign in 1964, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona complained that the media was against him, an accusation that has been repeated by every Republican presidential candidate since.

But those charges of bias rarely survive empirical scrutiny.

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on journalism that is independent of both market pressure and partisan talking points.

That independence in the United States – enshrined in the press freedom clause of the First Amendment – gives journalists the ability to hold government accountable, expose abuses of power and thereby support democracy.

Trusting independence

Ad Fontes Media, a self-described “public benefit company” whose mission is to rate media for credibility and bias, have placed the reporting of “PBS NewsHour” under 10 points left of the ideological center. They label it as both “reliable” and based in “analysis/fact.” “Fox and Friends,” by contrast, the popular morning show on Fox News, is nearly 20 points to the right. The scale starts at zero and runs 42 points to the left to measure progressive bias and 42 points to the right to measure conservative bias. Ratings are provided by three-person panels comprising left-, right- and center-leaning reviewers.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study in Science Advances that tracked more than 6,000 political reporters likewise found “no evidence of liberal media bias” in the stories they chose to cover, even though most journalists are more left-leaning than the rest of the population.

A similar 2016 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly said that media are more similar than dissimilar and, excepting political scandals, “major news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner, casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light.”

Surveys show public media’s audiences do not see it as biased. A national poll of likely voters released July 14, 2025, found that 53% of respondents trust public media to report news “fully, accurately and fairly,” while only 35% extend that trust to “the media in general.” A majority also opposed eliminating federal support.

Contrast these numbers with attitudes about public broadcasters such as MTVA in Hungary or the TVP in Poland, where the state controls most content. Protests in Budapest October 2024 drew thousands demanding an end to “propaganda.” Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism reports that TVP is the least trusted news outlet in the country.

While critics sometimes conflate American public broadcasting with state-run outlets, the structures are very different.

Safeguards for editorial freedom

In state-run media systems, a government agency hires editors, dictates coverage and provides full funding from the treasury. Public officials determine – or make up – what is newsworthy. Individual media operations survive only so long as the party in power is happy.

Public broadcasting in the U.S. works in almost exactly the opposite way: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private nonprofit with a statutory “firewall” that forbids political interference.

More than 70% of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s federal appropriation for 2025 of US$1.1 billion flows through to roughly 1,500 independently governed local stations, most of which are NPR or PBS affiliates but some of which are unaffiliated community broadcasters. CPB headquarters retains only about 5% of that federal funding.

Stations survive by combining this modest federal grant money with listener donations, underwriting and foundation support. That creates a diversified revenue mix that further safeguards their editorial freedom.

And while stations share content, each also has latitude when it comes to programming and news coverage, especially at the local level.

As a public-private partnership, individual communities mostly own the public broadcasting system and its affiliate stations. Congress allocates funds, while community nonprofits, university boards, state authorities or other local license holders actually own and run the stations. Individual monthly donors are often called “members” and sometimes have voting rights in station-governance matters. Membership contributions make up the largest share of revenue for most stations, providing another safeguard for editorial independence.

Broadly shared civic commons

And then there are public media’s critical benefits to democracy itself.

A 2021 report from the European Broadcasting Union links public broadcasting with higher voter turnout, better factual knowledge and lower susceptibility to extremist rhetoric.

Experts warn that even small cuts will exacerbate an already pernicious problem with political disinformation in the U.S., as citizens lose access to free information that fosters media literacy and encourages trust across demographics.

In many ways, public media remains the last broadly shared civic commons. It is both commercial-free and independently edited.

Another study, by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School in 2022, affirmed that “countries with independent and well-funded public broadcasting systems also consistently have stronger democracies.”

The study highlighted how public media works to bridge divides and foster understanding across polarized groups. Unlike commercial media, where the profit motive often creates incentives to emphasize conflict and sensationalism, public media generally seeks to provide balanced perspectives that encourage dialogue and mutual respect. Reports are often longer and more in-depth than those by other news outlets.

Such attention to nuance provides a critical counterweight to the fragmented, often hyperpartisan news bubbles that pervade cable news and social media. And this skillful, more balanced treatment helps to ameliorate political polarization and misinformation.

In all, public media’s unique structure and mission make democracy healthier in the U.S. and across the world. Public media prioritizes education and civic enlightenment. It gives citizens important tools for navigating complex issues to make informed decisions – whether those decisions are about whom to vote for or about public policy itself. Maintaining and strengthening public broadcasting preserves media diversity and advances important principles of self-government.

Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides. Ronald Reagan once described a free press as vital for the United States to succeed in its “noble experiment in self-government.” From that perspective, more independent reporting – not less – will prove the best remedy for any worry about partisan spin.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Monday, July 21, 2025

‘Queer People Were Living, Loving, Suffering, Surviving – But Invisible’: West Africa’s Groundbreaking Gay Novel 20 Years On

A scene from the 2019 film version of Walking With Shadows, based on the novel.

BY ADESOMOLA ADEDAYO

When Jude Dibia first tried to sell the manuscript of his groundbreaking novel Walking With Shadows 20 years ago, he was aware of the silence around queerness in West African literature. While there had been books with gay themes, his is widely recognised as the first novel in the region to put a gay character at the heart of the story.

“The absence wasn’t just literary; it was societal,” Dibia says. “Queer people were living, loving, suffering, surviving – but largely rendered invisible or spoken of in hushed tones, if at all. That silence felt violent. It felt like erasure.

“Literature has the power to name what society refuses to see. Walking With Shadows was my small attempt to do that,” he adds.

Initially, some publishers refused to touch the novel, considering it too controversial. Others suggested he rewrite the ending, either making the character renounce his homosexuality or killing him. When the book was finally published, Dibia was called names. He lost friends and was blacklisted from certain literary spaces. He was invited to events, only to later be uninvited once the organisers realised who he was and what he had written.

Dibia’s novel is widely recognised as the first Nigerian book to depict queerness with depth and empathy. It tells the story of Ebele “Adrian” Njoku who has buried his sexuality in the past, become a husband and a father, but who has to confront who he really is when a co-worker informs his wife that he is gay.

Ainehi Edoro, associate professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and founder of the literary blog Brittle Paper, says the novel marked a turning point. “For a long time, queer characters in African literature were either invisible or treated as symbols of crisis, like their presence was a sign that something had gone wrong,” she says. “So when Dibia wrote a novel that centred a gay Nigerian man as a full human being, that mattered. He pushed back against an entire archive of erasure.”

The book, which turned 20 this year, was published by Blacksands in 2005 and republished in 2011 by Jalaa Writers’ Collective. In 2019, it was adapted for the screen by Oya Media and a special film edition was released.

But the initial backlash Walking with Shadows faced has not entirely disappeared, says Dibia. “Some still view the book as too controversial, too political, too queer. But I’ve made peace with that. If a story makes people uncomfortable because it tells the truth, then perhaps discomfort is the first step toward awareness.”

Dibia was forced to leave Nigeria and now lives in Sweden after the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, a law that criminalises homosexuality, was passed in January 2014, fearing he might become a target for his writing.

Since the publication of Walking With Shadows, an increasing number of books with queer characters at the heart of them have been published in West Africa and, specifically, Nigeria. There have been a slew of firsts: Chinelo Okparanta’s Under the Udala Trees (2015) was the first novel to focus on lesbianism; Romeo Oriogun’s Burnt Men (2016) was the first queer poetry book; Chike Frankie Edozien’s Lives of Great Men: Living and Loving as an African Gay Man (2017), the first gay memoir; Unoma Azuah’s Embracing My Shadows: Growing Up Lesbian in Nigeria (2020), the first lesbian memoir.

Dibia, who has published two more novels – Unbridled in 2007 and Blackbird in 2011 – considers the fact that his debut gave visibility to lives that had been systematically ignored as the book’s most meaningful contribution.

“That’s the legacy I’m proudest of: not the controversy, but the quiet courage it gave others to tell their own stories, in their own ways,” he says.

Chike Frankie Edozien, author of Lives of Great Men, agrees. “Each time I do something that examines the fullness and varying natures of our lives, I know that I’m continuing the work Jude began by adding to a canon that boldly debunks the prevailing narrative that queerness in West Africa is foreign or imported,” he says.

“We’ve been diverse as long as we’ve existed and I’m thankful for Jude’s brave work that cracked open the door for the rest of us to kick down. All these years later, it [Walking with Shadows] still is for me a guiding light.”

For the British-Nigerian gay rights activist Bisi Alimi, the book was liberating the moment he laid hands on it. “Prior to that day, I had never really read any book as personal and relatable as that. Jude and the book did something to me,” he says.

The writer and researcher Ayodele Olofintuade had a similar experience. “The book came as it is, creating a new genre, queer literature,” she says. “Encountering the novel about two years post-publication was a shift in reality for me. Walking with Shadows is a roadmap of what is possible.”

Dibia’s deepest satisfaction comes from readers all over the world who say that Adrian’s story helps them feel seen. He sometimes wishes, however, that he had been better prepared for, and protected against, the fallout. “But then again, maybe part of the novel’s power comes from the fact that it was written without armour,” he says. “I don’t regret writing it. I only regret the climate that made it feel dangerous to tell the truth.”

Today, Dibia still hopes people see the book as an act of courage and, more importantly, an act of care. Likewise, 20 years from now, he hopes the novel will still feel relevant yet like a historical document of a time outgrown.

‘[I hope it] becomes a reminder of what silence cost us, and how far we’ve come,’ he says.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Nigeria’s Federal Police Force Has Failed, But What Does History Say About Local Forces?

The Dogarai police system was reformed in 1907 to become the Native Authority Police Force. Wikimedia Commons BY SAHEED BALOGUN AMUSA PROFES...