Teresa Shook never considered herself much of an activist, or someone particularly versed in feminist theory. But when the results of the presidential election became clear, the grandmother and retired attorney in Hawaii turned to Facebook and asked: What if women marched on Washington around Inauguration Day en masse?
She asked her online friends how to create an event page, and then started one for the march she was hoping would happen.
By the time she went to bed, 40 women responded that they were in.
When she woke up, that number had exploded to 10,000.
Now, more than 100,000 people have registered their plans to attend the Women’s March on Washington in what is expected to be the largest demonstration linked to the inauguration of Donald Trump, and a focal point for activists on the left who have been energized in opposing his agenda.
Planning for the Jan. 21 march got off to a rocky start. Controversy initially flared over the name of the march, and whether it was inclusive enough of minorities, particularly African-Americans, who have felt excluded from many mainstream feminist movements.
Organizers say plans are on track, after securing a permit from D. C. police to gather 200,000 people near the Capitol at Independence Avenue and Third Street SW on the morning after Inauguration Day. Exactly how big the march will be has yet to be determined, with organizers scrambling to pull together the rest of the necessary permits and raise the $1 million to $2 million necessary to pull off a march triggered by Shook’s Facebook venting.
The march has become a catch-all for a host of liberal causes, from immigrant rights to police killings of African-Americans. But at its heart is the demand for equal rights for women after an election that saw the defeat of Democrat Hillary Clinton, the first female presidential nominee of a major party.
“We plan to make a bold and clear statement to this country on the national and local level that we will not be silent and we will not let anyone roll back the rights we have fought and struggled to get,” said Tamika Mallory, a veteran organizer and gun-control advocate who is now one of the march’s main organizers.
More than 150,000 women and men have responded on the march’s Facebook page that they plan on attending. At least 1,000 buses are headed to Washington for the march through Rally, a website that organizes buses to protests. Dozens of groups, from Planned Parenthood to the antiwar CodePink, have signed on as partners.
Organizers insist the march is not anti-Trump, even as many of the groups that have latched on to it fiercely oppose his agenda.
“Donald Trump’s election has triggered a lot of women to be more involved than they ordinarily would have been, which is ironic, because a lot of us thought a Hillary presidency would motivate women,” said Dana Brown, executive director of the Pennsylvania Center for Women in Politics at Chatham University. “A lot of women seem to be saying, ‘This is my time. I’m not going to be silent anymore. ”
Boris Epshteyn, spokesman for the Trump Inaugural Committee, defended the president-elect’s popularity among women in an interview on CNN. While Trump did not receive the majority of women’s votes he got an “overwhelming” number of them, Epshteyn said.
“We’re here to hear their concerns,” he said. “We welcome them to our side as well. ”
That all this could grow out of a dashed-off post from her perch nearly 5,000 miles from Washington is amazing to Shook, who has booked her ticket and plans to be in Washington on Jan. 21.
“I guess in my heart of heart I wanted it to happen, but I didn’t really think it would’ve ever gone viral,” Shook said. “I don’t even know how to go viral. ”
Unsure of how to proceed those initial few days, she said she enlisted the help of the first few women who messaged her to volunteer, some of whom independently also had an idea for a march. But as the march grew in prominence, it got caught up in a broader conversation in liberal circles about race and leadership, with activists and others criticizing that initial planning group for its racial makeup: Shook said all the women, including herself, that she tapped to help in the march’s nascent stages were white.
Some also took issue with the name Shook had proposed, the Million Woman March, which was the name of a 1997 black women’s march in Philadelphia. The racial concerns set off a heated conversation on the group’s main Facebook page, with some African-American women especially taking umbrage.
For her part, Shook said her aim was not to coopt any other movement. It was just an idea that took hold after the victory of a president-elect caught on tape boasting of grabbing women’s private parts, and the defeat of a woman who seemed to her much more qualified for the job. She said she had no idea the race of the women she first contacted; in fact, she said, most had an image of Clinton as their Facebook profile photo.
Complicating matters, it became apparent that the march likely could not start at the Lincoln Memorial as Shook had proposed, since the inaugural committee has dibs on that space.
Overwhelmed and under pressure, the original organizers eventually handed the reins to a diverse group of veteran female activists from New York: Mallory, the gun-control activist; Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab-American Association of New York; Carmen Perez, head of Gathering for Justice, a criminal justice reform group; and Bob Bland, a fashion entrepreneur.
Together, they settled on a new name: The Women’s March on Washington, a nod to the 1963 demonstration that was a cornerstone of the Civil Rights movement. They even got the blessing of Martin Luther King Jr.’s youngest daughter, Bernice King.
In D. C., Janaye Ingram, the former executive director of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, has been working to secure permits and hash out logistics for the march, including ensuring there is a proper sound equipment and sufficient Porta Potties.
People traveling to attend the march seem less concerned with behind-the-scenes politics than the chance to call for more family-friendly government policies, equal pay for women or reproductive rights. Some simply want to stand against the crass way Trump has spoken about women.
Lindsey Shriver, a 27-year old former pastry chef who is now an at-home mom in Ohio, said she was offended this election cycle by Trump’s rhetoric, which she characterized as “hateful and misogynistic. ” She also wants to highlight the need for paid family leave and affordable child care.
“I realized that being a feminist in my own personal life wasn’t going to be enough for my daughters,” said Shriver.
Caroline Rule, 57, an attorney living in Manhattan, says she will attend with her 15-year-old daughter. While she agrees with the pro-women message behind the march, she said she’d likely participate in any march that pushed against Trump’s messages.
“I absolutely despise Donald Trump and everything he stands for,” she said.
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem has recently signed on as a march co-sponsor, and celebrities like Amy Schumer, Samantha Bee and Jessica Chastain say they plan to attend as well.
Feminist scholars say the march reflects an emerging view of feminism: That it is less defined by reproductive issues such as birth control and abortion and more about how the challenges faced by women intersect with those encountered by African-Americans, gays and immigrants.
Still, reproductive rights will be a large part of the march, with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America as key partners.
Hahrie Han, a political science professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara specializing in political organizations and political engagement, said it’s not all that surprising that individual women instead of an established organization founded this march. Established organizations all come with at least some political baggage.
“The challenge with having one organization brand it as its own, is that each organization has its own image that draws some people, and pushes others back away,” she said.

Similarity rank: 1.1

Sentiment rank: 0

© Source: http://www.chron.com/national/article/Women-s-March-on-Washington-is-poised-to-be-the-10833059.php
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Brexit poses a outrageous risk to UK wildlife and habitats and a new environmental law will be needed, MPs have said.
Even where EU law is incorporated into a UK’s authorised horizon there could still be problems, they warn.
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee also says farmers are confronting poignant threats including detriment of income and tariffs on exports.
The supervision says it is committed to defence and improving existent environmental protection. Problems with incorporation
Whether it is a cleanliness of a UK’s beaches, wickedness control or a insurance of species, most of a UK’s environmental and wildlife legislation is secure in EU directives.
The supervision has pronounced that it will deliver a “Great Repeal Bill” that will incorporate many of these regulations into UK law when Britain leaves a union.
However, Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom certified that about one third of a stream environmental manners would be formidable to unseat into UK law, observant “there will be work to do to safeguard we can continue to make these measures work once we leave a EU”.
For instance, a EU’s Birds and Habitats Directives have given most larger insurance for furious birds and special areas of charge than domestic UK legislation – though these will no longer request in their stream form in UK law even if Britain stays in a Single Market.
The cranky celebration Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) says that to safeguard that there is no weakening, a new environmental insurance act should be upheld during a Article 50 negotiations.
“European law protects outrageous amounts of a UK’s environment, tillage and countryside,” Mary Creagh, chair of a committee, told BBC News.
“The routine of withdrawal a EU presents a outrageous risk to all of those protections that is because in a news we’re job for new environmental insurance act so that when we leave a European Union we are no worse off stable than we are during a moment.”
And it suggests incorporating EU law into a UK authorised horizon could outcome in these protections apropos supposed “zombie” laws, that are no longer updated and could be simply eroded with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.
Environmental campaigners concluded that this was a poignant concern.
“The Great Repeal Bill contingency enclose approved safeguards to make certain that no poignant amendment to a range or purpose of EU environmental legislation can be done though being theme to full parliamentary scrutiny,” pronounced Sam Lowe from Friends of a Earth.
“No one voted to ‘take behind control’ for a UK Parliament, usually to palm it true over to a minister, brandishing a red pen, with a energy to undo critical inlet protections on a whim.”
The news also focuses on a impact of Brexit on farming, indicating out that a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) creates adult between 50-60% of some plantation incomes. The MPs contend they have a series of worries about a destiny of farming.
“UK tillage faces poignant risks – from a detriment of subsidies and tariffs on plantation exports, to increasing foe from countries with weaker food, animal gratification and environmental standards,” pronounced Mary Creagh.
“The supervision contingency not trade divided these pivotal protections as we leave a EU. It should also give clarity over any destiny plantation subsidies.”
Many environmental campaigners trust that Brexit represents a really good event for reforming a EU tillage process that they contend has been one of a biggest drivers of environmental decrease in a UK and other tools of Europe.
“There needs to be estimable remodel – if a rancher is holding H2O on his margin upstream that is assisting to forestall downstream flooding, that’s not a blurb activity for a rancher though that’s where open funding is warranted,” pronounced Trevor Hutchings from WWF-UK.
“There’s a outrageous event here to have a clever and abounding tillage community, sourroundings as good as servicing a open good.”
Responding to a news a supervision forked out that a UK is a signatory of general wildlife insurance conventions, such as Ramsar and Bern , that are eccentric of EU membership.
A orator said: “The UK has a prolonged story of wildlife and environmental insurance and we are committed to defence and improving these, securing a best understanding for Britain as we leave a EU.”
Follow Matt on Twitter and on Facebook

Similarity rank: 2.1

Sentiment rank: -4.6

© Source: http://headlinenewstoday.net/law-needed-to-limit-brexits-environmental-impact-say-mps.html
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.