Lord Bruce: Why a polarised world is in need of liberals – Press and Journal

Wake up and smell the coffee, said Ed Davey after his election as the new Liberal Democrat Party leader, making an honest assessment of the challenges the party faces building back support and representation.

Media reaction has been mixed. Some have acknowledged there are a significant number of Conservative-held seats where the Lib Dems are the challenger and which Labour, with its own mountain to climb, might quietly deign to wish them well. Others, including The P&Js political correspondent, Daniel ODonoghue, have suggested the party is flirting with irrelevance.

So let us pose one crucial question: Who needs a Liberal Party? Let me be quick with the answer. Whether you have voted Liberal Democrat or not, most of us do. We live in a liberal democracy. To suggest there is no room for a genuinely liberal party begs many questions about where we are heading. Philosophy apart, there are much more urgent and relevant reasons why a strong Liberal Democrat presence in our politics is needed.

Much of society has degenerated into angry, polarised camps, brooking no compromise and demanding people conform to their woke identity slogans or resign themselves to being the enemy.

This is not the stuff of a civilised society. It prevents genuine exchange of views. Evidence is discarded in favour of fake news and alternative facts, leading to rash decisions.

Just look at the state of the dominant parties. The Conservatives convulsed themselves over Brexit and have lost all coherence and consistency as well as many of their most thoughtful and experienced players. Their competence is questioned daily and their handling of the crisis and plans for recovery have faced ridicule. They are now proposing breaking international law, trashing the UKs reputation as a rational, reliable and pragmatic nation which honours its agreements and obligations. Cronyism is giving UK governance under the Tories the look of South American dictatorships of yore.

Labour, having abandoned the drift towards Marxist socialism, have elected a rational leader but have yet to prove they have shaken off Corbynism or accompanying anti-Semitism.

Buoyed by current polling, the SNP are becoming gung-ho about pushing for independence as fast as possible and at any cost, forcing the people of Scotland to choose between being Scottish and British and prejudicing our shared identity as both.

In an ever-more complex, challenging and divided world, once-great parties are offering simplistic, irrational, glib solutions. By the same token, the political debate has sought either to trash the Liberal Democrats or sneer at their irrelevance displaying uncertainty of intent. Why are other parties so splenetic about the Liberal Democrats? My guess is it is because we get in the way of simplistic, hardline, ideological identity politics.

Liberal Democrats believe in the freedom of individuals to express themselves in their own way, free from pressure to conform. We celebrate diversity and pluralism in an electoral system that has the deliberate intention of forcing people into camps.

Stuck in their trenches, nationalists and socialists try to taint us as Tories, who in turn accuse us of being fellow travellers with the left. We are accused of being at the same time both ruthlessly ambitious and disingenuously wishy-washy. Other parties just cannot get their heads around the idea that a party considers the evidence and looks for compromises that will bring people together rather than rejoice in dividing them.

In their heart of hearts, people know that voting for Trump, Johnson and, yes, even Sturgeon, will not deliver nirvana or the stable, hopeful world they crave for themselves and their families. Life is not that simple.

Ask people in Scotland, do we want to restore our once-great education system and give our children the skills and opportunity to deliver rewarding lives, not just economically but culturally, too? Would we like key public services to deliver according to the varied needs of the communities we live in?

Then ask them do we really believe we can do that if we break our family ties with the rest of the UK and divert our energies and resources to throwing off the established institutions we have to replicate from scratch at enormous cost in hardship and social division.

Britain is divided. Scotland is divided. Brexit has split us and the debate over independence is doing it in spades. Shouldnt politics be bigger and brighter than that?

Liberal Democrats recognise and celebrate diversity. Forcing people into opposing camps will never make society prosper. It will not make people happier nor more hopeful. On the contrary, the evidence is plain to see it makes people more bitter and angry.

Yet a popular slogan of liberals used to be Make love not war. We certainly need more of that today. Building bridges is more rewarding and satisfying than erecting barriers and building walls.

Liberalism was invented in Britain and has deep roots in Scotland. Far from flirting with irrelevance, we are inviting voters to throw off the false identities weighing them down and celebrate their personal independence and our societys diversity over conformity.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie is a former long-serving MP for Gordon and was chairman of the Scottish Liberal Democrats

Follow this link:

Lord Bruce: Why a polarised world is in need of liberals - Press and Journal

The top 5 liberal arts colleges of 2021, according to U.S. Newsand what it takes to get in – CNBC

On Monday, U.S. News & World Report released its annual ranking of the best colleges in the country, from large research universities to small liberal arts schools.

U.S. News calculates its ranking based on six categories which are each weighted differently: student outcomes (40%), faculty resources (20%), expert opinion (20%), financial resources (10%), student excellence (7%) and alumni giving (3%).

For the first time, U.S. News considered student debt in their ranking. The student outcomes category now takes into account the average amount of accumulated federal loan debt among full-time undergraduate borrowers at graduation and the percentage of full-time undergraduates in a graduating class who borrowed federal loans.

This year's top liberal arts colleges all boast small classroom sizes, including top-ranking Williams College, where 75% of classes have fewer than 20 students and just 3% of classes have 50 or more students.

Getting into one of these schools isn't easy. Admitted students boast strong high school records and high standardized test scores. However, many of these prestigious liberal arts schools have higher acceptance rates than similarly top-ranking universities.

For instance, while the top-ranked national university, Princeton, accepts just 6% of students, Williams accepts closer to 13% of applicants. Wellesley College, which tied for fourth place on U.S. News' ranking of liberal arts schools, has an acceptance rate of 22%.

The top-ranking liberal arts colleges also tended to score better than the top-ranked national universities on comparative measures of social mobility, that are designed to represent a school's likelihood of helping students improve their circumstances by considering the graduation rates and post-graduation performances of students who qualify for federal Pell Grants.

Here are the top 5 liberal arts colleges of 2021, according to U.S. News and what it takes to get in.

Williams College

Denis Tangney Jr | Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1410-1550

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 85%

Acceptance rate: 13%

Amherst College

Source: Amherst College

Average SAT score: 1410-1550

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 88%

Acceptance rate: 11%

Swarthmore College

aimintang | Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1380-1540

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 87%

Acceptance rate: 9%

Pomona College

Ted Soqui | Corbis | Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1390-1540

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 93%

Acceptance rate: 7%

Wellesley College

David L Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images

Average SAT score: 1360-1530

Share of first-year students in the top 10% of their high school class: 79%

Acceptance rate: 22%

Don't miss:

Continued here:

The top 5 liberal arts colleges of 2021, according to U.S. Newsand what it takes to get in - CNBC

Should the Liberals call the Nationals’ bluff and bring about a great Australian realignment? – The Canberra Times

news, federal-politics, national party, liberal party, lnp, coalition, john barilaro, michael mccormack, conservatism

The National Party tail has been wagging the Liberal Party dog for too long. Events of the past couple of weeks show how the Liberals should deal with them (NSW) and how they should not (the federal level). When NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro threatened to move all his members, including ministers, to the crossbench unless the NSW government backed down on koala protection, Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian immediately called his bluff: do that and all National ministers would be sacked and the Liberals would govern alone. There would be no change to koala protection. This is what the Liberals should be doing federally with energy policy, climate change policy, water, species protection, land-clearing and the Great Barrier Reef, and should have done with same-sex marriage. They should tell the Nationals to stop wagging the dog. Besides, on virtually every issue over which the Nationals get obstinate, the Liberals could safely call their bluff and get Labor or Green support. But no, this week's decisions on energy policy show that the federal Liberals' decades-long supine appeasement of the Nationals has in fact transmogrified Robert Menzies' Liberal Party. The party of free enterprise, small government and individual freedom has now turned into little more than a parody of the National Party itself: anti-intellectual, science-denying hicks, revelling in big government subsidies to support unsustainable, unprofitable and technologically backward industries. The Morrison government's demand this week that private enterprise commits to building a gas-fired power station by April or the government would build one itself flies in the face of traditional Liberal Party philosophy that abhors public ownership of industry, picking winners (or in this case picking losers) and heavy-handed intervention in industry generally. It was made worse by its decision this week to divert renewable energy funding away from wind and solar and to boost funding for carbon capture. The only thing captured here is the integrity of the Liberal Party by the combined forces of the National Party and big industry. The political doublespeak could have come straight from George Orwell or a plot from Yes Minister. So, who is the more politically astute here, Berejiklian or Morrison? Who is serving the long-term interests of Australians? My guess is that no one would miss another gas-fired power station, but the death of up to 10,000 koalas in last summer's bushfires saddened the nation, and sent a warning to us all that the climate has already changed, and global heating will only get worse without concerted international efforts. The Morrison government appears to be too stupid, too ignorant or too wilfully beholden to benefactors to notice that there will be grave penalties if Australia does not pull its weight on carbon emissions. A Democratic Biden administration in Washington and the EU will impose trade penalties on nations that cheat on carbon emissions. Labor's wimpish acceptance of most of the government's pro-fossil-fuel policies is almost as shameful. In all, the koalas and the government-ordered gas-fired power station might mark a turning point in Australian politics. For a long time, the Nationals have managed to get most of their way, most of the time. The Nationals are socially conservative, support government handouts to rural and regional areas and detest any regulation that stops people exploiting the land. But only some Liberals share some of those beliefs. For a long time, the Nationals have thrived by performing an astonishing political juggling act. They get less than 5 per cent of the national vote outside Queensland (and say 10 per cent overall if you divide the LNP Queensland vote). Yet with that, over the years they have (among other things) told the Liberal Party who not to select as leader (1968), told the Liberal Party not to have a conscience vote on same-sex marriage, vetoed or watered down countless environmental measures and kept vast subsidies and handouts flowing to farmers, loggers and miners - all against the public interest. With this small share of the vote, the Nationals' leaders have continuously enjoyed the perks of ministerial power at the federal and state level. READ MORE: That should come at the cost of accepting cabinet solidarity and government unity, but that rarely stops the party allowing a few rabbits out of the burrow to voice public dissent to try to prove to the people of the bush that the Nationals are really getting results for them. The unifying force behind this juggling act of power, of course, has been ruthless self-interest. As Berejiklian found to her great benefit, if you ask a National to choose between principle and a ministerial office, self-interest will steer them in the direction of the ministerial office every time. Meanwhile, the wider community has changed. Australians have become more socially liberal (witness the marriage plebiscite), want more spent on urban infrastructure and have become more environmentally concerned. An increasing portion of Australians are concerned about climate change, energy policy, biodiversity, land clearing and water - issues the Nationals reject as matters of concern. The NSW Liberals appear to align themselves with the national sentiment. Labor, in the meantime, is performing its own juggling act on two fronts: at once trying to be as green as the Greens, while also trying to be a supporter of dirty industries and the unions and workers within them. Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, will a great Australian political realignment be far away? One side would contain the rural, science- and expert-despising, climate-change denying proponents of big government subsidies for dying industries. They will come from the Nationals, the branch-stacked Christian right of the Liberal Party, the Joel Fitzgibbon-style industrial wing of the Labor Party, One Nation, the Shooters and the Katters. The other side will contain moderate and free-enterprise Liberals, the socially progressive elements of Labor and the Greens. It might only take a few more incidents of bluff-calling or unconscionable climate science-denying policies for voters to seek political alignments with less internal contradiction.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/fdcx/doc7c2e22mgqcos7s524hr.jpg/r2_453_4740_3130_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

OPINION

September 19 2020 - 4:30AM

The National Party tail has been wagging the Liberal Party dog for too long. Events of the past couple of weeks show how the Liberals should deal with them (NSW) and how they should not (the federal level).

When NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro threatened to move all his members, including ministers, to the crossbench unless the NSW government backed down on koala protection, Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian immediately called his bluff: do that and all National ministers would be sacked and the Liberals would govern alone. There would be no change to koala protection.

This is what the Liberals should be doing federally with energy policy, climate change policy, water, species protection, land-clearing and the Great Barrier Reef, and should have done with same-sex marriage. They should tell the Nationals to stop wagging the dog.

Besides, on virtually every issue over which the Nationals get obstinate, the Liberals could safely call their bluff and get Labor or Green support.

But no, this week's decisions on energy policy show that the federal Liberals' decades-long supine appeasement of the Nationals has in fact transmogrified Robert Menzies' Liberal Party. The party of free enterprise, small government and individual freedom has now turned into little more than a parody of the National Party itself: anti-intellectual, science-denying hicks, revelling in big government subsidies to support unsustainable, unprofitable and technologically backward industries.

The Morrison government's demand this week that private enterprise commits to building a gas-fired power station by April or the government would build one itself flies in the face of traditional Liberal Party philosophy that abhors public ownership of industry, picking winners (or in this case picking losers) and heavy-handed intervention in industry generally.

It was made worse by its decision this week to divert renewable energy funding away from wind and solar and to boost funding for carbon capture. The only thing captured here is the integrity of the Liberal Party by the combined forces of the National Party and big industry. The political doublespeak could have come straight from George Orwell or a plot from Yes Minister.

Are that Nationals really comfortable being aligned with the more cosmopolitan, socially liberal elements of the NSW Liberal Party? Picture: Shutterstock

So, who is the more politically astute here, Berejiklian or Morrison? Who is serving the long-term interests of Australians?

My guess is that no one would miss another gas-fired power station, but the death of up to 10,000 koalas in last summer's bushfires saddened the nation, and sent a warning to us all that the climate has already changed, and global heating will only get worse without concerted international efforts.

The Morrison government appears to be too stupid, too ignorant or too wilfully beholden to benefactors to notice that there will be grave penalties if Australia does not pull its weight on carbon emissions. A Democratic Biden administration in Washington and the EU will impose trade penalties on nations that cheat on carbon emissions.

Labor's wimpish acceptance of most of the government's pro-fossil-fuel policies is almost as shameful.

In all, the koalas and the government-ordered gas-fired power station might mark a turning point in Australian politics.

For a long time, the Nationals have managed to get most of their way, most of the time. The Nationals are socially conservative, support government handouts to rural and regional areas and detest any regulation that stops people exploiting the land. But only some Liberals share some of those beliefs.

For a long time, the Nationals have thrived by performing an astonishing political juggling act. They get less than 5 per cent of the national vote outside Queensland (and say 10 per cent overall if you divide the LNP Queensland vote). Yet with that, over the years they have (among other things) told the Liberal Party who not to select as leader (1968), told the Liberal Party not to have a conscience vote on same-sex marriage, vetoed or watered down countless environmental measures and kept vast subsidies and handouts flowing to farmers, loggers and miners - all against the public interest.

With this small share of the vote, the Nationals' leaders have continuously enjoyed the perks of ministerial power at the federal and state level.

That should come at the cost of accepting cabinet solidarity and government unity, but that rarely stops the party allowing a few rabbits out of the burrow to voice public dissent to try to prove to the people of the bush that the Nationals are really getting results for them.

The unifying force behind this juggling act of power, of course, has been ruthless self-interest. As Berejiklian found to her great benefit, if you ask a National to choose between principle and a ministerial office, self-interest will steer them in the direction of the ministerial office every time.

Meanwhile, the wider community has changed. Australians have become more socially liberal (witness the marriage plebiscite), want more spent on urban infrastructure and have become more environmentally concerned.

An increasing portion of Australians are concerned about climate change, energy policy, biodiversity, land clearing and water - issues the Nationals reject as matters of concern. The NSW Liberals appear to align themselves with the national sentiment.

Labor, in the meantime, is performing its own juggling act on two fronts: at once trying to be as green as the Greens, while also trying to be a supporter of dirty industries and the unions and workers within them.

Once the COVID-19 crisis is over, will a great Australian political realignment be far away? One side would contain the rural, science- and expert-despising, climate-change denying proponents of big government subsidies for dying industries. They will come from the Nationals, the branch-stacked Christian right of the Liberal Party, the Joel Fitzgibbon-style industrial wing of the Labor Party, One Nation, the Shooters and the Katters.

The other side will contain moderate and free-enterprise Liberals, the socially progressive elements of Labor and the Greens. It might only take a few more incidents of bluff-calling or unconscionable climate science-denying policies for voters to seek political alignments with less internal contradiction.

See the rest here:

Should the Liberals call the Nationals' bluff and bring about a great Australian realignment? - The Canberra Times

Liberal arts in action: Release the raids – Hillsdale Collegian

Students from Galloway Residence pose with Niedfeldt Residences old homecoming banner before trading it for their flag. Courtesy | Seth Ramm

It is my intention to prove once and for all that Hillsdales male dormitory raid culture is necessary for a liberal arts education. I would like to begin by saying (keep your shirts on Simpsonites), that inter-dormitory rivalries are at the heart of student culture and campus will be worse off if raids and the events leading up to them are done away with for good.

Hillsdale College boasts one of the most unique academic experiences in America, and it is fitting that the student culture is just as unique. Though to some, the time-honored traditions of flag stealing, petty pranks, and meeting on the quad to beat each other senseless with foam-insulated PVC may seem childish and unnecessary, I would argue that behind this apparent childishness is hiding a complex and positive culture that fosters community and improves the spirit of campus.

There are many things more harrowing than your first few nights on campus (asking someone on a dining hall date, for instance), but being alone in a strange place filled with strangers is a difficult adjustment. This was the beginning of my freshman year, 2019. Like most others in my dormitory, I went to Welcome Party. I spent about an hour making small talk and participating in something that vaguely resembled dancing. It was not until I returned to the dormitory that the night got interesting.

I was informed that some nefarious actors had crept their way into Galloway Residence, my dormitory, and absconded with all our pillows. Every. Single. One. Left in their place was a cryptic notean apparent riddle that would reveal the location of our wayward pillows. Within five minutes, there were 20 to 30 people crammed wall to wall in the first-floor lobby of Galloway, all desperate to decipher the note and retrieve our pillows. I dont remember how long we spent racking our brains, consulting with upperclassmen, and trying to apply what little knowledge of Hillsdale we had to solving the problem.

We eventually did find our pillowssoaked in perfume and stuffed in contractor bags on the carpeted floor of the Olds Residence lobbybut most importantly, we found friends. That night, a simple prank brought the freshman residents together for a unique and unforgettable night.

It wasnt long after the pillow theft that I was introduced to raid culture. Simpson had of course engaged in their customary saber rattling the first week back on campus. Everyone knew that something was going to happen, but exactly when and what was a mystery.

That all changed on a dreary Friday night.

When word broke that a legion of Simpsonites was expected to march on Galloway, the night was transformed. Galloway men went to general quarters. Guys armed themselves with raid weapons stashed in various storage closets and rooms. The situation room was filled to the brim with Resident Assistants and upperclassmen analyzing intelligence and creating a defensive strategy. Someone was blaring John Williams Duel of the Fates from a speaker. The mood was electric.

Having no weapons of my own, I volunteered to join then-junior Philip Andrews on a reconnaissance mission to Simpson. Feeling like two spies sent on a death-defying, top secret mission, we stealthily approached Simpson, concealing ourselves in the bushes by the Searle Center. Though the headlights of passing cars illuminated our pasty faces, we somehow observed Simpson unseen. Even as the rain began to fall, we remained at our post, looking for anything that could confirm that Simpson was in fact preparing an attack. Though I believe that night did not end in a climactic battle (my memory could be wrong), just the threat of a Simpson raid created an unforgettable night.

It is fitting to conclude this defense of raid culture with a discussion of what happens when foam swords clash, when flags are stolen, when glory is earned, and when legends are made. The world of raiding is a curious one, filled with traditions, pageantry, and unwritten rules (which may not always be followed, but thats a subject for a whole other article). At least one opinion article has been written deriding such momentous displays of gallantry and courage as The Battle of Kappa Lawn and Land Battle. I was among those who valiantly took part in Land Battle last year. I was one of those whose behavior was considered by some to be childish, outrageous, uncouth, and (most heart wrenchingly) unbecoming of a potential future life partner. Allow me to condemn these slanders as untrue, unfounded, uninformed, unsubstantiated, unaccommodating, unadulterated, and above all false.

Yes, in the simplest, most elementary terms, Land Battle is simply a bunch of college men meeting to pummel one another with baby-proofed plumbing. But it is simultaneously so much more. There is a nearly universal thread that ties men together. It is a desire for competition, for glory earned. Its a desire to overcome overwhelming odds and achieve greatness.

To steal a term from the class Great Books I, men want kleosthe ancient Greek word meaning your renown or glory. Even in a simulated, controlled, low-stakes scenario like Land Battle, there exists kleos. There is a reason why movies such as Star Wars and Indiana Jones resonate almost universally with boys. Boys innately crave adventure. Boys want to be Indiana Jones; they want to be Luke Skywalker.

In a political climate where boys are told from kindergarten that they should behave more like the girls, to be quiet and studious, and to sit down and dont fidget, Hillsdale is a refreshing alternative. It is a place where boys are ablefor at least one nightto participate in an exercise of the masculinity that society is trying desperately to extinguish.

I can guarantee that I have never felt more alive than I did when I returned to my dormitory after Land Battle. It was already well past midnight and I had a calculus quiz in the morning, but I didnt care. I stayed up for hours after the event, reveling in what had happened.

The memory of that night will forever be in my consciousness. It is an experience unlike any other, and I believe it would be a disservice to the current and future freshmen of Hillsdale if they are never able to experience it.

Nick Treglia is a sophomore studying applied mathematics.

Originally posted here:

Liberal arts in action: Release the raids - Hillsdale Collegian

Farewell to the Liberals easy green revolution – Maclean’s

Paul Wells: Liberals are coming to terms with the realization that COVID-19 didn't cancel gravity, and that 'building back better' will, in fact, be hard work

Im grateful to the excellent Toronto Star columnist Heather Scoffield for noticing some fascinating comments Gerald Butts made on Monday.

Butts, of course, resigned in 2019 as Justin Trudeaus principal secretary and has been working since then as a consultant, climate-policy opinion leader and Twitter scold. He was a member of the Task Force for a Resilient Recovery, which spent the summer pushing hard on the build back better rhetoric that imagined the coronavirus pandemic as the dawn of a bold new green-energy future.

To say the least, excitement about a pandemic is counterintuitive. I started writing about the contradictions in June, when nameless Liberals were telling reporters, Itll be a good time to be a progressive government There are a lot of us who are dreaming big. I came back to the theme in August, when the PMO was setting Bill Morneau up as some kind of obstacle to their plans to build back better. And I wrote last week about the unsettling spectacle of Trudeau greeting Morneaus departure as, essentially, the end of history: We can choose to embrace bold new solutions to the challenges we face and refuse to be held back by old ways of thinking. As much as this pandemic is an unexpected challenge, it is also an unprecedented opportunity.

It was already clear last week that some of these considerations were starting to weigh, perhaps belatedly, on the Prime Minister and his advisors. Theres a sensitivity to being perceived to hijack the moment for a green recovery, a senior Liberal source told the CBCs David Cochrane. Boy, I sure hope there is.

Along comes Butts, who on Monday was addressing something called the Recovery Summit, an ambitious online virtual conference organized by some of the usual suspects, including the (Trudeauist) Canada2020 think tank in Ottawa and the (Clintonist) Center for American Progress in Washington.

Butts kicked off the proceedings by pouring industrial quantities of cold water on everyone.

Its important tounderstand and appreciate the level of anxiety that people are going through right now, he said. Conferences like this one were made by and for members of the progressive movement, he said. But in a clear warning to people who consider themselves members of that movement, he added, We depend on the support of the broad middle class and regular people. When we keep that support we form governments. And when we dont, we lose governments.

In an even clearer warning against the weird self-celebratory tone of some of the rhetoric from the government over the summer, he added:Its really important to emphasize what were doing and whom were doing it forrather than celebrate the fact that we are doing it.

I havent spoken to Butts since a few months before the SNC-Lavalin controversy wrecked his career in government, and I doubt he minds at all. So it was odd to hear him sounding warnings that resembled things Ive been writing for months. Its pure coincidence. It simply reflects the fact that to anyone with any distance from the government echo chamber, the Trudeau circles weirdly giddy triumphalism of recent months has got to sound jarring.

To put it diplomatically, I think that in any crisis situation, people will repurpose their pet projects as urgent and necessary responses to the crisis at hand, Butts said. And its vitally important that, when people are feeling as anxious as theyre feeling right now, we start the solutions from where they are and build up from there. And not arrive in the middle of their anxiety with a pre-existing solution that was developed and determined before the crisis thats arisen.

I know theres a widespread assumption that Butts never really left the Trudeau circle, that he remains the PMs puppeteer. I think thats farcical. Butts probably has an easier time getting Ben Chin to return a call than some of my colleagues do, but for the most part hes basically a sympathetic outsider whos watching the work of friends from a distance. His remarks amplify and consolidate things Dave Cochrane was already hearing from senior Liberals last week. Liberals are coming to terms with the realization that COVID-19 didnt cancel gravity or smite the foes of progress, as they define progress, from the earth. When Parliament returns next week, it will still be a venue of measurable personal risk for its occupants, like any large room for the foreseeable future. It will still contain more MPs who arent Liberals than MPs who are. It will be watched by a population that is worried, defensive, and incapable of ignoring risk for the sake of a resounding slogan. It speaks well of the Liberals that they have spent the summer working some goofy rhetoric out of their systems before returning to the real world.

This doesnt mean the government shouldnt pursue reductions in carbon emissions. They ran on promises to do so. They set ambitious targets, having spectacularly missed easier targets in the past. They faced concerted opposition and won. Working to reduce carbon emissions is necessary work with broad public support.

But it will be work. The clear implication of the dreaming big and unprecedented opportunity talk was that Liberals, including the Prime Minister, were talking themselves into believing school was out. That a global calamity would somehow transform hard work into a party, disarm the political opposition and, once againthis is a particularly sturdy fantasy of life in Trudeau-land, as Jane Philpott and Bill Morneau could tell youdelegitimize internal dissent.

It isnt so. Meeting the Liberals own climate goals will be hard work that will feel like hard work, if they care to take it up. The necessary changes will impose costs that will feel like costs before they provide benefits that feel like benefits. The very nature of this crisis will make building back better anything but a cakewalk.

First, because 2020 hasnt wiped out the former world. Building back better became a slogan a decade ago after earthquakes in New Zealand erased a lot of existing infrastructure. COVID-19 has been more like a neutron bomb, interrupting livelihoods but leaving neighbourhoods intact. If I had to build a new rail link from scratch between Toronto and Montreal, I might build something fancy. But the old one is still there. That makes a difference.

Second, because theres little likelihood of a sustained, long-term recovery like the one that characterized Canadas economy for 30 years after World War II, a comparison that was briefly fashionablea few months ago with the build-back-better set. The recoverys likely to be pretty quick, to pick up steam only after a vaccine or effective treatment becomes widespread, and to last only about as long as it takes to return to the status quo ante. Its fantasy to imagine miracle growth lasting the rest of everyones lifetime will take away costs and tradeoffs.

So the Trudeau governments duty to meet its climate targets remains, and so does just about all the difficulty of meeting them. Which means a central question about this Prime Ministerdoes he rise to challenges, ever? also remains.

Follow this link:

Farewell to the Liberals easy green revolution - Maclean's

Southern chiefs, Liberals accuse Manitoba government of withholding millions intended for kids in care – CBC.ca

The Southern Chiefs' Organization is calling the Manitoba government dishonourable in the way it treats vulnerable children in the province.

Southern Chiefs' OrganizationGrand Chief Jerry Danielssays Brian Pallister's Progressive Conservative government isattempting to present legislation that would prevent the government from being liable for taking hundreds of millions of dollarsintended for children in care.

Through the Children's Special Allowance, the federal government gives roughly $455 to $530 for each child in careto government child and family services agencies each month.

Beginning in 2010, Manitoba'sNDPgovernment began forcing the agencies to remit the money given, saying the province was paying for the maintenance of children in care and the money was therefore owed to them.

Thatmoney was put into general revenue. If agencies refused to remit it, the government withheld 20 per cent of the operating funds it gave the agency.

Daniels, who spoke at a press conference Wednesday alongsideManitoba Liberal Leader Dougald Lamontin the city's West End,says that between1999 and 2016, the NDP government diverted approximately $250 million. Since 2016, the PCs have diverted more than$100 million, Daniels and Lamont claimed.

The clawback prompted sixIndigenous child and family services agencies to suethe Manitoba government in 2018, but the SCO and Manitoba Liberals say the government has includedtwo provisions in its budget bill that would effectively end the lawsuit.

One clauseseeks to shield the province from being held responsible for clawing back the money earmarked for kids in care.

"Our children's resources are being stolen and Pallister is wanting to legislate himself out of being accountable for it,"Daniels said, calling the provisions in the budget bill"get-out-of-jail-free" clauses designed to shield the Tories.

"If the Pallister government believes they're right in taking the children's money, why does he not want the courts to decide?"

Unlike other bills, budget bills don't go before committees for public hearings, Lamont said, adding he is raising the issue now because the legislature is going back into session on Oct. 7.

"The Pallister PCs are using a budget bill to do an end-run around the courts," he added.

"The law is there to hold people to their word, and these measures set a terrible precedent."

Daniels and Lamont spoke on Wednesdayinfront of an Adele Avenue building, which was operated by the SouthernFirst Nations Network of Careas afacility for children in care until2019, when residents were evicted three months before the province introduceda bill in an effort to break its lease on the building.

The 20-year deal was signed in 2007under the NDP government to providean alternative to hotel placements of kids in care.

The province on Wednesday said it stepped in to help theSouthernFirst Nations Network of Care with the lease "at their request."

"They had signed an untendered, 20-year deal at a cost of $9.4 million and then determined the property would not meet their needs,"said a statement from Families Minister Heather Stefanson.

"The lease did not allow for an early termination, which meant a large portion of SFNNC's budget intended to support children and families was consumed by lease payments," the statement said, adding the government tried, unsuccessfully, to renegotiate the least.

"If the lease is not terminated, it will cost the province another $6.5 million over the next 10 years, plus maintenance costs," she said.

"We believe that is a complete waste of taxpayer money, which is why we are taking steps to end the lease."

The SCO and Liberals said the provincial government ordered the eviction of the home in February of 2019, and that children at the home were forced out in the middle of the night.

Stefanson's statement called that "a shameful falsehood." Plans werein place for the transition of every child at the Adele home, and notice was provided ahead of time, Stefanson said.

As for requiring agencies remit the Children's Special Allowance back to the province, that is ahistorical practice of the previous NDP government, Stefanson said, noting the proposed legislation will change that.

Since April 2019, agencies have beenretaining the allowance, as well as receivingsingle-envelope funding from the province, which will provide more than$400 million to the authorities and their agencies in 2020-21 a $15-million increase compared to what they received before, Stefansonsaid.

Read more:

Southern chiefs, Liberals accuse Manitoba government of withholding millions intended for kids in care - CBC.ca

Air Force Academy ranks among top 5 public liberal arts colleges in the nation: U.S. News & World Report – Colorado Springs Gazette

The U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs ranks third among the nation's public liberal art colleges, according to U.S. News & World Report's annual rankings released Monday.

The academy is outranked by two other colleges, which also happen to be service academies: the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, and the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. The Naval Academy rose 11 spots to make the top 10 liberal arts colleges for the first time, according to a news release from the publication.

We are honored to continue being recognized as one of the top universities in the nation," Lt. Col. Mike Andrews, an academy spokesman, said in a statement to The Gazette. "Were very proud of our world-class faculty, and we continually strive to improve all facets at the academy not only in providing a first-class education to our cadets, but also in developing leaders of character worthy of serving our nation in the Air Force and Space Force.

The Air Force Academy ranks 28th overall among all national liberal arts colleges this year, up from 39th place last year. It also ranked third among public liberal arts colleges last year. Colorado College, also located in Colorado Springs, ranks 25th, up from 27th last year.

The liberal arts category has more than five hundred colleges nationally and it is an honor to be considered among the top 25," Mark Hatch, Colorado College Vice President for enrollment said in an emailed statement. "Furthermore, to be recognized for both innovation and excellence in teaching speaks loudly to our commitment to our students.

The rankings have been released annually for more than 30 years in an effort to drive transparency in higher education. They take into account factors such as graduation rates, graduate indebtedness and social mobility indicators, according to the publication.

View post:

Air Force Academy ranks among top 5 public liberal arts colleges in the nation: U.S. News & World Report - Colorado Springs Gazette

Barcelona members strike back vs. Bartomeu: What does ‘motion of censorship’ mean, and what’s next? – ESPN

4:43 PM ET

Sid LoweSpain writer

Next time you pop into the FC Barcelona boutique to buy blaugrana pants or more than a pencil, go past the ticket window by the museum or order a coffee at the caf in the shadow of Kubala and Cruyff, look carefully at the guy behind the register. It that face looks familiar, that could be because it is. It might be Eder Sarabia, the former assistant coach taking up a new role.

Well, they've got to employ him somewhere.

- Lowe: Messi gearing up for "Last Dance" with Barca- Hunter: Real Madrid fancied for La Liga this season?

On Thursday evening, at the end of a day when Luis Surez had been in Italy, doing a language exam in Perugia to get an Italian passport, engaging in 10 minutes of conversation about family but not football, Quique Setin released a statement. In it, he revealed that he had been informed that he been sacked as Barcelona manager only the night before, on Wednesday -- a month after it had been announced to the world, and almost three weeks since his lawyers had written to the club to ask what was going on.

What's more, Setin said, there had still been no settlement on the 2-year contract he'd signed eight months earlier. More money poured away, and yet to be paid. As for his staff -- Sarabia, Jon Pascua and Fran Soto -- they hadn't been sacked at all. Instead, he had now been told that they would be "repositioned" at the club, which was news to them.

2 Related

It had been that kind of day, another one only somehow even sillier, sadder and, as it turned out, more significant. It was the eve of the 20th anniversary of Lionel Messi's arrival at Barcelona, which should have been cause for celebration, but this is a club in constant crisis, and even the fact that he is still there feels a bit odd. Above all, it was another one of those days for a president whose case for being the worst in club history gets more watertight by the hour.

It was a day in which more supposed transfer targets slipped away because -- just in case you didn't know, and somehow there still seem to be people who don't -- there is no money to buy them with. A day when 98m in losses over the past year were confirmed. One in which they still couldn't get rid of the players they publicly said they wanted to get rid of ... and, now it seemed, they couldn't get rid of the manager, either. Not properly, anyway.

Still, at least Setin's statement fit on one piece of paper. The bigger statement was delivered on thousands and thousands of them. And while on the face of it, it deepened the crisis, maybe it actually offered a way out of it -- or, at least, handed back some sense of control to those who care, a little light cast over the club, a glimpse of hope.

0:37

Lionel Messi is back to his sterling best, scoring an absolute stunner in Barcelona's 3-1 win vs. Girona.

A little before 7 o'clock in the evening local time, a dozen people turned up at the Camp Nou. They wore masks, and they brought with them boxes, bags and containers, absolutely full of pieces of paper. On them, over 20,000 people had officially declared their desire that a motion of censure be brought against team president Josep Maria Bartomeu and his board of directors -- a motion that might finally force them out.

They stood, clapped a bit, and then the boxes were taken inside. For an hour or so, they were checked -- someone turned up with coffee -- and officially received, the papers counted. This was the climax (or maybe it was just the beginning?) of a popular movement to push the president out.

- Stream new episodes of ESPN FC Monday-Friday on ESPN+- Serie A on ESPN+: Stream LIVE games and replays (U.S. only)

While you might not have been aware of it, this had been building for a while. It had begun with Jordi Farr, who will stand at the next elections, and other opposition candidates who joined him; it became a broad movement, a united front in defence of the club. Vctor Font and Lluis Fernndez Ala came on board. Fans groups supported them. At the head of one of them, a group called "Manifest Blaugrana," was Marc Duch, with his ponytail and beard.

Together they drove the campaign on and chased signatures all over Catalonia and beyond, under the slogan: "More than a moci" ("motion"). And, somehow, they had done it too. In a time of pandemic, when people can't meet, they had managed to gather enough signatures from socis (fans who are club members) to force a vote, effectively a referendum against the president. More than enough, in fact. They'd needed only 16,521, 15% of the members. They were 4,000 over that, backed by more than a fifth of the club's membership.

A handful of the papers were not admissible, but a club statement confirmed they had received 20,867, a number that was everywhere the next day, like a winning lottery ticket. The figures were a new record -- this was twice as many signatures as had ever been gathered before (in far more favourable conditions). "Unprecedented," Font called it.

"If I was the president, I would have met the 20,000 socis," Farr said. "Honestly, Bartomeu should resign today."

Duch said: "I'd be trembling in my office and I would resign."

Bartomeu might not do that. In fact, if anyone has learnt anything about him over the past few years and the past months especially, it is that he is a survivor. Holding on is what he does, whatever the cost.

1:08

Julien Laurens says Lyon will accept a "serious offer" from Barcelona for striker Memphis Depay.

So. The signatures have been received and counted. What happens next?

-- First, Barcelona have to participate in putting together the body that runs and oversees the process. (The "table," as it's called.) That's made up of the two first signatories on the move to propose a no-confidence motion -- Farr is one of them -- two members of the board of directors, and a representative of the Catalan football federation. They have 10 working days to do that: in other words, by Sept. 29.

-- Then the "table" has to validate the signatures, which they must do within another 10 days. That takes us to Oct. 10.

Dan Thomas is joined by Craig Burley, Shaka Hislop and others to bring you the latest highlights and debate the biggest storylines. Stream on ESPN+ (U.S. only).

-- If there are more than 16,521 valid signatures (which there will be), Barcelona will have to set up and arrange a vote of no confidence for the board of directors. It will be a referendum that basically asks: Do you want this president and his board to be sacked, yes or no? That will have to happen within 10 working days as well. All of which takes us to November, though all these things could happen quicker.

Then what?

If two-thirds (officially 66.7%) of them are in favour, Bartomeu will have to step down with immediate effect.

And once he's gone ... ?

A commission would be put in place while presidential elections are organised and held. Given the timing, those would be held in January or February. Some of the candidates -- Toni Freixa, Joan Laporta, Farr, Font, in all likelihood someone from within the current administration -- are clear, but some are not confirmed yet.

The socis will vote against Bartomeu, won't they?

Not necessarily, and 67% is of a lot of people to convince. After all, Barca have been in this situation before, and it has not always got over the line. In 1998, only 33.5% voted to kick out Josep Nuez out (although the damage it did his presidency was decisive). In 2008, Laporta survived, but only just: 60.6% wanted him pushed out. A moci brought against Bartomeu in 2017 didn't get sufficient signatures to reach the referendum stage.

That said ... yes, you would think so now. There are already over 20,000 people who will vote against him, and it's hard to imagine him being able to mobilise sufficient support to survive, even if there will be some members who might not want to push through the no-confidence motion. Not least because there is little point trying to prop him up, as it would be only a temporary reprieve: presidential elections were set to be held on March 15 anyway and he was unable to stand, his term already over.

Why vote to keep him in for what would be barely a couple of months?

Well, then, why vote against him either? What was the point of all this? If he was going anyway, why do this now? And doesn't it create a vacuum?

Yes, it does, up to a point. But why do it? Well, because they can, which sounds flippant, but isn't.

Simply, they're doing this because it gets rid of Bartomeu faster. It could, although it is unlikely, even remove him before the next transfer window begins and probably will remove him before it ends. (Caveat alert: The consequences of all this in terms of whether he is eventually held accountable for any budgetary shortfall would depend on the general assembly in October, on the final financial figures and on the next administration, all of which remains to be seen.)

They're doing this because it means that he does not get to see out his presidency "normally," or on his terms. Because it holds him accountable, symbolically at least. Because, well, to repeat: because they can; because this is an expression, a rebellion, a statement, a taking back of power by the people, a way of exercising their rights, a sign that while there is only so much they can do, those mechanisms that allow supporters to safeguard Barcelona still stand and, even in the midst of a pandemic, can be applied. That they really do have say in the destiny of their club, that democracy is not dead yet. As the name suggests, it is a censorship motion -- and that matters. It's the chance to censor those who are not worthy of their club.

There will be trouble ahead, for sure, and the situation remains dramatic at the Camp Nou. The new administration will inherit a mess when they arrive, but for all that went wrong, for all the increased embarrassment, Thursday was a day when Barcelona -- as a club, not a board of directors -- recovered some of its dignity. And that is something to celebrate at last. Lord knows, it has taken long enough.

The rest is here:

Barcelona members strike back vs. Bartomeu: What does 'motion of censorship' mean, and what's next? - ESPN

Social media censorship in Egypt targets women on TikTok – The World

Looking at Haneen Hossams TikTok account, one might wonder why her content landed the Egyptian social media user in jail. In one post, she explains for her followers the Greek mythological story of Venus and Adonis, which is also a Shakespeare poem.

Mawada al-Adham does similarly anodyne things that are familiar to anyone who observes such social influencers, like giving away iPhones and driving a fancy car.

They are just two of the nine women arrested in Egypt this past year for what they posted on TikTok. Mostly, their videos are full of dancing to Arabic songs, usuallya genre of electro-pop, Egyptian shaabi folk music called mahraganat, or festivaltunes. The clips feature a typically TikTok style with feet planted, hands gesticulating and eyebrows emoting.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has put TikTok and its Chinese parent company,ByteDance, in its sights with another escalation against Beijing. The US Commerce Department announced Friday that TikTok, and another Chinese-owned app, WeChat, would be blocked from US app stores.

In Egypt, the arrests are about dictating morality rather than any kind of geopolitical struggle or international tech rivalry. But what exactly the government finds legally objectionable about these womens online content is ambiguous.

They themselves would have never imagined that they would go to jail and be sentenced for what they were doing, because what they're doing is basically what everyone else does on social media.

They themselves would have never imagined that they would go to jail and be sentenced for what they were doing because what they're doing is basically what everyone else does on social media, said Salma El Hosseiny of the International Service for Human Rights, a nongovernmental organizationbased in Geneva. Singing and dancing as if you would at an Egyptian wedding, for example.

Hosseiny said that these women were likely targeted because theyre from middle- or working-class backgrounds and dance to a style of music shunned by the bourgeoisie for scandalous lyrics that touch on taboo topics.

You have social media influencers who come from elite backgrounds, or upper-middle class, or rich classes in Egypt, who would post the same type of content. These women are working-class women, she added. They have stepped out of what is permitted for them.

They were charged under a cybercrime law passed in 2018, as well as existing laws in the Egyptian Penal Code that have been employed against women in the past.

Yasmin Omar, a researcher at The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy in Washington, said the cybercrime law is vague when it comes to defining whats legal and what isnt.

It was written using very broad terms that could be very widely interpreted and criminalizing a lot of acts that are originally considered as personal freedom, she said. Looking at it, you would see that anything you might post on social media, anything that you may use [on] the internet could be criminalized under this very wide umbrella.

Egypts cybercrime law is part of a larger effort by the government to increase surveillance of online activities. As TikTok became much more popular during the pandemic, prosecutors started looking there too, Omar said.

When I write anything on my social media accounts, I know that it could be seen by an official whose job it is to watch the internet and media platforms, said Omar, who added that that surveillance often leads to widespread repression.

The state is simply arresting whoever says anything that criticizes its policy, its laws, its practices ... even if it's just joking. It's not even allowed.

Related: One woman's story highlights national wave of repression and sexual violence

The arrests of TikTokers shows that this law isnt just about monitoring and controlling political dissent, but is used to police conservative social norms.

Menna Abdel Aziz, 17, made a live video on Facebook. Her face was bruised and she told viewers that she had been raped and was asking for help.

The police asked her to come in, and when she did, Omar said, they looked at her TikTok account and decided she was inciting debauchery and harming family values in Egypt essentially blaming the victim for what had occurred.

This past summer, there were a number of particularly shocking allegations involving rape and sexual assault in Egypt. First, dozens of women accused a young man at the American University in Cairo (AUC) of sexual violence ranging from blackmail to rape. And in another case, a group of well-connected men were accused of gang-raping a young woman in Cairos Fairmont Hotel in 2014 and circulating a video of the act.

The cases garnered a lot of attention within Egypt. Many Egyptian women were shocked by the horrible details of the cases but not surprised about the allegations or that the details had been kept under wraps for so long.

In Egypt, sexual violence and violence against women is systematic, Hosseiny said. It's part of the daily life of women to be sexually harassed.

A UN Women report in 2014 said that 99.3% of Egyptian women reported being victims of sexual harassment. Yet, women are often culturally discouraged from reporting sexual harassment in the traditional society.

They are investing state resources to go after women who are singing and dancing on social media, and trying to control their bodies, and thinking that this is what's going to make society better and a safer place, Hosseiny said, by locking up women, rather than by changing and investing in making Egypt a safe place for women and girls.

When prosecutors started investigating the accused in that high-profile Fairmont case, it looked like real progress and a victory for online campaigning by women. The state-run National Council for Women even encouraged the victim and witnesses to come forward, promising the women protection. But that pledge by the state did not materialize.

Somehow, the prosecution decided to charge the witnesses, said Omar, the researcher. Witnesses who made themselves available, made their information about their lives, about what they know about the case all this information was used against them.

Witnesses who made themselves available, made their information about their lives, about what they know about the case all this information was used against them.

Once again, Egyptian authorities looked at the womens social media accounts, and then investigated the women for promoting homosexuality, drug use, debauchery and publication of false news. One of the witnesses arrested is an American citizen.

When pro-state media outlets weighed in on the TikTok cases, they also had a message about blame, Hosseiny said. The coverage used sensational headlines and showed photos of the women framed in a sexual way. This contrasted with the depictions in rape cases in which the accused mens photos were blurred andonly their initials printed.

Social media has played an important role in Egyptian politics during the last decade. In 2011, crowds toppled the regime of military dictator Hosni Mubarak. That uprising was in part organized online with Twitter andFacebook. In 2018, the former army general, and current president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, said he would maintain stability in Egypt.

Beware! What happened seven years ago is never going to happen again in Egypt, he swore to a large auditorium full of officials.

Related: Five years of Sisi's crackdown has left 'no form of opposition' in Egypt

Samer Shehata, a professor at the University of Oklahoma, said Egypts military-backed regime is wary of the implications of anything posted online, even if it's just dancing.

I think there has been a heightened paranoia as a result of hysteria ... about the possible political consequences of social media, he said. I think that they certainly have those kinds of concerns in the back of their minds as well.

Of the nine women charged with TikTok crimes, four have been convicted and three have appeals set for October.

Menna Abdel Aziz, the young woman who called for help online, was just released from detainment Wednesday and is being dismissed with no charges.

Read the rest here:

Social media censorship in Egypt targets women on TikTok - The World

What the *, Nintendo? This in-game censorship is * terrible. – EFF

While many are staying at home and escaping into virtual worlds, it's natural to discuss what's going on in the physical world. But Nintendo is shutting down those conversations with its latest Switch system update (Sep. 14, 2020) by adding new terms like COVID, coronavirus and ACAB to its censorship list for usernames, in-game messages, and search terms for in-game custom designs (but not the designs themselves).

While we understand the urge to prevent abuse and misinformation about COVID-19, censoring certain strings of characters is a blunderbuss approach unlikely to substantially improve the conversation. As an initial matter, it is easily circumvented: while our testing, shown above, confirmed that Nintendo censored coronavirus, COVID and ACAB, but does not restrict substitutes like c0vid or a.c.a.b., nor corona and virus, when written individually.

More importantly, its a bad idea, because these terms can be part of important conversations about politics or public health. Video games are not just for gaming and escapism, but are part of the fabric of our lives as a platform for political speech and expression. As the world went into pandemic lockdown, Hong Kong democracy activists took to Nintendos hit Animal Crossing to keep their pro-democracy protest going online (and Animal Crossing was banned in China shortly after). Just as many Black Lives Matter protests took to the streets, other protesters voiced their support in-game. Earlier this month, the Biden campaign introduced Animal Crossing yard signs which other players can download and place in front of their in-game home. EFF is part of this tooyou can show your support for EFF with in-game hoodies and hats.

Nevertheless, Nintendo seems uncomfortable with political speech on its platform. The Japanese Terms of Use prohibit in-game political advocacy ( or seijitekina shuchou), which led to a candidate for Japans Prime Minister canceling an in-game campaign event. But it has not expanded this blanket ban to the Terms for Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe.

Nintendo has the right to host the platform as it sees fit. But just because they can do this, doesnt mean they should. Nintendo needs to also recognize that it has provided a platform for political and social expression, and allow people to use words that are part of important conversations about our world, whether about the pandemic, protests against police violence, or democracy in Hong Kong.

See the original post:

What the *, Nintendo? This in-game censorship is * terrible. - EFF

Bangladesh in the Shadow of Censorship The Diplomat – The Diplomat

Advertisement

Independent Bangladesh has witnessed both military rule and the establishment of democratic institutions; throughout, the press have continued to suffer at the hands of not only various censorship laws, but also a number of sedition and criminal libel laws. With increasing use of social media in the recent decade, one of the most draconian laws, the Digital Security Act 2018, allows for conducting searches and arresting individuals without a warrant, and criminalizes various forms of speech.

Bangladesh now ranks 151st among 180 countries, with the lowest score for press freedom among all South Asian countries, according to Reporters without Borders (RSF). In the two years since the Digital Security Act was passed, Bangladesh has dropped five places.

In the article, we reflect on how freedom of speech in Bangladesh has evolved since the countrys birth.

Liberation and the Ensuing Chaos

After Bangladeshs brutal fight for independence from Pakistan in 1971, the country witnessed a period of intense upheaval as it rose from the ashes of war. The countrys constitution, designed in 1972, upheld secular ideals. However, with the assassination of the countrys founding father, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in 1975, secularism slowly started eroding. A significant development can be noted in the fact that the phrase Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim (In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate) was introduced into the constitution during Ziaur Rahmans era, indicating Islams superiority over other religions.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Also while Rahman was in power, the country saw strict rules imposed on the press. Naeem Mohaiemen, a political analyst, writes that it became an offense in that period to criticize the martial law in any way. Press reports about attacks on journalists were focused on non-state actors, he writes further.

In 1982, General Hussain Muhammad Ershad rose to power through a bloodless coup. His regime had a troubled relationship with the press, as observed by Mohaiemen and many others who lived through that period.

His era was marked by a continuous cat and mouse game between the press and the regime, with newspapers and magazines getting censured for reports, and then immediately committing the same offense. The period was also marked by the use of coded signals in the press (e.g., romance stories that were actually about a corruption scandal) as well as a thriving parallel press of underground leaflets and pamphlets, writes Mohaiemen.

One journalistic platform, Ittehad, was banned shortly after publishing the first criticism about the regime.

The decade following Ershads rise saw the frequent usage of issuing Press Advice to outlets, guiding them about what not to print. It was during his regime that Islam was formally introduced as the state religion of Bangladesh, setting a stage for extremism to exercise its influence (notably, through charges of blasphemy) in the coming years. Veteran journalist Syed Badrul Ahsan writes, General Hussein Muhammad Ershad did lasting damage to the Bangladesh idea through imposing the concept of a state religion.

As the regimes grip on dissent was slowly weakening, martial law was re-imposed in 1985 following political protests. The government became careful about international publications. In 1986, a London-based Bengali weekly, Janomat, was banned, among other publications like The Hindu from India. We see from Mohaiemens analysis how seven journalists were arrested during that time under the 1974 Special Powers Act. After a state of emergency was declared in November 1987, a martial law regulation ordered that reports opposing the upcoming elections and covering the protests remain prohibited. In 1988, a national press ban on reporting about election violence (which claimed at least 13 lives, as seen from Mohaiemens analysis) was declared. Censorship coupled with a turbulent political climate continued until the regime fell owing to a pro-democracy mass uprising backed by students and members of civil society, among others who sought democracy in December 1990.

Turbulence and Democracy

Get first-read access to major articles yet to be released, as well as links to thought-provoking commentaries and in-depth articles from our Asia-Pacific correspondents.

With the advent of democracy in the political arena of Bangladesh in 1991, power mostly alternated between the two political parties the Awami League and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Both leaders of the parties had a similar approach toward media censorship; the only difference lay in the subjects that were monitored more heavily, which were simultaneously used to target critical voices.

BNP leader Khaleda Zia was the first democratically appointed prime minister of the nation; it was during her rule that blasphemy cases and politics of religion skyrocketed. Possibly one of the most infamous cases in the history of independent Bangladesh was that of Taslima Nasreen. In 1993, in an increasingly Muslim (rather than secular) Bangladesh, Nasreen published her novel titled Lajja (or Shame) set in the mise-en-scene of the anti-Hindu riots in the country as a consequence of the Babri Masjid demolition the year before. The government immediately banned the book. What aggravated the situation was a gravely misquoted interview in The Statesman newspaper of India, where, as Nasreen later clarified, her call for a reassessment of Shariah was incorrectly stated as the need to revise the Quran to ensure womens rights. Although there had been noteworthy blasphemy cases in the past, Nasreens indictment roused Islamists in the country in a whole new way, allowing groups such as Touhidi Janata Jamat to come to the national limelight. Lawsuits, death threats, a bounty announced on Nasreens head in Sylhet forced her to ultimately flee into exile. In the years to come, debates surrounding her surfaced a number of times, especially when new books were published, or because of any statement she might have passed that did not go well with religious fundamentalists.

Another topic that Awami League and BNP leaders regularly engaged in conflict over involved ownership of the political legacy of the independence war. During the BNPs regime, creative expressions and works of art that popularized the role of Sheikh Mujib in the independence struggle were banned, such as Tanvir Mokammels documentary Sreeti Ekattor (Remembrance of 1971) and Tareque Masuds Muktir Gaan (Song of Freedom).

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Similarly, conversations involving India became one particularly sensitive issue. As learned from a senior newspaper editor of the time, all licensed publications had to agree to a set of conditions, including one that instructed to not publish any news that could potentially harm relations with national allies. The ICT Act, which came into effect in 2006, was aimed to monitor information on online platforms and regulate e-commerce; the law grew to impose more serious effects in later years when social media starts to play a greater role in the lives of people.

As tensions between the Awami League and BNP flared, a caretaker government was installed for a brief period between 2007 and 2008. Local media played a big role in ending the tenure of the military during these years, defying censorship laws and not succumbing to the threats or cajoling by the authorities. Regardless, journalists during this time faced immense difficulties and were routinely picked up for interrogation. One such case involved Forum, a monthly magazine published by the countrys largest circulating English newspaper The Daily Star. In one of its issues, a cover story titled Prince of Bogra elaborated on the involvement of intelligence agencies with militant Islamist groups during the BNP era. Tasneem Khalil, the author of the report, was abducted and allegedly tortured while in custody, according to reports by Human Rights Watch (HRW). As he was also involved with international media, Khalils case caused a mass outcry globally, which finally allowed for his release. He eventually fled into exile in Sweden as a political refugee, from where he now runs an independent investigative journalism news platform called Netra News. Criticism was also stirred globally as censorship extended to international media; issues of the Economist magazine containing negative reports about the regime entered Dhaka with the relevant pages torn out.

As elections drew near, the military regime started to become increasingly unsteady, and religion once again entered the political periphery of the country. Attacks were launched on writers and students for any alleged blasphemous reference, such as when Islami Chatra Shibir threatened members of the group Udichi for staging the drama Mandar at Rajshahi University. Jamaat e Islami also announced its manifesto during this time, which included a section calling for a blasphemy law. However, the events backfired, leading to a large anti-Islamist vote bloc to emerge during the national polls.

The Rise of a Crackdown on Dissent

Journalists expected the 2009 return to democracy to be accompanied with new appreciation for the press, whose voices had made the [caretaker governments] tenure increasingly difficult. But perversely, government interference has now increased to the point that by 2012 there are regular reports of actions against a blog, blogger, or even Facebook accounts, writes Mohaiemen. He further explores how press freedoms landscape has been dotted with censorship from the start of the 2010s. Aside from press freedom, this was a time when social media and new films and exhibitions also came under the watchful gaze of censorship.

Fast forward to 2013, and the country saw a spate of assaults against writers, artists, and publishers by the forces of Islamic extremism. That year was tied to a raw nerve in Bangladeshs history the liberation war of 1971. The country came alive with protests demanding the capital punishment of an influential war criminal, Abdul Quader Mollah. A blogger and one of the organizers of the protests, Ahmed Rajib Haider was hacked to death outside his house during the protests, allegedly because he was an atheist. A group named Hefazat-e-Islam came into the spotlight during that period as it demanded the government enact blasphemy laws against atheist bloggers. It rose to prominence by harnessing the extremist Islamic ideals of its followers.

In 2015, a hit-list containing 84 names was circulated on the internet by a militant group called Ansar Bangla. Following a series of attacks and killings (the murder of Avijit Roy at the national bookfair a particularly horrific episode of the series), international writers including Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood urged the government to take stringent measures to ensure a space for free thinking. With the rise of a crackdown on dissent by machete-wielding extremists, it was upon the writers to ensure their own safety. After all, the Information and Communications Technology Act 2006 (amended in 2013) could be used to prosecute anyone who publishes anything on or offline that hurts religious sentiment or prejudices the image of the state, as Lit Hub noted.

As killings relatively abated and more traditional censorship grew, a hostile climate for freethinking rolled in over the years. Shahidul Alams arrest in 2018 for covering the road safety movement and speaking to Al Jazeera about what he witnessed on the ground garnered relentless criticism internationally. In the same year, the Digital Security Act came into play.

Shahidul Alams niece, Sofia Karim, an activist and architect who staunchly advocated for his release back in 2018, said:

My uncle (who always spoke out regardless of which party was in power) is one of countless citizens targeted for what should be part and parcel of every democracy: the right to criticize those who rule us through art, satire, reportage, music, poetry and human expression in all its forms. When these collapse, the void is filled with a culture of fear driven by power that operates without checks and balances. Bangladesh was created as a democracy, through pain, courage and sacrifice on the part of the people. To dismantle that is a betrayal. Repression, arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced disappearances, and extra judicial killings should not occur in Bangladesh, under this government or any other. The country deserves better.

Since the Digital Security Act was passed, 1,000 cases have been filed under the law. According to Odhikar, a Bangladeshi human rights monitor, it has been used largely by politicians and businessmen.

The latest controversy surrounding the act came as Shafiqul Islam Kajol, a photo-journalist, was arrested under the act, 53 days after his mysterious disappearance on March 10 this year. Ever since his arrest, hashtags like #freekajol and #RepealDSA have gone viral. An upsurge has also been noted in cases surrounding this act during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dhaka Tribune reports that 327 cases were filed under the Digital Security Act in the first three months of this year with the Cyber Crime Tribunal. Odhikar further claims that 59 journalists have been harassed for their work in the first three months of 2020.

A journalist, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Diplomat, We have to think twice before writing about some influential figure and alter our language. And when we are dealing with sensitive assignments, we have to be extra-alert in terms of physical safety and legal aspects. My career has been overshadowed by the hands of censorship.

Azeez Intizar and Sabrina Majed are freelance journalists focusing on South Asia.

Continue reading here:

Bangladesh in the Shadow of Censorship The Diplomat - The Diplomat

Judd Apatow Criticizes Hollywood’s Censorship For International Market: China Has Bought Our Silence With Their Money – Deadline

According to Judd Apatow, Hollywoods desire to bring home major box office wins in China and Saudi Arabia comes at the cost of meaningful and truthful content.

The director, comedian and producer sat down with MSNBCs Ari Melber to talk comedy and the industrys content censorship when catering to international markets. During the Mavericks with Ari Melber conversation, The King of Staten Island helmer said that people should turn their attention to the corporate type of censorship that happens to films when presented in content-strict countries including China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

A lot of these giant corporate entities have business with countries around the world, Saudi Arabia or China, and theyre just not going to criticize them and theyre not going to let their shows criticize them or theyre not going to air documentaries that go deep into truthful areas because they make so much money, Apatow told the MSNBC host.

Apatow added that such censorship completely shut(s) down critical content about important stories including those spotlighting human rights issues in aforementioned countries. He went on to single out China, noting that the countrys ability to block off investigative documentaries and films criticizing the nation and its leadership warrants concern.

He said that larger content corporations, who may care more about making money, are more likely to reject stories about human rights abuses in China, such as those regarding Muslim concentration camps, in the pitch process.

No one would buy the pitch, he said. Instead of us doing business with China and that leading to China being more free, what has happened is that China has bought our silence with their money.

The director voiced the need for movies that shine a light on human rights issues, challenge the actions of elected officials and inform the worldwide audience. Without them, the entertainment market may face consequences far greater than box office losses, he said.

What is a result of that is that we never wake up our country or the world, through art or satire, that people are being mistreated in our country or other countries and thats very dangerous, he said.

Apatows comments come after Disneys Mulan faced backlash for filming in the Xinjiang province, where Uighur Muslims have been detained in mass internment camps. U.S. Senator Josh Hawley accused Disneys movie of whitewashing the ongoing genocide of Uighurs and other Muslim ethnic minorities during the production of Mulan.

Watch the full clip above.

Read more here:

Judd Apatow Criticizes Hollywood's Censorship For International Market: China Has Bought Our Silence With Their Money - Deadline

Trumps Partial TikTok And WeChat Ban Tip-Toes Into Chinese-Style Censorship – Forbes

A close-up shows the TikTok sharing application on a smartphone and personal pc on September 14, ... [+] 2020, in Rome, Italy. According to the statement released by Microsoft, the Chinese company ByteDance has refused to sell its US TikTok business to the US technology giant. (Photo Illustration by Andrea Ronchini/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The Trump administrations enemies list now officially includes two apps. Friday morning, the Commerce Department released details of a partial ban on the TikTok and WeChat apps, fulfilling a Trump pledge August 6 to prevent the Chinese government from collecting and controlling the information of Americans via those Android and iOS programs.

Where the executive orders issued then about the video-clip social network TikTok and the messaging-and-transactions platform WeChat left some mystery about which transactions might be forbidden, Fridays developments make things official and specific.

Starting Sunday, Sept. 20, app stores cannot host these two apps or updates to them. That may itself goose downloads fromApples AAPL App Store and Googles GOOGL Play Store.

I do expect an uptick (no idea how much) in downloads today and tomorrow before the ban starts on Sunday, emailed Adam Blacker, vice president for insights and global alliances at Boston-based app-analytics firm Apptopia.

Internet infrastructure firms also cannot enable these apps via hosting, content-delivery, or efficient-routing deals. And other developers cant include TikTok or WeChat code in their apps.

Those additional provisions apply to WeChat Sunday but dont hit TikTok until Nov. 12, a delay that would let Oracle ORCL complete a still vaguely-defined transaction meant to ordain it as TikToks U.S. partner.

These regulations do not, however, ban you from using either app. Regulations now on the Federal Register for TikTok and WeChat specify that users can still exchange personal or business information in them.

They also dont specify that basic internet routing, such as domain-name-system lookups to connect users to sites, fall under their definitions of internet hosting services.

But the sight of the Trump administration moving even farther to regulate the internet has digital-rights advocates outragedand unsettled by how this resembles Chinas own Great Firewall online.

Were getting there, said Rebecca MacKinnon, director of Ranking Digital Rights initiative, a group hosted by the Washington think tank New America. Her forecast in a call Friday: Welcome to the Great Firewall of America.

MacKinnon, who has spent years decrying Chinas attempts to lock down information, called a government ban on one apps distribution unprecedented in a democratic society.

This certainly isnt the Great Firewall, but I think you could quite reasonably call it the first brick, wrote Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, in an email.

While the order doesnt require internet providers to block traffic to these apps, he noted that banning common measures to manage traffic at widely-used apps will make them harder to use.

American content creators are going to lose access to the audiences theyve built up, and American users are going to lose access to speech, both domestic and foreign, on these platforms, he predicted.

The ban of TikTok and WeChat announced today is an extreme measure that fundamentally undermines the foundation of the Internet, said Joseph Lorenzo Hall, senior vice president for a strong internet at the Internet Society, in an emailed statement.

Hall, MacKinnon and Sanchez all questioned the security arguments behind the Trump administrations move.

There are all kinds of ways that you could be taking action to protect American users in a way that does not bring First Amendment concerns, MacKinnon said. For example, passing effective privacy legislation could help curb the widespread collection of data by apps that then gets resold to any willing party.

(The New Yorkers Sue Halpern reported Sunday that the Trump campaign spent $4 million buying mobile data from a broker called Phunware.)

Thats a much larger risk than that posed by TikTok in particular. That appears relatively meek in its info appetites compared to WeChat and its wide range of capabilities.

Sanchez called the administrations security rationales totally unpersuasive handwaving and said it can always ban these apps from government devices if it thinks there are real risks without telling other Americans how to live their digital lives.

MacKinnon wasnt willing to trust these apps that much: I dont use TikTok, I would never put WeChat on my phone for security reasons.

Ranking Digital Rights assessments of how internet and telecom firms protect their users regularly put WeChat developer Tencent near the bottom. There is no evidence of Tencent standing up to the government, she said.

The Internet Societys Hall also noted the direct effects of cutting WeChat and TikTok users off from bug fixes.

This ban is dangerous if only for the security vulnerabilities that will be created for American users, Hall said. Given that apps upgrades and patches will be unavailable from Sunday onwards, this poses significant security concerns.

Since the ban doesnt affect either companys web site, both could also offer direct downloads of their apps to Android users. Google, in distinct contrast to Apples tight control, lets users sideload apps outside of its app storebut going that route risksleaving an Android phone open to malware.

Both the Commerce Departments announcement and the enabling regulations allow for further steps by the administration to police use of these apps.

Worry about that, advised Catos Sanchez: I think theres a good case that what the Commerce Department is ordering already exceeds the limits of statutory authority as well, so I dont think we can be too sure what extraordinary powers this administration might suddenly discover it enjoys.

Go here to see the original:

Trumps Partial TikTok And WeChat Ban Tip-Toes Into Chinese-Style Censorship - Forbes

Why is the government pushing unprecedented online censorship? – Telegraph.co.uk

Our governments proposals describe disinformation as harmful, and will make content which has been disputed by reputable fact-checking services less visible to users, forcing companies to promote authoritative news sources. The Chinese Government has pushed online influencers to counter disinformation, holding education sessions like the Responsibility Forum for Online Personalities; our government urges Adult [internet] users [to] act in an acceptable manner, which contradicts its claim that the regulator will not be responsible for policing truth and accuracy online.

In support of the plans, the government quotes studies that lack proper evidence. One claims to have uncovered organised social media manipulation campaigns in 48 countries. But its claims about the UK were generally unfalsifiable, and implied that North Koreans, allowed virtually no internet access, were less vulnerable to online manipulation.

Britons faced pro-government or party messages [and] attacks on the opposition, without evidence or explanation why pro-government or party messages and attacks on the opposition do not simply mean robust democratic debate. Unlike the UK, the people of Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe did not suffer trolling or harassment online. Such is the evidence the government has compiled to justify interventions against disinformation.

Many voters who backed the government to get Brexit done will also be surprised to see it copying the EUs new digital censorship. The EUs 2018 Code of Practice on Disinformation also requires fact checkers to identify authoritative content. Some online disinformation, like various conspiracy theories, is clearly harmful, but as Judge Louis Brandeis said: If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Sadly, the governments plans will even fail in their aim of making the UK the best place to start an online business. Given the resources firms will need to comply with the new regulations, the government will simply entrench the US tech giants monopoly. The authors of the plans believe they will create more tolerance and help rid the internet of hate, but in reality will achieve the opposite, giving conspiracy theorists and hate-merchants the glamour of being banned by the state.

Later this year, the Free Speech Union will propose the outline of simplified legislation to deal with genuine harms, without censoring our freedom of speech. But the Governments plans are an authoritarian threat to our freedom of speech. They would prove a nasty surprise to most internet users and should never be put into effect.

Visit link:

Why is the government pushing unprecedented online censorship? - Telegraph.co.uk

Not Content to Censor Conservatives, Zuckerberg Now Seeks to Meddle in Election – National Legal and Policy Center

It didnt take long afterMark Zuckerberg proclaimed thatfree speech would reign onFacebook and specifically that political candidates would not have their posts removed or altered ahead of the 2020 elections for him to renege.

The companyannounced earlier this month it would ban any new political ads during the week leading up to the Nov. 3rd election. But Facebook has continued its censorship throughout the year, despite Zuckerbergs declaration last fall.

And Zuckerberg seems more-than-prepared to meddle in the election and its results before, during, and after the results come in. While he does not appear to support any political candidates or PACs this cycle (his name doesnt show up in campaign finance reports, unlike in the past), he and the Silicon Valley leftists in his employ wield Facebooks potent platform to amplify messages they want to give wider attention to, and mute the ones they dont. Thats far more powerful than any amount of campaign contributions.

Its near impossible to compile an exhaustive list of censorship examples in light of Zuckerberg famouslysaying that social media platforms shouldnt be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online, and specifically that politicians shouldnt be censored because of their public positions. But the stakes over the election have heightened with the Lefts obsession to rid the White House of Donald Trump, much of which has been exposed in reporting and treatment of the two major news developments of 2020: COVID-19 and widespread riots following alleged systemic racism incidents in which black suspects have died in confrontations with police.

Here are a few examples of Facebook and its monitors censoring messages by conservatives:

Those are just a handful of examples.

But its not even debatable that Facebooks moderation practices are in the grip of leftists. Thanks to whistleblowers who captured colleagues on video, Project Veritas revealed the companys conduct in their own words. One moderatorsaid, If someone is wearing a MAGA hat, I am going to delete them for terrorism and that I think we are all doing that. Another, asked if she deleted Republican posts, replied, Yes! I dont give no f*cks, Ill delete it.

As for Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, even though they show no campaign contributions, that doesnt mean they are staying on the sidelines for November. The coupledonated $300 million to a pair of nonprofit groups to promote safe voting.

The Center for Tech and Civic Life will receive $250 million which it says it will distribute to local election jurisdictions for staffing, training and equipment, Business Insider reported. The Center for Election Innovation and Research will receive the remaining $50 million, which will be spent on helping local jurisdictions secure their voting data.

Unsurprisingly, the groups sit on the left side of the political spectrum. CTCLis funded by several liberal-leaning foundations, and according to the Capital Research Center, The organization pushes for left-of-center voting policies and election administration and it has a wide reach into local elections offices across the nation.

CTCL is already being accused of violating Wisconsin election laws due to its involvement, and is thetarget of a lawsuit.

This initiative by CTCL is clearly designed to provide a boost in registered voters, limited only to traditional leftist strongholds, in a critical swing state that is likely to determine the outcome of the presidential election on November 3, 2020, said a representative for the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Facebook is also trying torecruit more poll workers for the election. Should voters be concerned about the handling of their ballots on November 3rd?

See the original post here:

Not Content to Censor Conservatives, Zuckerberg Now Seeks to Meddle in Election - National Legal and Policy Center

New Alliance to Track and Fight Censoring of Conservatives – CBN News

Social media giants like Facebook, Twitter, and Google may deny it, but its becoming obvious to many that conservatives are facing censorship. Now, though,the conservative Media Research Center(MRC) has announced a new alliance thats going to fight the Big Tech companies over this censoring of conservative speech, websites and people, all the way up to the president, who recently saw even his input knocked off the web.

If they can do it to the president of the United States, they can do it to anyone. And in fact, thats exactly whats happening, said MRCs Brent Bozell.

This new effort, Free Speech America, will track and report this censoring on its website CensorTrack.org. Across the top of that websites opening page is a video that features many snippets of famous Americans talking about this trend.

Both Donald & Donald Jr. have been Targeted

It includes Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz saying, Mother Teresa is now deemed hate speech. Is this hate speech?

If youre religious, if youre pro-life, if youre pro-Second Amendment, you watch your metrics and you watch them get destroyed, says Donald Trump Jr. in the same video, speaking of how the tech giants will strip conservatives viewership and make their sites harder to find.

Even the president of the United States has been targeted, Bozell says in the video. And if he isnt safe online, how can you be?

Working All the Levers of Power

The new alliance will work in the halls of power for change with lawmakers like Tennessee Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, who has also been censored by Big Tech social media for a pro-life ad her last senatorial campaign released.

She said of these companies,We are no longer giving them the benefit of the doubt; what we are doing is holding them to account.

Who do the social media giants hit the worst?

STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE CBN NEWS APPClick Here Get the App with Special Alerts on Breaking News and Top Stories

Theyre Definitely Not Pro Pro-Life

Abortion is Ground Zero for the Far Left, and the Right to Life movement has no home in Silicon Valley, Bozell stated. The pro-life movement couldnt advertise the Right to Life March.

That march happens to be the worlds largest annual demonstration.

One voice just censored in recent days by Facebook said his groups $4 million ad campaign to keep womens sports free of transgendered men, had been censored, and not because its ads werent factual.

Even if Youre Factual, You May be Censored for Missing Context

American Principles Projects Jon Schweppe said of those at Facebook,They had been removing ads for being fact-checked to false or mostly false. A new rating that they created was missing contextwhatever that means.

These social media juggernauts also actively use their power to aid the Left-wing. One critic Dr. Robert Epstein -- pointed to what Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg might well deliver for Joe Biden on Election Day: An additional 450,000 votes that day just by sending out Go Vote reminders just to people who lean Left.

Maybe Take em to Court?

Attorney Kelly Shackelford of First Liberty Institute sees one effort on the part of the new alliance might be possibly steering victims to come down hard on these tech giants with crushing lawsuits.All it takes is an Attorney General in a number of these states, said Shackelford. And there are fines per incident per citizen. And so, this could be a huge way to really get them under control.

Speaking of the social media giants efforts to squelch the Right, Bozell warned, When you have this kind of censorship, you really are threatening the democratic process in this country.

And thats why we need conservative individuals and organizations to reach out to us and let us know when theyve encountered problems with tech companies, said MRC Vice PresidentDan Gainor, wholl be working with CensorTrack.org.

Bozell asserted the censorship is so widespread it will take years, maybe decades to wage this war with the tech giants.

Original post:

New Alliance to Track and Fight Censoring of Conservatives - CBN News

Reading the Evolution of Censorship and Sedition in India – The Wire

Censorship, usually understood as repressive state power, has often been considered a theoretically dull subject even if a politically vital one.

Scholars saw their task as ensuring that such activity does not pass without historical accounting and would, therefore, catalogue the instances, discern motivations and assess the implications of censorship.

But, as three recent books on India demonstrate, the state is no longer the sole agent engaged in censorial activity. Demands for censorship, as well as practices of censorship, come from and are practised in all realms of society. Censorship then is often a collaborative venture between the state and society.

This shift in understanding from censorship as a unilateral exercise of coercive and monolithic state power to its more complex, motivated and collaborative dimension has political implications. For, if the traditional liberal concern was to protect the individual from the state, an additional question is now being posed: how does one respond when the clamour for censorship comes from the public groups that utilise a plethora of laws, and at times resort to vigilante action to achieve their aims?

If one is to diagnose contemporary democracy, and how the postcolonial present has been shaped by an infrastructure of colonial law and regulation, then expanding our understanding of the modalities and varieties of contemporary censorship is an urgent matter.

Watch | For Those Charged With Sedition, the Process Itself Is the Punishment

Devika SethiWar over Words: Censorship in India, 1930-1960Cambridge University Press (2019)

All three authors have examined the legacy of colonial censorship, which Devika Sethi, a historian, notes demarcated three broad categories: sedition (political speech regarded as illegitimate), obscenity (the transgression of perceived moral norms) and hate literature (incitement to communal or ethnic disharmony).

Sethis central concerns are, topically, an interest in the long history of censoring texts that have caused religious hurt, and practically, the informalization of censorship, that is, a shift from regulation to persuasion, incentives and collaboration. She examines the periods immediately preceding and succeeding independence (1930-1960) to assess the continuities and changes from the colonial to the post-colonial state.

While the overarching themes of all three books are similar, Anushka Singh fleshes out the category of sedition, whereas Malvika Maheswaris focus is on the offence caused by artists. She, therefore, concentrates on obscenity and hate literature. Singh and Maheswari, both political scientists, bring us up to contemporary events, trying to explain how charges of sedition, and the alacrity with which offence is taken, have become a pervasive feature of our times. All three writers underscore how individuals and groups use various laws to press the state into action.

Sethi examines the long history of individual and religious associations petitioning the colonial government, often successfully, to prohibit publications offensive to religious sensibilities. She notes that success often depended on the political context and that for the colonial authorities, considerations of public order usually trumped concerns over the restriction of free speech. The colonial state also sought co-operation and collaboration from its colonial subjects; in particular, from the Indian nationalist press during the second world war years.

Sethi details a variety of techniques through which the nationalist press was co-opted into exercising voluntary censorship as state officials sought to enlist them against a purported common enemy. After independence, this informalisation, Sethi argues, continued although the motivations may have changed. Informalisation was now, in part, a response to the conundrums of censorship faced by the Congress government.

Indian nationalists suffering from colonial censorship, had developed a commitment to free speech. Once in government, however, they faced the problems of hate speech, communalist violence and ideological challenges from both the right and the left. While attempts during the constituent assembly debates to add a new sedition law were defeated, additional restrictions on speech and expression were realised with the passing of the first constitutional amendment in 1951.

Also read: Book Review: Chronicling the (Mis)use of Sedition Law in India

Sethi argues that the focus on constitutional legality obscures the informal mechanisms of control that were elaborated and favoured in the initial post-independence years and which continued through the first decade of independence. That is, while the first amendment to the Indian constitution imposed further restrictions on free speech, Nehrus reluctance to institute formal censorship meant that the government did not initially resort to these new restrictions but preferred to use extra-legal means of controlling the press.

The informalization of censorship was consolidated by a shared outlook (the post-independence Nehruvian consensus) of the major press barons and encouraged by their developing business interests, which relied on state patronage, and so ensured criticism was further muted.

Anushka SinghSedition in Liberal DemocraciesOUP India (2018)

In Sedition in Liberal Democracies, Anushka Singh, explores the tension in liberal democracies between free speech commitments and imperatives of state security through a focus on sedition. Although Singhs book has a comparative dimension, in that she assesses the status of sedition laws in India against developments in other liberal democracies such as the US, the UK and Australia, and a theoretical interest in speech act theory, which she uses to determine if Indian jurisprudence on sedition can be considered coherent, the principal value of the book is its historical delineation of sedition. Singh provides a useful account of the law, introduced in 1870 as section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, and its subsequent additions and amendments, which have expanded the scope and manner of use, in both the colonial and post-colonial periods.

Unsurprisingly, its initial use and subsequent expansion was by the colonial authorities against the nationalist press and politicians, most notably, with the charges against Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who was tried on three separate occasions, in 1897, 1908 and 1916. Tilak contested the charges from within the law by pleading that his statements did not legally amount to sedition. He was convicted on the first two occasions but on the third set of charges in 1916, his defence lawyer, one M.A. Jinnah, succeeded in obtaining an acquittal.

Trials against nationalists only furthered discontent with the sedition law and strengthened their commitment to free speech. To be charged became a badge of ones patriotism and honour. The transvaluation of sedition, however, was most forcefully brought about by Mahatma Gandhi who, when charged as a result of the civil disobedience campaign of 1922, accepted that, within the terms of the law, he was guilty. Gandhi, however, made a larger argument against the law in toto, stating that it was designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Noting that Indian patriots had been convicted under it, he said, I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section.

Despite the anti-colonial nationalist critique, attempts were made, during the constituent assembly debates, to include sedition as a constitutional limitation on fundamental rights. However, this was unacceptable to many nationalists who saw it as criminalising legitimate dissent and successfully defeated its inclusion. Nevertheless, anxieties about the security of the state ensured that Section 124-A was retained in the penal code. This, Singh suggests, was a contradiction that was subsequently exacerbated by executive actions, which, emphasising state security, brought actions against opponents from the left and the right. The courts, however, emphasising constitutional freedoms reasserted the scope of free speech.

The first constitutional amendment of 1951 can be seen as an attempt to limit the judiciarys strong commitment to freedom of expression by expanding the grounds on which to restrict speech while simultaneously continuing to eschew sedition as a constitutional offence. The first amendments inclusion of public order, in particular, opened up an avenue for emphasising considerations of state security and revived the validity of sedition as a category.

Also read: A Short Summary of the Law of Sedition in India

But the vexed question of the constitutionality of sedition continued until the Kedar Nath Singh judgment of 1962 where the Supreme Court, whilst allowing for dissent, and narrowing the scope of sedition, nonetheless upheld it as constitutionally valid through a public order rationale. The balance in favour of state security over freedom of expression was further consolidated by the 16th constitutional amendment of 1963, which added that the sovereignty and integrity of India be considered in assessing political speech.

These developments were indicative of the shift away from anti-colonial nationalisms positive evaluation of seditious speech. The road towards interpreting critical comments as anti-national and therefore, subject to sedition charges was, despite judicial ring-fencing, opened. It was a road that gradually widened over the decades, and with the slew of anti-terror laws in the 1990s, led to the increasingly casual use of sedition charges.

As the scope of nationalism has been narrowed by a majoritarian Hindu religiosity, charges of sedition have proliferated and become commonplace. While the higher judiciary, Singh notes, has tried to impose limits of what constitutes sedition, this is often ignored by the executive branches of government, whose political discourse increasingly marks dissent, and difference as seditious.

It, is, especially the police and the lower judiciarys low threshold for what is considered anti-national and seditious that has meant the charge has had profound consequences for individuals, as well as the political causes they espouse, leading to an effective criminalisation of political activity. Singhs case studies detail some of the many, diverse and bewildering arrays of persons and organizations who have been charged in recent years, which under the present dispensation can only continue to expand.

Singh compares the continued existence of Indias sedition laws with other liberal democracies, which, she notes, have repealed or rarely use sedition laws. Prosecutions based on the expression of dissenting political opinions is now regarded as embarrassing. Sedition is considered a decidedly archaic19th century provision. However, she notes these western liberal democracies have instead resorted to anti-terror legislation to curtail speech. But if the argument is to replace sedition with anti-terror legislation then one should pause for sedition has the advantage of highlighting the political nature of the offence, as Gandhi so clearly recognised.

Malvika MaheshwariArt Attacks: Violence and Offence-Taking in IndiaOxford University Press (2018)

The charge of terror on the other hand depoliticises. Rather than dispensing with sedition and resorting to anti-terror legislation then, perhaps sedition ought to be retained albeit it needs to be re-defined and its scope and usage restricted. Only then can political differences be recuperated and the process of decoupling, what is considered as anti-nationalism from sedition, begin. The present conflation of the political with the national has reduced the scope of genuine democratic politics, from one where disagreement, dissent and difference are no longer held as values but are taken as signs of subversion, betrayal and foreignness.

Maheswaris book investigates the politics of offence, of offence perceived to moral norms and religious sensibilities by artistic representations. Here, colonial laws against obscenity and harm to religious sentiments are mobilised by censorial publics and Maheswaris focus is on the motivations, politics and responses to these attacks on artists.

She argues that protests against Rushdies Satanic Verses (1988) and the murder of the playwright Safdar Hashmi (1989) marked the moment when violent politics and demands on regulating speech led to a transformation in the Indian state from the privileging of freedom of expression to the privileging of offended sentiments.

By the 1990s, the successful hounding of the artist M.F. Hussain by Hindu nationalists was indicative of this sea-change. Yet she does not rehearse an account of the rise and fall of liberal-secularism, the Nehruvian consensus and the modern state by simply and exclusively pointing to the machinations of power politics linked to a majoritarian religiosity.

While these factors are undoubtedly important in her analysis, she is also attentive to how such a framing conveniently constructs a binary of liberal-secular civility and reason against religious irrationalism and violence. She argues that rather than placing these as exterior and external, and hence aberrations, they are better understood as emerging from within, from the multifarious and at times conflictual aspects of both liberalism, on the one hand, and democracy, on the other.

Violence against artists should not be regarded as aberrations against democracy in India, she says, but its very condition. Within liberalism, the commitment to individual free speech can be countered by equally liberal principles of equal respect, dignity and public order as enshrined in the law. Maheswari investigates the motivations of those who employ the language of the law to register cases and organise protests and argues that their primary motivation is not only to realise personal ambitions but to gain the recognition and respect that a liberal-democratic polity ought to afford but often denies them.

Perhaps most interesting in her account is why artists became the focus of ire since the 1980s. She suggests that they mark a particular figure within one strand of liberalism of the self-actualising, creative individual the ideal citizen in one imaginary of progressive liberal-secular modernity. Noting that whilst cases had been brought against them in earlier decades, the judiciary tended to treat artists as ideal citizen-subjects and did not, therefore, subject them to the same constraints imposed on other members of society.

Also read: How Bal Gangadhar Tilaks 1897 Trial Marked the Criminalisation of Dissent

It is this unequal and protected status, she suggests, that only further encouraged mobilisations against artists. Protestors deployed laws on obscenity and harming religious sentiments to bring cases against them and resorted to violence if state officials were reluctant or the judiciary disappointed them. Vigilante violence can then be understood as upholding certain perceived moral norms that the law failed to uphold, and is consequently regarded as legitimate in the eyes of the perpetrators.

As a political scientist, Maheswaris methodological emphasis is on the individual and through her micro-case studies she examines the personal motivations, forms of self-interest and competitive politics of claim-making, that is, the competition to hold a monopoly on outrage in mobilising agitations and attacks. Whilst valuable and important, this emphasis on instrumental politics tends analytically to neglect the role of emotion and sentiment.

Taken together, these three books excavate, and highlight, the tensions within a liberal political order. Liberalism has always hedged its promises of freedom and rights with constraints and limitations. As the latter have increased, the scope of freedom seems narrow and precarious. But the solution cannot simply be a politically innocent call for the return of liberal principles, one that imagines that censorship can end within a progressive polity backed by state power.

On the contrary, a pragmatic recognition that censorship is, and will always, be exercised has to be acknowledged. The task, then, is to produce a new infrastructure of censorship, one that recognises that there are limits to expression while at the same time pushing rights of expression to its limits. Crucial to this is the continual reassessment of these laws and the introduction of mechanisms that reduce the ease with which the current laws are used to make accusations and register cases.

This ease of use has meant adversarial legal action has replaced social practices of debate, disagreement and the scope for mutual respect, review and contrition. The review and repeal of colonial laws that invite and incite accusatory practices laws that intensify conflict rather than redress injustice could be the start of a new conception of the relations of speech, dissent, harm and at the same time an acknowledgement of social and political differences.

Asad Ahmed is social-cultural anthropologist who works on the law, language and colonialism. He has taught at various North American universities including Harvard.

See more here:

Reading the Evolution of Censorship and Sedition in India - The Wire

China’s Influence on the Global Human Rights System – Human Rights Watch

Is the Chinese governments greater engagement with international institutions a gain for the global human rights system? A close examination of its interactions with United Nations human rights mechanisms, pursuit of rights-free development, and threats to the freedom of expression worldwide suggests it is not. At the United Nations, Chinese authorities are trying to rewrite norms and manipulate existing procedures not only to minimize scrutiny of the Chinese governments conduct, but also to achieve the same for all governments. Emerging norms on respecting human rights in development could have informed the Chinese governments approach to the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and national development banks, but they have not. Chinese authorities now extend domestic censorship to communities around the work, ranging from academia to diaspora communities to global businesses.

This paper details the ways Chinese authorities seekto shape norms and practices globally, and sets out steps governments and institutions can take to reverse these trends, including forming multilateral, multi-year coalitions to serve as a counterweight to Chinese government influence. Academic institutions should not just pursue better disclosure policies about interactions with Chinese government actors, they should also urgently prioritize the academic freedom of students and scholars from and of China. Companies have human rights obligations and should reject censorship.

Equally important, strategies to reject the Chinese governments threats to human rights should not penalize people from across China or of Chinese descent around the world, and securing human rights gains inside China should be a priority. The paper argues that many actors failure to take these and other steps allows Chinese authorities to further erode the existing universal human rights system and to enjoy a growing sense of impunity.

In recent years, the Chinese government has become considerably more active in a wide range of United Nations and other multilateral institutions, including in the global human rights system. It has ratified several core U.N. human rights treaties,[1]served as a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), and seconded Chinese diplomats to positions within the U.N. human rights system. China has launched a number of initiatives that can affect human rights: It has created the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) under the mantra of promoting economic development, and it has become a significant global actor in social media platforms and academia.

This new activism on issues from economics to information by one of the most consequential actors in the international system, if underpinned by a serious (albeit unlikely) commitment among senior Chinese leaders to uphold human rights, could have been transformative. But the opposite has happened.[2] Particularly under President Xi Jinpings leadership,the Chinese government does not merely seek to neutralize U.N. human rights mechanisms scrutiny of China, it also aspires to neutralize the ability of that system to hold any government accountable for serious human rights violations.[3] Increasingly Beijing pursues rights-free development worldwide, and tries to exploit the openness of institutions in democracies to impose its world view and silence its critics.

It is crucial particularly for people who live in democracies and enjoy the rights to political participation, an independent judiciary, a free media, and other functioning institutions to recall why the international human rights system exists. Quite simply, it is because often states fail to protect and violate human rights, particularly in countries that lack systems for redress and accountability. People need to appeal to institutions beyond their governments immediate control.

Beijing is no longer content simply denying people accountability inside China: It now seeks to bolster other countries ability to do so even in the international bodies designed to deliver some semblance of justice internationally when it is blocked domestically.[4] Within academia and journalism, the Chinese Communist Party seeks not only to deny the ability to conduct research or report from inside China, it increasingly seeks to do so at universities and publications around the world, punishing those who study or write on sensitive topics. The rights-free development the state has sanctioned inside China is now a foreign policy tool being deployed around the world.

Beijings resistance to complying with global public health needs and institutions in the COVID-19 crisis,[5] and its blatant violation of international law with respect to Hong Kong,[6] should not be seen as anomalies. They are clear and concerning examples of the consequences for people worldwide not only of a Chinese government disdainful of international human rights obligations but, increasingly, also seeking to rewrite those rules in ways that may affect the exercise of human rights around much of the world. Chinese authorities fear that the exercise of these rights abroad can directly threaten the partys hold on power, whether through criticism of the party itself or as a result of holding Beijing accountable under established human rights commitments.

In June, Human Rights Council member states adopted Chinas proposed resolution on mutually beneficial cooperation by avoteof 23-16, with eight abstentions.[7] This vote capped a two-year effort that is indicative of Beijings goals and tactics of slowly undermining norms through established procedures and rhetoric, which have had significant consequences on accountability for human rights violations. The effort became visible in 2018 when the Chinese government proposed what is now known as its win-win resolution,[8] which set out to replace the idea of holding states accountable with a commitment to dialogue, and which omitted a role for independent civil society in HRC proceedings. When it was introduced, some member states expressed concern at its contents. Beijing made minor improvements and, along with the perception at the time that the resolution had no real consequences, it was adopted 28-1. The United States was the only government to vote against it.

Chinas June resolution seeks to reposition international human rights law as a matter of state-to-state relations, ignores the responsibility of states to protect the rights of the individual, treats fundamental human rights as subject to negotiation and compromise, and foresees no meaningful role for civil society. Chinas March 2018 resolution involved using the councils Advisory Committee, which China expected would produce a study supporting the resolution. Many delegations expressed concern, but gave the resolution the benefit of the doubt, abstaining so they could wait to see what the Advisory Committee produced.

Chinas intentions soon became clear: Its submission [9] to the Advisory Committee hailed its own resolution as heralding the construction of a new type of international relations.[10] The submission claims that human rights are used to interfere in other countries internal affairs, poisoning the global atmosphere of human rights governance.

This is hardly a coincidence: China has routinely opposed efforts at the council to hold states responsible for even the gravest rights violations, and the submission alarmingly speaks of so-called universal human rights. It is nonetheless encouraging that 16 states voted against this harmful resolution in June 2020, compared with only one vote against in 2018, signaling increasing global concern with Chinas heavy-handed and aggressive approach to cooperation.

That the resolution nonetheless passed reflects the threat China poses to the U.N. human rights system. In 2017, Human Rights Watch documented Chinas manipulation of U.N. review processes, harassment, and intimidation of not only human rights defenders from China but also U.N. human rights experts and staff, and its successful efforts to block the participation of independent civil society groups, including organizations that do not work on China.[11]

In 2018, China underwent its third Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the process for reviewing all U.N. member states human rights records. Despite or perhaps because Chinese authorities had since Chinas previous review opened an extraordinary assault on human rights, Chinese diplomats did not just resort to some of its past practices. These had included providing blatantly false information at the review, flooding the speakers list with friendly states and government-organized civil society groups, and urging other governments to speak positively about China.

This time around China also pressured U.N. officials to remove a U.N. country team submission from the UPR materials (ironically that report was reasonably positive about the governments track record),[12] pressured Organisation of Islamic Cooperation member states to speak positively about Chinas treatment of Uyghur Muslims, and warned other governments not to attend a panel event about Xinjiang.

China has so far fended off calls by the high commissioner for human rights and several HRC member states for an independent investigation into gross human rights abuses in Xinjiang, the region in China where an estimated one million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims remain arbitrarily detained.[13] Typically, violations of this magnitude would have already yielded actual accountability proceedings, but Chinas power is such that three years into the Xinjiang crisis there is little forward movement.

In July 2019, two dozen governments sent a letter to the Human Rights Council president though they were unwilling to make the call orally on the floor of the HRC urging an investigation.[14] China responded with a letter signed by 37 countries, mostly developing states with poor human rights records. In November, a similar group of governments delivered a similar statement at the Third Committee of the U.N.;[15] China responded with a letter signed by 54 countries.[16]

Beijing also seeks to ensure that discussions about human rights more broadly take place only through the human rights bodies in Geneva, and not other

U.N. bodies, particularly the Security Council. China contends that only the HRC has a mandate to examine them a convenient way of trying to limit discussions even on the gravest atrocities. In March 2018, it opposed a briefing by then-High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad al Hussein to the Security Council on Syria,[17] and in February 2020 it blocked a resolution at the Security Council on the plight of Myanmars ethnic Rohingya.[18]

U.N. human rights experts, typically referred to as special rapporteurs, are key to reviews and accountability of U.N. member states on human rights issues. One of their common tools is to visit states, but China has declined to schedule visits by numerous special rapporteurs, including those with mandates on arbitrary detention, executions, or freedom of expression.[19]

It has allowed visits by experts on issues where it thought it would fare well: the right to food in 2012, a working group on discrimination against women in 2014, and an independent expert on the effects of foreign debt in 2016.[20] In 2016, China allowed a visit by Philip Alston, then the special rapporteur onextreme poverty and human rights, who ended his visit early when authorities followed him and intimidated people he had spoken to.[21 ] Since that time, China has only allowed a visit by the independent expert on the rights of older people in late 2019.

China also continues to block the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights from having a presence in China. While there are two dozen other U.N. agencies in China, they have rarely invoked their mandate to promote human rights.

In late June, 50 U.N. current and former special procedures the most prominent group of independent experts in the U.N. human rights system issued a searing indictment of Chinas human rights record and call for urgent action.[22] The experts denounced the Chinese governments collective repression of religious and ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and Tibet, the repression of protest and impunity for excessive use of force by police in Hong Kong, censorship and retaliation against journalists, medical workers, and others who sought to speak out following the COVID-19 outbreak, and the targeting of human rights defenders across the country. The experts called for convening a special session on China, creating a dedicated expert on China, and asking U.N. agencies and governments to press China to meet its human rights obligations.It remains to be seen whether and how the U.N. secretary-general, the high commissioner for human rights, and the Human Rights Council will respond.

Despite its poor human rights record at home, and a serious threat to the U.N. human rights system, China is expected to be reelected to the Human Rights Council in October. Absent a critical mass of concerned states committed to serving as a counterweight to both problems, people across China and people who depend on this system for redress and accountability are at serious risk.

For the last several decades, activists, development experts, and economists have made gains in creating legal and normative obligations to ensure respect and accountability for human rights in economic development. By the time China became the worlds second-largest economy in 2010, major multilateral institutions including the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund had already adopted standards and safeguards policies on community consultation, transparency, and other key human rights issues. In 2011, the United Nations adopted the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Taken together, these emerging global norms should have afforded Beijing a template to pursue development with clear respect for human rights, but neither Chinas development banks nor BRI shows signs of doing so.[23]

Beijings trillion-dollar BRI infrastructure and investment program facilitates Chinese access to markets and natural resources across 70 countries. Aided by the frequent absence of alternative investors, the BRI has secured the Chinese government considerable good- will among developing countries, even though Beijing has been able to foist many of the costs onto the countries that it is purporting to help.

Chinas methods of operation appear to have the effect of bolstering authoritarianism in beneficiary countries, even if both democracies and autocracies alike avail themselves of Chinas BRI investments or surveillance exports.[24] BRI projects known for their no strings loans largely ignore human rights and environmental standards.[25] They allow little if any input from people who might be harmed, allowing for no popular consultation methods. There have been numerous violations associated with the Souapiti Dam in Guinea and the Lower Sesan II Dam in Cambodia, both financed and constructed mainly by Chinese state-owned banks and companies.[26]

To build the dams, thousands of villagers were forced out of their ancestral homes and farmlands, losing access to food and their livelihoods. Many resettled families are not adequately compensated and do not receive legal title to their new land. Residents have written numerous letters about their situation to local and national authorities, largely to no avail. Some projects are negotiated in backroom deals that are prone to corruption. At times they benefit and entrench ruling elites while burying the people of the country under mountains of debt.

Some BRI projects are notorious: Sri Lankas Hambantota port, which China repossessed for 99 years when debt repayment became impossible, or the loan to build Kenyas Mombasa-Nairobi railroad, which the government is trying to repay by forcing cargo transporters to use it despite cheaper alternatives. Some governments including those of Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Sierra Leone have begun backing away from BRI projects because they do not look economically sensible.[27] In most cases, the struggling debtor is eager to stay in Beijings good graces. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, China has made some pronouncements on debt relief, yet it remains unclear on how that will actually work in practice.[28]

BRI loans also provide Beijing another financial leverto ensure support for Chinas anti-rights agenda in key international forums, with recipient states sometimes votingalongsideBeijing in key forums. The result is at best silence, at worst applause, in the face of Chinas domestic repression, as well as assistance to Beijing as it undermines international human rights institutions. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, for example, whose government is a major BRI recipient, said nothing about his fellow Muslims in Xinjiang as he visited Beijing, while his diplomats offered over-the- top praise for Chinas efforts in providing care to its Muslim citizens.[29]

Similarly, Cameroon delivered fawning statements of praise for China shortly after Beijing forgave it millions in debt: Referencing Xinjiang, it lauded Beijing for fully protect[ing] the exercise of lawful rights of ethnic minority populations including normal religious activities and beliefs.[30] Chinas national development banks, such as the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China, have a growing global reach but lack critical human rights safeguards. The China-founded multilateral AIIB is not much better. Itspoliciescallfortransparencyandaccountabilityintheprojectsit finances and include social and environmental standards, but do not require the bank to identify and address human rights risks.[31] Among the banks 74 members are many governments that claim to respect rights: much of the European Union including France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden, along with and the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Beijings censorship inside China is well documented, and its efforts to disseminate propaganda through state media worldwide are well known. But Chinese authorities no longer appear content with these efforts and are expanding their ambitions. Under Xi Jinpings leadership, Chinese authorities increasingly seek to limit or silence discussions about China that are perceived to be critical, and to ensure that their views and analyses are accepted by various constituencies around the world, even when that entails censoring through global platforms.

Chinese authorities have long monitored and conducted surveillance on students and academics from China and those studying China on campuses around the world. Chinese diplomats have also complained to university officials about hosting speakers such as the Dalai Lama whom the Chinese government considers sensitive. Over the past decade, as a result of decreasing state funding to higher education in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, universities are increasingly financially dependent on the large number of fee-paying students from China, and on Chinese government and corporate entities. This has made universities susceptible to Chinese government influence.

The net result? In 2019, a series of rigorous reports documented censorship of and self-censorship by some administrators and academics who did not want to irk Chinese authorities.[32] Students from China have reported threats to their families in China in response to what those students had said in the classroom.

Scholars from China detailed being directly threatened outside the country by Chinese officials to refrain from criticizing the Chinese government in classroom lectures or other talks.

Others described students from China remaining silent in their classrooms, fearful that their speech was being monitored and reported to Chinese authorities by other students from China. One student from China at a university in the United States summed up his concerns about classroom surveillance, noting: This isnt a free space. Drew Pavlou, a student at the University of Queensland who has been critical of the schools ties to the Chinese government, is facing suspension on the grounds that his activism breached the universitys code of conduct.[33]

Some universities in the United States are now under pressure from federal authorities to disclose any ties between the schools or individual scholars and Chinese government agencies, with the stated objective of countering Peoples Republic of China influence efforts and harassment as well as the theft of technology. Universities and scholars in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have been embarrassed by revelations over their ties to Chinese technology firms or government agencies implicated in human rights abuses. In April 2020 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology broke off a relationship with Chinese voice recognition firm iFlytek whose complicity in human rights violations Human Rights Watch documented after adopting tighter guidelines on partnerships.[34]

Other schools have grappled with tensions between students who are critical of the Chinese government and those who defend it. Students from the mainland tried to shout down speakers at a March 2019 event at the University of California at Berkeley who were addressing the human rights crisis in Xinjiang, or in September when unidentified individuals threatened the Hong Kong democracy activist Nathan Law as he arrived for graduate studies at Yale.[35]

But few if any universities have taken steps to guarantee students and scholars from China the same access to academic freedom as others.[36] The failure to address these problems means that for some debates and research about China are arbitrarily curtailed.

Surveillance and harassment of diaspora communities by Chinese authorities is also not a new problem, but it is clear that securing a foreign passport does not guarantee the right to freedom of expression. Even leaving China has become more difficult: Beijing has worked hard in recent years to prevent certain communities from leaving the country through tactics such as denying or confiscating their passports, tightening border security to prevent Tibetans and Turkic Muslims from fleeing, and pressuring other governments from Cambodia to Turkey to forcibly return asylum seekers in violation of their obligations under international law.[37]

Since early 2017, some Uyghurs who have traveled outside China and returned, or simply remained in contact with family and friends outside the country, have found that Chinese authorities deem that conduct criminal.[38]

As a result, even individualswhohavemanaged to leave China and obtain citizenship in rights- respecting democracies report that they are cut off from family members still inside China, are monitored and harassed byChinesegovernmentofficials,and are reluctant to criticize Chinese policies or authorities for fear of reprisals. Some feel they cannot attend public gatherings, such as talks on Chinese politics or Congressional hearings, for fear of being photographed or otherwise having their presence at those events noted. Others describe being called or receiving WhatsApp or text messages from authorities inside China telling them that if they publicly criticize the Chinese government their family members inside China will suffer.

One Uyghur who had obtained citizenship in Europe said: It doesnt matter where I am, or what passport I hold. [Chinese authorities] will terrorize me anywhere, and I have no way to fight that. Even Han Chinese immigrants to countries like Canada described deep fear of the Chinese government, saying that while they are outraged by the human rights abuses in China, they worry that if they criticize the government openly, their job prospects, business opportunities, and chances of going back to China would be affected or that their family members who remain in China would be in danger.[39]

Governments have relatively weak means to push back against this kind of harassment, given that it originates largely in China. In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation stepped up its outreach to Uyghurs in the United States who had been targets of Chinese government harassment, and the Uyghur Human Rights Act, adopted in June 2020, expands that work across various diaspora communities from China.[40]

Chinese authorities also seek to limit freedom of expression beyond Chinas borders by censoring conversations on global platforms. In June, Zoom, a California-based company, admitted that it had at the request of Chinese authorities suspended the accounts of U.S.-based activists who had organized online discussions about the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.[41] While the company reinstated the accounts of people based in the United States, it said it could not refuse Chinese authorities demands that it obey local law.

Other global platforms have also enabled censorship. WeChat, a Chinese social media platform with about one billion users worldwide, 100 million of them outside China, is owned by the Chinese company Tencent.[42] The Chinese government and Tencent regularly censor content on the platform, skewing what viewers can see. Posts with the words Liu Xiaobo or Tiananmen massacre cannot be uploaded, and criticisms of the Chinese government are swiftly removed even if those trying to post such messages are outside the country. WeChat is wildly popular for its easy functionality, but it is also a highly effective way for Chinese authorities to control what its users worldwide can see.

It also affects what politicians outside China can say to their own constituents. Politicians around the world increasingly use WeChat to communicate with Chinese speakers in their electorates. In September 2017, Jenny Kwan, a member of the Canadian parliament, made a statement regarding the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong in which she praised the young protesters who stood up and fought for what they believe in, and for the betterment of their society; that statement was subsequently posted on her WeChat account only to be deleted.[43]

It is unclear whether or how politicians in democracies are tracking Beijings efforts to censor their speech. As China plays an ever-more prominent role in global affairs, governments need to move swiftly to ensure that elected representatives ability to communicate with their constituents is not subject to Beijings whims.

Finally, Beijing also leverages access to its market to censor companies ranging from Marriott to Mercedes Benz.[44] Chinese state television, CCTV, and Tencent, a media partner of the National Basketball Association with a five-year streaming deal worth $1.5 billion, said they would not broadcast Houston Rockets games after the teams general manager tweeted in support of Hong Kongs pro-democracy protesters.[45] Under pressure from Beijing, major international companies have censored themselves or staff members. Others have fired employees who have expressed views the companies perceive as critical of Beijing.Itisbad enough for companies to abide by censorship restrictions when operating inside China. It is much worse to impose that censorship on their employees and customers around the world. One can no longer pretend that Chinas suppression of independent voices stops at its borders.

AND WHAT TO DO

The consequences for failing to stop Chinas assault on the international human rights system, and on law and practice around rights-respecting development and on the freedom of expression are simple and stark. If these trends continue unabated, the U.N. Security Council will become even less likely to take action on grave human rights crises; the fundamental underpinnings of a universal human rights system with room for independent actors will further erode; and Chinese authorities (and their allies) impunity will only grow.

Serious rights-violating governments will know they can rely on Beijing for investment and loans with no conditions. People around the world will increasingly have to be careful whether they criticize Chinese authorities, even if they are citizens of rights-respecting democracies or in environments like academia, where debate is meant to be encouraged.

Chinese government conduct over the first half of 2020 its stalling into an independent investigations into the COVID-19 pandemic, its blatant rejection of international law in deciding to impose national security legislation on Hong Kong, even its manipulation of Tiananmen commemorations for people in the United States appears to have galvanized momentum to push back. Members of parliaments from numerous countries are calling for the appointment of a U.N. special envoy on Hong Kong, governments are pressuring Beijing over a COVID-19 cover up, and companies capitulation to Chinese pressure to censor are regular news items.

But this is far from creating the kind of counterweight necessary to curb Beijings agenda, whose threat can now be seen clearly. To protect the U.N. human rights system from Chinese government erosions, rights-respecting governments should urgently form a multi-year coalition not only to ensure that they are tracking these threats, but also to prepare themselves to respond to them at every opportunity to push back. This means nominating candidates for U.N. expert positions and calling out obstructions in the accreditation system.

This means canvassing and organizing objections to norm-eroding resolutions, and mobilizingalliestoput themselves forwardascandidatesfortheHRCor other selectionsmadebyregionalblocs.Chinahas the advantages of deep pockets and no periodic changes in government to encumber its ability to plan; democracies will struggle with both. But here the stakes could not be higher not just for the 1.4 billion people in China, but for people around the world.

Governments,especiallythosethathavejoined the AIIB, should use their joint leverage to push the institution to adoptwell-established human rights and environmental principles and practices to ensure abuse-free development. And governments entering into BRI partnerships should carefully consider the consequences and ensure that they do what China will not: provide adequate public consultation, and full transparency about the financial implications for the country, and the ability of affected populations to reject these development projects.

Governments should urgently consider Beijings threats to the freedom of expression in their own countries. They should track threats to citizens, and pursue accountability to the fullest extent through tools like targeted sanctions. Academic institutions should not content themselves merely with better disclosure policies about interactions with Chinese government actors, they need urgently to ensure that everyone on their campuses has equal access to freedom of expression any less is a gross rejection of their responsibilities.

Companies have a role to play in rejecting censorship. They should recognize that they cannot win playing Beijings game, especially given their responsibility to respect human rights under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. They should draft and promote codes of conduct for dealing with China that prohibit participation in or facilitation of infringements of the right to free expression, information, privacy, association, or other internationally recognized human rights. Strong common standards would make it more difficult for Beijing to ostracize those who stand up for basic rights and freedoms. Consumers and shareholders would also be better placed to insist that the companies not succumb to censorship as the price of doing business in China, and that they should never benefit from or contribute to abuses.

Finally, it is critical that none of these efforts to limit the Chinese governments threats to human rights rebound on people across China or of Chinese descent around the world. The rapid spread of COVID-19 triggered a wave of racist anti-Asian harassment and assaults, and an alarming number of governments, politicians, and policies are falling into Beijings trap of conflating the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, and people from China.[46] They are not the same, and the human rights of people in China should remain at the core of future policies.

of the High Commissioner, August 23, 2016, https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews. aspx?NewsID=20402&LangID=E.

Newsweek, April 17, 2019, https://www.newsweek.com/china-muslims-pakistan-imran-khan-1399044.

Visit link:

China's Influence on the Global Human Rights System - Human Rights Watch

China Isn’t Hiding the Border Tensions With India From Its Public Anymore – The Diplomat

China Power|Society|East Asia

China has loosened its restrictions on reporting about the border standoff, while still practicing heavy-handed opinion shaping tactics.

Chinese central government doesnt need to even lead public opinion: it just selectively stops censorship. In other words, just as censorship is a political tool, so is the absence of censorship, Chinese journalist and blogger Michael Anti has said. Antis now popular quote is emblematic of the process of censorship of news media and social media in China.

This has salience in the ongoing border tensions between China and India. Experts commenting on the events at the Line of Actual Control have previously noted that the Chinese language state-media hasnt given much attention to the story. But there has been growing interest in the story in China.

There was an intriguing silence in the Chinese language media narrative following the clash between the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) and the Indian Army. Chinese language state-run news media agencies such as Xinhua and Peoples Daily largely ignored the June 15 clash between the two sides. Besides some debate around who instigated the aggression and the number of causalities in the Galwan Valley on Sina Weibo, Chinese language media remained silent.

Indias ban on Chinese-owned apps was a turning point in the tone of the Chinese language media narrative. On June 29, India bans 59 Chinese apps was the second most searched hashtag on Twitter-like Chinese social media platform, Sina Weibo. It was also the second most searched phrase on Baidu search engine, the Chinese equivalent of Google. Indias second wave ban on China-owned apps generated widespread interest a hashtag based on the story was viewed 300 million times on Weibo. The news about the app bans was prominently reported by major Chinese language state-media outlets such as Beijing News, Peoples Daily, and Xinhua.

The rhetoric trumpeted by Chinese state-media after India imposed the ban indirectly brought attention to escalation of military tensions along the border. Indias move to impose punitive measures through the app ban was seen as an attack on Chinas economic interests. One of the results of the ban has been growing interest in China to track the developments at the border with India.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

The recent developments at the Line of Actual Control have featured in Chinese language state media publications such as Xinhua. On August 31, the phrase Western Theater Commands statement on China-India border situation trended as the number one searched term on Baidu. The hashtag #Western Theatre Command responded to Indias illegal crossing of line and firing threats# was viewed 260 million times on Weibo. The search phrase Chinese and Indian Defense Ministers meet in Moscow topped Baidu search results on September 4.

More than that, a story about the meeting between Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh in Moscow was on the home page of the Chinese language web edition of Xinhua. On June 25, the Chinese edition of Peoples Daily also reported the Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokespersons statement on the border conflict.

On September 10, a hashtag based on the news about the meeting between Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was the top search term on Baidu. The #China and India reach a five-point consensus# hashtag was the second top searched term on Weibo on September 10. The hashtag remained among the top three trends on Weibo for 12 hours after it began trending. The censors in China tend to focus on highlighting positive news stories. Therefore, it wasnt surprising that news about the agreement reached between the foreign ministers in Moscow of the two countries trended across various platforms. A news article titled The Chinese and Indian foreign ministers issued a joint press release, and the two sides reached a five-point consensus was on the homepage of Xinhuas Chinese language web edition.

Less directly, Chinese President Xi Jinping underscored the importance of border security and border defenses in his remarks made at the recent Tibet Works Conference in Beijing. Experts believe that Xis remarks were targeted at India.

Outside of official channels, prominent media commentators on military affairs with large social media followings in China such as Hu Xijin and Zhang Zhaozhong have steered the debate by posting long commentaries in mandarin on Weibo and calling India the aggressor.

The censorship on Sina Weibo is well documented. Direct censorship of public social media posts, public shaming of Weibo users on CCTV, and detention by police for making false claims are strategies China has used to shape public opinion on the border issue. One WeChat user was detained for spreading a rumor that the poor quality of steel used for Dongfeng Mengshi military vehicles resulted in causalities among PLA soldiers at the border with India. There is an ongoing investigation into violation of the law by senior management at the Dongfeng Motor Corporation. Meanwhile, Sina Weibo is now censoring the hashtag #China-India border conflict# as observed on September 3.

The Chinese publics attention on the events at the border with India will add pressure on the party leadership to find a narrative that can be presented as a victory for China. The military escalation may have been an easy decision by Central Military Commission, but the de-escalation process will be a complicated process amid public interest in the developments at the Line of Actual Control.

Get first-read access to major articles yet to be released, as well as links to thought-provoking commentaries and in-depth articles from our Asia-Pacific correspondents.

Aadil Brar is a freelance journalist. His work has appeared in the BBC, The Quint, The Wire India, Devex and other publications.

Read the original post:

China Isn't Hiding the Border Tensions With India From Its Public Anymore - The Diplomat

Kicking around the ‘fake news’ tag | Opinion | fergusfallsjournal.com – Fergus Falls Daily Journal

Ibet you didnt know I, Joel Myhre, used to be a kicker in the Canadian Football League. I played for the Toronto Argonauts from 1989 to 1992. We actually won the CFL championship in 1991. I set the CFL record by making 32 consecutive field goals that year.

None of this is true, of course. But I am writing this because this column will be uploaded to the internet. So I thought I would experiment to see if my bold-faced lie will actually be turned into truth somewhere in cyberland.

I bring this up because the other day, while entering Walmart, while wearing a Mr. Rogers T-shirt, someone told me that Mr. Rogers, the long-time childrens show host, was covered in tattoos from his days serving as a U.S. Navy Seal in Vietnam, with more than 25 confirmed kills to his name.

Like my story about being a kicker in the CFL, the Mr. Rogers tattoo story is absolute hogwash. Rogers was born in 1928, which means he was 36 when the U.S. started sending troops to Vietnam in 1964. No, Rogers had no tattoos, and never served in Vietnam.

Yet, that guy believed it. Why? Because it was on the internet.

This is what I think bothers me the most about this election. It isnt that a win by Donald Trump would mean Republican policies would continue to be enacted for the next four years.

What bothers me is that Trump has convinced his supporters that any stories that are critical of him are fake news.

Keep in mind that the fake news stories are coming from questionable places like the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Economist.

As a former journalist, this is just unacceptable to me. When I was going to college to be a reporter, such outlets were the pinnacle of journalism. If a story appears in the newspapers or magazines above, I knew that an exhaustive amount of research was done before it was published. I believed it to be the truth. Thats the point, right? Journalists seek out the truth.

But while such media outlets are still operating, they, at least by the right, have been minimized, and declared as fake news. Yet, the real news is from people who will run with rumors without bothering to research them, provided it benefits the political party they support.

I guess its a good thing that all of us now have the ability to get our opinions published globally. Its not a good thing, however, that facts are simply not relevant anymore.

As I read on a bumper sticker the other day, I miss the truth.

As a teacher, I have been asked many times how things are going. Well, its been stressful, to say the least.

One of the primary issues is, we are supposed to be everything to everyone. Last spring, when we went from traditional school to distance learning, we made a clean transition, and had more than a week to figure out how to make that transition. Distance learning was a statewide thing, so everyone had to do it.

Now, it is a convoluted mess.

At the school Im at, we are back to school, with a lot of masks and hand sanitizers. However, there are students who have chosen to do distance learning. It means that teachers, we have to plan for in-person learning and distance learning, simultaneously.

That, my friends, is not an easy thing to do.

Im definitely torn. If a student truly needs to do distance learning due to health concerns, I am all for it. On the other hand, I hope students are not doing distance learning because its easier or because they dont want to go to school. Its just hard for teachers to focus on the students in front of them every day, and the students who are distance learning.

My opinion is, lets get this coronavirus stuff over with so we can all get back to normal.

Joel Myhre is a Fergus Falls resident.

Follow this link:

Kicking around the 'fake news' tag | Opinion | fergusfallsjournal.com - Fergus Falls Daily Journal