28
Mother Dies As Her Flotilla Activist Son Is ‘Tortured’ in Israeli Detention (novaramedia.com)
submitted 6 months ago by [B] to c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital
1 comment fedilink hide all child comments
 

The mother of a Brazilian activist who was kidnapped and reportedly tortured by Israeli armed forces has passed away while waiting for her son to be freed from detention.  

​Teresa Regina de Ávila e Silva, 63, died in Brazil’s capital of Brasilia after years of illness, according to a statement from the Global Sumud Flotilla, the activist group behind an aid flotilla to Gaza that was illegally intercepted by Israel last week.  

​The statement described Regina as “a woman of remarkable joy and great strength”.

​It added: “She faced years of serious illness with courage, serenity, and dignity, driven by an unwavering will to live and surrounded by the unconditional dedication of her family. Thiago’s two-year-old daughter carries her name.”

​A post on the activist’s Instagram account, signed by his team, said: “We cannot begin to imagine how much this news will break Thiago’s heart when he finds out that his beloved mother has passed away.”

​Israel illegally detained Ávila and another activist, Saif Abukeshek, in international waters near Greece early on Thursday morning as they attempted to sail to Gaza on boats loaded with humanitarian aid.

Lawyers have said Ávila has been severely beaten and threatened with death by interrogators, adding that Abukeshek has also been subjected to torture.  

A court on Tuesday extended the detention of the two men until Sunday despite bringing no charges against them.

An Israeli state attorney has said the pair  are suspected of several offences, including links to a terrorist organisation. Israel claims to have secret evidence to support these allegations, but refuses to share it with the activists’ legal team.

Ávila and Abukeshek’s Lawyers told the Ashkelon magistrates’ court on Tuesday that the allegations are baseless and there are no legal grounds for continued detention. They noted that the interrogations have largely focused on the Global Sumud Flotilla, and that this suggests  “detention is an attempt to criminalise humanitarian aid and solidarity”.

Eleven nations, including Spain, Brazil, Turkey and South Africa, have released a joint statement condemning their detention as a “flagrant violation of international humanitarian law”.

From Novara Media via This RSS Feed.

1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 6 months ago

Poor woman died worrying about her son instead of holding him like she should have. What a horrible thing to do to both of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    5 comments in c/world view that post
    [–] 25 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    why the quotation marks on "tortured"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    In journalism, as opposed to internet forums, quotes are used to convey something someone else has literally said instead of representing something in a mocking tone. Someone called it torture (potentially an expert in calling things torture) so they used quotes to say "we're not calling this torture, someone more educated in this topic called it torture and we are leaning on their expertise to know what they're talking about"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    If they were unable to independently verify actual torture took place, proper journalism would not allow that to be reported as a fact (without quotes), instead they must rely on the report of a third party who alleges that "torture" took place, by quoting said third party. It is your job as the reader to decide if the third party is a trustworthy source for this information, not the journalist's. This is how proper journalism works. It is not intended to imply negative judgement of the use of the term "torture". It is intended to distinguish solely between what the journalist was able to establish as fact, versus what was reported by a potentially biased or potentially unreliable third party and let you know which part is the part you are responsible for evaluating critically. For people with critical thinking skills and knowledge of the journalistic process, this is valuable and important information to distinguish at a glance, sadly many people have spent their entire lives being pummeled with the relentless firehoses of sensationalist news media and social media which explicitly tell you what to think in the most biased ways possible and have nothing to do with journalism, so people no longer have the necessary experience and skills to understand how journalism is supposed to work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Oh so we're following good journalistic practices all of a sudden? /s

    I feel like journalistic integrity has been out the window for at least 10-15 years at least. This makes it hard to trust any news outlet. So yes, the onus is on the reader to have media literacy and determine integrity on their own, as you said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent