China Vs. Taiwan’s Academic Freedom – The Diplomat

Last month, Taiwans government and mediacelebrated its accomplishment of perfect scores in the political rights and civil liberties categories on Freedom Houses 2017 Freedom in the World report. It was the first time that Taiwan has been able to earnthe highest rating in the two categories in 11years. The main reason for this achievement, according to Freedom House, was due to demonstrations of media independence and academic freedom in recent years.

Ironically, almost exactly a month after the release of thereport, news emerged that threw Taiwans recently-lauded academic freedom into question.

On March 2, media outlets began reportingthat in December, Shih Hsin Universitys School of Lifelong Learning signed a so-called One China pledge with several Chinese universities. In the pledge, Shih Hsin University promised to not offer classes containing politically sensitive activities or discussions pertaining to one China, one Taiwan or Taiwanese independence. The agreement was signed prior to the arrival of 11Chinese exchange students to Shih Hsin University. Since then, five other universities have been confirmed, and almost half of all Taiwanese universities aresuspected, to also have signed similar pledges to exclude politically sensitive topics from classes offered to Chinese students.

Of course, it can be said that this controversy over the state of academic freedom in higher education institutions in Taiwan is inevitable. Taiwans dramatic increase inuniversities during and after the mid-1990s has seen university acceptance rates rise to more than 90percent in 2006, among Asias highest. However, low birthrates and an aging populationover the pastdecade mean thatuniversities, particularly lower-ranked, private, and remote ones, face student shortages. With the threat of closure looming, universities are accepting an increasing number of international students. Chinese students, since they were allowed to enroll in Taiwanese universities in 2011, have been the main contributor to the surge in international students. In 2016, Chinese students made up more than one-third of all international students in Taiwan.

Taiwanese universities are eager to take in more students, and China seems happy to supply them. However, ideological disparities and diplomatic grievances between local and Chinese students create tensions that sometimes erupt in very public manners. Incidents such as Chinese students cussing at the Taiwanese student representative who referred to exchange students as Chinese rather than mainland, and the immense public pressure piled on a mainland student who hoped to run for her schools student government all point toward deep mistrust and differences between people on both sides of the strait, particularly in the area of higher education. The most recent controversy highlights again the existing problems.

To Sign or Not to Sign

There was immediate outcry and outrage following the revelation that Shih Hsin University and five other higher education institutions have signed the so-called One China pledges. While all six universities have made statementsannouncing that the agreements had in no way breached the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, the declarations have done little to quell public anger and anxiety. Premier Lin Chuan noted that academic freedom should not be limited for political reasons, while Mainland Affairs Council Minister Katharine Chang criticized the request from Chinese universities to restrict speeches in the classroom as unnecessary, inappropriate, and unreasonable. Minister of Education Pan Wen-Chung went as far as to label the agreements illegal. Numerous academicsprotested against signing One China pledges as they see it as a step backwards on academic freedom.

This reaction is far from surprising. Freedom of any kind was hard-won in Taiwan, and any move seen to be curtailing free speech in classrooms and in research would invoke a backlash. Added to this is the growing tensionin cross-strait relations after the election of Democratic Progressive Party leader Tsai Ing-wen, and the rising percentage of Taiwanese who identify themselves as exclusively Taiwanese and neither Chinese nor both Chinese and Taiwanese. The fact universities are seemingly foregoing academic freedom in order togain more Chinese students is understandably troubling to the majority.

Academic freedom is undoubtedly important, but it is also important, for universities and citizens on both sides of the strait to ask some crucial questions. If signing One China pledges is the absolute precondition for enrolling Chinese students, should universities still be allowed to enter into such agreements based on their discretion? Moreover, what in reality could happen with the singing of such pledges?

There are many arguments to be made as to why higher education institutions should not sign One China agreements. For one, Taiwans robust democracy and freedom in the classrooms have allowed students to become critical thinkers who are increasingly more aware of and active in social movements and political causes. In fact, academic freedom as a whole is a fundamental element of a free and open society, a fact not lost on the protesting scholars, students, and the public. That the restrictions to what could be taught within a classroom seem to have come from China just added salt to the wound. Taiwan has suffered through numerous bullying incidents by China, from the missiles aimed at the island down to cyberbullying by Chinese netizens of a young Taiwanese pop star because she waved a Taiwanese flag on television. Any perceived attempts to influence, belittle, or coerce Taiwan would not be looked upon favorably, let alone what seems to be an outright attempt to control the academia.

On the other hand, there does not seem to be any real-world impact yet. Despite having signed the agreements some time ago, there have been no reports by students of their lecturers deliberately avoiding politically sensitive topics. Of course, self-censorship by professors would be very difficult to detect, but no faculty at the six named schools have reported any attempts by the administrations to influence their research and teaching as of now. The universities have also pointed out that the pledges are informal and non-binding, which gives the hope that perhaps the universities only entered into the agreements to appease their Chinese counterparts and nothing more.

This then raises the question of what the Chinese universities could gain from the pledges. It is tough at this moment to see what the Chinese higher education institutions (or the Chinese government) could possibly hope to gain. Of course, it could be that the Chinese universities simply hope to create friendly learning environments for their students, or that they wish to preempt any situation that may put Chinese students in a difficult position. Or, as some commentators suggest, the Chinese universities may have the more nefarious aim of attempting to influence directly with academic freedom in Taiwan.

Either way, even if the Taiwanese universities follow the pledges down to the letter, which seems almost impossible given the public outcry and restrictions of existing laws,it will have limited effect. Bysimply being immersed in the Taiwanese society, Chinese students are already being exposed to democracy and debates on the future of cross-strait relations. To avoid subjects deemed too politically sensitive, Chinese students would have to never visit bookstores that have numerous works banned in China, never get too close to billboards on the streets that bear giant posters of both DPP and KMT politicians, and never turn on the TV or visit restaurants, where the locals sometimes talk about politics with great gusto. Exposure to politically sensitive materials for Chinese students in Taiwan is inevitable. Therefore, it is very difficult to see any tangible benefits forthe Chinese administration and universities in pushingfor such pledges. In fact, it may even cause the Taiwanese to further be suspicious and wary of Chinese students, an attitude that may not be helpful for China in the long run.

Maintaining principles such as academic freedom is imperative for a modern democracy to function. Yet it is also important for the Taiwanese government and public to consider whether signing pledges may actually ultimately be more beneficial. Compromise on paper has so far not yet translated to compromise in reality, and if this is the absolute precondition the Chinese government will ask for before sending their students across the strait, Taiwan should carefully consider the proposition. After all, what is going on outside of classrooms has as much, if not more, influence on students aslectures or textbooks.

When Chinese students see, and even experience, protests, open criticisms of the government, free debate in parliament, and the dynamic media, their views of Taiwan and of democracy may be changed. Interactions with locals in their daily lives could also help Chinese students understand how Taiwanese see themselves and the cross-strait issue and foster friendly relations. Therefore, it may be that in reality the controversial agreements have been more beneficial to fostering understanding and acceptance of the Taiwanese peoples desire to determine their own futures among young Chinese students on the island.

A pledge on a piece of paper has many political implications. What is clear, however, is no matter what the Chinese government or universities were trying to achieve when they asked for the agreements, they will not be successful in obtaining the goal. Ultimately, regardless of what actions areeventually taken by the Taiwanese government or by individual higher education institutions, the very public debates and discussions, criticisms, and reflections in light of the controversy have shown just how far Taiwan has managed to come in terms of democracy. Just decades ago, such a public defense of and impassioned and rational deliberations on academic freedom would not have occurred. That is something that Taiwan could be proud of and should hold onto as it grapples with the challenges a lager number of international students bring.

Pei-Yu Wei graduated from New York University with a Masters degree in politics. She is a Fulbright Foreign Studies Grant candidate for 2017-2018.

View original post here:

China Vs. Taiwan's Academic Freedom - The Diplomat

Suspect in Freedom Park attack has history of sex-related crimes, police say – Las Vegas Sun

Metro Police

Officers escort Joseph Warren, 34, into the Clark County Detention Center on Tuesday, March 7, 2017, after his arrest in the sexual assault of a woman at Freedom Park on March 1, 2017, according to MetroPolice.

By Ricardo Torres-Cortez (contact)

Friday, March 10, 2017 | 6 p.m.

Investigators used DNA to link a registered sex offender to a sexual assault of a woman at Freedom Park last week, according to a Metro Police arrest report released today.

Joseph Warren has a history of arrests on suspicion of sex-related crimes that date back about a decade, police said. He was linked to an incident in late January in which he was seen masturbating in the driveway of a home about half a mile from the scene of the crime.

That case remained open at the time of the attack on the woman he encountered walking near the park in the early hours of March 1, according to police.

The arrest report states that the victim was walking, smoking a cigarette and carrying a bag of fast food when Warren approached her and engaged in small talk: First he asked for a cigarette and then asked what she was doing out so late.

Warren continued talking and followed her through the park, police said. He told her he wanted to hang out and to hold up because he needed to use the bathroom.

When she told him she was going to keep walking, Warren pulled her from behind as he choked her, police said. He then pulled out a meth pipe and forced the victim to take a hit, she told detectives.

The attack lasted several minutes in which Warren kept telling her that she was making it worse than it needed to be, according to the report.

A woman sleeping at the park later told police that she'd heard a woman's screams for about 20 minutes and later saw what appeared to be the shadow of a man running from the bathroom area, police said.

The victim summoned police to the park, 850 N. Mojave Rd., about 3:30 a.m., immediately after the attack, according to the report.

Authorities had obtained Warren's DNA profile after a Las Vegas sexual assault case from 2006, police said.

Warren registered as a sex offender after a 2006 conviction in a sex assault case for which he was ordered to serve at least two years in prison on one count of coercion, court records show. The sexual assault charge was either amended or dropped, records show.

After Warren's latest arrest, he was identified as a suspect in a similar sexual assault case from last April, police said. Detectives were awaiting results of a DNA analysis to move forward.

In 2011, he was arrested for failing to register a new address with Metro Police, according to the report.

In October 2015, Warren was arrested in North Las Vegas on suspicion of peeping through the opening of a home, according to the arrest report. Information on the status of that case wasn't immediately available.

A few months later, he was arrested in Las Vegas and charged with a two counts of open and gross lewdness for a similar incident, police said. That case was later closed and the outcome of it wasn't clear, according to court records.

Metro said on Thursday that they released his photo to the public in an effort to try to identify other possible victims, spokeswoman officer Laura Meltzer said.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Metro at 702-828-3421. To remain anonymous, contact Crime Stoppers at 702-385-5555 or online at crimestoppersofnv.com.

Follow this link:

Suspect in Freedom Park attack has history of sex-related crimes, police say - Las Vegas Sun

ACLU launching People Power to resist Trump immigration policies … – The Guardian

The ACLU is hosting a People Power action event on Saturday, when it will issue specific guidelines to activists on how they can have an impact on immigrant rights at a local level. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

The American Civil Liberties Union is launching an ambitious plan to create a swath of freedom cities capable of resisting Donald Trumps immigration policies.

The civil rights organization, which has emerged as one of the Trump administrations major foes, plans to leverage individual cities local authority to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The ACLU will reveal the freedom cities effort during the official launch of its new grassroots online platform, People Power, on Saturday. It will distribute a set of ordinances to activists, encouraging them to pressure local sheriffs and police commissioners to adopt more lenient policies on undocumented immigrants.

As Donald Trump does what he does, the greatest political power is in the cities and towns across America, said Faiz Shakir, the ACLUs national political director.

Because constitutionally, cities have sovereignty rights unto their own.

The ACLU is hosting a People Power action event on Saturday, when it will issue specific guidelines to activists on how they can have an impact on immigrant rights at a local level. The event will be live-streamed, and Shakir said ACLU supporters had already set up 2,300 watch parties across all 50 states.

Essentially we want people to think of their cities as cities of resistance, Shakir said. The ACLU will issue nine ordinances to activists on Saturday, and ask them to present them to their local officials.

The ordinances resemble a pledge that could be made by local sheriffs or police commissioners. They include a commitment to require a judicial warrant before detaining people at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and to not authorize or engage in surveillance of a person or group based on their perceived immigration status.

We will be asking people to arrange a meeting with their sheriff or their police commissioner or their local precinct commander and raise these draft ordinances at that meeting, Shakir said. And have them discuss what their policies are with respect to immigrants. That would form the basis for follow-up meetings and follow-up policy advocacy.

Activists will be encouraged to submit details of their meeting to the People Power website, Shakir said, enabling more people to attend. The ACLU has tripled its membership since the night of the November election, according to the Washington Post, and collected more than $80m in donations.

In planning the action, Shakir said he had deviated away from the theory that [political action] needs to be simple.

Im saying, OK, people are fired up and Im going to test that and give them something a little bit difficult and hard and complex but has meaningful impact.

The freedom cities plan represents a new foray into grassroots organizing for the ACLU, which has traditionally focused more on legislative action.

Shakir, a former senior adviser to former speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Senate minority leader Harry Reid, joined the ACLU on 20 January Trumps inauguration day to kick off the organizing effort. He has hired people who worked on Bernie Sanders campaign and for the White House under Barack Obama to work on the project.

The initial focus is on immigration, Shakir said, but the ACLU plans to expand, and have activists lobbying local officials on LGBT rights, womens equality, police surveillance and other issues.

Read more:

ACLU launching People Power to resist Trump immigration policies ... - The Guardian

EU Brexit chief: ‘Let Britons keep freedom of movement’ – The Guardian

A number of UK citizens have expressed a strong desire to maintain close ties to EU countries despite Brexit. Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

British citizens should be able to choose to keep various benefits of EU membership, including freedom of movement, the European parliaments chief Brexit representative has said.

Guy Verhofstadt said he hoped to convince European leaders to allow Britons to maintain certain rights if they apply for them on an individual basis.

His comments come as Theresa May attends the final EU leaders spring summit in Brussels on Friday before she is expected to trigger article 50, which could come as soon as next week.

Boris Johnson has urged the prime minister to reject EU demands for a divorce bill estimated at up to 52bn, but a Conservative MEP said the UK was very close to an agreement on the costs of Brexit and the rights of expats.

Verhofstadt told BBC Radio 4s Today programme: All British citizens today have also EU citizenship. That means a number of things: the possibility to participate in the European elections, the freedom of travel without problem inside the union ...

We need to have an arrangement in which this can continue for those citizens who on an individual basis are requesting it.

But the former Belgian prime minister said the European parliament was committed to ensuring that countries outside the EU did not have a better deal than member states.

He also warned that the parliament would have the power to veto any deal brokered between the UK and European commission.

Verhofstadt claimed to have received more than 1,000 letters from British citizens who do not want to lose their relationship with European civilisation and criticised the remain campaign for speaking only about economics rather than voters emotional connection to the continent. Some Britons felt they were losing a part of their identity by having their EU citizenship taken away, he said.

He described Brexit as a tragedy, disaster, catastrophe for the EU and said the rights of UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in Britain would be his first priority for negotiations after article 50 is triggered, beginning the formal process of Britain leaving the bloc.

EU and UK citizens cannot be the victim of the political games we have seen, Verhofstadt said. Reaching a deal on their futures would be the first chapter of a withdrawal agreement that needs to be finalised by November or December at the latest, he added.

The agreement will also include a deal on the size of the divorce bill and transition arrangements, he said. The remainder of the two-year leaving period will be spent starting to define the nature of Britains future partnership with the EU.

Verhofstadt ruled out a return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, warning that this could threaten the peace process. What cannot happen is that we destroy all the efforts that have been undertaken [in] the last 20-30 years to have peace there, so no hard border, we cannot return to the hard border, he said.

The Brexit representative had previously said the EU needed to be open and generous to individual British citizens and that politicians were considering how to enable them to maintain their ties to the continent.

He told an audience at Chatham House in January: We are scrutinising, thinking, debating how we could achieve that. That individual UK citizens would think their links with Europe are not broken.

In Brussels, the idea of EU citizenship rights for Britons has already been dismissed as a non-starter, with EU insiders pointing to vast political, legal and technical hurdles.

The EUs 27 remaining member states, which are in charge of Brexit negotiations, would have to rewrite treaties, which governments have repeatedly ruled out in recent years. Several senior EU experts have previously told the Guardian such a plan has no chance of success. This proposal is absolutely not serious, one former ambassador said, describing the idea as very vague and for the distant future.

EU diplomats also stress that Verhofstadt has no power to put the idea on the agenda of Brexit talks. The Liberal MEP is the parliaments Brexit representative, but will not have a place at the negotiating table, although the parliament will be informed and consulted.

The former Belgian prime minister hopes to use the parliaments right to veto the deal a blunt, but potentially deadly instrument to set the agenda. But he may face difficulty in winning support from the parliament to hand out meaningful EU citizenship benefits to Britons. MEPs from other political groups believe he would struggle to convince the two biggest groups, the centre-right bloc and the Socialists, to back his idea.

Verhofstadt, who leads the Liberals, the fourth-largest group, does not have unqualified support among MEPs. Privately, some senior MEPs from rival groups have dismissed his claim that the parliament would veto a deal it does not like. A member of one of the largest groups told the Guardian that MEPs would fall into line with their governments once a deal has been reached between EU leaders.

Formal negotiations cannot begin until May triggers article 50, which she has promised to do by the end of March, but the Conservative MEP Vicky Ford told the Today programme the UK and EU were nearing agreement on a potential Brexit divorce bill and the rights of Britons living in other EU countries.

Both sides are very close on the money, Ford said. The EU are saying they will only ask us to contribute what weve committed to and the prime minister is saying we dont walk away from commitments. If that principle is agreed, then we can move on.

On Thursday, Johnson, the foreign secretary, called on May to emulate Margaret Thatcher and resist EU demands for money, but the Irish taoiseach, Enda Kenny, was among the EU leaders supporting a fee.

View original post here:

EU Brexit chief: 'Let Britons keep freedom of movement' - The Guardian

Getting freedom from health – Jackson Hole News&Guide

Whats the rush on repealing Obamacare? Its true President Trump did promise speediness during the campaign. (Youre going to end up with great health care for a fraction of the price and thats gonna take place immediately after we go in. OK? Immediately. Fast. Quick.) But that was before he discovered that health care was complicated.

This sort of thinking will send us back to discussions about how our president has no permanent convictions on any subject except the inferiority of Arnold Schwarzenegger as a reality show host. Lets move on. We have a national disaster to watch unrolling.

Under orders to do something immediatelyfastquick, the House has begun to race through what Republican leaders hope will be Obamacare repeal and replacement so swift their membership will hardly notice its happening.

They just want to get it out and get it on, grumbled Rep. Frank Pallone, of New Jersey, the leading Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which rejected a proposal to hold the bill until Congress got the requisite estimates on how much the whole thing would cost and how many people it would leave uncovered. Details shmetails.

We can act now or we can keep fiddling around and squander this opportunity to repeal Obamacare, and begin a new chapter of freedom for the American people, said Rep. Kevin Brady, of Texas, the chairman of another committee thats pushing the bill through at lightning speed.

This offers us our annual opportunity to recall when Janis Joplin sang that freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.

The GOP replacement bill is very big on freedom.

Theres freedom for wealthier Americans not to pay taxes that help subsidize health insurance for their low-income fellow citizens. Freedom for those who can afford coverage to refuse to buy it. Freedom for insurance companies to hike their prices for middle-aged customers. Freedom for the states to stop providing Medicaid-backed health insurance for maternity care, when nearly half of all the births in the country are currently covered by Medicaid.

It gives power back to the insurance companies to discriminate against womens health care, which is more expensive, said Sen. Patty Murray, of Washington.

Our new health and human services secretary, Tom Price, is very big on the freedom of doctor-patient relations. Price, a surgeon, talks constantly about keeping the government from stepping in. (You need to know that what your doctor is recommending for you is exactly what he or she believes is right for you based upon education and science, not based upon what Washington is telling them he or she must do.)

Unless, of course, the doctor and patient are deciding whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy.

Price is a longtime opponent of abortion in all shapes and forms. He twice co-sponsored bills to establish that the Constitution protects the rights of zygotes from the moment of fertilization. That would ban not only abortion but also morning-after pills and, according to some advocates, birth control methods like IUDs.

The Obamacare repeal bill makes it much less attractive for insurance companies to cover abortions in their policies and includes a ban on federal funds for Planned Parenthood. Lately, it seems as if everything the House touches includes a ban on funds for Planned Parenthood. Someday soon you will learn that there was a Planned Parenthood amendment attached to a measure renaming a post office in Nebraska after a recently deceased World War II veteran.

You wouldnt think getting rid of an organization that provides crucial services like breast exams, family planning and checks for cervical cancer would be a major fixture of a health bill. But this is an administration that wants to fight terrorism by defunding the Coast Guard to pay for a wall. What can I tell you?

Planned Parenthood does not get federal funds for abortions, but it does get a lot of money for its other work with underserved poor and rural Americans. Trump has let it be known that hed support the organization if it just stopped providing abortions, period. Planned Parenthood refused, under the theory that women need, um, the freedom to make that choice on their own.

So youve got two sides here, people. One believes all Americans should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their bodies. The other believes all Americans should have the freedom to not have health insurance. You pick. But do it fast.

2017 NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

Read the original here:

Getting freedom from health - Jackson Hole News&Guide

Hometown Hero: Operation TBI Freedom – FOX21News.com

Operation TBI Freedom is this years Community Partner Hometown Hero for their work with veterans and active duty members who have suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury or other combat related trauma.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. Since Operation TBI Freedom began in 2008 the organization has served over 2,000 thousand individuals and their families.

In the Army culture we call it Battle Buddies. You never leave your Battle Buddy behind and were not going to leave our veterans behind, said Frederick Hinton, Eligibility Specialist for Operation TBI Freedom.

Operation TBI Freedom works with veterans and active duty members who have suffered from a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) or other combat related trauma.

We offer non-clinical case management. What that means to us is we really walk the journey with the veteran that has suffered the TBI, said Susan Holmes, Program Manager for Operation TBI Freedom.

Case managers create a life plan for their clients which covers all aspects of real life.

Anything thats going on in their lives. So it could be their medical or their mental health aspect, it could be something going on directly with their injury, but it also could be their financial situation, housing, familial support structures, said Holmes.

Were Colorado first and were Colorado proud of our veterans here, said Hinton. We want to put them first and those that have a TBI are dealing with a lot of invisible wounds.

Hinton, now works for Operation TBI Freedom, but he was once a client himself.

I was in a dark place. I didnt want to do much of anything. I started to isolate myself and Im married, 24 years of marriage. I have three kids and I was just out there flapping in the wind, he said.

Hinton has a TBI and served in the Army for 21 years.

I didnt have a purpose when I got out, he said.

Hes since found his purpose again, serving those he used to serve alongside.

This truly is a calling for everybody that works here, what we do, we dont do it for the money. We do it because we care about our brothers and sisters and we do it for all branches of service, Hinton said.

Holmes said the reason why the program works is because people like Hinton do care.

Every single Case Manager out there is a 20-plus year veteran, she said. Theyve all been there and done that. They speak the language.

We dont want them to be a statistic, said Hinton. We dont want them to end up being a number because theyre not a number. Theyre important to us and they should be important to everybody else.

Hometown Heroes will get their awards March 16 during a dinner at the Broadmoor.

To get involved with the Red Cross visit, http://www.redcross.org/news/event/Pikes-Peak-Chapter-Hometown-HeroesColorado-Springs

To learn more about Operation TBI Freedom visit, https://craighospital.org/programs/operation-tbi-freedom

See the article here:

Hometown Hero: Operation TBI Freedom - FOX21News.com

Home away from home: Freedom Christian Fellowship hosts international students – The Herald Journal

Come over to Revs. Ron and Karen Flessners home in Logan on Wednesday nights and you can be sure to experience a hearty dinner, followed by song, prayer and Bible study.

Its all part of Freedom Christian Fellowship, a multicultural, multi-ethnic, non-denominational effort by the native midwestern couple.

Our mission is to love God with all of our heart, soul and strength, said Karen Flessner, co-founder, executive director and associate pastor of the fellowship.

Story continues below video

Freedom Christian Fellowship welcomes anyone in the Cache Valley community, but places emphasis on international students from Utah State University.

That emphasis is reflected in the Flessners basement, where worship takes place every week. Small flags from different countries sit on a table. Framed pictures of past congregations from places like Africa and South Korea hang on the walls.

That is who we are, that is what we are, said Karen Flessner as she gave a tour around the basement.

Ron and Karen Flessners lives and their spiritual evolution are part of the story of how Freedom Christian Fellowship came to be.

Ron was born and raised in Illinois. His father was a pastor, but Ron claimed he really didnt believe the gospel until he was 16 years old.

It was one summer during the middle of his teenage tears when he found God, after he participated in a tent meeting service in central Illinois. Ron received his master of divinity degree in his native state, and began serving a mission in Illinois and Michigan in 1980.

Karen was born and raised in a Muslim country where her family practiced Taoism and Buddhism. She left her home country in 1995 to come study at Western Michigan University. Describing herself as a first generational curse breaker in her family, she converted to Christianity the same year. Karen became a professional minister and clinical Christian counselor.

Ron and Karen first met in February 1998 at a campus ministry retreat in Michigan. The following November, they were married.

The Flessners came to Logan in 2006 to start Freedom Christian Fellowship.

This came about through prayer, Karen Flessner said. The Lord called us.

Flessner said the goal of Freedom Christian Fellowship is not to entertain, despite the fact that on most Bible study nights, the family might break out the guitar or bongos to accompany their singing.

We are here for God, Karen Flessner said. We are dependent on God to lead us. We dont do anything on our own.

Get along with each other

Ron talked about the importance of bringing international students into Freedom Christian Fellowship.

God our creator loves us no matter the color, ethnicity or nationality, he wrote in an email to The Herald Journal. While here in Logan, Utah, we need to learn how and to practice how to understand and get along with each other.

But having international students over for dinner and worship goes beyond learning and understanding the Bible or God, Ron Flessner said.

When someone is new in town, especially in a new culture, that person needs to learn how to play by the new rules and how to be successful in their new daily lives, he wrote.

The Flessners expressed their support for the international students in their congregation.

We believe international students, scholars and their families should not feel alone or left out while they are in Logan, Ron Flessner wrote. If permitted, we would like to be their friend and family away from family. We would like them to feel at home, while away from their home.

Jinsu Choi, a USU graduate student majoring in civil environmental engineering, hails from South Korea.

Its been a big transition. I couldnt speak English at all when I first came here, Choi said. Ron and Karen gave me a lot of help.

Back home, when he was growing up, Chois family would attend church, but he did not.

I came here with a lot of challenges and maybe thats why I became a Christian, Choi said. Ron and Karen gave me a lot of opportunities.

He said got involved in the Freedom Christian Fellowship when he started playing guitar for the Flessners in their weekly Bible studies.

I started to read the Bible and I pray before eating. I go to church every Sunday, Choi said. Previously, my friends were any people, but today my friends are people in a church.

Samuel Serrano, a sophomore majoring in graphic design, came to Logan last year from Colombia. He heard about the Freedom Christian Fellowship through a fair on campus, where he met Ron Flessner.

I was looking for a Christian church because Ive been Christian my whole life, Serrano said. There are a million Mormon ones and a couple Christian ones.

He said joining Freedom Christian Fellowship has been a great experience.

Youre building your relationship with God the more you know about him, the better it makes you as a person, Serrano said.

Bible study with the congregation is great, he said, but the weekly dinners and togetherness with the Flessners is something else.

I feel like Im part of the family, he said.

Read this article:

Home away from home: Freedom Christian Fellowship hosts international students - The Herald Journal

Freedom, revolt and pubic hair: why Antonioni’s Blow-Up thrills 50 years on – The Guardian

Memory is a great maker of fictions. Take the 1960s. The decade exists in the public imagination in a quite different way from the one most people actually lived through. The old line goes that if you can remember the 60s you werent there, but its probably more truthful to say you were there, only you didnt hang out in Carnaby Street, have your clothes made by Mr Fish or trip on acid while driving a Lotus Elan. You didnt swing. But there was something infectious in the air all the same, something in the decades high summer of 1967 that smacked irresistibly of a burgeoning freedom and revolt. Maybe it was the news that homosexuality had been decriminalised, or hearing the Beatles A Day in the Life for the first time, or the unprecedented glimpse of pubic hair in that film at the Odeon. What was its name again?

The film was Blow-Up, and 50 years after its UK release it reverberates way beyond the notoriety of Jane Birkin showing her bits on screen. Appropriately for a picture about perception and ambiguity, it plays very differently from the one I remember first seeing years ago I could have sworn it was in black and white, for a start. It marked a departure from director Michelangelo Antonionis previous studies in alienation, most notably La Notte, in which Jeanne Moreau wanders lonely about the streets of Milan while the beautiful people party on in listless defiance of boredom.

Blow-Up, his first English-language production, dives head-first into swinging London, seen from behind the wheel of a dandy photographers Rolls convertible already, younger readers will be thinking of Austin Powers as he bounces from slumming in a dosshouse to cavorting with dolly birds and models in his studio. There is a reason Antonioni has made the protagonist a photographer a man who looks but doesnt see just as there was for replacing his original actor, Terence Stamp, with the relatively unknown David Hemmings.

But the film has something else Antonioni had never deigned to include before: a story. An oblique and maddening one, for sure, but a story nonetheless. The photographer, fed up with the birds and the mod fashion shoots, goes off in search of fresh air and fresh mischief. He finds himself in a park, where the breeze sounds in the tops of the trees like the sea at low tide. In the distance, he sees a man and a woman, together, canoodling. He points his camera and takes a few snaps of them. On his way out, the woman (Vanessa Redgrave) chases after him and demands, urgently, that he hands over the film. He refuses. She tracks him back to his studio where they smooch, smoke a joint, play some music and he sends her away with the wrong roll.

And here is where the film unfolds its most brilliant and memorable sequence, the part you want to watch over and over again. Alone in his dark room, our hero blows up the photos from the park and discovers that he may have recorded something other than a tryst. Cutting between the photographer and his pictures, Antonioni nudges us ever closer until we see the blow-ups as arrangements of light and shadow, a pointillistic swarm of dots and blots that may reveal a gunman in the bushes, and a body lying on the ground. Has he accidentally photographed a murder?

Contemporary audiences watching the way Thomas, the photographer, storyboards his grainy images into evidence would surely have been reminded of Zapruders film of the Kennedy assassination in 1963: the same patient build-up, the same slow-motion shock. When Thomas returns to the park he does indeed find a corpse. Its the grassy knoll moment. We feel both his confusion and his excitement at turning detective hes involved in serious work at last instead of debauching his talent on advertising and fashion. But, abruptly, his investigative work goes up in smoke.

Next morning, the photographs and the body have disappeared. The woman has gone, too. This links to larger fears of conspiracy, a sense that shadowy organisations are hovering in the background, covering up their crimes and getting away with it.

Blow-Up looks back to Zapruder but also ahead to Watergate and a run of films that riffed in a similar manner to Antonioni, with his inquiring, cold-eyed lens: Gene Hackman, stealing privacy for a living as the surveillance genius in The Conversation (1974); witness elimination and the training of assassins by a corporation in The Parallax View (1974); later still, Brian de Palmas homage to the sequence via John Travoltas sound engineer in the near-namesake Blow Out (1981). But these sinister implications are not on the directors mind. Where we anticipate a murder mystery, Antonioni balks us by posing a philosophical conundrum. It is not about mans relationship with man, he said in an interview at the time, it is about mans relationship with reality.

Having created the suspense, he declines to see it through and sends Thomas off on an enigmatic nocturnal wander to a party where he gets stoned, to a nightclub full of zombified youth where, bafflingly, he makes off with a broken guitar. (The films other symbolic artefact is an aeroplane propeller he buys in an antique shop). Finally, and famously, he encounters a bunch of mime-faced rag-week students acting crazy and playing a game of imaginary tennis on an empty court. We even hear the thock of the tennis ball, though there isnt one in sight. Antonioni seems to offer only a shrug: reality, illusion, who can tell the difference? Whenever I watch Blow-Up, I feel a sense of anticlimax, of a road not just missed, but refused. Yet as much as it irritates, it still intrigues, and asks a question that relates not merely to cinema but to any work of art: can we enjoy something even if we dont get it?

Blow-Up has great things in it Hemmingss insolent gaze, how he throws himself across the floor to reach the phone

Its a question discussed by a mother and daughter in my new novel, Eureka, on seeing the film in the week of its Uk release, in March 1967. Eureka itself is about the making of a mystery film in London, not another Blow-Up, but an adaptation of Henry Jamess short story The Figure in the Carpet: two friends revere an ageing novelist, who tells one of them that no reader has ever located the elusive secret of his work, the string the pearls were strung on, the buried treasure, the figure in the carpet. The friends efforts to discover what it is becomes an increasingly fraught and bitter contest. The screenplay is interspersed between the storys chapters.

Reviews of Blow-Up at the time gave it a guarded welcome. Penelope Houston in the Spectator called it a failure for which I would trade 10 successes. Dilys Powell reckoned Antonionis cinema beautiful and difficult, and suggested that his films might become even stranger and more exciting. Not many would agree that they did. What might have been a turning point led only to a cul-de-sac. Vagueness and obfuscation hardened into a style. Zabriskie Point (1970), his meditation on America, is a lowering, vacuous mess. The Passenger (1975), about another disappearing act, had its fans, though Kenneth Tynan wasnt one of them: Maria Schneider and Jack Nicholson are under-directed to the point of extinction. One doesnt mind (one can even tolerate) bad acting: but slow bad acting is insupportable. There is something terribly dismal in his vision of humankind, and terribly humourless. Few major filmmakers have shown so little faith in story.

But Blow-Up, flawed as it is, can still thrill us 50 years on. It has great things in it Hemmingss insolent blue gaze, and the daft way he throws himself across the floor to reach the phone; the wind soughing through the trees in the park; the busy jazz score by Herbie Hancock; the unsettling charm of those London streets. And, in the sequence from which it takes its title, that rapt attention to the photographers art really is something to behold.

Eureka by Anthony Quinn is published by Jonathan Cape on 6 July. To order a copy for 11.04 (RRP 12.99) go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over 10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of 1.99.

See the rest here:

Freedom, revolt and pubic hair: why Antonioni's Blow-Up thrills 50 years on - The Guardian

Trump Won Big In House Conservatives’ Districts Will They Defy Him On Health Care? – NPR

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, speaks out Tuesday against the GOP leadership's plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, flanked by fellow Republican Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (from left) and Jim Jordan of Ohio as well as Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Mark Wilson/Getty Images hide caption

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, speaks out Tuesday against the GOP leadership's plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, flanked by fellow Republican Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina (from left) and Jim Jordan of Ohio as well as Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Updated at 5:15 p.m. ET

Some of the most conservative members of the House are at a crossroads over the plan from GOP leadership and the White House to replace the Affordable Care Act. Those lawmakers say their choice is between supporting a bill that goes against many of their principles, or falling in line behind President Trump who won overwhelming support in their district.

"Do we need to lower the bar in what we believe as conservatives simply because a Republican is in the White House?" asked House Freedom Caucus member Mark Sanford, a Republican from South Carolina.

The overwhelming answer from members of the conservative caucus and other major outside conservative groups is no at least right now.

But there are reasons that President Trump, Vice President Pence, House Speaker Paul Ryan and others sound confident. For a president who built his career on being a master negotiator, it's now his job to sell these skeptical members on the merits of the bill and the breadth of his win in their districts shows there could be fertile ground to do so.

The president has repeatedly underscored that he believes he has a mandate to overhaul health care, given his win last November and GOP sweeps in Congress. In the areas that belong to those holding out on the replacement bill, Trump won, as he would say, "big league."

Trump carried the districts of the House Freedom Caucus members by an average margin of about 26 points. He won more than 20 of these districts by 20 points or more and carried 27 of them by double digits.

Yet the lawmakers almost all won their races comfortably, too allowing them to claim a mandate from constituents just as Trump has. Lawmakers could even argue they have more purity on the issue, given Trump's fluctuations on enumerating exactly what he wants in a health care bill and lack of specifics during the campaign.

The GOP can still pass the American Health Care Act even if it loses as many as 20 votes or more, if any Democrats change their minds.

Looking at it another way, Trump needs to woo only 10 of these conservative members over to his side but that also assumes other GOP centrists stay on board too. Ultimately, as the White House said on Wednesday, the president is prepared to do everything he needs to do to get there.

"We are out in full sell mode all around the country, talking about how we think this is the best way to solve the problem that the American people face and why we believe that the solutions that we put forward in this bill are the right ones and that will benefit them," White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Wednesday.

Members of the Freedom Caucus could still be swayed, as even the group's chairman confessed on Wednesday.

"I would be the first to admit that calls from the president will certainly influence members and to suggest otherwise would be to ignore politics," Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina told the Associated Press. "Whether you fully supported Donald Trump or not, getting a call from President Trump obviously makes a difference."

Plus, some of Trump's top lieutenants selling the bill once served in the House, where they had plenty of conservative bona fides. Pence spent 12 years there as a representative from Indiana; Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price just left his position as a Georgia representative; and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney was a South Carolina representative before Trump plucked him for the job. Mulvaney has already invited members of the Freedom Caucus to join him for a bowling night at the White House next week.

Still, there are some long-simmering tensions evident in the conservative backlash to the new bill. Most members of the Freedom Caucus came around on Trump during the campaign, even if many did not initially support him. Yet the divide over health care underscores the skepticism some conservatives still have with the White House and GOP leadership.

Conservative critics want a clean repeal of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and say that this new replacement plan does not comport with their principles. Among the issues they have with the bill is the tax credits the new plan provides, which could actually result in a rebate from the IRS to cover premiums, and the delay in doing away with the original law's Medicaid expansion program.

This is the young White House's first real legislative challenge, and it's one that could still be tough for a president who entered office without any legislative or government experience.

Trump expressed optimism on Tuesday that "everybody" would eventually support the House bill he has now thrown his weight behind even as members of the House Freedom Caucus and their allies on the Senate side held a news conference to malign the bill.

Trump's popularity has fallen since he took office, but he is still viewed favorably in the most conservative areas of the country. Trump himself seemed to acknowledge that could drastically change: He reportedly told House Republicans that the 2018 midterms could become a "bloodbath" if they fumble this health care bill.

At the same time, political action groups like the Club for Growth say they would use the vote in scoring how conservative a member is; a vote for the bill could mean a lower ranking, and more vulnerability for a primary challenge.

The Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity says the members who stand up to oppose the new bill will have its full support going forward.

"From our perspective, bad policy equals bad politics as well," the advocacy group's CEO, Luke Hilgemann, told NPR. "This proposal needs to go to the ash heap of history, as does Obamacare."

See the article here:

Trump Won Big In House Conservatives' Districts Will They Defy Him On Health Care? - NPR

Muhammad Ali’s son, ex-wife launch religious freedom campaign against Trump – USA TODAY

USA Today Network Errin Haines Whack, The Associated Press 12:14 a.m. ET March 9, 2017

Muhammad Ali Jr., claims airport security held him and questioned him about his name and religion. Time

Muhammad Ali Jr. and Laila Ali arrive at the funeral home before the motorcade for their father, Muhammad Ali, who died on June 3. June 10, 2016(Photo: Michael Clevenger/Courier-Journal)

Muhammad Ali's son and ex-wife declared a "showdown" over religious freedom against President Trump a month after they were detained by immigration officials at a Florida airport.

Muhammad Ali Jr. and his mother, Khalilah Camacho Ali, are headed to Washington Thursday to meet with lawmakers to discuss the issue and their experience. They are also calling for an end to Trump's travel ban and are launching a "Step Into the Ring" campaign, drawing on support of former boxing greats including Evander Holyfield, Larry Holmes and Roberto Duran. They are framing the effort directly as a fight against the president, using the hashtag #AlivsTrump.

Trump has shown admiration for Ali in the past, calling Ali a "truly great champion" when the boxer died of Parkinson's disease in June. Trump also singled out an Ali exhibit during a recent visit to the National Museum of African-American History and Culture in Washington.

The Alis were invited by Democrats to a forum organized by members of the House subcommittee on border security. The Alis will address lawmakers and push to testify at a formal hearing.

"There shouldn't be a travel ban," said Khalilah Camacho Ali. "If I don't speak up now, they're going to keep harassing us."

The mother and son, both born in the United States, were returning from a Black History Month event in Jamaica on Feb. 7 when they were detained and questioned at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. They said they were asked if they were Muslim and explained their relationship to the former heavyweight champion repeatedly.

"I'm paranoid. I'm just waiting for somebody to mess with me. That's not a good feeling when you have to travel," Khalilah Camacho Ali said when asked how the incident has affected her.

READ MORE:

Muhammad Ali Jr.: I wasnt terrorizing anybody

Ali's son not alone in facing border scrutiny

The experience left them convinced that they were targeted because they are Muslim and have Arabic names. Khalilah Camacho Ali, who was born and raised Muslim, said she has always fought for religious rights, and pushed her former husband to use his fame to do the same.

"We, as a family, have been fighting this for a very long time," she said. "We are going to continue to fight for religious justice."

A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection has said Ali Jr. was held for questioning, but not because of his name or religion.

Trump signed his first travel ban a week into his presidency. The executive order sparked confusion across the country, causing chaotic scenes at airports and prompting lawsuits.

This week, he announced a revised version that bars new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries and temporarily shuts down America's refugee program. It also removes Iraq from the list of banned countries and removes language prioritizing religious minorities that some viewed as a way to help Christians get into the United States while excluding Muslims.

The new order is set to take effect on March 16.

Muhammad Ali, a three-time heavyweight boxing champion, also fought for civil rights. He refused to enter the military draft during the Vietnam War as a conscientious objector after converting to Islam. The decision cost him his heavyweight title and he was convicted of draft evasion.

The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in his favor.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2mILgJ9

See original here:

Muhammad Ali's son, ex-wife launch religious freedom campaign against Trump - USA TODAY

Georgia: Media Freedom at Risk | Human Rights Watch – Human Rights Watch

UPDATE:On March 7, the seven-member Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights extended the interim measure suspending the enforcement of the Supreme Court's March 2 decision "until further notice."

(Tbilisi) An ownership dispute over Georgias most-watched television broadcaster, Rustavi 2, has sparked serious concerns about potential government interference with both media and the judiciary, Human Rights Watch said today.

Rustavi 2s current leadership, the political opposition, and many independent groups see a lawsuit by a former owner seeking to retake ownership and a March 2, 2017 ruling by the Supreme Court endorsing the change as a government-orchestrated move to take over the opposition-minded station. The European Court of Human Rights has ordered temporary suspension of the Supreme Court decision and instructed the Georgian authorities to refrain from interference in the station.

A government-favored change in the editorial policy of Rustavi 2 would deliver a serious blow to Georgias media pluralism and could significantly limit the publics access to opposition views, said Giorgi Gogia, South Caucasus director at Human Rights Watch. The entire process of contesting Rustavi 2s ownership threatens media freedom and judicial independence and demands further scrutiny.

Concerns about potential government interference in Rustavi 2 have been exacerbated by other developments in the overall media landscape in Georgia that have reduced the space for critical opposition media, Human Rights Watch said.

The March 2 ruling by Georgias highest court of appeal said that the stations ownership should revert to Kibar Khalvashi, a businessman who owned it from 2004 to 2006, and who alleged he had been improperly forced to sell the station at below market value by then-president Mikheil Saakashvili. The Supreme Courts Grand Chamber, consisting of nine judges, issued a unanimous decision the same day it took up the case, declining to allow the parties to make oral arguments. The written judgement is expected in a month.

Khalvashi initiated the lawsuit in August 2015, claiming he had been strong-armed into relinquishing his majority stake by the then-Georgian leadership. Khalvashis key evidence was a report on the valuation of Rustavi 2 shares in 2005-2006 by a current state forensic bureau expert based on data Khalvashi provided. The report showed the shares were worth far more than Khalvashi received.

Rustavi 2s current shareholders dispute the reports validity, alleging that the valuation was based on inconclusive financial data and had not been compiled in accordance with international valuation standards. In November 2015, a judge from Tbilisi City Court ruled to reinstate Khalvashi as the majority owner. An appeal court upheld the decision in June 2016.

Rustavi 2s current owners, brothers Giorgi and Levan Karamanishvili, are widely seen as close associates of Saakashvili. Nika Gvaramia, the stations current general director, served in several high-level government posts during Saakashvilis administration, and maintains close contact with him. Khalvashi and the current government are both strong opponents of Saakashvili.

The current owners, numerous Georgian human rights groups, Georgias ombudsman, and many of Georgias international partners have raised questions and concerns throughout the ownership dispute, suggesting possible government interference to silence critical, and in particular, opposition media.

Senior government officials have on multiple occasions made clear not only that they take issue with Rustavi 2s editorial stand, but that they want to see the stations ownership changed and given to Khalvashi, expressing clear support for the courts to act to strip the current leadership at the station.

The Tbilisi City Court judge also issued an interim injunction in November 2015, replacing Rustavi 2s top management, including Gvaramia, with temporary management, contending that the stations managers were too focused on the ownership dispute, to the detriment of other issues of public interest. Local human rights groups and Georgias international partners criticized the move as an attempt to affect the channels editorial policy.

A week later, the judge overturned his decision and reinstated the broadcasters top management. The Constitutional Court then suspended the civil procedure code clause that had allowed the appointment of temporary managers.

Domestic observers have raised questions about the independence and impartiality of the judges in this case. Rustavi 2 attorneys unsuccessfully sought to get the first-instance court judge recuse himself on the basis that pending criminal proceedings against the judges mother could have been used by the government as leverage against him.

The stations current director, Gvaramia, has also made credible allegations of intimidation to pressure him to resign. In October 2015, Gvaramia alleged that a government official threatened to leak a personal video of him if he refused to step aside. Although the prosecutors office initiated an investigation, the results were inconclusive. A few days later, audio recordings appeared online, allegedly of Gvaramia receiving instructions from Saakashvili to prepare for a possible physical confrontation with the authorities to defend the station.

The Georgian government has consistently denied that it backs Khalvashis efforts to regain ownership or that it has interfered in anyway with the process. The government issued a statement the day after the Supreme Court ruling, emphasizing that [T]he Government of Georgia has full appreciation and respect towards the freedom of media and does its best to protect and ensure a pluralistic media environment.

On March 3, Rustavi 2 lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights contesting the March 2 decision, saying that it violates guarantees under the European Convention on Human Rights. In a rare move on the same day, the European Court instructed the Georgian government to temporarily suspend enforcement of the March 2 decision and to abstain from interfering with the applicant companys editorial policy in any manner. The government has complied with the temporary measure, which is to remain in effect until March 8. The European Court said it would treat the Rustavi 2 case as a priority.

The Georgian governments compliance with the suspension measure is a positive move, Human Rights Watch said. It should agree to extend the suspension until the European Courts final judgement and to allow scrutiny of all the human rights concerns raised by the ownership dispute.

The Council of Europe places a high premium on media pluralism and diversity of media content as integral to freedom of expression and information and essential for the functioning of a democratic society. It has called on it members to adopt policies designed to foster as much as possible a variety of media and a plurality of information sources, thereby allowing a plurality of ideas and opinions. The European Court has long held that the state has a key obligation to ensure media pluralism, noting that this observation is especially valid in relation to audio-visual media, whose programmes are often broadcast very widely.

In February, the leadership of the Public Broadcaster announced controversial plans to suspend political talk shows, citing reorganization plans to upgrade the stations equipment and content.

In August 2015, Imedi TV, the second most-watched station, suspended its current-affairs political talk shows amid claims of government interference and pressure. The station merged with two other smaller broadcast stations, and now is largely viewed as a government-friendly channel.

Rustavi 2 was founded in 1994 in the town of Rustavi, about a 20-minute drive from Tbilisi, the capital. The station gained popularity for its hard-hitting investigative exposes and reporting on corruption during the administration of then-president Eduard Shevardnadze. After becoming the nations most-watched news channel, Rustavi 2 played a key role in catalyzing the November 2013 Rose Revolution, which brought Saakashvili to power. Rustavi 2 ownership changed hands multiple times after Khalvashi sold his shares, and before the current ownership.

Democratic societies depend on safeguards to ensure the government of the day cannot unduly interfere with either an independent judiciary or the requirement of a pluralist media, Gogia said. With widespread concerns about such undue interference in Georgia, action should be taken to address them, and the process before the European Court of Human Rights could create the space and opportunity for that.

Continued here:

Georgia: Media Freedom at Risk | Human Rights Watch - Human Rights Watch

AHCA a case study in compassion, fairness and freedom – Washington Examiner

When legislators talk about health care, we're talking about people's livelihoods, their futures and, fundamentally, our credibility as an equitable, compassionate society. It makes sense, then, that as House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees conduct full markups of the American Health Care Act, the bill has raised questions from people on both ends of the political spectrum. Already, we hear the cries ring out, one side saying that the AHCA should repeal without any replacement and another decrying the bill as heartless. Detractors are wrong on both counts.

Conservatives coalesce around the perennial principles of compassion, fairness and freedom. These values are mutually inclusive, and I submit that the AHCA is a case study in their application.

Republicans are not afraid that our compatriots will measure us by how well the AHCA cares for people in need of protection. The AHCA guarantees that individuals can't be denied affordable coverage because of pre-existing conditions and that young people can receive coverage under their parents' insurance plans until age 26. Under this bill, insurance companies also can't charge women higher premiums than men.

Yet concern for vulnerable Americans compels conservatives to go further. The Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion has manifold flaws, but two remain particularly harmful. First, the ACA expansion rejiggered federal funding to cover able-bodied adults to a greater extent than our elderly and disabled neighbors. The AHCA transitions away from prioritizing the former group, whom Medicaid was never designed to serve, in order to reinvest resources in our most vulnerable neighbors.

Second, Medicaid's cost has tripled since the Clinton administration, and Obamacare's expansion has torpedoed recipients' access to quality care as providers increasingly decline Medicaid patients. Imperiling the long-term viability of Medicaid in order to bring more people under an expansion umbrella that offers individuals less access to the health resources they need is a form of federal racketeering. But that's what the former administration did in order to defend its one-size-fits-all approach to health care. Unfortunately, that attempt at universal coverage has produced almost universally harrowing outcomes among Medicaid patients, and Republicans find it impossible to abandon the program to its current trajectory. We're reining in Medicaid spending today to ensure the lifeline remains solvent for our loved ones tomorrow.

The AHCA responds to the needs of the young, the elderly, the disabled and the marginalized among us. Against the plumb lines of compassion, the conservative plan safeguards Americans more comprehensively, more thoughtfully than its misguided predecessor.

But what of fairness? What of relief for the 4.7 million Americans who have been ejected from their chosen coverage since the ACA's inception or the families whose premiums now jump by about $4,300 each year? While 10.3 million individuals bought plans on the ACA exchanges, 19.2 million taxpayers opted for the individual mandate penalty or claimed an exemption.

The burden of Obamacare's tax appetite falls on families and job creators, yet its $1 trillion in new taxes couldn't deliver substantive care to middle America any more than an over-extended Medicaid could adequately serve those in need.

Penalizing businesses and industrious Americans for opting out of an ostensibly free market remains both unjust and ineffective as a means of strengthening the health care landscape. Here, we see that fairness and compassion call for the same remedya careful repeal of the mandates that drove healthier Americans out of the insurance markets and triggered the death spiral that has jeopardized affordable medical care for every single American.

Also from the Washington Examiner

"People will offer amendments, there are unlimited amendments unlimited," McConnell said.

03/09/17 9:33 AM

Obamacare gave rise to a new American underclass who have found themselves dwelling in a land where leaping deductibles and premiums have made it impossible to make ends meet. Sustainable options for rehabilitating the market exist only in an ecosystem characterized by competition, innovation and patient empowerment.

Hope comes from restoring people's ability to make free choices in a free market, so the fundamental issue is personal agency. Conservatives believe that individual and community decisions outperform federal health care directives. The AHCA, therefore, returns agency to patients, doctors and states by removing the mandates that punish personal choice, doubling the size and utility of health savings accounts, and giving states wide flexibility in administering federal Medicaid dollars in order to meet the particular needs of their unique populations.

At great personal cost to millions of Americans, we have learned from the unforced errors of the Affordable Care Act. When health care is filtered through bureaucrats, we see patient choices evaporate, premium and deductible costs surge, and resources contract as the market descends into a death spiral. Republicans find this brave new world unacceptable, and we're responding accordingly.

House committees are currently marking up their respective portions of this bill, considering numerous amendments as both parties weigh in through a process that is so transparent that the entire bill text is available online at readthebill.gop. And while the American Health Care Act may not be an ideal remedy for every Obamacare ailment, it does bring conservative ideals to bear on what may be the greatest legislative challenge of our generation.

The AHCA reduces government reach, restores personal freedom and begins to repair the injustices that Obamacare imposed on our families and friends. We care too much about our fellow Americans to let reckless laws come to fruition at their great expense.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Conservative insurgents in the House and Senate oppose the bill.

03/09/17 8:52 AM

Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga, is Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions.

More here:

AHCA a case study in compassion, fairness and freedom - Washington Examiner

East Side Freedom Library wins national award and a gift from a Zombie hunter – TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

When two Macalester College historians scrambled to convert a century-old Carnegie library into a hub of St. Paul immigrant and labor history, they werent thinking about national library awards, but they got one this week.

The East Side Freedom Library also has captured the attention of Michonne, the world-famous zombie slayer from AMCs hit television series The Walking Dead.

Over the past three years, the husband-and-wife team of Peter Rachleff and Beth Cleary have filled the nooks of the Freedom Library on Greenbrier Street with as many as 15,000 items. Many are books from local authors, immigrant narratives such as the official Hmong Archives, and Minnesotas labor history.

Theres also work space for a Karen refugee weaving group, art retreats, author talks, films and two separate meditation circles.

The 8,000-square-foot structure, which dates to 1917, even hosts childrens singalongs and Solidarity Saturdays, where seasoned labor activists and others who identify as being left of the ideological center can sip teaon rocking chairs while pondering how quickly their political fortunes have turned since the last election. For the labor movement, these are interesting times.

There has never been a more important time to be building these kinds of bridges than now, Rachleff said Tuesday. Saturday we had a History Day workshop in the morning for kids doing History Day projects, followed by a childrens story hour for younger kids. Saturday afternoon we had Karen teenagers doing digital storytelling, with five-minute videos kids did at Washington Technology Magnet School.

The calendar for the rest of the week includes two author talks, a discussion about labors influence on progressive politics in Richmond, Calif., and a presentation on school funding from the St. Paul Federation of Teachers.

Its all part of a new role for theformerArlington Hills Library, andan unusual addition to the Payne-Phalen neighborhood.

Rachleff, a former Macalester College labor historian, and Cleary, who teaches the history and practice of theater at Macalester, acknowledge that since signing a 15-year lease with the city in 2014, theyve made a few changes. Among them, the couples part-Alaskan Malamute rescue dog,Orso, now lolls about the bookshelves.

Some of those changes have reverberated with the American Library Association, which on Monday recognized the East Side Freedom Library with the John Sessions Memorial Award. Sponsored by the AFL-CIOs Department for Professional Employees, the award is given each year to one library or library system that recognizes the contributions of the labor movement to American history and development.

And Walking Dead actress Danai Gurira, who plays the sword-wielding survivor of an apocalyptic zombie outbreak, sent Rachleff and Cleary a sizable donation this Christmas, one large enough to bring tears to Rachleffs eyes.

I think that its not often that teachers get support from their students, and its very meaningful to both Beth and me, Rachleff said Tuesday.

Both professors had the Iowa-born, Tony Award-winning actress in class during her undergraduate years at Macalester. Cleary directed Gurira in several main-stage plays.

The Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis will soon showcase one of Guriras plays Familiar which revolves around a Zimbabwe-American woman who brings her white fiance home to meet her parents in Minnesota. Guriras ancestral roots are from Zimbabwe.

Rachleff pointed to DVD copiesof Guriras work on a table at the library dedicated to local artists. Recognized for its cinematography, the 2013 Sundance Film Festival entry Mother of George focuses on the cultural challenges confronting a Nigerian family living in Brooklyn.

More information about the library is online ateastsidefreedomlibrary.org.

View original post here:

East Side Freedom Library wins national award and a gift from a Zombie hunter - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

When is Geri’s 1990s: My Drive To Freedom on BBC2 and what’s the documentary fronted by ex-Spice Girls star Geri … – The Sun

This will be Ginger Spices first major TV presenting role

IT WAS the decade that saw the height of Britpop as bands such as Oasis, Blur and Pulp were topping the charts.

But it was also the era that saw the rise of the worlds biggest girl group, The Spice Girls, here and across the Pond.

Getty Images

One fifth of the band, Geri Horner, is set to look back on Nineties and the years that shot her to fame and fortune.

But what is Geris 1990s: My Drive To Freedom all about? Heres what we know.

The former Spice Girl, who was known as Ginger Spice, has landed her very first major TV presenting role for the BBC.

The 44-year-old will front a documentary series called Geris 1990s: My Drive To Freedom, which will air soon on BBC Two.

During the series, she will look back on the decade that propelled her to fame as well as looking at the era that created Britpop.

She will interview big names from the decade as well as her friends as she reflects on her own incredible journey" and as the BBC said, it will tell the story of Horner turning 18 as a working class girl in Watford at the dawn of the decade through to international fame and fortune with the Spice Girls.

Getty Images

An air date has yet to be released.

With rumours abound of a Spice Girls reunion, its fitting that one fifth of the band, whose debut single is 21 years old this year, should be fronting this rather apt series.

Jan Younghusband, the BBC's head of music TV commissioning, said: "We are thrilled that Geri has agreed to share her first-hand insights as a leading woman in music, and how the influences of her life have shaped her as a performer."

Geri added, in a statement: Personally, it was a journey of self-discovery, reflecting on some amazing things I am incredibly grateful to have experienced. I think the 90s was a very optimistic decade that proved that regardless of who you are and where you come from, you can evolve and change and dreams can come true."

Geri will talk about her close friend George Michael who passed away on Christmas Day last year.

Speakingto Philip Schofield and Holly Willoughby on This Morning, she fought back tears as she opened up about the huge influence he had on her life.

Holly said: The beginning of the year was tinged with sadness when you lost your very very good friend.

Geri smiled: I talk about him in the documentary, Im going to cry thinking about it.

ITV

As the tears came which she partially blamed on being hormonal, she explained: I absolutely loved him.

When I left the Spice Girls he took me under his wing and he was such a lovely person.

Geri also gave more info about her new documentary, saying: I watched it and I thought maybe the outside has changed, a few more wrinkles and a different accent, but its still the same old blah blah blah, you dont really change.

Sometimes you have to look back to go forwards.

READ MORE

First pictures of Geri Horner and her husband as they are spotted leaving Portland hospital after welcoming first child together

Geri Horner named baby boy Montague George Hector in memory of close friend George Michael in moving tribute to the late singer

Geri Horner posts adorable Instagram image of her newborn sons foot as she reveals his name

Delighted Geri Horner gives birth to a little boy on the SAME day as Baby Spices birthday

Read more:

When is Geri's 1990s: My Drive To Freedom on BBC2 and what's the documentary fronted by ex-Spice Girls star Geri ... - The Sun

Dozens of students fall ill at Freedom Shores Elementary west of … – Palm Beach Post (blog)

File photo

Dozens of students at Freedom Shores Elementary School west of Lantana have been stricken with nausea and vomiting, prompting an investigation by state health investigators.

More than 100 students were absent Friday at the public elementary school on West Hypoluxo Road, far more than on a typical day, said Tim OConnor, spokesman for the county health department.

Fridays numbers were almost three times what they would normally see, OConnor said.

The high number of absences continued this week, with many students complaining of nausea and vomiting.

The health department is investigating the cause of the outbreak.

In a letter to school parents, health officials said that any of several viruses or bacteria could be to blame for the outbreak, but that the symptoms will most likely subside without medication.

Still, health officials recommended that parents of sick children seek medical attention and keep the children home from school for 48 hours after their symptoms subside.

Previous

The PBC teachers union tried to disqualify half of its presidentialcandidates

More here:

Dozens of students fall ill at Freedom Shores Elementary west of ... - Palm Beach Post (blog)

Freedom Honor Flight announces 19th and 20th flights – WKBT – News8000.com – WKBT

Freedom Honor Flight announces 19th...

LA CROSSE, Wis. (WKBT) - Local veterans wishing to visit memorials built in their honor could have their trips paid for this year.

La Crosse's Freedom Honor Flight released its flight schedule for the year, offering one flight this spring and another in the fall. The Freedom Honor Flight flies veterans to Washington, D.C. to see the veteran memorials built in the nation's capital.

Flight organizers say the trip is an experience every veteran should have the chance to take.

"In terms of personalizing it,the send off, the welcome home and everything that goes on in D.C., we have a great experience for our veterans and that's why we want to keep it going, said Freedom Honor Flight President Pat Stephens.

The first Freedom Honor Flight of the year will take veterans to the capital on May 6. Veterans will have another chance to visit the memorials on September 16.

Veterans can apply for a seat at FreedomHonorFlight.org. All veterans can apply for the trips, but World War Two veterans will be prioritized.

Here is the original post:

Freedom Honor Flight announces 19th and 20th flights - WKBT - News8000.com - WKBT

Trump could learn a thing or two about freedom and democracy from Islam – Washington Post

By David Decosimo By David Decosimo March 8 at 6:00 AM

David Decosimo teaches religion, ethics and politics at Boston University and is currently writing a book on freedom and domination in Christianity and Islam.

From his hateful tweets and provocative rhetoric to his new executive order banning Muslims and refugees all over again, President Trump is driven by the idea that Islam is a threat to what makes us American.

Trump has declared that Islam hates us. There is, he says, an unbelievable hatred. Stephen K. Bannon, one of his chief advisers, claims that we are in an outright war against Islam and doubts whether Muslims that are shariah-adherent can actually be part of a society where you have the rule of law and are a democratic republic. He believes Islam is much darker than Nazism and seems to agree with HUD Secretary Ben Carson that Islam is a religion of domination.

But Trump and his administration could learn a thing or two about American values such as freedom and equality from the religion and people they so hate.

In Islams founding story, after Muhammads death, it was unclear who would lead the nascent Muslim community. Typically, succession disputes make for great drama. This one, however, was more C-SPAN than Game of Thrones. Rather than intrigue or bloodshed, the believers pursued democracy. Only by the peoples consent, they reckoned, could a ruler justly be named and a community freely governed. They chose Abu Bakr, one of Muhammads companions. His inauguration speech, according to one of Muhammads earliest biographers Ibn Ishaq, was brief (though were not sure how big the crowd was). It went something like this: Im no better than any of you. Only obey me if I do right. Otherwise, resist me. Loyalty means speaking truth. Flattery is treason. No human, but God alone is your lord.

Abu Bakr sought to guard the people against domination by making himself accountable to them. The people obliged, securing their liberty. They could call him out at any time, and he had to listen. He even had to ask their permission for new clothes. His successor Umar carried the legacy forward. Publicly rebuked by a woman for overstepping the law, Umar responded: That woman is right, and I am wrong! It seems that all people have deeper wisdom and insight than me.

This spirit of accountability and liberty would become enshrined as a religious duty in Islam, though as with any tradition, these values are not always upheld. Nonetheless, every Muslim has the obligation to command right and forbid wrong, correcting and resisting any who betray justice, rulers included. That Abu Bakr and Umar are paradigms of good Islamic rule for well over 1 billion Sunni Muslims tells us something about this traditions love for freedom, whether or not its followers always live up to their ideals.

So does the 12th-century theologian al-Ghazali, one of Islams most beloved figures. In his most famous political work, an open letter to a young sultan, Ghazali famously defends a golden rule of liberty: The fundamental principle is treat people in a way in which, if you were subject and another were Sultan, you would deem right that you yourself be treated. Nothing a ruler would not himself endure has any place in politics. While sin against God can be forgiven, violation of this rule cannot: Anything involving injustice to mankind will not in any circumstance be overlooked at the resurrection. Ghazali tells rulers that on judgment day, not God but the people will determine their fate: The harshest torment will be for those who rule arbitrarily. He sounds striking similar to James Madison writing in Federalist 57, for whom rulers will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their exercise of power is reviewed, and they must descend to the level from which they were raised. Only in Ghazalis vision, the tyrant descends to hell.

Of course, like their Western counterparts, many Muslim regimes fail to honor this vision of liberty. But it is women and men like Malala Yousafzai, Humayun Khan and the hopeful youths who filled Tahrir Square who are faithful to the best of Islam, not the likes of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and Saudi princes.

For Islam and the American founders alike, freedom is about protection from arbitrary power and rule by law, not the caprices of men. Theirs is a vision where citizens stand not in slavish deference to masters but on equal terms with all. This vision animates our whole system of governance. It was this vision Lincoln endorsed when he wrote, in words that echo Ghazali: As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. And it was this vision Sojourner Truth, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Harvey Milk invoked when they each demanded that equality before the law be still further expanded so that it would eventually include not just straight white men but everyone.

This vision is under threat in a way it rarely has been in our history. But it is not under threat by Islam, but by Trump and his administration.

Trumps first Muslim ban was an act of brazen, unconstrained power and barely concealed animus. The second ban is more of the same. The blessing of the first was just how blatantly it betrayed our deepest values. The danger of the second is its attempt to conceal its dominating and bigoted aims. No serious observer thinks these bans make us any safer. Instead, they seek to circumvent rule of law, roll back libertys benefit and wage Bannons war with Islam. They give Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security and other agents discretionary power to decide on a whim whether to sever families, deport refugees and detain Muslims. And they make Trump and his cronies unaccountable arbiters of who really loves the very American values the administration is busy betraying.

Trump wants to return America to its former greatness. But when it comes to freedom, Ghazaliand Abu Bakr have far more in common with Madison and Lincoln than with terrorists and tyrants who claim Islams mantle. For that matter, they have far more in common with this countrys great lovers of liberty than does the current president. So, instead of banning Muslims, Trump should listen to them: He might learn something about liberty and equality, two values he seems not to have learned to love from our own nations history or the Constitution he swore to uphold.

Read the original:

Trump could learn a thing or two about freedom and democracy from Islam - Washington Post

Freedom Rider: Trump and Russia, the Perfect Lie – Black Agenda Report

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

The latest New York Times article is proof that outgoing president Obama was looking not for intelligence he knew didnt exist, but anything that could be used against Trump and his team. When it comes to intrigue, Donald Trump is grossly outmatched by the Democrats, the spooks and the corporate media. Team Obama has the most adept spies in the world while Trump has his son-in-law and untested staff who are completely out of their league.

If there is evidence that the Russian Federation took some action that propelled Donald Trump to victory it has yet to be revealed. One wouldnt know that from the daily Russophobic hysteria presented in the corporate media and the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton tried to make Vladimir Putin an issue in the election but it didnt help her at all. She often compared Putin to Adolph Hitler and labeled Trump his puppet but the charges didnt prevent the political upset from taking place.

Having lost, the Democratic Party and their media cohorts continue the effort to make trouble for another nation whose only crime is the pursuit of its own interests. The anti-Russia strategy also distracts the Democratic rank and file. They ought to be angry that their standard bearer and their party leadership lost an election because of corruption, hubris and incompetence but instead they are taken in by propaganda.

What passes for proof are nonsensical terms like Russian digital finger prints and claims that any and every Russian is always acting on Putins orders.

Donald Trump is partly being hoisted on his own petard, as his nonsensical claim of having done deals in Russia has come back to haunt him. In 2013 Trump hosted his Miss Universe pageant in Moscow but he returned home empty handed after trying to consummate real estate deals there. This aspect of Trumps personality makes him the perfect target when his enemies want to tell lies about him.

We know that someone gave Wikileaks emails from the Democratic National Committee but it isnt clear if the information was hacked by a hostile actor or was leaked by an insider. What passes for proof are nonsensical terms like Russian digital finger prints and claims that any and every Russian is always acting on Putins orders.

Trump is the perfect fall guy because he is so hated and so incompetent. At least half of all Americans despise the new president and for very good reasons. Unlike other presidents who use euphemism and code words, he openly activated the racist elements who are never far from the surface in this country. His victory was also unexpected and defied so-called expert opinion. The combination of dislike and shock makes it easy for the worst charges made about him to be believed.

At least half of all Americans despise the new president and for very good reasons.

But the Democratic Party has been relentless in using any and all information to make it appear that he and his team are all under the sway of Moscow. Trump assembled a group as amateurish and unprepared as he is and they are no match for the concerted effort inveighed against them.

The Obama friendly New York Times said as much. Their article Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking is proof that the outgoing president was looking not for intelligence he knew didnt exist, but anything that could be used against Trump and his team. It isnt surprising that Attorney General Sessions was asked about campaign contacts with Moscow. The Senate already knew that he met with the Russian ambassador to the United States. They knew that the now ousted National Security Adviser spoke to the same ambassador. There is nothing illegal about these contacts and Trump is not the first president elect to have had contacts with foreign governments.

In 1968 Richard Nixon convinced the Vietnamese not to engage Hubert Humphrey in offers of peace talks. In 1980 Ronald Reagan delayed the release of hostages held by Iran in order to secure his victory against Jimmy Carter. If the corporate media were to point out this history they would jeopardize their role as partners of the Democratic Party sector of the ruling classes.

Trump is not the first president elect to have had contacts with foreign governments.

These facts dont matter of course. What does matter is that Trump said things that made the rest of the rulers nervous. If he made good on his promise to have some sort of dtente with Russia he would undo the imperialist agenda. If he stopped the trade deals that they used to help the capitalists move their capital he was upending very serious plans. Calling NATO obsolete was another danger when NATO is an active partner in interventions around the world.

But Trump isnt smart enough to counter the attacks. In between tweets about his old reality show and jibes at celebrities he unleashed ICE against undocumented immigrants and pursues his scheme to keep Muslims from seven countries out of the United States. Instead of acting like other presidents and getting undercover white supremacists on his staff, Trump puts avowed racists front and center and makes himself a target of progressives who probably wouldnt care what he did if he had an Obamaesque, smooth presentation of evil doing.

Presentation is everything and Trump presents such an ugly face that he makes life easy for his opponents. It is obvious that Flynn and Sessions were under surveillance but Trump has twitter outbursts and accuses Obama of tapping his phone. Team Obama has the most adept spies in the world while Trump has his son-in-law and untested staff who are completely out of their league.

Trump said things that made the rest of the rulers nervous.

Now Russia is hated by progressives. This antipathy is no small matter because it makes war more acceptable and therefore more likely. Once again progressives stand down and allow serious harm to be done to this country and the rest of the world.

The animosity directed at Trump the man should be directed at the system. We are watching the perfect crime take place. The neo-liberal corporatist Democrats are winning the fight against Trump but not because they want to do good. Their schemes were upended by his election and they will stop at nothing to get back into power. The end game isnt clear. For now they are succeeding in handcuffing Trump. Their intentions are never good for people in this country or in the rest of the world. Our lives are still very much at risk because of Democratic Party corruption and Trumps failings and incompetence.

The rest is here:

Freedom Rider: Trump and Russia, the Perfect Lie - Black Agenda Report

Academic Freedom Lawsuit To Proceed: Judge Affirms First Amendment Rights – Center for Research on Globalization

James Tracywas exposed on CNN in 2013 by Anderson Cooper, who branded him a conspiracy theorist for his investigation of anomalies surrounding the alleged Sandy Hook Newtown school shooting as portrayed in the media.

On February 21, 2017, a US federal judge ruled that former Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Professor James Tracys civil rights lawsuit can proceed to discovery.

As this author has observed the case stands to set a precedent in matters of free speech and academic freedom throughout the nation. Defendants include FAU, its Board of Trustees, President, Dean, Associate Provost, the Florida Education Association, and the faculty union United Faculty of Florida (UFF), along with the unions FAU Chapter President and Service Unit Director.

Tracy was terminated from his tenured professorship in January 2016, ostensibly for questioning university policy regarding the mandatory reporting of outside activities, and refusing to submit paperwork disclosing his personal blogging at his website, Memory Hole Blog.

Tracy argued that his blogging involved the exercise of his right to free speech as a private US citizen. The popular website was hacked or otherwise sabotaged by unnamed parties after the November 2016 election and, as of this writing, is no longer in operation.

FAU and UFF engaged in conspiracy

Tracy received a spate of unfavorable publicity by CNN and other news outlets in 2013, shortly after the alleged shooting at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, CT. The university set out to discipline Tracy as a result, attempting to dissuade him from making any further statements about the Newtown incident. FAUs faculty union, UFF, filed a grievance for Tracy on free speech grounds. In late 2015, however, union officials refused to defend the professor.

Tracys suit cites UFF as co-defendants, arguing that union officers conspired with university administrators to place an informal gag order on Tracy while allowing the universitys termination proceedings to go forward uncontested. At the same time, Tracy contends, union representatives discouraged him from filing a grievance or lawsuit, instead trying to intimidate him into resigning in lieu of termination. When Tracy refused to resign, the university fired him outright.

FAUs Conflict of Interest policy and its chilling effect on free speech

Part of the case involves a challenge to FAUs Conflict of Interest policy, which extends to all university faculty. FAU and many of Floridas other public universities now compel faculty members to present all their outside activities for administrative approval, whether compensated or not. Tracy objected to the policy, which would have required him to submit an account of his personal blogging. His suit argues that this is a form of prior restraint forbidden by the First Amendment.

Tracys concerns were shared by other members of FAUs faculty as well, including senior political science professor Timothy Lenz, who described a climate of fear and uncertainty, speaking at a faculty senate meeting on September 4, 2015. Lenz enjoined administrators to please call off your dogs, continuing at length:

The Administration has been sending faculty members who are engaged in outside activity nasty letters, letters of discipline or letters that threaten faculty members who are engaged in outside activity with discipline theres a great deal of suspicion that you can say, or write, or do something, but if you say, write, or do something that the Administration disagrees with youre going to get one of these nasty letters put in your personnel file and thats untenable.

Tracys suit names as defendants individual FAU administrators present at the September 4 faculty senate meeting, including FAU President John Kelly. Kelly and his co-defendants moved to dismiss the first complaint, which was granted in part, necessitating a Second Amended Complaint, filed on December 28, 2016. This second complaint has been upheld, with the defendants motion to dismiss denied in a February 21, 2017, decision by Judge Robin Rosenberg. The judge refers to John Kellys involvement in her analysis:

The inference from the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint is that Defendant Kelly was personally (and not vicariously) involved in a retaliatory violation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights. As a result, Defendant Kelly is sufficiently on notice of the claim against him such that he is able to answer that claim.

Verified Second Amended Complaint

The individual counts in the Second Amended Complaint are as follows:

Count I Retaliation in Violation of Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU and Defendants President John Kelly, Associate Provost Diane Alperin, and College of Arts and Letters Dean Heather Coltman.

Count II Conspiracy to Interfere with Plaintiffs Civil Rights, against Defendants Alperin, Coltman, Kelly, UFF President Robert Zoeller, Jr., UFF Service Unit Director Michael Moats, UFF, Florida Education Association, and FAU.

Count III Facial Challenge to FAUs Conflict of Interest Policy, against Defendant FAU.

Count IV As-Applied Challenge to Plaintiffs Right to Free Speech, against Defendant FAU.

Count V Declaratory Judgment and Injunction, against Defendant FAU.

Count VI State Law Breach of Contract, against Defendant FAU.

Case proceeds to discovery

After Tracy initiated his lawsuit in April 2016, FAUs attorneys began filing repeated court motions, arguing that Tracys suit was frivolous, that no conspiracy existed, and that Tracys termination was due to his alleged misconduct and failure to disclose his blogging activities in a timely fashion. By this means, the defendants succeeded in precluding discovery for over six months.

These delaying tactics have been brought to an end with Rosenbergs February 21 decision, in which the court concludes that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint satisfies federal pleading standards and does not amount to mere labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, as FAU and UFF attorneys have argued.

Tracys legal team has now forced FAU to release thousands of internal emails between administrators, trustees, and non-university parties under Floridas Sunshine Law. Many of the documents tend to confirm the suits conspiracy allegations, including notes from a meeting between FAU counsel and administrators strategizing on how to discipline Tracy, and emails between Kelly and FAUs chief trustee on Tracys pending termination.

Fake News and media blackout on the status of Tracys lawsuit

After Rosenberg dismissed part of the First Amended Complaint, the Florida Sun Sentinelwhich has published a multitude of defamatory articles targeting Tracyfalsely reported that the entire lawsuit had been thrown out. This erroneous report was then picked up by the Associated Press and broadcast nationally (e.g. here, here and here). Only after Tracys attorney contacted the management of the Sun Sentinel to complain was the story revised. The Sun Sentinel has neglected to report on the court order allowing the suit to proceed. Nor has the mainstream media taken notice, with only a few exceptions.

In contrast to the media frenzy over Tracys research on the Newtown incident, in which he was viciously attacked in op-eds, letters to the editor, and news stories in print and on television, there is a conspicuous silence now that the case will proceed to trial. A legal victory for Professor Tracy would set a major precedent for free speech and academic freedom jurisprudence, and would decisively bolster safeguards for university employeesand indeed all employeesto comment freely on matters of public importance without fear of losing their jobs.

As an alternative to the mainstream press, Memory Hole Blog was used by Tracy and other contributors to draw attention to anomalous news coverage and analyze media reporting on controversial events. Many of these observations were deemed controversial or conspiracy theories by the very news outlets that came under scrutinyincluding CNN and the New York Timesorganizations now in the hot seat for disseminating Fake News themselves. This battle is currently raging over unsubstantiated allegations in the mainstream media against President Trump, who is called a conspiracy theorist himself by the press.

Should Tracy lose his case, the outcome would be disastrous for free speech rights. A decision favoring FAUs defense could be used by almost any employer, academic or otherwise, to further unconstitutionally monitor and restrict employee expression. This would likely intensify in the current US academic environment, rife with campaigns targeting politically incorrect speech and behavior. The way it stands, [FAU] could start firing people for not disclosing their Facebook pages, Tracys attorney Louis Leo IV said following a December court appearance.

The case moves forward

On February 28th the faculty union and FAU submitted separate responses to Tracys Second Amended Complaint, maintaining there was no conspiracy to fire Tracy and reasserting that the cause was his failure to follow FAUs outside activities policy. In its response, FAU characterized Tracys repeated attempts to obtain clarification on the unconstitutional policy as belligerent and rebellious. While Plaintiff appeared to embrace his nonconformist behavior thinking it would publicize his interests in the light he deemed helpful, FAUs attorneys wrote, the Defendant Universitys policy and intent were unrelated to such interests and were intended to provide Defendant University with necessary information for various legitimate and proper reasons.

With the discovery process now proceeding, FAUs defense looks increasingly weak. A flood of internal documents obtained under Floridas open records law indicates that university officials met repeatedly to strategize on how they would discipline Tracy without appearing to violate his First Amendment right to free speech. As these meeting notes and emails reveal, there was as much obsession in quelling the controversy surrounding Tracys blog as there was in the publicity his firing generated.

Based on the Rosenberg denial to dismiss, the case will now proceed to trial. Tracy is seeking declaratory relief upholding his right to free speech, injunctive relief with reinstatement to tenured employment and full restoration of benefits and lost wages, relief from the requirement to report outside activities for Tracy and his colleagues, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees as permitted by law.

Vivian Lee is the nom de plume of a tenured professor at an east coast university.

Read this article:

Academic Freedom Lawsuit To Proceed: Judge Affirms First Amendment Rights - Center for Research on Globalization