April, 05 2019, 12:00am EDT

In Response to Mounting Pressure, Providence Mayor Ends Water Privatization Plan
Today, in response to months of community opposition, Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza announced that he was backing away from a plan to privatize the city's water system.
WASHINGTON
Today, in response to months of community opposition, Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza announced that he was backing away from a plan to privatize the city's water system.
In February, the Rhode Island state legislature began considering two bills that would enable Providence's water to be privatized. Around the world, water privatization has been followed by rate hikes, labor abuses and even public health crises that disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color. Two of the corporations interested in monetizing and privatizing Providence's water system, Veolia and Suez, have long and storied records of human rights and environmental abuses.
The Land and Water Sovereignty Committee along with community activists across the state have led the call to keep Providence's water public. Please see below for quotes from representatives of the Land and Water Sovereignty committee and do be in touch with any questions or concerns.
We are glad to hear of Mayor Elorza's decision to stop all legislative efforts towards monetization and privatization of our water," said Cristina Cabrera, AKA Chunchip Deer Spirit, Core Team Member, Water Is Life - Land & Water Sovereignty Campaign & Environmental Justice Director of Indigenous Affairs, Pocasset Pokanoket Land Trust. "As indigenous people, our care and our responsibility lies in protecting our land and water from any form of commodification, capitalization or privatization. This is the beginning of a long road to ensure that our water remains protected for future generations. We welcome the opportunity to work with the City of Providence on a participatory budgeting process for its financial concerns, but Water is not up for lease or sale. Mni Wiconi."
"As a member of the core group of the Land and Water Sovereignty Campaign, a Standing Rock water protector, and 30 year resident of Rhode Island, I would like to thank everyone who diligently participated to stop the monetization of our water supply, that provides 60% of Rhode Islanders with potable drinking water," said John Gonzalez of the Pimicikamak Cree Nation. "This is not the end. This is only the beginning for Land and Water Sovereignty, our indigenous and most heavily impacted communities."
"We are glad to be working in collaboration with the Land & Water Sovereignty Campaign to protect the interest of our water," said Sequan Pijaki, aka Chief George Spring Buffalo, Chief Executive Officer, Pocasset Pokanoket Land Trust. "The purpose of the Pocasset Pokanoket Land Trust is to advocate for indigenous lands to ensure rightful stewardship and protection of our territorial lands and water. We celebrate the Mayor's decision to stop all legislative efforts towards monetization and privatization of our water. It is of utmost importance to hear the cries of our Mayan Ancestors in support of Indigenous land and water sovereignty."
"Water is a human right, and efforts to commodify it run counter to the public good and do great harm to all, but especially the most vulnerable in our communities," said Gillian Kiley, Cranston resident. "I am grateful for the leadership of City Council members like Rachel Miller, Kat Kerwin, and Seth Yurdin on this issue, and am pleased that Mayor Elorza heard the broad opposition voiced by the community and responded by withdrawing support for these bills. Going forward, the city of Providence and the state of Rhode Island must recognize that water is a precious, essential public resource that cannot be commodified."
"Leasing or selling water is just a roundabout way of making Rhode Island residents pay for a problem they didn't cause with their water bills, housing stability, and health," said Janice Gan, resident of Providence. "A better approach would come from the ground up, through the leadership of the Indigenous people who have long managed this watershed and the frontline communities who are already being harmed by poor infrastructure, toxic facilities, and an ongoing history of extraction and exclusion."
"We are glad that the mayor has listened to the community, and hope this will be the beginning of a process in which Rhode Islanders, the region's Indigenous people, and city, town and state legislators will work together to ensure safe, clean, accessible and affordable water for all for years to come," said Providence resident Kate Schapira.
"We applaud Mayor Elorza for listening to the overwhelming community opposition to privatization, and for making the right decision to be a champion for public water," said Food & Water Watch Senior Northeast Organizer Nisha Swinton. "The city's water system is too vital to lease off to the highest bidder. These privatization deals result in higher rates and diminished service, and leave ratepayers paying off what is essentially a high-interest loan for decades to come. Providence should seize this opportunity to find a solution to its financial challenges that protects its public water system and honors its commitments to public workers."
"This is a clear victory for people in Providence and across the state. It's just the latest in a string of cities around the globe that have cast out privatization and affirmed the human right to water," said Corporate Accountability Senior Water Organizer Alissa Weinman. "Given the industry's track record of rate hikes, labor abuses, and corner cutting that jeopardizes public health, privatization in Providence threatened both communities and the city,all in the name of profits. From Lagos to Pittsburgh to Providence, people are sending a clear message to the private water industry: 'Water is for people, not for profit.'"
The Poor People's Campaign Steering Committee released this statement: "We are committed to lifting up and deepening the leadership of those most affected by systemic racism, poverty, the war economy, and ecological devastation and to building unity across lines of division. In this spirit we join in support of the Water Is Life - Land and Water Sovereignty Campaign to protect the interest and indigenous sovereignty of territorial land and water. Water is life and neither water nor people are up for lease or sale."
Corporate Accountability stops transnational corporations from devastating democracy, trampling human rights, and destroying our planet.
(617) 695-2525LATEST NEWS
Muslim Lawmakers Decry 'Vile' Bipartisan Islamophobic Attacks on Zohran Mamdani
The lawmakers asserted that "smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle" cannot be allowed to continue.
Jun 27, 2025
All four Muslim members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday condemned their colleagues' Islamophobic attacks on Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, which have come not only from Republicans but also from at least two congressional Democrats representing the candidate's home state.
"The vile, anti-Muslim, and racist smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle attacking Zohran Mamdani cannot be met with silence," Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), André Carson (D-Ind.), and Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue."
Mamdani—a democratic socialist who would be the first Muslim mayor of the nation's largest city if he wins November's general election—has come under fire by Republicans including Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, who on Thursday formally appealed to U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi to initiate proceedings to denaturalize and deport "little Muhammad."
Earlier this week, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted a photo of Mamdani wearing a traditional tunic with the caption, "After 9/11 we said, 'Never Forget.' I think sadly we have forgotten."
As of Friday afternoon, no Democratic member of Congress from New York had explicitly condemned their GOP colleagues' Islamophobic remarks. To the contrary, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) falsely claimed Thursday that Mamdani had made references to "global jihad" and spuriously asserted that "globalize the intifada"—a call for Palestinian liberation and battling injustice—is a call to "kill all the Jews."
Freshman Rep. Lauren Gillen (D-N.Y.) also falsely accused Mamdani of "a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments."
The four Muslim lawmakers said in their statement that "these hateful, Islamophobic, and racist tropes have become so entrenched and normalized in our politics."
"We know these attacks all too well," they added.
Omar and Tlaib have been on the receiving end of Islamophobic attacks by House colleagues and outside death threats for years, stemming in part from Omar's status as refugee and Tlaib's as the only Palestinian American in Congress.
Like Mamdani, both lawmakers have also been targeted from both sides of the aisle for their support for Palestinian liberation, as well as their opposition to Israel's invasion, occupation, colonization and apartheid in Palestine, and the assault and siege of Gaza that are the subject of an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case.
Advocacy groups have reported a sharp increase in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian hate incidents since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led assault on Israel, a climate reminiscent of the pervasive Islamophobia following the September 11, 2001 attacks. There has also been a surge in antisemitism as Israeli forces obliterate Gaza, although critics have decried the widespread conflation of opposition to Zionism with hatred of Jewish people by groups including the Anti-Defamation League.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue," the four lawmakers stressed. "They directly contribute to the ongoing dehumanization and violence against Muslim Americans. We unequivocally reject the normalization of anti-Muslim hate and fearmongering and call on elected leaders across our country to speak out."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also issued a statement Friday condemning the "outpouring of disgraceful, dangerous, racist ideology from sitting members of Congress and [Trump] administration officials following Zohran Mamdani's win in the New York mayoral primary."
Jayapal continued:
The constant displays of Islamophobia are an affront to the millions of Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world. One of the most jarring called for the denaturalization and deportation of Mr. Mamdani, an American citizen who just won a massive Democratic primary with more votes than that member, Mr. Ogles, could ever hope to win. This is an insult to voters in New York City who take democracy seriously.
Denaturalization of U.S. citizens is part of the Trump playbook to attack all legal immigration. It is completely outrageous and flies in the face of the laws of this country.
"The hateful language directed at Mr. Mamdani will get someone killed, and we all should be outraged," Jayapal added. "It must end. Every person who cares about democracy, freedom of religion, and the right for all Americans to be treated equally should speak out immediately against these insane and dangerous attacks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Religious Opt-Out Ruling 'Could Wreak Havoc on Public Schools'
The ruling, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reflects the right-wing majority's "failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
Jun 27, 2025
A day after many LGBTQ+ Americans celebrated the 10th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established marriage equality in the United States, right-wing Justice Samuel Alito suggested in a new decision that public schools should not promote "acceptance of same-sex marriage."
Alito's opinion was handed down in a 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the high court's right-wing majority held that parents should be permitted to opt their children out of certain lessons in public schools on religious grounds.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by parents of several religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, who sued the county's school system for not giving parents advance notice and an opportunity to opt out of a curriculum that included storybooks dealing with LGBTQ+ themes.
The books included Pride Puppy, about a dog that gets lost at an LGBTQ+ pride parade; Love, Violet, about a girl who has a same-sex crush; Born Ready, about a transgender boy; and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, about a gay couple getting married.
Alito pointed to the latter book in particular in his opinion.
"It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice," wrote the judge. "Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated."
Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free speech group PEN America, noted the timing of Alito's comments about marriage equality.
"Just after the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges and as we celebrate Pride Month, the Supreme Court has delivered a devastating blow to the dignity of LGBTQ+ people and families," said Brinkley. "This ruling means that parents can opt their children out of any classroom activity that acknowledges same-sex marriages, the right to which this very court held was guaranteed by the Constitution."
The right-wing majority ruled that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow families to opt out of any lessons that parents believe will interfere with their children's religious education, including stories or discussions with LGBTQ+ themes.
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights."
Legal scholars said that in addition to stigmatizing the families of an estimated 5 million children in the U.S. who have one or more LGBTQ+ parents, the ruling could pave the way for parents to argue that their children shouldn't be exposed at school to materials involving any number of topics, including evolution, yoga, and mothers who work outside the home—all issues that have been the subject of earlier, unsuccessful lawsuits against schools.
"The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools' ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections," said the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the school district's "policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board."
Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said that religious freedom is "fundamentally important" under U.S. law.
But freedom of religion, Mach said, "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views. This decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society."
Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, added that parents with religious objections will now be "empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption—ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences."
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case, with Sotomayor making the unusual move of announcing her dissent from the bench.
Citizens fully experiencing the United States' multicultural society, said Sotomayor, "is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs."
She also accused the majority of making a "myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which revealed, she said, "its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
The ruling is the latest victory for right-wing advocates of what they view as religious freedom at the high court; other recent rulings have allowed a web designer to refuse to make a website for same-sex couples and a high school football coach to pray with his team at school games.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, called Friday's ruling a "deeply troubling outcome for public education, equality, and the constitutional principle of the separation between state and church."
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights," said Gaylor. "Public schools must be grounded in facts and reality and not subject to religious censors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Congress Can't Sit Back': Anti-War Groups Call on Senate to Invoke War Powers Act in Friday Vote
More than 41,000 people have signed a petition calling on Congress to invoke the War Powers Act to limit Trump's ability to strike Iran without congressional authorization.
Jun 27, 2025
The U.S. Senate will vote Friday evening on whether to invoke the War Powers Act, limiting President Donald Trump's ability to launch a war with Iran.
With the vote looming, anti-war groups are turning up the pressure, urging their senators to reassert Congress's ability to check the president's power after he unilaterally inserted the U.S. into Israel's war with Iran by launching airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend.
More than 41,000 people have signed a petition launched by the progressive group MoveOn Civic Action, which calls on Congress to vote for the resolutions introduced in both the House and Senate in recent weeks.
"By launching strikes on Iran without congressional approval, Trump endangered civilians in the U.S. and around the world, while dragging our country closer to another endless war," said MoveOn spokesperson Britt Jacovich. "Congress has a responsibility to the people who elected them to check this abuse of power and take urgent action to prevent the U.S. from being pulled into another deadly and costly conflict."
The vote on the Senate resolution, introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), will take place Friday at 6:00 pm Eastern time. A vote on the House resolution introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has not yet been scheduled.
The War Powers resolution, which would require Trump to receive congressional approval for future strikes on Iran, has overwhelming support from Senate Democrats. However, according to reporting from Punchbowl News Friday, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), a notorious pro-Israel hawk, is expected to vote no.
If all other Democrats vote yes, they'd still need five Republicans to join them. The libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has also signaled his support for the resolution. But the rest, including seven who voted for a similar resolution in 2020, have remained tight-lipped about Friday's vote.
The majority of Americans, 56%, said they disapproved of Trump's weekend strikes against Iran in a YouGov poll published Tuesday. They are even more strongly opposed to further escalations, with 84% saying in a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed Monday that they were worried about growing conflict between the U.S. and Iran.
On Monday, Trump announced that a cease-fire had been brokered between Israel and Iran. But with the two countries accusing one another of violating the truce, doubt remains about whether it will hold.
Cavan Kharrazian, a senior policy advisor for the group Demand Progress, said that uncertainty is all the more reason Congress must assert itself to stop further escalations from the United States.
"In just days, we've gone from a supposed two-week decision window to immediate U.S. airstrikes, a brief cease-fire, Israel and Iran trading fire again, and now another fragile pause," Kharrazian said. "We strongly support diplomatic efforts to end this crisis—but Congress can't sit back and hope for the best while the risk of U.S. involvement in unauthorized hostilities remains."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular