Rallies over alleged human and civil rights violations to be held across North Texas on "Good Trouble Day of Action"
Titled "Good Trouble Lives On," organizers said the rallies will take place all over the country on National John Lewis Day of Action. According to organizers, the rallies are also in honor of the legacy of the late Congressman, who often called on his supporters to make "good trouble, necessary trouble."
According to the news release, rallies will be held in Garland, Dallas, Fort Worth, Southlake and Rockwall.
"Participants will gather to demand an end to racist gerrymandering and the authoritarian attacks on our freedom to vote, protest, and organize — and to stand united against efforts to criminalize our communities, roll back our rights, and slash vital public programs," the news release states.
Organizers said the events will be peaceful and include a candlelight vigil to honor Lewis.
Lewis died July 17, 2020, at the age of 80. He was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer in December.
His death sent shock waves across the country and
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called Lewis the "boy from Troy" when the two first met in 1958, according to the Associated Press, and their meeting kicked off Lewis' lifetime of activism. In 1961, Lewis was just 21 years old when he joined the Freedom Riders who rode public transportation to Alabama in an effort to integrate bus travel.
Lewis was beaten and arrested multiple times due to his activism. He was elected as chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and was the youngest speaker at the 1963 March on Washington.
He was also a leader of the march in Selma, Alabama, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on March 7, 1965, that became known as "Bloody Sunday" as police beat the marchers. Lewis' skull was fractured. The events of "Bloody Sunday" helped lead Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, and President Johnson signed it into law on August 6, 1965.
He served Georgia's Fifth Congressional District in Congress from 1987 until his death.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Columbia Will Pay $221 Million to End Trump Clashes
Columbia University will pay a total of $221 million to try and end its multiple clashes with the Trump administration. The Ivy League school in New York City will pay a $200 million penalty to resolve civil rights investigations. Another $21 million settles claims about workplace discrimination against against Jewish faculty and staff. Bloomberg's Liam Knox reports. (Source: Bloomberg)
WIRED
42 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ICJ Rules That Failing to Combat Climate Change Could Violate International Law
Jul 24, 2025 12:31 PM In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice declared that failure to act on climate change can be an 'internationally wrongful act'—meaning countries could face legal consequences for harming the planet. Vanuatu's minister of climate change, Ralph Regenvanu, delivers a speech during a rally ahead of the International Court of Justice's session. Photograph:If a country fails to take decisive action to protect the planet from climate change, it could be breaking international law and be held liable for damages caused to humanity. This is one of the conclusions of an unprecedented advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal obligations of states in the face of this environmental crisis. The 15 judges that make up the ICJ, the highest judicial body of the United Nations, described the need to address the threat of climate change as 'urgent and existential.' Unanimously, they determined that signatories to various international agreements could be violating international law if they do not adopt measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling states that a 'clean, healthy, and sustainable environment' constitutes a human right. This interpretation elevates the climate debate beyond the environmental or economic realm, positioning it as an issue of justice and fundamental rights. The shift in focus could significantly influence future international legislation and litigation, making it easier to hold polluting countries accountable for the environmental damage they cause. As of June of this year, according to the most recent report from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London, there were approximately 2,967 active climate change lawsuits in nearly 60 countries, with more than 226 new cases initiated in 2024 alone. Yuji Iwasawa, president of the ICJ, clarified that this is an advisory opinion, not a binding ruling. However, he expressed that the court hopes that this pronouncement will 'inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis.' The case leading to this opinion originated in 2019, when a group of students from Vanuatu, a Pacific island nation particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, began pushing for government inaction on the climate crisis to be legally recognized as an 'existential risk.' Subsequently, Ralph Regenvanu, the country's minister of climate change, filed a formal complaint with the ICJ. In 2023, the UN General Assembly formalized the request for an advisory opinion from the court. The judges answered two key questions: What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate system and environment from greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal consequences for countries that, by action or inaction, cause significant damage to the climate, especially in relation to vulnerable island states and present and future generations? The court's analysis considered the provisions of international treaties such as the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, among others. The ICJ's assessment concluded that states have a duty, 'by acting with due diligence and using all means at their disposal,' to prevent activities under their jurisdiction or control from adversely affecting the environment. ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa (center) issues the advisory opinion at The Hague on July 23, 2025. Photograph:The opinion stresses that the need 'to prevent significant transboundary harm under customary international law, are obligations erga omnes '—that is, they are obligations to the entire international community. In this sense, Iwasawa emphasized, the protection of the environment is a precondition for guaranteeing human rights. The negative effects of climate change, he added, can hinder rights to water, health, housing, and family life. The court also clarified that what constitutes an internationally wrongful act is not the emission of greenhouse gases per se, but the failure to comply with obligations, both conventional and customary, to protect the climate system. The opinion text stresses that countries in breach of such obligations must assume their responsibility and face the legal consequences of their acts or omissions. If found to be in breach of their obligations, they should stop their unlawful conduct, guarantee they won't repeat their actions if the circumstances so require, and give full reparation to those affected, including through restitution and compensation. 'Where several states are responsible for the same internationally wrongful act, the responsibility of each state may be invoked in relation to that act,' the advisory opinion states. 'What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present, and future of climate action,' Joie Chowdhury, senior counsel at the Center for International Environmental Law, told AP. 'It's not just about future targets—it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots.' The opinion issued represents a significant victory for island nations and international movements that, for decades, have sought to establish legal mechanisms to hold major greenhouse gas emitters accountable for the consequences of climate change on their livelihoods, well-being, and the survival of their ecosystems. This story originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ministers urged to explain plans to re-establish extraditions to Hong Kong
Ministers have been urged to explain plans which would once again allow Britain to extradite people to Hong Kong. The move could put at risk dissident Hongkongers who have fled to the UK to avoid recrimination by the Chinese government, a senior Conservative warned. Shadow Home Office minister Alicia Kearns urged the Government to ensure 'protections will be put in place to ensure no Hongkonger, CCP (Chinese Community Party) critic or anyone targeted by the CCP will be extradited under the new arrangement'. The UK's extradition treaty with Hong Kong was suspended by the then-Tory government after a new national security law was imposed on the territory by China in 2020. The treaty meant Hong Kong could request that someone living in the UK suspected of a crime at home could be handed over to face justice, and vice versa. Fears that the law could lead to human rights abuses were behind the UK's reasoning to put the agreement on ice. Ministers have now introduced a law change in the Commons which would tweak how Hong Kong is designated under the 2003 Extradition Act. The statutory instrument introduced in the Commons on July 17 would effectively re-establish an extradition route with Hong Kong, as well as Zimbabwe. It also changes how Chile is classified under the Act because the South American country has signed an international extradition treaty. In a letter to shadow home secretary Chris Philp seen by the PA news agency, security minister Dan Jarvis suggested the change was needed as no extradition to Hong Kong can currently be made 'even if there were strong operational grounds to do so'. Mr Jarvis added: 'The way to resolve this situation is to de-designate Hong Kong and Zimbabwe from the Act so that we can co-operate with them on the case-by-case ad hoc basis available for non-treaty partners. 'The safety and security of our citizens is our top priority. 'Ensuring that territories are correctly designated under the Act will ensure that the UK can accept extradition requests in a lawful and timely way to ensure the public is not put at risk.' Writing in response to Mr Jarvis, shadow minister Ms Kearns questioned why the Government had taken the step, as she said the situation in Hong Kong had 'worsened' in the years since the national security law was introduced. She pointed to the case of Jimmy Lai, the 77-year-old British national and proprietor of the Apple Daily newspaper, who is facing detention by the Chinese government, as well as other critics of Beijing. 'Has the Government assessed political freedom and the rule of law have been returned to Hong Kong, or have you decided these issues are no longer saleable alongside the 'reset' in relations between the UK and China?' Ms Kearns asked in her letter. Government plans to reintroduce extradition cooperation with Hong Kong are highly concerning. Why does the Government deem this reasonable when freedom of expression, political freedom and the rule of law in Hong Kong have been crushed by The National Security Law and the… — Alicia Kearns MP (@aliciakearns) July 24, 2025 In a post on social media, she added: 'I urge the Government to give urgent reassurances on how this system will be safely managed and what protections will be put in place to ensure no Hong Konger, CCP critic or anyone targeted by the CCP will be extradited under the new arrangement.' The Hong Kong national security law criminalises anything considered to be secessionist from China, and has led to a crackdown on critics of Beijing. Some 150,000 Hongkongers have moved to the UK under a special visa scheme launched in early 2021, after the law was introduced. Since coming to power, Labour has sought to reset relations with China with the aim of boosting trade, after the Conservatives took an increasingly hawkish attitude towards the country while they were in office. The Home Office, which is responsible for extradition law, has been contacted for comment.
