French mural depicts disparing Statue of Liberty
Amsterdam-based street artist Judith de Leeuw described her giant work in the northern French town of Roubaix, which has a large immigrant community, as "a quiet reminder of what freedom should be."
She said "freedom feels out of reach" for migrants and "those pushed to the margins, silenced, or unseen".
"I painted her covering her eyes because the weight of the world has become too heavy to witness. What was once a shining symbol of liberty now carries the sorrow of lost meaning," de Leeuw wrote in a July 4 post on Facebook, when Americans were celebrating Independence Day.
Her depiction of the Statue of Liberty, a gift from the French people in the late 1800s, has inspired some sharp criticism.
Republican Tim Burchett from Tennessee, wrote in an angry post on X that the work "disgusts me." He said he had an uncle who fought and died in France, where US forces saw combat in both World War I and World War II.
In an interview with The Associated Press, de Leeuw was unapologetic.
"I'm not offended to be hated by the Donald Trump movement. I am not sorry. This is the right thing to do," she said.
The town stood by the work, with its deputy mayor in charge of cultural affairs, Frédéric Lefebvre, telling broadcaster France 3 that "it's a very strong and powerful political message."
Since returning to the White House amid anti-immigration sentiment, Trump has launched an unprecedented campaign that has pushed the limits of executive power and clashed with federal judges trying to restrain him. People from various countries have been deported to remote and unrelated places like South Sudan and the small African nation of Eswatini.
Immigration is one of Trump's strongest issues in public polling in the US
The mural in Roubaix is part of an urban street culture festival backed by the town. Roubaix is one of the poorest towns in France. It was economically devastated by the collapse since the 1970s of its once-flourishing textile industry that used to attract migrant workers from elsewhere in Europe, north Africa and beyond.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
21 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Donald Trump ‘caught off guard' by Israel's recent attacks on Syria and Gaza
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has confirmed US President Donald Trump was unaware of recent attacks by Israel. This includes the bombing of a Catholic Church in Gaza and strikes in Syria. 'He was caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of a Catholic Church in Gaza ... and in both accounts, the president quickly called the prime minister to rectify those situations,' Ms Leavitt said.
Perth Now
21 minutes ago
- Perth Now
History in making as World Court to advise on climate
For the first time, the world's highest court will offer advice on the world's biggest problem. It's a punchy slogan that has been wielded successfully by young campaigners to build global momentum behind a landmark international climate case first conceived by a group of Pacific-based law students. While not legally binding, Wednesday's long-awaited "advisory opinion" from the International Court of Justice will clarify the responsibility of nations to prevent climate harm and redress damage inflicted from spewing out greenhouse gases. Cynthia Houniuhi, one of the 27 law students from a Vanuatu university who hatched the idea to seek legal opinion from the World Court, has experienced first-hand the impacts of climate change on her Solomon Islands homelands. The president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change remembers returning to her father's home on Fanalei Island, where she observed a very different landscape than she had on previous visits. Fewer houses, no children playing soccer on the sand and posts sticking out of the ocean, leftover from buildings otherwise consumed by the sea. Pacific Island nations are particularly vulnerable to rising global temperatures. Fiercer storms and cyclones are wreaking havoc, sea-level rise is threatening low-lying coastal villages, and weakened marine ecosystems are posing challenges for communities that rely on the ocean for food and income. Rich countries are not immune, but small islands and low-lying developing countries' contribution to the problem has been far less, despite having to bear more of the costs and having fewer resources to adapt. It's this injustice that has climate-vulnerable states pushing hard for faster emissions cuts as well as compensation for the loss and damage they have done little to create. Ms Houniuhi is not expecting the World Court's advisory opinion to solve the climate crisis but says clarity around state obligations to act would make the law a stronger tool for holding governments to account. She imagines a favourable result informing domestic climate legal activity, such as the case recently led by two Torres Strait Islanders, Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai. Australia's Federal Court ultimately rejected the case, determining the Commonwealth did not have a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change. "The response from one of the uncles, it broke my heart," Ms Houniuhi tells AAP. Getting the world's highest court to deliver an advisory opinion was no simple task for the global network of young climate campaigners, with a majority vote at the United Nations General Assembly required for it to proceed. Vanuatu, a climate change-vulnerable South Pacific island nation of roughly 335,000, was the first to take up the cause. From there, momentum built until a coalition of 132 nations unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 to refer the case to the World Court. Vanuatu's Minister for Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, says such a display of state solidarity is significant and unlikely to be repeated ever again. Mr Regenvanu, the first government official to listen to the young activists, is "very hopeful" for a strong outcome at the Peace Palace following favourable results in similar climate cases put to other top courts. A good outcome, in his view, will clearly state that states have obligations under international law to prevent climate harm and to redress harm that's been done, as well as consequences for failing to act. "There's a readily identifiable group of states who are the main offenders," he tells AAP. "They're the ones who are going to bear the consequence of not fulfilling what, we hope, will be their legal duty to prevent climate harm." The landmark case concludes ahead of the next round of international climate talks in November and Mr Regenvanu expects to use the advisory opinion to influence negotiations at the summit in Brazil. Australia is still bidding to co-host the 2026 event alongside the Pacific and while Mr Regenvanu says the region's leaders remain committed, he was critical of some of the bigger nations' recent actions. "Particularly the continuing rollout of new fossil fuel projects for the export market," he says. University of Melbourne environmental law expert Jacqueline Peel says the World Court's stance on the science of climate change will be carefully watched. "Particularly in the current context, where we have countries like the United States, for example, taking a very hostile view on climate science," she tells AAP. Australia was among the 132 nations that co-sponsored the request for a World Court opinion but its submission took a "fairly narrow view" of its international obligations, centred around those already spelled out in the Paris Agreement. Professor Peel says the advantage of Paris for big-emitting countries is that emission reduction targets and pacing are set by the nations themselves, rather than being subject to some broader international standard. "Pacific countries would prefer that it's a broader approach that really emphasises the urgency of tackling the problems," she says.
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
US President Donald Trump threatens to scupper $5.6b NFL stadium if Redskins nickname is not restored
A proposed new $US3.7 billion ($5.67b) stadium for the NFL Washington Commanders is under pressure from US President Donald Trump, who has threatened to scuttle the deal without a team nickname change. The former Washington Redskins, who dropped the controversial nickname many saw as racist in 2020, adopted Washington Football Team before rebranding to the Commanders in 2022. Trump said he wants to see the team restore the old nickname and called upon Major League Baseball's Cleveland Guardians to revert to their old nickname of Indians in weekend social media posts. 'I may put a restriction on them that if they don't change the name back to the original 'Washington Redskins,' and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, 'Washington Commanders,' I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington,' Trump posted. Washington's City Council is studying plans before voting on final approval for a deal struck by the club and Mayor Muriel Bowser to build a new 65,000-seat domed venue on the site of RFK Stadium, the club's former home before it moved to the Maryland suburbs. Asked Monday about Trump's threat, Bowser said a name change by the club would not alter her support of the deal. Instead, she ripped the council for delays on approving the stadium deal that would rely on about $1.1 billion in taxpayer funds. 'What I'm concerned about is we haven't done our part and so we need to complete our part so that the team can get to work so that local businesses can get hired so that we can start earning the tax revenue that will come when we deliver the Commanders' stadium,' Bowser said. Phil Mendelson, chair of the DC Council, said in a statement that Trump's threat would not push the council's timeline for considering all aspects of the deal, including at a hearing next week. 'I am focused on getting the best deal for District taxpayers and getting the deal across the finish line,' he said. 'I have heard from no — zero — District residents complaining about the name change or saying this is an issue in connection with the stadium.' The RFK Stadium site for the proposed new stadium is on federal land but US lawmakers gave control of the site to the city last year. Trump, who said the team would be more valuable by reverting to its prior nickname, could impact the deal through US federal committees that approve DC construction projects.
