Archives‎ > ‎

We used to think that East Germany was "Far Left"; now we know it was "Far Right," from Peter Myers

(1) We used to think that East Germany was "Far Left"; now we know it was "Far Right"(2) AfD message: modern Multiculturalism is bad, GDR days were the best(3) AfD gains in Saxony, Brandenburg, Dresden(4) Far-left Protesters spit on AfD Member(5) Economist: The AfD’s strong showing in two state elections is a worrying portent(6) EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton nominated Pussy Riot for the Sakharov Prize for Human Rights(7) Sakharov Prize awarded to opponents of Maduro, Assad, Gaddafi, Putin, Iran, Castro, China and Turkey(1) We used to think that East Germany was "Far Left"; now we know it was "Far Right"- by Peter Myers, September 9, 2019We used to think that East Germany (the German Democratic Republic) was "Far Left".Now we know better; apparently, it was "Far Right" all along.   That's because Alternative for Germany, the political party that looks back to GDR days with nostalgia, is branded "Far Right" by all the other parties.AfD pines for those days of "a job for life, healthcare, a livable income, a home, education and training" - according to item 2, an article from Spiked Online.Spiked Online is probably also "Far Right", because it rejects Multiculturalism, Feminism, Sex Change, Gay Marriage, Open Borders, and Political Correctness - just like AfD.Yet Spiked Online began, many years ago, as Living Marxism, a publication of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP). In 1988, it changed tack, coming out against all those fashionable "New Left" causes.Living Marxism then morphed into LM Magazine. When LM Magazine was sued over an article on the war against Yugoslavia (it backed Serbia), it changed into Spiked Online.You can read a history of those changes, albeit a hostile one, at used to think that I was "Left" too - because I supported the heritage of Ben Chifley: the socialist, full-employment economy Australia had from the mid-1940s to the mid-1980s.We called it "socialist", because we had a lot of publicly-owned monopolies then:The Post Office (including Telecom, or Telstra);Qantas - Australia's overseas airline;Trans-Australian Airlines - one of the two internal airlines;The Reserve bank - Australia's central bank (it was required to maintain full employment);The Commonwealth Bank - the people's bank, providing affordable loans;The many State banks, and the Rural bank;The railways - 99% were publicly-owned;The Australian National Line, Australia's shipping line;The Snowy Mountains Authority, a New-Deal type electricity authority;The Hydro Electric Commission, Tasmania's electricity authority;All the other Electricity Authorities;The Grain Board and other marketing boards;The Universities were all 100% Government-owned;The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission);The CSIRO as the peak scientific research body.;75% of schools were Government-owned and operated. were used to build these assets, creating jobs, not for handouts as at present.However, it was a Mixed Economy - just like Japan of the Miracle years (1970s & 80s), and just like China now. Such economies were the REALwinners of the Cold War.But Thatcher and Reagan took the advice of Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman and their Mont Pelerin Society, and turned the lot over to foreign Multinationals who export our jobs and don't pay tax.Australia's postwar economy was similar to the British economy introduced by Clement Attlee.Such policies were deemed 'Left' at the time; but a Trotskyist publication of 1979 explained that they were actually 'Nationalist'.The book Socialism or Nationalism?: Which Road for the Australian Labor Movement?, by Jon West, Dave Holmes and Gordon Adler, published by Pathfinder Press (a Trotskyist publisher), argued for Free Trade, the abandonment of tariffs, and against the 1950s economic model. It condemned all the other Communist parties as Stalinist and Nationalist: .What we thought was "Left" was actually "Far Right".One lesson from this is that Stalinists and Trotskyists have very different conceptions of what is "Left" and "Right". In the 1950s and 60s we were operating in a somewhat Stalinist milieu, judging "Left" in comparison to the Soviet Union.But Trotskyists regarded the Soviet Union as "Far Right".Clearly, we have since adopted their terminology. This gives an idea of who is actually in power.We might not recognise them all as Trotskyists; they might instead seem to be Feminists, or Greens, or Gay advocates, or Social Justice Warriors. But many of their leaders, in the formative 1970s, looked to the early Soviet Union for inspiration. The activists on campus were matched by the Frankfurt School  academics, who were doing their best to deconstruct Western Civilisation.Left-wing Billionaires such as George Soros have led from on high, pushing the same agenda that Trots push on the steeets. The Economist Magazine, owned by Lord Rothschild, routinely sides with the "Left" and castigates the "Far Right".The Economist recently opined, "Germany’s governing parties keep the far right at bay—just. The AfD’s strong showing in two state elections is a worrying portent" (item 5)."Human Rights" was a slogan that helped undo the Soviet Union. Yet "Human Rights" has Left ancestry. The French Revolutionaries, amidst the bloodbath of the Terror, were the first to decree "Human Rights". Maximilien Robespierre was a champion of the Rights of Man.H. G. Wells, an ardent Trotskyist, drafted a "Human Rights" declaration with which to defend Trotsky - the same Trotsky who wrote a book called The Defence of Terrorism: .Wells' version later contributed to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.In 2014, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton nominated Pussy Riot for the Sakharov Prize for Human Rights. (see item 6)The Sakharov Prize is awarded by the European Parliament.An examination of who has received this prize in recent years is most instructive.It turns out that it has been awarded to opponents of Maduro, Assad, Gaddafi, Putin, Iran, Castro, Egypt (Mubarak), China, Myanmar, Belarus and Turkey (see item 7).In effect, for Colour Revolutions across the world; for Prague Springs and Arab Springs and Regime Change.(2) AfD message: modern Multiculturalism is bad, GDR days were the best Germans support the AfDIt owes far more to existential fears than anti-immigrant sentiment.JAMES LACEY3rd October 2017We are often told that the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was the dawn of a new era, bringing former Communist states into the light of modernity, opportunity and choice. The people of the Eastern Bloc were liberated from oppression by Western democracy and wealth. The understanding is that we are all better off because of it.Yet, for many people, things are not like that.The German Democratic Republic (GDR) was a complicated, corrupt and often dysfunctional state, but to many of its citizens it offered a degree of stability, security and structure. It offered a job for life, healthcare, a livable income, a home, education and training. People grew up with the understanding that if they worked hard and contributed to society, the state would provide a relatively stable and secure life.And then the wall came down, and everything changed.The rise of the AfD in the east has been 27 years in the making, not a sudden reaction to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s immigration policy of the past two years. From 1990 onwards, eastern Germany suffered a chronic brain drain to the west, leaving behind rural industries (agriculture, mining, chemicals) that were suddenly under huge pressure, before international competition and aggressive acquisitions led to widespread closures of many key, regional companies.States like Mecklenburg-Vorpommern are not historically wealthy (and even now the annual income of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern’s residents is only 67 per cent of the national average). The German government has tried to generate growth and attract investment, but companies like Samsung and First Solar have come and gone. The brain drain continues unabated, as young people leave rural areas en masse for big cities, seeking escape and employment. What is left behind is an ageing, shrinking and largely poor population.In the recent election, AfD billboards contrasted traditional German imagery (girls in Bavarian ‘dirndl’ dresses, for example) with the perception of the ‘new’ Germany (including Burkas) to highlight what it says is at stake – the German identity. This resonates particularly deeply in the former GDR, where many have already lost their identity once and are not prepared to lose what’s left. The AfD message is clear – modern multiculturalism is bad, the old ways are good. This is something that is heard a lot in the east, particularly from older people: the belief that the old GDR days were the best days – it’s called Ostalgie.However, the old days in the East German city of Frankfurt-an-der-Oder were very different from the old days in the West German city of Frankfurt-am-Main, which goes some way to explaining the disparity in AfD votes between the east, where it picked up 20 per cent of the vote, and the west, where it picked up just 10 per cent.To understand where these voters are today, we must understand where they came from – and people from the former GDR come from a very different place to people who grew up in the west. Younger voters in the east grew up in a unified Germany. Indeed, many first-time voters this year were born almost a decade after the fall of the wall, but they still feel its poor economic legacy.In eastern states, the cliche of immigrants coming to take people’s jobs is replaced with a narrative focused on immigrants coming to take people’s culture. There aren’t many jobs, especially for new arrivals who don’t speak German, and a threat to identity is even more fearsome. It is experienced as a strike at the very essence of an east German’s existence. For many, after losing (or never having) careers and stability, a sense of cultural self-identification is more sacrosanct than ever.It’s easy to look at the anti-immigrant and Islamophobic nature of the AfD’s campaigning and assume that these are the decisive factors for voters. For a start, former GDR states are overwhelmingly white. You see very few people of colour in these parts of Germany, and fewer still in traditionally white-collar or management roles. There have been consistent neo-Nazi attacks on immigrants throughout eastern Germany over the past two decades, and it remains a stronghold of fringe far-right groups. Until now voters had remained loyal to establishment parties like the CDU, the SPD and Die Linke at the ballot box, instead of backing previous far-right challengers like the NPD, which only ever achieved modest regional representation and nothing on a national scale.It is easy to conclude that a right-wing party will do well in deprived states with a history of right-wing violence, but that viewpoint is one dimensional, overlooks the AfD’s success across Germany and doesn’t fully explain its rapid ascent.Many people in eastern Germany feel left behind by establishment parties and bear a sense of resentment that they never anticipated when growing up in the GDR, or in its aftermath. This resentment far predates the AfD, which was only founded in 2013. Crucially, however, the AfD is not the establishment. That, perhaps, is what has attracted voters, more than overt racism or Islamophobia. The AfD garnered votes from young and old, male and female, eastern and western, rural and urban. These people are not all bound by a common hatred of Islam; rather, they are bound by common economic struggle, loss of trust in the system, loss of hope.Older voters grew up with stability in the GDR, before the rug was pulled from under them. Younger voters have never had the rug. To both groups, the seemingly endless struggle to find work and to climb out of poverty feels harsh and unfair. Some may blame immigrants for their hardships, but most blame politicians like Chancellor Merkel.Reports suggest as much as 60 per cent of the AfD vote was a protest, hinting perhaps that this is the peak of its popularity and the status quo will be restored in future. But the AfD achieved this unprecedented result without a decisive, standout policy. It was not calling for Germany to leave the EU, or campaigning for a wall to be built along the Polish border.And it also achieved this unprecedented result without a flamboyant leader, a Le Pen, a Farage, a Wilders or a Trump at the helm. But what if they had one? Would it be possible for a demagogue to lead the AfD to greater electoral success? Or will the AfD implode through infighting, or be usurped by former co-chair, Frauke Petry, with a new populist movement?Once she navigates the difficult business of forming a ruling coalition, perhaps the greatest challenge facing Merkel in the next four years is how best to stop the AfD from gaining more momentum.James Lacey lived for almost six years in Berlin and until recently worked extensively at industrial and manufacturing companies in eastern German cities, including Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, Schwedt and Demmin.(3) AfD gains in Saxony, Brandenburg, Dresden's far-right AfD party nearly triples its share of the vote in regional elections and warns Merkel's coalition it is no longer 'business as usual'The far-right party almost tripled its share of the vote in Saxony to 27.5 per centSaw support double in neighbouring Brandenburg, a major feat for the new party AfD leaders in Saxony parliament, Dresden, brimmed with confidence over beer They believe gains can destabilise the national coalition under Angela MerkelBy ASSOCIATED PRESSPUBLISHED: 16:11 AEST, 1 September 2019 | UPDATED: 17:27 AEST, 2 September 2019An emboldened far-right Alternative for Germany warned Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling coalition partners they could not carry on as before after luring many of their voters to come second in two regional elections in eastern Germany on Sunday.The party almost tripled its share of the vote in Saxony to 27.5 per cent and saw its support double in neighbouring Brandenburg, a major feat for a party set up only six years ago to oppose euro zone bailouts.Choosing to bask in their achievements rather than linger on their failure to win either state, AfD leaders in the Saxony parliament in Dresden were brimming with confidence over beer, wine and a buffet of mainly German sausages.They believe their gains can destabilise the national coalition of Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) and Social Democrats (SPD).'The CDU and SPD suffered losses. Our success here could trigger the dismantling of the coalition in Berlin,' said Alice Weidel, leader of the AfD's national parliamentary party.'The other parties can't continue with business as usual.'The AfD's success will certainly make coalition building difficult for the CDU conservatives in Saxony, which they have governed for almost three decades, and for the SPD in Brandenburg where the centre-left party has ruled since 1990.One of the SPD's interim leaders, Manuela Schwesig, expressed concern about the AfD's strength.'Our task must be to work out why so many chose to protest in this way. We must all be aware that the AfD's results show we must take account of the concerns of people in the East,' she said.There was still relief within the two ruling parties, given that a few months ago polls showed the AfD could become the strongest party in one or both of the two East German states.'Today's results are, in spite of the strong gains of the AfD in comparison to the last elections, a relief,' said Andreas Umland, senior Fellow at the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation. 'They indicate that, even in East Germany, the AfD remains a secondary political player.'The AfD, though, was looking on the bright side.'Today is an historic day,' Joerg Urban, AfD leader in Saxony where the AfD won its biggest-ever share of the vote, told jubilant supporters in the Dresden parliament.'We had the biggest rise in support,' he said after preliminary results put his party on just over 27 per cent, behind Merkel's CDU which shed more than 7 points. 'This is our biggest ever victory.'The AfD has drawn on voters' discontent with Merkel's coalition and especially on her 2015 decision to let in refugees, many from war zones in the Middle East and Africa.On the streets of Dresden, whose historical centre is still being renovated after it was almost completely obliterated shortly before the end of World War Two, the mood was more subdued.Fritz Busch, 82, a CDU voter born in Dresden who was 8 years old when the city was firebombed, said he was worried the backlash against Merkel's 2015 decision was tearing at German democracy.'She had no choice,' he said. 'We lost two World Wars that we had started and have a moral obligation to help and she understood that in 2015. AfD supporters simply don't get this'.At the central train station at the other end of the city, one refugee family from Libya was unaware of the elections.'The AfD don't want us here,' said Ashraf al-Haitham, standing next to his veiled wife and two children, adding: 'We'd rather live under AfD rule in Germany than go back.'(4) Far-left Protesters Spit on AfD Member Far-left Protesters Spit AfD Member During Argument 2018-09-25  1 COMMENTDuring a speech by a member of the anti-Islamization Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, foul-mouthed far-left protesters not only try to drown him out, they spit at a man handing out flyers.(5) Economist: The AfD’s strong showing in two state elections is a worrying portent from the eastGermany’s governing parties keep the far right at bay—justThe AfD’s strong showing in two state elections is a worrying portent  Sep 1st 2019 | DRESDENWILD CHEERS seem an odd response when your party has just shed almost one-fifth of its support. But that is how the Saxon branch of Germany’s centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), gathered in a sweaty restaurant in Dresden, hailed the result of a state election on September 1st. The fear before the elections, in Saxony as well as Brandenburg, another east German state, was that the hard-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) might come first in one or both. In the end, the centre held. In Saxony, a state it has run for 30 years, the CDU took 32% of the vote, down from 39% in 2014 but five points ahead of the AfD (whose supporters are pictured). In Brandenburg, a stronghold of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the party squeaked a three-point win over the AfD.Yet this was still a strong night for the AfD. Since the last elections, in 2014, it has almost doubled its support in Brandenburg and tripled it in Saxony (though it has flatlined in the past two years). It has exploited an increasingly fragmented party system, thriving in east Germany even as it has radicalised under the influence of an ultra-right grouping known as the Flügel ("Wing"). It has mobilised previous non-voters and disillusioned conservatives, in part by appealing to a specifically east German sense of grievance: fully two-thirds of voters in Saxony say that east Germans are "second-class citizens". Electoral maps of Brandenburg and Saxony show their respective eastern halves painted almost entirely in the blue of the AfD.Shunned by all other parties, the AfD cannot hope to enter government in either state. But its strength obliged mainstream politicians to campaign against it, and its success will force them to assemble unwieldy coalitions to keep it from power. That will strengthen the party’s argument that it represents the only genuine political alternative.Michael Kretschmer, Saxony_s CDU premier, will take the credit for ensuring that the blue wave was kept in check. During a tireless campaign, marked by endless beer-and-bratwurst sessions, he tilted rightwards on topics like energy and migration while holding the line against the AfD’s radicalism. His tactics sometimes tested the patience of his party’s national leadership, not least when he met Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg to urge an end to the sanctions imposed on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. He will now have to begin negotiations with left-wing parties to form a viable coalition in Saxony, which will antagonise the local party’s conservative base. But for now, his victory looks like vindication.Indeed, that the CDU and SPD look set to retain power in their respective states will marginally relieve the pressure on the federal government in Berlin, in which the two parties cohabit unhappily. But the future of the "grand coalition" remains uncertain. Struggling in the polls and riven by splits, the SPD is about to begin an internal contest for a new leader, having defenestrated the previous one after a poor European election result in May. Several of the candidates want the party to walk out of government, an act that would probably trigger an early election. The SPD will make its decision in December.In the meantime, the AfD’s success in eastern Germany has fuelled an anxious national conversation about the persistence of the country’s east-west divide. November 9th will mark the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. What ought to be a moment to celebrate German unity looks increasingly like an occasion to highlight its divisions.(6) EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton nominated Pussy Riot for the Sakharov Prize for Human Rights Expression from the Protectors: Balancing Freedom of expression with Public Sensitivities and Social Order in Western NationsLily Katherine EricssonSeton Hall UniversityLaw School Student Scholarship5-1-2013Recommended CitationEricsson, Lily Katherine, "Protecting Expression from the Protectors: Balancing Freedom of expression with Public Sensitivities and Social Order in Western Nations" (2013). Law School Student Scholarship. 214. https:/ / Ericsson Comparative Constitutional Law Final Paper December 5,2012

 IntroductionOn February 21,2012, members of the all-female Russian feminist group Pussy Riot staged a brief but incendiary "punk prayer service" on the altar of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. The performance consisted of five members of the group, dressed in brightly colored outfits with balaclavas covering their faces, bursting into the cathedral to give an a cappella performance of their song entitled "Virgin Mary, Put Putin Away." The song included cries of "Holy Sh*t!" and "B*tch, better believe in God" as well as more obscenities and mocking statements directed at President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church. The performance did not last longer than a minute, as officials quickly escorted the women out of the cathedral. While the group escaped without arrest, several suspected members were later detained by the police, and on March 3rd two were arrested - Maria Alyokhin and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova. A third member, Yekaterina Samutsevich, was arrested on March 15th. This "punk prayer" was the last of a number of provocative public protests held by Pussy Riot preceding the Russian presidential election, in which Putin sought and won his third term as the Kremlin.Alyokin, Tolokonnikova, and Samutsevich were arrested for "gross violation of public order and religious hatred’" and were subsequently charged with hooliganism motivated by religious hatred, a crime punishable by up to seven years in prison. After a high-profile trial before Moscow District Court Judge Marina Syrova, the three women were convicted of hooliganism on August 17th, and sentenced to two years in a penal colony. Judge Syrova stated that the women posed a danger to society through their "grave crimes," including "the insult and humiliation of the Christian faith and inciting religious hatred."The "punk prayer" was internationally publicized via a video posted by Pussy Riot on the media website YouTube. The video, a doctored version of the event with a recording of the group’s anti-Putin song dubbed over and clips of another church performance spliced in, made its way across the globe almost instantly. Reactions to the event, both national and personal, quickly followed.Western government officials, organizations, celebrities, and citizens flooded the press with criticisms of Pussy Riot’s censorship and punishment, citing freedom of expression and fundamental human rights. Protests and rallies in support of Pussy Riot were held in dozens of cities globally, including New York, Paris, London, Vienna, and Helsinki. In the United States, the Obama administration was "disappointed" by the verdict, and voiced concerns about the negative impact on freedom of expression in Russia. The New York Times portrayed Pussy Riot as a feminist punk band inspired by the American "riot grrl" movement of the 90’s, and likened them to the famed Guerilla Girls of the American art world. One young supporter was both inspired and astonished by the situation: "It’s cruel—they’re in jail for two years, and they just spoke their minds [...] I feel like if people did this more ... women would be more respected." The U.S. News presented a romanticized portrayal of the jailed Pussy Riot members and their participation in both Pussy Riot and the even more extremist protest group Voina, lauding the women as brilliant and brave artists fighting against a repressive government machine.Across the Atlantic, Western European countries also vocalized their dissent. British Foreign Minister Alistair Burt questioned Russia’s commitment to protecting fundamental rights and freedom, citing repeated requests by the British for "the Russians to protect human rights, including the right to freedom of expression, and apply the rule of law in a non-discriminatory and proportionate way." France expressed disapproval via an official statement on its Diplomacy website: "France supports worldwide principles of freedom of expression and opinion. In this context, the verdict so far seems particularly disproportionate, considering the minor facts alleged against them." In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel described the womens’ sentence as "excessively harsh" and "not compatible with the European values of the rule of law and democracy to which Russia, as a member of the Council of Europe, has committed itself."International organizations had even stronger reactions to the verdict. The European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton called the verdict "politically motivated intimidation," and in response nominated Pussy Riot for the Sakharov Prize for Human Rights. [...](7) Sakharov Prize awarded to opponents of Maduro, Assad, Gaddafi, Putin, Iran, Castro, Mubarak, China, Myanmar, Belarus and Turkey Mandela was the inaugural winner of the prize, together with Anatoly Marchenko.The awarding ceremony of the 1990 prize awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi inside the Parliament's Strasbourg hemicycle, in 2013. Suu Kyi could not collect it before as she had been under house arrest for decades.Year Recipient Nationality Notes Reference1988 Nelson Mandela South Africa Anti-apartheid activist and later President of South Africa [12]Anatoly Marchenko (posthumously) Soviet Union Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist [12]1989 Alexander Dubcek Czechoslovakia Slovak politician, attempted to reform the communist regime during the Prague Spring [12]1990 Aung San Suu Kyi Burma Opposition politician and a former General Secretary of the National League for Democracy [13]1991 Adem Demaçi Kosovo[a] Kosovo Albanian Politician and long-term political prisoner [12]1992 Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo Argentina Association of Argentine mothers whose children disappeared during the Dirty War [13]1993 Oslobo?enje Bosnia and Herzegovina Popular newspaper that defended Bosnia and Herzegovina as a multi-ethnic state [13]1994 Taslima Nasrin Bangladesh Ex-doctor, feminist author [13]1995 Leyla Zana Turkey Politician of Kurdish descent from Southeastern Turkey, who was imprisoned for 15 years for being member of PKK. [12]1996 Wei Jingsheng China An activist in the Chinese democracy movement [13]1997 Salima Ghezali Algeria Journalist and writer, an activist of women's rights, human rights and democracy in Algeria [13]1998 Ibrahim Rugova Kosovo Kosovo Albanian politician, the first President of Kosovo [12]1999 Xanana Gusmão East Timor Former militant who was the first President of East Timor [14]2000 ¡Basta Ya! Spain Organisation uniting individuals of various political positions against terrorism [15]2001 Nurit Peled-Elhanan Israel Peace activist [12]Izzat Ghazzawi Palestine Writer, professorDom Zacarias Kamwenho Angola Archbishop and peace activist2002 Oswaldo Payá Cuba Political activist and dissident [16]2003 Kofi Annan Ghana Nobel Peace Prize recipient and seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations [12] United Nations N/A (International)2004 Belarusian Association of Journalists Belarus Non-governmental organisation "aiming to ensure freedom of speech and rights of receiving and distributing information and promoting professionalstandards of journalism" [17]2005 Ladies in White Cuba Opposition movement, relatives of jailed dissidents [18]Reporters Without Borders N/A (International) France-based non-governmental organisation advocating freedom of the press [18]Hauwa Ibrahim Nigeria Human rights lawyer [18]2006 Alaksandar Milinkievic? Belarus Politician chosen by United Democratic Forces of Belarus as the joint candidate of the opposition in the presidential elections of 2006 [19]2007 Salih Mahmoud Osman Sudan Human rights lawyer [13]2008 Hu Jia China Activist and dissident [20]2009 Memorial Russia International civil rights and historical society [21]2010 Guillermo Fariñas Cuba Doctor, journalist and political dissident [22]2011 Asmaa Mahfouz Egypt Five representatives of the Arab people, in recognition and support of their drive for freedom and human rights. [23]Ahmed al-Senussi LibyaRazan Zaitouneh SyriaAli FarzatMohamed Bouazizi (posthumously) Tunisia2012 Jafar Panahi Iran Iranian activists, Sotoudeh is a lawyer and Panahi is a film director. [24][25]Nasrin Sotoudeh2013 Malala Yousafzai Pakistan Campaigner for women's rights and education [26]2014 Denis Mukwege Democratic Republic of the Congo Gynecologist treating victims of gang rape [27]2015 Raif Badawi Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabian writer and activist and the creator of the website Free Saudi Liberals [28]2016 Nadia Murad Basee Iraq Yazidi human rights activists and former abductees of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [29]Lamiya Aji Bashar2017 Democratic Opposition in Venezuela Venezuela Members of the country's National Assembly and all political prisoners as listed by Foro Penal Venezolano represented by Leopoldo López, Antonio Ledezma, Daniel Ceballos [es], Yon Goicoechea, Lorent Saleh, Alfredo Ramos [es] and Andrea González. The award was seen as rewarding the "courage of student activists and protesters in face of repression by Nicolas Maduro's government".[30] [31]2018 Oleg Sentsov Ukraine Film director, symbol of the struggle for the release of political prisoners held in Russia and around the worldThis page was last edited on 9 August 2019, at 14:20 (UTC).