Millennials are turning to magic & astrology for empowerment because liberal ideology failed them – RT

Posted on by

Robert Bridge

Increasingly open to astrology, magic and sorcery while happy to virtue signal on behalf of any PC-saturated issue, the entire millenial generation seems wholly unequipped to face the daunting challenges of adulthood.

They may not know how to change a flat tire, cook a simple meal or stop living in their parents' basement, but Millennials the tech-savvy demographic typically born between the years 1981 to the early 2000s seem increasingly preoccupied with subjects of a less practical nature ever since graduating from college.

Whether it is symptomatic of Trump Derangement Syndrome, some kind of New Age mysticism or perhaps spending four long years studying impractical liberal arts courses, its hard to say. But many people are looking to empower themselves with alternative techniques once ridiculed as sheer quackery.

This week, for example, NBC published a lengthy essay that celebrated the rise of interest in astrology in an insecure world.

In the midst of this physical, political and emotional turmoil, astrology offers us a sense of purpose, wrote Tanya Ghahremani. It provides reasons for why the world is spinning as well as hope that it will be less nauseating tomorrow.

I was always under the impression that the world is spinning due to the so-called cosmic Big Bang theory, mixed up with a generous amount of gravitational pull and so on. But never mind. Ghahremani, discussing the feminist roots of astrology, postulates that the stargazing pseudoscience empowers women to take more control over their future; it encourages us to learn more about ourselves and go confidently in the direction that makes the most sense for our well-being.

Other similar stories of an esoteric, occultist nature have enjoyed a heavy press of late. In October, just in time for Halloween, the media was hyping a revived interest in witchcraft. The technology website Wired, for example, in a radical departure from its usual computer-oriented ware, reported on a coven of witches who collectively tried toplace Donald J. Trump in a magical straitjacket. Amid the prerequisite burning of candles and other voodoo rituals, the members recited an incantation that ended with the collective scream, Youre fired! Probably not the best material for a Stephen King novel, but it certainly puts a new twist on the term witch hunt.

Even the New York Times could not resist hopping on its broomstick for a joyride.

Real witches are roaming among us, and theyre seemingly everywhere, gushed the paper of historical record.

It went on to quote Helen Berger, a sociologist at Brandeis University: Were in a period of great transitionand for many of these young people, this spirituality is speaking to them.

Publishers Weekly summed up this rekindled interest in spirituality, not to be confused in any way with religion, as the season of the witch.

Personally speaking, I understand this interest in the more mystical side of life. There is a great allure to those unseen forces we do not comprehend yet seem within the realm of plausibility. After all, the Salem Witch Trials occurred precisely due to this feeling among many people that maybe there really is something behind all this mystical talk.

There is an unsettling, underlying theme, however, that weaves itself through the above-mentioned articles, and perhaps the reader has already noticed it. That theme involves the current political battle raging in the United States. For all of the breathless talk about witch covens, magical spells and incantations, this purported rise among Millennials in mysticism and spiritualism seems to be, partially at least, a cheap political statement against Donald Trump because the Liberals do not like the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

This speaks volumes about the mindset of the Millennial generation, which has been raised on an unhealthy diet of liberal radicalism and political correctness gone stark-raving mad. Because a president was elected that they didn't like, they now believe that the summoning ofmystical forces will change things. This is an act of desperation, and attests to the type of education many of these young adults are receiving at some detached, tree-lined college where queer and gender studies, for example, oftentimes substitutes for the time-honored classics of Western philosophy and history. Meanwhile, the study of science only seems to have merit when it confirms their exceedingly warped worldview. For example, that there are some 13 gender types to choose from, or that the planet and all of its life forms are about to succumb to man-made climate change.

None of this bodes well for the future of mankind. How will these coddled individuals, who grew up - but never quite matured - inside a protective bubble of ignorance inherit a world overloaded with problems, and topped off with nuclear weapons? I suppose they will just continue to adjust to a world they were not prepared for by reciting magical spells and consulting astrological charts.

Well, we saw how well that worked with the so-called Robert Mueller III Prayer Candles, designed to light the way to finding proof of collusion between Trump and the Russians. Then there was the disastrous prediction that Kamala Harris was destined for the White House because she was born on the exact full moon in Aries. Maybe someday Harris will enjoy better political success, but as for now her political star has magnificently crashed.

Perhaps the best takeaway for the more liberal-minded Millennials is to remember that what you learn in a classroom and what you experience in the real world are two completely different things. The higher institutes of learning would do well to remind their students of that difference, while allowing for a climate of frank and open discussion on all subjects. Even if the subjects bring discomfort, which is the way the real world works. No amount of magical spells or charms will change that.

@Robert_Bridge

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

See the original post here:

Millennials are turning to magic & astrology for empowerment because liberal ideology failed them - RT

Federal, state court rulings on whether biometrics protected by Fifth Amendment get murky – Biometric Update

Posted on by

Because courts have ruled they are, and they arent, U.S. Supreme Court may be final arbiter

A recent 4 to 3 ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noticeably declined to address the matter of whether law enforcement and prosecutors can force a defendant to provide his or her bodily biometrics to unlock an electronic device as opposed to a password that is the equivalent of a persons thought, and thus protected by the Fifth Amendment.

However, in the case of the application by the federal government for a search warrant for a cellular telephone in United States v. Anthony Barrera, U.S. District Court for the Northeastern District of Illinois Eastern Division Magistrate Judge Sunil R Harjani issued a Memorandum of Opinion and Order that is in stark contrast to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Courts decision in that it differs by taking a declarative position on whether bodily biometrics can be construed to also be protected by the Fifth Amendment.

As this analysis will show, this murky and ultimately unchartered judicial terrain of whether a persons physical biometrics can be compelled by law not withstanding Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, will unquestionably and soon find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. This issue will have too because of all the muddied legal rulings and arguments now in the collective judicial pipeline. And, depending on whether a judicial ruling upholds that a persons physical biometrics shall be duty-bound to be disclosed by a defendant as opposed to a password a thing in a persons mind that the Pennsylvania high court afforded constitutional protection the ramifications for biometrics as a trusted means for encrypting personal digital storage devices will be far-ranging, legal authorities agree.

Indeed. In January, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Kandis Westmore ruled that requiring a suspect to unbolt an electronic data storage device by means of their biometrics would be a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

If a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide ones finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device, Kandis asserted in her judgement.

The government seeks the authority to compel any individual present at the time of the search to press a finger (including a thumb) or utilize other biometric features, such as facial or iris recognition, for the purposes of unlocking the digital devices found in order to permit a search of the contents as authorized by the search warrant. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the governments request runs afoul of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the search warrant application must be DENIED, she ruled.

On October 24, 2018, a ruling on a Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, maintained that, (t)he state here seeks to force the minor to produce the passcode and iTunes password for an iPhone. To do so would be to compel testimonial communications in violation of the minors invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights Additionally, the trial court erred in relying on the foregone conclusion exception, as the requirements of that exception were not met. As such, we grant the minors petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order of the trial court.

However, the ruling concluded by noting, Finally, because I would conclude that the foregone conclusion doctrine cannot apply to compelled oral testimony, I would go no further. We need not address whether the forced decryption of a device would also violate the Fifth Amendment That question should be left for another case, one where the state has sought the forced decryption of a device as a remedy.

In the case of United States v. Anthony Barrera, though, Judge Harjani ruled that this court holds that compelling an individual to scan their biometrics, and in particular their fingerprints, to unlock a smartphone device neither violates the Fourth nor Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, the court has signed and authorized the governments warrant, including the authority to compel fingers and thumbs to be pressed on the iPhone home button in an attempt to unlock the device.

Harjani pointed out that fingerprinting is a search subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment even though fingerprinting represents a much less serious intrusion upon personal security than other types of searches and detentions. The courts Fourth Amendment inquiry in this case is thus straightforward: does probable cause support the search of the cell phone and the use of Barreras fingerprints to unlock the cell phone?

The search warrant in this case therefore meets the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, he ruled,

But, on the matter of the Fifth Amendment, Harjani was much more circumspect. He opined that, more complicated is the question of whether the forced fingerprint unlock of a cell phone implicates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

He stated that, Under the Fifth Amendment, the government shall not compel an individual in any criminal case to be a witness against him or herself Compelling communications or communicative acts can lead to an individual impermissibly bearing witness against him or herself. He cited Doe v. United States: Historically, the privilege was intended to prevent the use of legal compulsion to extract from the accused a sworn communication of facts which would incriminate him. Such was the process of the ecclesiastical courts and the Star Chamberthe inquisitorial method of putting the accused upon his oath and compelling him to answer questions designed to uncover uncharged offenses, without evidence from another source.

In the opening of his opinion, Harjani observed that consumers are more often than ever using their biometric information to unlock their smartphones and apps with a fingerprint or face scan. Likewise, the government is responding by seeking authority to compel a subject to use their biometrics to unlock devices found during the execution of a search warrant. Such a request triggers potential Fourth and Fifth Amendment considerations that are addressed herein. Because of the differing views about whether a fingerprint unlock warrant violates the Fifth Amendment among courts, and in particular in this district, the court has issued this opinion to explain its reasoning in this novel area in granting the governments application for a warrant

However, and what could potentially be problematic if just this case alone is taken to the highest court in the land, is that it, too, has a passcode component not just a biometric security lock the latter of which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled is protected by the Fifth Amendment. If five unsuccessful attempts were made to unlock the defendants iPhone, the biometric unlock function would be disabled and a passcode required to unlock the device.

In another words, it would require a password the Pennsylvania high court and U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California have said cannot be compelled. As the California court noted, there are times when [a] device will not accept the biometric feature and require the user to type in the passcode to unlock the device, thereby invoking Fifth Amendment rights issues. However, the court took the attitude that, (i)t follows, however, that if a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide ones finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device.

In the case of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Joseph J. Davis, the court overturned a lower courts ruling in a child-pornography case that the defendant could be compelled to disclose his [64-character] password in order to allow the Commonwealth access to the defendants lawfully-seized, but encrypted, computer.

The Pennsylvania high court noted that the appellant had stated he could not remember his password, and that, even if he could, it would be like putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger.

The appellant was charged with two counts of disseminating child pornography and two counts of criminal use of a communication device [a personal password protected computer].

On December 17, 2015, the Commonwealth filed with the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas a pre-trial motion to compel the appellant to divulge the password to his HP 700 computer, but the appellant responded by invoking his right against self-incrimination. On January 14, 2016, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which several [state prosecutors] testified about the investigation supporting the seizure of the computer.

The state supreme courts majority stated that the trial court focused on the question of whether the [appellants self-admitted] encryption was testimonial in nature, and, thus, protected by the Fifth Amendment. The trial court opined that [t]he touchstone of whether an act of production is testimonial is whether the government compels the individual to use the contents of his own mind to explicitly or implicitly communicate some statement of fact.

And for that and other reasons that follow, we find that such compulsion is in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitutions prohibition against self-incrimination, the supreme courts majority justices ruled, stating that, as his password exists in his mind, he cannot be compelled to remember the password or reveal it, as a persons thoughts and knowledge are at the core of the Fifth Amendment.

However, in a footnote, the majority courts ruling unmistakably left the barn door open as to whether law enforcement shall compel a person to unlock an electronic device using bodily biometrics, rather than a password memorized in a persons mind, or, in the eyes of the court, his constitutionally protected thoughts.

The Broward County, Florida, ruling, remember, was similar: We need not address whether the forced decryption of a device would also violate the Fifth Amendment

The Pennsylvania high court opined, though, that, (b)ecause we are dealing with a motion to require an individual to recall and disclose a memorized password to a computer, in essence, revealing the contents of ones own mind, we need not address the related, but distinct, area involving biometric features like fingerprints, thumbprints, iris scanning, and facial recognition, or whether the foregone conclusion rationale would be appropriate in these circumstances.

The court further noted that, The dissent[ing opinion], however, makes much of the potential for inconsistent results in future cases involving these types of biometric passwords. Yet, not only are these communications not before our Court, it is the United States Supreme Court that long ago has created the dichotomy between physical and mental communication. See Holt, 218 U.S. at 252-53 (the prohibition of compelling a man in criminal court to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material).

The court also cited, Doe II, 487 U.S. at 210 n.9., which found the expression more like be[ing] forced to surrender a key to a strong box containing incriminating documents than it is like be[ing] compelled to reveal the combination to [petitioners] wall safe).

The lower court had ruled, though, that compelling disclosure of the password did not violate the defendants Fifth Amendment rights because of statements he had made to police during questioning. Its 64 characters and why would I give that to you, Davis told the law enforcement investigators in response to their requesting his password. We both know whats on there. Its only going to hurt me. No fucking way Im going to give it to you, Davis said.

Consequently, the prosecutors argued that the legal doctrine known as the foregone conclusion exception, legalized the required admission by Davis of his password. The doctrine, however, originally pertained to only compelled production of paper documents, and therefore Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination did not apply when the government previously was aware of the existence, the location, and the password-protected content of the information prosecutors wanted from the computer.

The lower-court agreed with the prosecutors legal interpretation that the foregone conclusions principle meant that the password was required to be divulged, because the exception, pursuant to earlier U.S. Supreme Court precedent, meant that the password was indistinguishable to other physical material goods, and did not reveal the contents of Daviss mind.

In the Florida case, the ruling was similar: (t)wo passcodes stand in the way of the state accessing the contents of a phone alleged to belong to a minor. The state sought, and the trial court agreed, to compel the minor to provide two passcodes, finding that the act of producing the passcodes is not testimonial because the existence, custody, and authenticity of the passcodes are a foregone conclusion. We disagree. The minor is being compelled to disclose the contents of his own mind by producing a passcode for a phone and a password for an iTunes account. Further, because the state did not show, with any particularity, knowledge of the evidence within the phone, the trial court could not find that the contents of the phone were already known to the state and thus within the foregone conclusion exception. We grant the minors petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial courts order compelling the disclosure of the two passcodes.

The [Pennsylvania] court rightly rejects the governments effort to create a giant, digital-age loophole undermining our time-tested Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) senior staff attorney Brett Max Kaufman, in a statement following the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts decision. To which he added, (t)he government has never been permitted to force a person to assist in their own prosecution, and the courts should not start permitting it to do so now simply because encrypted passwords have replaced the combination lock We applaud the courts decision and look forward to more courts to follow in the many pending cases to be decided next.

Kaufman said the Pennsylvania high courts ruling delivers an unambiguous meaning to other courts, but leaves the door open as to how other courts may consider the unaddressed matter of whether an encrypted device was biometrically protected.

In its majority ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that, (a)s part of its analysis, the trial court looked to the foregone conclusion exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409 (1976). The court noted the rationale underlying this doctrine is that an act of production does not involve testimonial communication if the facts conveyed are already known to the government, such that the individual adds little or nothing to the sum total of the governments information. Trial Court Opinion quoting Fisher offered that for this exception to apply, the government must establish its knowledge of (1) the existence of the evidence demanded; (2) the possession or control of the evidence by the defendant; and (3) the authenticity of the evidence.

The high court added that, by applying the foregone conclusion exception, the trial court found that, in the case at bar, the computer located in appellants residence had hard-wired Internet access only; appellant admitted it was TrueCrypt encrypted; that he was the only user, and he was the only one who knew the password; appellant indicated to [investigators] that we both know what is on there, and stated that he would die in prison before giving up the password; and that the Commonwealth knew with a reasonable degree of certainty that child pornography was on the computer.

Based upon these facts, the states highest court lucidly held, the trial court determined that the information the Commonwealth sought from appellant was a foregone conclusion, in that the facts to be conveyed by appellants act of production of his password already were known to the government. As, according to the trial court, [the] appellants revealing his password would not provide the Commonwealth with any new evidence, and would simply be an act that permitted the Commonwealth to retrieve what was already known to them, the foregone conclusion exception was satisfied. Thus, on June 30, 2016, the trial court granted the Commonwealths motion and directed [the] appellant to supply the Commonwealth with any passwords used to access the computer within 30 days.

Davis filed an interlocutory appeal.

A three-judge panel of the Superior Court, however, affirmed the original Commonwealth v. Davis decision. That decision was then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, whose recent ruling enables the colossal uncertainty to be raised judicially about whether Fifth Amendment protections apply to a persons biometrics in similar cases.

Like the trial court, the Superior Court found that, to qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege, a communication must be testimonial, the supreme court stated, noting that the Superior Court observed that the question of whether compelling an individual to provide a digital password was testimonial in nature was an issue of first impression for the court. Building upon the trial courts analysis, the Superior Court explained that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not violated when the information communicated to the government by way of a compelled act of production is a foregone conclusion. The court reasoned that the foregone conclusion exception provides that an act of production does not involve testimonial communication where the facts conveyed already are known to the government and set forth the applicable three-prong test, citing Fisher.

But, the states final judicial arbiter stated, by applying the foregone conclusion exception, the Superior Court, contrary to the trial court, focused on the password itself, and reasoned that the Commonwealth established the computer could not be opened without the password, that the computer belonged to appellant and the password was in his possession, and that this information was self-authenticating i.e., if the computer was accessible upon entry of the password, the password was authentic.

Further, the Commonwealths Supreme Court stated, the lower superior court noted that multiple jurisdictions have held that the governments knowledge of the encrypted documents or evidence that it sought to compel did not need to be exact, and determined that, based on the [investigators] forensic investigation, as well as appellants own statements to the [investigators] while in custody, there was a high probability that child pornography existed on his computer. Thus, the superior court concluded that the trial court did not err in holding that the act of providing the password in question was not testimonial in nature and that [the] appellants Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination would not be violated by compelling him to disclose the password.

The narrow legal question that was put before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was this: May [the appellant] be compelled to disclose orally the memorized password to a computer over his invocation of privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and Article I, [S]ection 9, of the Pennsylvania Constitution?

The majority of the states high court stated in their ruling that, (o)ur analysis begins with the United States Constitution. The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides [n]o person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself This privilege not only applies to a defendant in a criminal trial, but in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate [the speaker] in future criminal proceedings, citing Minnesota v. Murphy.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified, however, that, (t)he United States Supreme Court has not rendered a decision directly addressing whether compelling a person to disclose a computer password is testimonial. In a series of foundational, but somewhat complex, cases, however, the high court has discussed whether the act of production of documents may be testimonial for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.

The Commonwealth Supreme Court did, however, emphasize that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a particular case before it, had determined that the Fifth Amendment privilege was applicable where defendants were required to produce incriminating evidence, and that the act of producing even unprivileged evidence could have communicative aspects rendering it testimonial and entitled to Fifth Amendment protection.

After citing a litany of U.S. Supreme Court and other case law, the Pennsylvania high court ruled that, (f)rom this foundational law we can distill certain guiding principles. First, the Supreme Court has made, and continues to make, a distinction between physical production and testimonial production. As made clear by the court, where the government compels a physical act, such production is not testimonial, and the privilege is not recognized.

Writing for the majority in in the courts ruling, Justice Debra Todd stated that, (b)ased upon these cases rendered by the United States Supreme Court regarding the scope of the Fifth Amendment, we conclude that compelling the disclosure of a password to a computer, that is, the act of production, is testimonial. Distilled to its essence, the revealing of a computer password is a verbal communication, not merely a physical act that would be nontestimonial in nature.

Thus, Todd noted, (t)here is no physical manifestation of a password, unlike a handwriting sample, blood draw, or a voice exemplar. As a passcode is necessarily memorized, one cannot reveal a passcode without revealing the contents of ones mind. Indeed, a password to a computer is, by its nature, intentionally personalized and so unique as to accomplish its intended purposekeeping information contained therein confidential and insulated from discovery.

So, she stated, Here, under United States Supreme Court precedent, we find that the Commonwealth is seeking the electronic equivalent to a combination to a wall safethe passcode to unlock [the] appellants computer. The Commonwealth is seeking the password, not as an end, but as a pathway to the files being withheld. As such, the compelled production of the computers password demands the recall of the contents of [the] appellants mind, and the act of production carries with it the implied factual assertions that will be used to incriminate him. Thus, we hold that compelling [the] appellant to reveal a password to a computer is testimonial in nature, and protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Senior Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker, who had filed an Amicus Curiae brief with the court, said in a statement that, (t)his ruling is vital because courts must account for how constitutional rights are affected by changes in technology. We store a wealth of deeply personal information on our electronic devices. The government simply should not put individuals in the no-win situation of choosing between disclosing a passwordand turning over everything on these devicesor instead defying a court order to do so.

Because your passcode is stored in your head and your biometrics are not, prosecutors have long argued that police can compel a suspect into unlocking a device with their biometrics, which they say are not constitutionally protected, ZDNet noted. But, the court did not address biometrics.

ACLU of Pennsylvania Peter Goldberger, who argued the appellants position before the state supreme court, said in a statement that, (t)he fundamental issue in this case is the right of every person who is investigated by the police to avoid self-incrimination by remaining silent and keeping their personal thoughts private. The state and federal constitutions promise that people accused of crimes have the right to defend their own liberty. They are under no obligation to assist the police or prosecutors in building a case against them by divulging their innermost thoughts. With this ruling, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has reaffirmed fundamental privacy rights, against the wishes of government agents who advocated for a radical transformation of our criminal justice system.

In its concluding statement in the commonwealth supreme courts majority ruling, Todd noted, however, that, (w)e appreciate the significant and ever-increasing difficulties faced by law enforcement in light of rapidly changing technology, including encryption, to obtain evidence. However, unlike the documentary requests under the foregone conclusion rationale, or demands for physical evidence such as blood, or handwriting, or voice exemplars, information in ones mind to unlock the safe to potentially incriminating information does not easily fall within this exception. Indeed, we conclude the compulsion of a password to a computer cannot fit within this exception.

It was in a footnote to this concluding statement that Todd appraised in a cautionary tone the issue of compelling a physical biometric unlocking of a device remains open to further interpretation by another court.

In their joint Amici Curiae brief to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on behalf of the states of Utah, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas Attorneys General stated the appellant misapprehends the object of the Fifth Amendment, and adopting his reasoning would render States incapable of executing many lawfully obtained warrants.

These states top law enforcers posited that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination does not shield against compulsory submission to tests that are merely physical or produce evidence that is only physical in nature, such as fingerprints, measurements, voice or handwriting exemplars, or physical characteristics or abilities. In this respect, biometrics are akin to a suspect being forced to put on a shirt, or to give a blood sample, a handwriting exemplar, or a voice recording.

In citing United States v. Hubbell, the states brief propounded that, even though the act may provide incriminating evidence, a criminal suspect may be compelled to put on a shirt, to provide a blood sample or handwriting exemplar, or to make a recording of his voice. This further shows the breadth of the lead opinions sweep.

The states further posed that, (a)s the top law enforcement officials of their respective jurisdictions, amici States Attorneys General have a strong interest in aiding this courts decision.

The California case earlier this year complicated matters even further. The court noted that the government seeks an order that would allow agents executing this warrant to compel any individual, who is found at the subject premises and reasonably believed by law enforcement to be a user of the device, to unlock the device using biometric features [but] This request is overbroad, explaining that there are two suspects identified in the affidavit, but the request is neither limited to a particular person nor a particular device.

Thus, the court finds that the application does not establish sufficient probable cause to compel any person who happens to be at the subject premises at the time of the search to provide a finger, thumb, or other biometric feature to potentially unlock any unspecified digital device that may be seized during the otherwise lawful search.

The ruling then added: Furthermore, the governments request to search and seize all digital devices at the subject premises is similarly overbroad. The government cannot he permitted to search and seize a mobile phone or other device that is on a non-suspects person simply because they are present during an otherwise lawful search.

But then the court said, (w)hile the warrant is denied, any resubmission must be limited to those devices reasonably believed by law enforcement to be owned or controlled by the two suspects identified in the affidavit, again as have other judicial rulings left the question of whether only the suspect or suspects devices open to compelled biometric unlocking.

Indeed, the court found that, (e)ven if probable cause exists to seize devices located during a lawful search based on a reasonable belief that they belong to a suspect, probable cause does not permit the government to compel a suspect to waive rights otherwise afforded by the Constitution, including the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself The proper inquiry is whether an act would require the compulsion of a testimonial communication that is incriminating.

And its here, the court cautioned, that the issue is whether the use of a suspects biometric feature to potentially unlock an electronic device is testimonial under the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing that the challenge facing the courts is that technology is outpacing the law, and that in recognition of this reality, the United States Supreme Court recently instructed courts to adopt rules that take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.

So, the matter of whether law enforcement, prosecutors or even the courts can in the future compel a defendant to provide his or her physical biometric to unlock an electronic device which is not password protected remains up in the air. In all likeliness, just such a case will be before a court somewhere, and probably sooner rather than latter, as law enforcement and prosecutors clearly posited in their amici to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, whose ruling that a password in someones mind is protected by the Fifth Amendment, but that the clearly cloudy question of whether a persons bodily biometric has not been established by case law.

That undoubtedly did not go unnoticed by the states prosecutors and other, prosecuting attorneys who now unquestionably appreciate the necessity of having to articulate reasoning for compelling biometrics as it seems was unambiguously proffered between the lines of the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts ruling.

But, as Harjani stated in his ruling, (t)oday, technology has provided citizens with shortcuts to entering passcodes by utilizing biometric features. The question, then, is whether a suspect can be compelled to use his finger, thumb, iris, or other biometric feature to unlock a digital device.

Testimony is not restricted to verbal or written communications. Acts that imply assertions of fact can constitute testimonial communication for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment, he declared.

The U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly awaits one or another of these cases to be brought before it, and will ultimately have to settle the question.

access management | biometric data | biometrics | data protection | encryption | law enforcement | legal | mobile device | passwords | United States

The rest is here:

Federal, state court rulings on whether biometrics protected by Fifth Amendment get murky - Biometric Update

What Were the Biggest Stories in Massachusetts for 2019? – NBC10 Boston

Posted on by

2019's biggest stories in Massachusetts played out in the courtroom.

Dozens of wealthy and privileged parents some of them Hollywood stars were ensnared in a nationwide college admissions bribery scandal. A judge tossed a sexual assault case against actor Kevin Spacey after his accuser refused to testify.

The state's highest court upheld Michelle Carter's manslaughter conviction for sending her suicidal boyfriend a barrage of text messages urging him to kill himself. Pharmaceutical company executives were found guilty of bribing doctors to prescribe a highly addictive opioid. And Massachusetts' attorney general launched fresh legal challenges to the Trump administration's immigration policies.

In-depth news coverage of the Greater Boston Area.

A look back at those and other top stories:

COLLEGE BRIBERY

Federal prosecutors dubbed it "Operation Varsity Blues," and the scope was staggering: affluent and influential parents indicted for paying bribes to rig their children's test scores or get them admitted to elite universities as recruited athletes. "Desperate Housewives" star Felicity Huffman pleaded guilty and served two weeks in prison, but "Full House" actress Lori Loughlin and her fashion designer husband maintained their innocence and are expected to stand trial in 2020.

KEVIN SPACEY

Prosecutors dropped a criminal case against Kevin Spacey alleging he groped an 18-year-old man at a Nantucket bar in 2016. The "House of Cards" actor's accuser invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify about text messages from the night of the alleged encounter. Los Angeles prosecutors later tossed a separate sexual battery charge against Spacey after the accuser in that case died.

TEXTING SUICIDE

The state's highest court upheld Michelle Carter's 2017 involuntary manslaughter conviction in the suicide death of her despondent boyfriend, to whom she had sent insistent text messages urging him to take his own life, and the state Parole Board denied her request for early release. Carter's lawyers maintain her texts were free speech and have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which hasn't yet decided whether it will take up the case.

OPIOID KICKBACK SCHEME

A jury convicted a pharmaceutical company founder of racketeering conspiracy for paying doctors millions in bribes to prescribe his company's highly addictive fentanyl spray even using a stripper-turned-sales-rep to give a physician a lap dance. Convicted along with John Kapoor, the 76-year-old former chairman of Insys Therapeutics, were four other ex-employees of the Chandler, Arizona-based company and the former exotic dancer.

TAKING TRUMP TO COURT

Massachusetts' Democratic attorney general, Maura Healey, and the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union mounted fresh legal challenges of the Trump administration's tough policies on immigration. Lawsuits in federal court in Boston highlighted some detainees' need for medical treatment and the government's strict cap on the number of refugees fleeing disaster and strife abroad.

INDICTED MAYOR

Jasiel Correia had seemed almost bulletproof. In March, voters in Fall River reelected the embattled mayor after he was charged in 2018 with defrauding investors in an app he developed to bankroll a lavish lifestyle. But Correia's political good fortunes ran out federal authorities indicted the 27-year-old for allegedly stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from marijuana companies. In November, voters unceremoniously threw him out of office.

2020 FREE-FOR-ALL

Continuing Massachusetts' tradition of producing presidential candidates, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren jumped into the race for the Democratic nomination early, followed by U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, who exited in August. Much later, former governor Deval Patrick, the state's first black governor, declared his candidacy. Ex-Gov. William Weld, a Republican, launched a challenge to President Donald Trump. And Democratic congressman Joe Kennedy III, a grandson of Robert F. Kennedy, announced a primary run against U.S. Sen. Edward Markey.

PILGRIM NUCLEAR PLANT

Nearly half a century after it began generating electricity, the Pilgrim nuclear power plant permanently shut down. Environmentalists had clamored for decades for the closure of the state's only remaining reactor. The decommissioning of the complex in Plymouth, which came online in 1972, left Seabrook in New Hampshire and Millstone in Connecticut as New England's only still-operating commercial nuclear plants.

MENTHOL, R.I.P.

Responding to growing concerns about the health effects of vaping, Massachusetts became the first state to ban flavored tobacco and nicotine vaping products. Anti-smoking groups hailed the ban, which restricts the sale and consumption of flavored vaping products and will do the same for menthol cigarettes starting June 1, 2020. It came after Republican Gov. Charlie Baker declared a public health emergency and imposed a temporary ban.

AGAINST ALL ODDS

Massachusetts' third casino, Encore Boston Harbor, opened in the gritty suburb of Everett after months of uncertainty. Las Vegas-based Wynn Resorts' glitzy $2.6 billion complex had been beset by legal troubles and a failed attempt to sell the complex to rival MGM Resorts. Encore features a 671-room bronzed-toned hotel tower, a gambling floor with 3,100 slot machines and 231 table games, and 15 bars and restaurants.

See the original post here:

What Were the Biggest Stories in Massachusetts for 2019? - NBC10 Boston

Tax Laws: Can You Take The Fifth With The IRS? – International Business Times

Posted on by

If you watch Law and Order or many other TV shows, you already know something about Miranda warnings and taking the Fifth. The police have to Mirandize you, and even in court, you can say, I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself. There are limits of course, but most people think these rights are fundamental, acrossevery alleged crime. But does it work with taxes and the IRS?Not usually.

Many people find that a shock. Remember theIRS official Lois Lerner, who ran the IRS unit accused of targeting conservatives some years back? She didnt want to answer questions about alleged IRS targeting.As a result, she took the Fifth. Congress held her in contempt, but the governmentdeclined to prosecute her. It was all a controversial episode. Private taxpayers arent usually so lucky when it comes to their own tax returns and investigations.

In fact, merely invoking the Fifth in a tax case can invite penalties or get the IRS looking more harshly at you. Lets start with tax returns themselves. You have to file them and you have to report your income.Way back in 1927, the Supreme Court considered a man whorefused to file a tax return, claiming that to do so would incriminate him. InU.S. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said that itwas too bad if disclosing illegal income opened him up to prosecution.

Even a criminal must file tax returns and pay taxes. After all, that is how they got Al Capone. You have to file a tax return, and you have to do it accurately.What if the IRS asks you questions you are afraid to answer? Answering IRS questions in an audit or investigation can be nerve-wracking.Do not speakup without your lawyer present, and ask your lawyer whatis fair to discuss. ButclaimingFifth Amendment protection in tax cases can be a mistake.

One of the biggest issues involves books and records. You have to keep them in order to fulfill your tax filing obligations. You even have to keep bank account records for accounts outside the U.S. Undisclosed offshore bank accounts can qualify as money laundering. So, if the IRS asks you if you have any foreign bank accounts, can you take the Fifth?

You can, but it probably wont help. Even if you claim the Fifth, the IRS can hand you an information document request to produce your records.You can refuse, but the IRS will issue a summons. If you refuse to answer that, the IRS will take you to court, whichwill probably order you to comply.But, doesnt your constitutional right to take the Fifth trump the IRS?

Not always. Ironically, you can refuse totalk, but youcannotrefuse to produce the documents. Your own private papers are personal records, and if they might incriminate you, they are protected by the Fifth Amendment.But the Required Records doctrinesays youmusthand over documents no matter how incriminating.The government requires you to keep certain records, and the government has a right to inspect them.

TheIRS and prosecutors have exploited this rule.It can mean thatpleading the Fifth in response to a subpoena for foreign account records can cause even more trouble than claiming it on your tax returns.Required records are those where the reporting has a regulatory purpose, where a person must customarily keep the records the record-keeping scheme requires him to keep, and the records have public aspects.

In the case of foreign bank records particularly, the courts uniformly deny Fifth Amendment protection.Numerous courts haveallgiven the IRS a free pass, rulingthat no Fifth Amendment protection applies.Despite repeated requests, the U.S. Supreme Court has been unwilling to hear this issue.

So, is it likely that the Fifth Amendment will be much help on your taxes? Not really. In most cases, a tax audit is civil and there is little risk that it will become criminal. However, just think about this: a majority of criminal tax cases come directly out of civil tax cases. The IRS civil auditors refer a case to the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. The IRS civil auditor will not tell you this is occurring, so the first time you hear about it, your case may have gone from bad to worse. That means having a lawyer and being careful can be wise.

Robert W. Wood is a tax lawyer and managing partner at Wood LLP. He can be reached at Wood@WoodLLP.com.

Link:

Tax Laws: Can You Take The Fifth With The IRS? - International Business Times

The lies and distortions by the hatchet men at Fusion GPS – Washington Examiner

Posted on by

Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch tried to keep the American people in the dark as long as possible. For most of 2017, the founders of Fusion GPS hid the truth about the origins of their now-infamous dossier on President Trump. The real story behind their fight to keep its partisan funding a secret is very different from the version the journalists-for-rent tell in their recent book, Crime in Progress. I know, because I was there.

They smear me, and my former boss, Sen. Chuck Grassley, who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then they paint themselves as victims of ruthlessly partisan McCarthyite tactics. The irony is rich, given that these former journalists collected a million bucks from one political party to accuse the other of acting as agents of Russia.

The dossier they peddled ignited hysteria about alleged traitors in our government more than anything else has since Joe McCarthys Enemies from Within speech nearly 70 years ago. Unlike traditional opposition research, the dossier relied on anonymous foreign sources to allege an international criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Two independent reviews have since gutted its sensational claims.

The report by the Justice Departments independent inspector general exposed how the FBI improperly used the dossier to justify domestic spying (a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant). The IG made it clear that the dossier was clearly unreliable. Special counsel Robert Mueller was unable to find sufficient evidence to charge a single American with the dossiers collusion conspiracy despite two years, $32 million, 500 witnesses, and 2,800 subpoenas-worth of additional investigation.

Like the dossier itself, Fusions attempt to defend its work in Crime in Progress cannot withstand scrutiny. It devotes a chapter to denouncing Grassley for asking inconvenient questions about Fusion and the dossier. The essentially fictitious story casts Simpson as Captain America":

Working to protect the republic at all costs from a Manchurian Candidate, with the First Amendment as his only shield, Simpson battles Congressional persecutors who were trashing the Bill of Rights by subpoenaing his bank to learn who funded the dossier.

Fusions founders target me, as then-counsel to Grassley, for supposedly pulling the strings that led to outing their secret. They had promised never to reveal who bankrolled the project. Why? Their book concedes a more strategic reason to stonewall: They wanted to control the larger political narrative.

As they write in Crime in Progress: If it came out too soon that the dossier had been paid for by the Clinton Campaign, that revelation would allow the Republicans to depict [Christopher] Steeles work as a partisan hit job. It was a fact that Fusion managed to keep secret for nearly 11 months after the dossier became public.

During those 11 months, Fusions clients denied their involvement, and Fusion fought to keep anything from coming to light that would contradict those denials. Grassley tried to learn more about the dossiers claims and Fusions involvement. Fusions founders claim they would have been willing to explain their past work without a protracted battle if Grassley had simply approached Fusion in good faith and asked.

Actually, we tried. When I called Simpson, he immediately refused to talk. He lawyered up. Hes also one of only two people who refused to cooperate with the inspector general. Without voluntary cooperation, prying any information loose would prove to be a challenge. Absent a full committee vote, no subpoena could be issued without Ranking Member Sen. Dianne Feinsteins agreement. Contrary to Fusions caricature of our efforts as hyperpartisan, we adopted those new rules in early 2017 to strengthen the committees hand in what we expected would be bipartisan oversight work during the Trump administration.

Feinstein was initially willing to question Fusion, but bipartisan efforts to look into the dossier and its allegations soon disappeared. In the beginning, she co-signed document requests to Fusion, which its founders misrepresent in their book as ominous partisan threats solely from Grassley. Feinstein also agreed to subpoena Simpson to testify at a public hearing in the summer of 2017, but he refused to appear, citing his Fifth Amendment rights. We later negotiated a limited voluntary interview in private, where he refused to answer questions on many topics, including who funded the dossier.

Feinstein increasingly began to resist any dossier-related line of inquiry. At the time, Grassley and his staff were unaware the Democratic National Conventions law firm had funded the dossier or that that a former Feinstein staffer, Daniel Jones, had privately claimed to the FBI that he raised $50 million from seven to 10 wealthy donors primarily in New York and California. That money reportedly funds Fusions ongoing post-election efforts to vindicate the dossier. Its unclear how much Feinstein and her staff knew about this at the time.

Grassley played it straight. He supported the Mueller investigation and bucked his own GOP leadership in the Senate to shepherd a bipartisan bill protecting Muellers independence through his committee. He worked to conduct vigorous oversight and ask tough questions of everyone, even threatening to subpoena Trumps son to ensure Democrats had an unlimited opportunity to question him on the record. Of course, Fusions narrative omits this evidence of good faith.

The House Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Fusions bank records, and in late October 2017, its clients fessed-up to funding the dossier after it became clear they were going to lose in court. New York Times senior White House correspondent Maggie Haberman wrote, Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year. A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization complained to the Federal Election Commission that campaign disclosures falsely described payments to Fusion for opposition research as legal services.

During the court battle, Fusion unleashed a blizzard of filings in which it piled on new allegations of supposed congressional misconduct. The court rejected all of them.

One of the failed tactics that Fusion considered central was to argue that the House Intelligence Committee learned Fusion had an account at TD Bank from someone in Grassleys staff and to imply that was somehow improper. While it is true that we had asked about the bank during Simpsons voluntary interview on the Senate side, it is false to claim, as Fusion does, that we learned the banks name from his confidential interview and that the information was unavailable elsewhere.

Anyone reading the transcript (p. 17-18) can see that committee staff already knew the banks name and mentioned it first. Fusions attorney did not ask how we learned it, and we wouldnt have answered if he had. The committee protects whistleblowers and confidential sources, just as the press does. Fusion had apparently made little effort to keep its banks name confidential up to that point. Not only did Simpson voluntarily confirm it when asked, but we also had reason to believe he listed it on invoices to clients, so it was hardly a state secret.

Casting aspersion on the congressional investigators who forced the truth about the dossiers funding into the open is no more effective in Fusions book than it was in the court proceedings. In the end, its merely a distraction from the bigger issues with the dossiers unreliability, which go far beyond the partisan motives of its sponsors.

Although the special counsel and inspector general reports dealt devastating blows to its credibility, Simpson and Fritsch still maintain in their book that time will tell whether the dossier deserves to take its place among documents that have bent the course of history, such as the Pentagon Papers or the Warren Report. A more apt analogy might be the phony list of traitors hyped by McCarthy. But, unlike the Americans targeted in the dossier, a few of McCarthys victims actually were colluding with the Russians.

See the article here:

The lies and distortions by the hatchet men at Fusion GPS - Washington Examiner

Weapons charges against Attleboro man dismissed after key witness invokes 5th – The Sun Chronicle

Posted on by

ATTLEBORO Weapon charges against an alleged Bloods gang member accused of selling a stolen handgun to another man have been dismissed after the key witness refused to testify at trial.

William Hancock, 32, was arrested on Aug. 15, 2018 after police raided his home at 36 Trepanier St. in South Attleboro and a house in Rhode Island, and charged him with five firearms offenses.

But prosecutors asked a judge to dismiss the case in Attleboro District Court after Jeffrey S. Sek, 21, of Attleboro, invoked his Fifth Amendment constitutional right to not incriminate himself.

Sek is serving time for robbing two teenagers in Attleboro, including one with the stolen .25 caliber handgun, in addition to other crimes, according to court records.

A judge previously threw out other evidence stemming from the raid on Hancocks home in Attleboro after he determined there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant.

Drug and weapons charges are pending against Hancock in Providence Superior Court, which are related to the search of his home in Johnston.

No weapon was found in Attleboro, but police say they seized a loaded .357 caliber semiautomatic and drugs in Rhode Island.

David Linton may be reached at 508-236-0338.

Here is the original post:

Weapons charges against Attleboro man dismissed after key witness invokes 5th - The Sun Chronicle

Kevin Spacey posts video in what appears to be bizarre Christmas Eve tradition – NBC News

Posted on by

Kevin Spacey posted a video asking people to be kinder on Tuesday in what appears to be a Christmas Eve tradition for the actor, who has been accused of sexually assaulting men.

Spacey, 60, once again took on the accent and mannerisms of Frank Underwood, the character he played in the Netflix series "House of Cards," in a minute-long message posted to YouTube titled "KTWK." The actor has kept a relatively low-profile since a felony sexual assault case against him was dropped in July.

You didnt really think I was going to miss the opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas, did you? Spacey said.

He then goes on to say that he's had a "pretty good year" and made recent changes in his life, inviting the audience to join him. Spacey encouraged the audience to embrace civility and kindness going forward.

"The next time someone does something you dont like, you can go on the attack," Spacey said. "But you can also hold your fire and do the unexpected. You can kill them with kindness."

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

An attorney for Spacey did not immediately respond to our request for comment from NBC News.

The bizarre Christmas Eve video is not unprecedented, as Spacey posted a similar one last year with the title "Let Me Be Frank." In the 2018 clip, Spacey hinted at the sexual assault allegations against him and the decision Netflix made in killing off his character.

Despite all the poppycock, the animosity, the headlines, the impeachment without a trial. Despite everything," he said in 2018. "Despite even my own death, I feel surprisingly good and my confidence grows each day that soon enough you will know the full truth.

Spacey was first publicly accused of sexual misconduct in 2017 by "Rent" actor Anthony Rapp.

Rapp said in an interview with BuzzFeed that Spacey climbed on top of him in a bedroom at a 1986 party in New York, when Rapp was only 14 years old.

The "House of Cards" actor said in a statement at the time that he didn't remember the alleged incident involving Rapp but apologized "for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior." Spacey also publicly addressed his sexuality, coming out as an openly gay man.

Since then, other accusations of sexual misconduct by Spacey prompted investigations in both Los Angeles and London.

The Los Angeles District Attorney's office declined to press charges against Spacey in two cases, citing statute of limitations in one instance. Spacey's accuser in the second case died in September.

British authorities reportedly questioned Spacey in May regarding allegations against him in the United Kingdom, according to Variety. The investigation has not resulted in charges and appears to be ongoing.

It does not appear that Spacey has ever publicly directly addressed the accusations from London or Los Angeles.

Spacey was recently facing criminal charges in Nantucket, Massachusetts, after a former anchor for Boston WCVB-TV said her son was groped by Spacey in a bar when he was 18. Spacey pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing in the case.

Prosecutors dropped the case in July when Spacey's accuser invoked his Fifth Amendment rights after being questioned about his role in the deleting of text messages from a phone key to the case.

Doha Madani is a breaking news reporter for NBC News.

Continue reading here:

Kevin Spacey posts video in what appears to be bizarre Christmas Eve tradition - NBC News

Freedom Synonyms, Freedom Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Posted on by

The spirit and the gifts of freedom ill assort with the condition of a slave.

It seems to me that life is no life, but living death, without that freedom!

The cause of freedom owes her much; the country owes her much.

Under the eternal urge of freedom we became an independent Nation.

Because we are free we can never be indifferent to the fate of freedom elsewhere.

They add up to only a tiny fraction of the price that has been paid for our freedom.

It is not profane if I now say, 'with a great price obtained I this freedom.'

There are those in the world who scorn our vision of human dignity and freedom.

Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit.

We believe that all men have the right to freedom of thought and expression.

Here is the original post:

Freedom Synonyms, Freedom Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Byrne: Freedom from Religion Foundation needs to "stop forcing their ungodly, un-American views down our throats" – alreporter.com

Posted on by

Monday, Congressman Bradley Byrne commented on a separation of church and state dispute involving Reeltown High School and the Wisconsin based Freedom from Religion Foundation. Byrne said in a social media post that the Wisconsin based FFRF needs to pack it up and stop forcing their ungodly, un-American views down our throats.

On Wednesday, December 18, the FFRF complained that a football team baptism in Tallapoosa County Schools on school property with staff, including head football Coach Matt Johnson, in attendance is constitutionally unacceptable in their reading of past Supreme Court rulings.

On Nov. 21, the football team participated in a baptism event that was held on school premises with school staff members, including the head football coach, present. FFRF claims that it is settled law that public schools may not advance or promote religion.

Courts have consistently held that it is illegal for a public school to organize, sponsor, or lead religious activity at public high school athletic events, such as football practice, FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line wrote in a letter to Tallapoosa County Schools Superintendent Joseph C. Windle. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court extended the prohibition of school-sponsored religious activities beyond the classroom to all school functions, holding prayers at public high school graduations an impermissible establishment of religion. As school-sponsored activities, football team events cannot include any endorsement of religion or religious rituals.

FFRF argued in their release that Tallapoosa County Schools students will perceive the Reeltown High School baptism was endorsed by the school and that since this religious ritual took place on school property with school staff members present. FFRF said that, allowing outside adults to perform religious rituals specific to one religion in this case Christianity at a team event, ostracizes those students and families who identify as nonreligious or practice a minority religion FFRF claims.

Its an egregious overstep for public school officials to put Christian baptism in the playbook, says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor.

Congressman Bradley Byrne (R-Montrose) has been outspoken in his defense of Coach Johnson and the school.

Advertisement

Im sick of these groups trying to tell us that we arent allowed to live out our faith, Byrne said on social media. The Freedom from Religion Foundation needs to pack it up and stop forcing their ungodly, un-American views down our throats. The foundation says they want separation of church and state, but what they really want to is to rip God out of our nation altogether. Im thankful for leaders like Coach Johnson who are doing the right thing and serving as positive role models to our young people.

Advertisement

The event was presented by Rick and Mick Ministries. Coach Johnson said that attendance was not mandatory at the event which took place on the football field prior to practice. Johnson said that the 26 boys who were baptized chose to commit their lives to Christ.

Let me start first off by saying our community is based on those values overall, Johnson told the Outlook. Everybody is not the same obviously, and were fine with that. But the way we run our program, the way I run my program specifically is based 100% off Christian values.

My duty is to follow up with that, as a Christian, Johnson said. I didnt want to make it an event that took away from what they were doing. I wanted it to be about them and their salvation. I didnt want attention on me and I didnt want the attention on football. I wanted it to just be between those guys who made that decision and that relationship.

Johnson said that participation was not mandatory and that roughly half the team chose not to participate.

Its not like Im going to make them run hills if they dont pray, Johnson said.

The FFRF is asking that the school hold not future religious events.

(This) will never ever change as long as I am here or as long as this place is open, Johnson said.

Helping bring a person to know Christ should be praised, not attacked, Byrne said.

Byrne is a GOP candidate for the Senate seat currently held by Doug Jones. He represents Alabamas First Congressional District.

(Original reporting by the Yellowhammer News and the Outlook contributed to this report.)

Read the original here:

Byrne: Freedom from Religion Foundation needs to "stop forcing their ungodly, un-American views down our throats" - alreporter.com

Western Balkans Have Yet to Embrace Freedom of Information – Balkan Insight

Posted on by

Photo: AbsolutVision, Unsplash

Between January 2017 and June 2019, BIRN journalists submitted 854 official requests to access public documents in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. With the aid of the information gained from these requests, BIRN produced numerous investigative pieces and so exposed wrongdoing by governments, companies and powerful individuals.

On the basis of the submitted FOI requests, BIRN has also published an in-depth analysis of institutions openness to FOI requests across the countries of the Western Balkans. This shows that while Freedom of Information laws in the region are among the most liberal in Europe on paper, implementation of these laws is well below European standards.

Implementation also varies between the Western Balkan countries themselves. Some countries are showing an improvement, for example, by public institutions publishing large amounts of data and documents.

Others, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, lag behind. It is now the only country in the Balkans that does not even offer access to public records in electronic form. In some other countries, like Montenegro and Serbia, there has been a decline in implementation, as a result of legislative changes and political pressure.

Of the 854 official requests that BIRN submitted to access public documents, less than half of them, 408, were actually approved; 224 were partially approved, meaning the institutions provided only technical information, while 221 requests were either rejected or no answer at all was received, despite repeated follow-ups from the journalists.

Looking at the ratio between requests that were submitted and answered positively, in Albania the score was highest, at 61 per cent. It was followed by Kosovo, at 56 per cent. In Serbia, institutions provided the requested information in 40 per cent of the cases, while in North Macedonia the figure was 33 per cent. The worst response rate was in Bosnia, where institutions replied to only 25 per cent of requests sent.

For many journalists in the Western Balkans, where independent media are often under attack and pressure, Freedom of Information laws are often an important pillar of their own freedom, and are sometimes the only way to obtain information.

In recent years, however, there has been a certain tendency among institutions to close the information door and experiment with new ways to deny public information, especially to journalists, who have been traditionally the most frequent users of these laws.

To withhold information, institutions often either ignore requests or mark the requested information as classified.

In many cases, BIRN journalists have been forced to file complaints in order to get the data they want, or a decision on their request. This process often lasts long, disrupts journalists daily activities and prolongs the whole investigative process, which can end up using outdated data.

In Kosovo, BIRN journalists submitted the majority of their 337 requests to municipalities, ministries, the Telecom Company, the Prosecutorial Council, Judicial Council, the Presidents Office, the Prime Ministers Office and the Procurement Review Body. Of these, 188 were approved, 27 were partially answered and 122 were rejected.

BIRN Kosovo repeatedly submitted complaints about denial of access to public documents. In all cases, the Ombudsman asked the relevant institutions to grant access. But only 45 per cent of these requests resulted in BIRN gaining access to the requested documents. Another 20 per cent of requests resulted in BIRN gaining partial access. The remaining 35 per cent is still pending.

In North Macedonia, BIRN submitted 233 information requests, of which just over a third were approved.

While most countries in the region, such as Serbia, Albania and North Macedonia, have liberal Freedom of Information laws, at least on paper, there is a worrying trend in Montenegro, where latest changes to the law allow the head of an institution to decide which information shall be marked classified. This change has been widely criticized, as it contains a series of exclusions that are not in line with international standards or the countrys own constitution.

In Albania, meanwhile, a new law includes a number of novel concepts, including the possibility of re-classifying secret documents, the release of partial information and the use of information technology to make information held by public institutions more available to the public.

In Serbia, BIRN submitted 95 requests. Of these, 13 were fully answered, 25 were partially answered and 20 were rejected or no answer was received. Another 37 requests were still pending by the time of publication. Although the legal deadline for institutions in Serbia to respond to such requests is 15 days, in some institutions, like the Interior Ministry, the average response timeframe is a month or longer.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, BIRN filed 12 requests and it took regular follow-ups and reminders before the authorities ever responded, even though, as in Serbia, the legal deadline to respond is 15 days. In reality, it takes a month or more.

Looking at the annual reports of regional Commissioners, Serbias received the highest number of complaints, 64 per cent, during 2018. Albania came next, with 13 per cent, followed by North Macedonia, on 10 per cent and Montenegro, with 7 per cent. The lowest number of complaints reported by the Ombudspersons Office was in Bosnia and Herzegovina 5 per cent and in Kosovo, only 1 per cent.

BIRNs analysis also showed that local government institutions are more responsive to requests for information while central government institutions are more likely to postpone decisions and eventually reject journalists requests. Possible reasons for this could be the nature and exclusivity of the information that these institutions possess.

The lowest positive response that BIRN journalists had, in term of individual institutions in the region, was with the Civil Aviation Authority in Albania, the Ministry of Foreign Trade in Bosnia, the Post in Kosovo and the Interior Ministry in Serbia.

As part of BIRNs drive for openness, it has established a free, user-friendly, searchable online library of public documents and scraped database, called BIRN Source. To increase access to open data for journalists, in January 2020 BIRN will also launch a new online platform, the BIRN Investigative Resource Desk, BIRD, which will provide a digital space and user-friendly tools for better and stronger investigative journalism.

BIRD will provide journalists with various types of assistance, including a set of useful tools and information in one place related to freedom of information, data access and protection, cybersecurity and open-source datasets.

Read the full report here.

Download Albanian version here.

Download Serbian version here

Read more here:

Western Balkans Have Yet to Embrace Freedom of Information - Balkan Insight

Video: King Willem-Alexander addresses the Dutch public on Christmas Day, stressing the importance of freedom – Royal Central

Posted on by

From the Vestibule of Huis ten Bosch Palace, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands gave his Christmas Day address that was pre-recorded. It aired at 1 pm on NOS on NPO1 and on Radio 1.

His Majesty spoke of what connects Dutch people from language to equality.

And there is one word that comes back time and again: freedom. Freedom is the flame that burns in all Dutch hearts. That sounds poetic, but it does justice to what I see around me, he said.

This led to the King discussing commemorations of World War II and how the Netherlands is celebrating 75 years of freedom.

His Majesty said, Freedom is never free. She always demands something from us: trust in each other, reasonableness, the willingness to give each other space. Everyone who delves into what freedom is, understands why tolerance is so important. If we start threatening people with a different opinion, we undermine exactly what we hold dear.

King Willem-Alexander also discussed how the Dutch living abroad can look back to see the freedoms and good organisation of the Netherlands, The Netherlands is still one of the most successful countries in the world. Behind that success are people like you.

Even though the emotions can sometimes run high, the Dutch still have the feeling that they belong together. That is our great strength. It not only contributes to a country that performs well, but also to a country where people are on average happy, he later added.

The King also found it important to discuss finding happiness, I also say this to young people. Do not worry too much if things go wrong. Give yourself some space. Itsokay. Happiness cannot be forced. It is elusive. It comes suddenly, like a gift from heavenHappiness is in our connection with others. Let us therefore not let each other go. Let us listen to each other and show understanding. Let us comfort and encourage each other. It helps if someone looks at you and says all is well.

His full speech can be read, in English, via the NL Times.

More here:

Video: King Willem-Alexander addresses the Dutch public on Christmas Day, stressing the importance of freedom - Royal Central

Freedom to offend is a right and essential to democracy, says outgoing press watchdog chairman – The Sun

Posted on by

FREE speech means freedom to offend, the outgoing chairman of Britain's leading press regulator said.

Sir Alan Moses insisted there is no right not to be offended.

The former Lord Justice of Appeal defended freedom of speech - but said it could have "the most unpleasant" effect on victims.

2

And state licensing of newspapers would be "fundamentally dangerous" he warned - citing the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana in Malta as a reminder of what was lost when media freedoms were violated.

Sir Alan, 74, who has led regulator IPSO since 2014, said the feelings of individuals could not automatically trump the right to free expression.

He said: "If you're the victim of something that is deeply offensive, it is the most unpleasant, uncomfortable thing that you can imagine.

"But what we have to acknowledge is that in striking the right balance in this country there is no right not to be offended." Sir Alan blasted the BBC for manoeuvring itself into ridiculous situations by striving for balance.

He suggested the corporation doesn't understand what balance means, and defended the right of newspapers to take sides.

EXECUTION Dad, 36, shot on doorstep in front of wife & kid is brother of ITV reality star

Exclusive

SKYFAIL Top secret MI6 blueprints VANISH as it's warned they'll be 'gold dust' to criminals

MADDIE HOPE Fresh hope for Maddie McCann's parents as German boy missing for 2 years found

'SO CRUEL' Mum with cancer 'sent home with painkillers by GP' dies days before Christmas

'RUTHLESS' Raunchy BBC drama tells how Christine Keeler's 'pimp' was the original Epstein

BIRTH HELL Mum never wants another baby after 'terrifying' birth at scandal-ridden hospital

He said: "It doesn't mean giving an equal voice to everything, however absurd." Sir Alan said IPSO's model of "self-regulation with a contract" was the best available.

He said: "The alternatives - no regulation or a statutory licensing system - seem to me completely unacceptable.

"The idea that the law should control what newspapers should and shouldn't say, as the price of being able to publish, seems to me quite wrong - and fundamentally dangerous." Lord Faulks QC, a prominent barrister, is taking over as IPSO chairman.

2

Read this article:

Freedom to offend is a right and essential to democracy, says outgoing press watchdog chairman - The Sun

Climate tariffs on fracked molecules of freedom: German think tank wants to punish US for sanctions against Nord Stream 2 – RT

Posted on by

US sanctions against the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline have caused widespread anger in Germany, and even critics of the project are now seeking to slap the American molecules of freedom with an eco-tax in reprisal.

The prospect of crushing sanctions(included in funding for the US military signed by President Donald Trump last week) has already compelled Swiss-Dutch company Allseas to halt construction on the last remaining portion of the pipeline, which runs under the Baltic Sea, from Russia to Germany.

An economist from the progressive, government-funded think tank has called the sanctions a ploy by the US to sell its own liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Germany and Europe at the highest possible cost, accusing both Washington and Moscow of using gas as a political weapon.

Claudia Kemfert, an economist at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), has argued that Nord Stream 2 is environmentally harmful, economically unnecessary and financially unprofitable but described the US sanctions as unacceptable and requiring a response from the EU.

Europe should consider imposing climate tariffs on the United States so that environmentally harmful fracking gas cannot be exported from the United States to Germany and Europe

While the government in Berlin has expressedregret over US interference in our domestic affairs, it has done nothing to counter it. Kemferts initiative, first mentioned in the daily Handelsblatt earlier this week, appears to be the only proposed reprisal so far.

This may also be the first time anyone has criticized American LNG as environmentally harmful; most of it is produced by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a practice that critics say causes earthquakes and pollutes the water with toxic substances.

Ironically, Germany is one of Europes biggest carbon emitters, because almost half of its energy generation comes from burning coal. Berlin has directed immense subsidies to wind, solar, and biofuels over the past decade, while seeking to shut down its nuclear power plants resulting in some of the highest retail prices for electricity in Europe, and leaving Germany desperate for cheaper energy sources, such as Russian gas.

Meanwhile, the US envoy to Germany, Richard Grenell, called the sanctions a very pro-European decision and said that thankful European diplomats havebeen calling him about it. While he did not specify which European countries they represented, Poland and the Baltic States have been outspokenly opposed to Nord Stream 2. Sohas Ukraine, which is in Europe but not an EU member.

Objections to the pipeline from Washington, Kiev, and Warsaw have been mainly political in nature, dealing with the potential loss of leverage more than anything else. The US has condemned the EUs increasing dependency on Russian gas, while offering its own LNG officially described as molecules of freedom as an alternative, though at a much higher price.

Warsaw and Kiev, on the other hand, have bemoaned that Nord Stream 2 would rob them of billions of dollars in transit fees theyve been collecting from Russia over the years. The Baltic pipeline was conceived after a 2009 dispute between Ukraine and Russia, when Kiev effectively blocked the flow of gas to Europe during a vicious cold snap in order to get a better deal from Moscow.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Go here to read the rest:

Climate tariffs on fracked molecules of freedom: German think tank wants to punish US for sanctions against Nord Stream 2 - RT

Of Concerns and Waivers: Religious Freedom and US Interests in Central Asia – The Diplomat

Posted on by

Advertisement

On December 18, the U.S. State Department re-designated a host of countries as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998 for having engaged in or tolerated systematic, ongoing, [and] egregious violations of religious freedom.

Among those re-designated were Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Also re-designated were China, Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Elsewhere in Central Asia, Uzbekistan landed again on the Special Watch List (SWL) for governments that have engaged in or tolerated severe violations of religious freedom. The SWL, a new category created by 2016 amendments to the IRFA, is a status below CPC but entails no penalties. Comoros and Russia were kept on the SWL, to which Cuba, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Sudan were added.

In its statement announcing the designations, the State Department concludes strongly: No country, entity, or individual should be able to persecute people of faith without accountability. We have acted, and we will continue to do so.

But as with previous CPC designations for Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, the U.S. government has waived imposing any penalties, presumably on national security grounds. On one hand, the U.S. government recognizes failures to uphold the principles of freedom of religion in these countries; on the other hand, Washington keeps itself from following up with actions more concrete than naming and shaming.

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

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan federal body that monitors the status of freedom of religion abroad in order to make policy recommendations to the president, secretary of state, and Congress, welcomed the designations. In a statement, Vice Chair Gayle Manchin said, Now that these designations have been made, the State Department must take strong action in response, as required by IRFA. We urge the State Department to fully utilize the range of tools available to ensure strong consequences for the most egregious violators, and not rely on waivers or pre-existing sanctions. The CPC-designated countries must know that the United States will not only call them out but also impose costs for violations of this most sacred right.

On December 26, a notice was published in the Federal Register noting the designations and outlining the secretary of states own designation of presidential actions to be taken in accordance with the law.

Both Turkmenistan and Tajikistan were, as with in all their previous designations as CPCs, granted waivers as required in the important national interest of the United States.

The IRFA provides a menu of options for a president and his administration, outlined in section 405: public condemnation; cancellation of scientific or cultural exchanges; withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of U.S. development assistance and U.S. security assistance; instructions to U.S. executive directors in international financial institutions (like the World Bank) to vote against loans benefiting the targeted foreign government; restrictions on the issuance of licenses to export any goods or technology to the foreign government; prohibition against the making, guaranteeing, or insuring of loans, or extension of credit by certain U.S. financial institutions to the violating government; and prohibition of U.S. government procurement of goods or services from such governments.

The IRFA, however, also allows the president to waive imposing any of the above if certain conditions are met.

Tajikistan has been designated as a CPC since 2016 and Turkmenistan since 2014. Uzbekistan had been designated as a CPC from 2006 to 2018 until it was removed in 2018 and placed on the SWL. All three were granted waivers and never suffered any of the consequences outlined by the IRFA.

In its 2019 annual report, released in April 2019, USCIRF recommended that Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan be designated again. In the case of Uzbekistan, USCIRF noted that while religious freedom conditions in Uzbekistan trended positive in certain areas serious concerns remain. USCIRF specifically highlighted that thousands of religious prisoners remain behind bars and those that have been released by the government (all old men) have not been rehabilitated; they remain former convicts with no path to clearing their names. Christian groups, like Baptists and Jehovahs Witnesses face restrictions and registration difficulties.

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.

The continued designation of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, but with sanctions waived, illustrates tension between professed U.S. ideals of religious freedom and other interests. The exact reasons are not stated, but its assumed the waivers are because of U.S. interests related to the war in Afghanistan and regional security. Beyond Afghanistan, direct U.S. interests in the economic sphere, for example in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are limited. One has to wonder what this process will look like in the event of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

See the article here:

Of Concerns and Waivers: Religious Freedom and US Interests in Central Asia - The Diplomat

Weekly Wrap: Winter Solstice celebrations and responses | Freedom From Religion Foundation – Patheos

Posted on by

Amit Pal

Director of Communications

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Winter Solstice has recently kept us on our toes here at the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Of course, some religious folks observe this time of the year as Christmas and often try to impose their belief system on the rest of the population. This includes their insistence on pushing religious displays into the public sphere.

Robust freethinking displaysOur response has been robust. With the help of you members, we have been visible from coast to coast. In Eugene, Ore., weve had a large banner above a street explaining the real reason for the celebration at this time of the year. We debuted our Bill of Rights Nativity in the state of New Jersey. We provided a freethinking perspective yet again in the legislative center of the most important state in the country. And we made our presence felt in our home states hinterland for the very first time. We faced the usual Christian Nationalist hostility; the fact that our banner was vandalized at the Washington Capitol didnt deter us, however. FFRF Attorney Liz Cavell succinctly provides us the right information for this season about the legality of religious displays on public property. Watch for other similar FAQs soon.

Read the original here:

Weekly Wrap: Winter Solstice celebrations and responses | Freedom From Religion Foundation - Patheos

‘Freedom for All’: Enes Kanter finally allowed to travel outside the U.S. for game – The Globe and Mail

Posted on by

Enes Kanter arrived at Scotiabank Arena wearing a black T-shirt that read 'Freedom for All.'

Maddie Meyer/Getty Images

Enes Kanter wore his heart on his chest for the Boston Celtics Christmas Day game in Toronto.

The Turkish centre arrived at Scotiabank Arena wearing a black T-shirt that read Freedom for All.

Toronto hosted the Celtics on Wednesday for the Raptors first Christmas Day game in franchise history, and the fact Kanter was able to cross the border at all was big news.

Story continues below advertisement

We landed and they were like, Okay, heres the moment! Kanter told reporters prior to tipoff. And people were asking me if I was nervous and Im just like, No, Im just excited. It was really good.

Kanter is an outspoken critic of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogans government for its treatment of residents. The Turkish government revoked his passport in 2017, and so he had not travelled outside the United States for years.

He was able to travel on Wednesday after discussions with the Canadian government, and in a column published earlier this week in The Globe and Mail, Kanter thanked Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus government.

Coming here and now just stepping outside of America for the first time in years, its definitely more than a game for me, Kanter said on Wednesday. Its definitely a blessing to play on a Christmas Day, especially in Toronto, the defending champions.

But it feels good to be out. It feels good to be free, it feels good to be enjoying this time with my teammates, for sure. Its amazing.

Kanter said the Celtics had been working on securing safe travel for him since the schedule was released at the beginning of the season. He said he wasnt 100-per-cent sure hed get the green light however until Dec. 23.

One of my friends reached out to Trudeaus office yesterday and he was vacationing in Costa Rica or something like that, and they said, We all good and told me not to worry about it and that everythings gonna be smooth, Kanter said.

Story continues below advertisement

Kanter, who hosted 50 basketball camps last year in the United States, said hed love to host two or three in Canada this summer.

So now I have a travel document and now Im planning to come here to do a basketball camp in Toronto and Ottawa, and when I run my basketball camp Im planning on meeting with Trudeau, he said.

[Canada] is one of the best countries in the world, but obviously I cannot give back in any way but basketball, so thats why Im gonna come back here to hold a basketball camp.

The 27-year-old big man is averaging 7.8 points and 7.3 rebounds for the Celtics this season.

Read the original post:

'Freedom for All': Enes Kanter finally allowed to travel outside the U.S. for game - The Globe and Mail

The Colorado Springs Gazette: Happy Hanukkah, a celebration of freedom – coloradopolitics.com

Posted on by

Happy Hanukkah, a day freedom-loving people of all backgrounds should celebrate Jewish tradition and freedom of religion.

Jewish actor-comedian Adam Sandler defines Hanukkah as eight crazy nights, and others give it the irreverent description the Jewish Christmas. For most Americans, it is a joyful holiday that helps make November and December the holiday season of music, lights, company parties and a festive atmosphere palpable in schools, shopping districts and the places we work.

The history of Hanukkah is serious and relevant to conflicts of a modern era burdened by religious persecution and anti-faith tyranny around much of the globe.

Hanukkah reminds us that religious liberty forms the foundation of freedom. It teaches us that freedom of religion never can be taken for granted. Those who have it can all thank those who fought and died for it.

Hanukkah celebrates the successful Maccabean revolt of the second-century B.C. Jews practicing Judaism in the land of Judea, aka the land of Israel, came under the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He forbade the practice of Jewish faith and tradition, ordering all Jews to worship Greek gods. This type of evil theocratic thuggery lives on today, with dictatorships and terror cells beheading, stoning and terrorizing Christians, Jews, Uyghurs, Hindus and others who refuse to denounce their faiths and embrace another god.

Led by the Jewish priest Mattathias and his five sons, a large-scale rebellion broke out against Antiochus and the Seleucid monarchy, explains the History Channel.

When Matthathias died in 166 B.C., his son Judah, known as Judah Maccabee (the Hammer), took the helm; within two years the Jews had successfully driven the Syrians out of Jerusalem, relying largely on guerrilla warfare tactics. Judah called on his followers to cleanse the Second Temple, rebuild its altar and light its menorahthe gold candelabrum whose seven branches represented knowledge and creation and were meant to be kept burning every night.

The temple had only enough olive oil to burn the menorah candles for a day. In what Maccabee and other Jews considered a miracle, the candles flickered for eight nights enough time for them to find a new supply of oil. The eight-night miracle led to the festival known as Hanukkah which means dedication in Hebrew.

Throughout ensuing centuries, Jews have endured routine persecution. They have fought to survive, let alone lead lives of faith in peace.

Celebrate Hanukkah and give thanks for the right to live and worship in freedom, peace and the miracle of light.

Follow this link:

The Colorado Springs Gazette: Happy Hanukkah, a celebration of freedom - coloradopolitics.com

True freedom is learning to love yourself | Opinion | Pittsburgh – PGH City Paper

Posted on by

It is Best of the Year list time: best music, films, and concerts. The top fashion collections, celebrity looks and sneaker releases. The Best books, the Best of the Best. This being the end of the decade, we are also treated or subjected, depending on your point of view to the Best of the Decade lists.

But I'm not thinking about lists, I am thinking about love.

Before you roll your eyes and turn the page, please give me a few more sentences to state my case. I am not focused on romantic love, I am talking about the many forms of love that got me through this year, the loves that will get me through the next, this new decade, or 4.5 billion+ years of life on Earth.

I will begin with family love. I am a survivor of childhood abuse, so I am not going on all fairytale-like. Yes, family love can be simple, pure, and true. But it can also be difficult, messy, and conditional based on accomplishments, religion/faith, expressing your sexuality or gender in a certain way. There can be many barriers between an individual and their family, which can lead many of us to create and focus on a logical family rather than biological family.

This year brought a new clarity about both my biological and logical families. People who cheered on successes. People who have helped me when I was sick, broke and/or sad. Friends who carried bags of clothing and ironed clothes in a NYC hotel basement for a fashion presentation. Family and friends who I happily showed up for and who exponentially increased my joy.

The second form of love that got me through this year was a deeper understanding of my anger. Not a blinding rage though some elements of that exists, how can it not? My anger comes from living in an unjust society that motivates me to work for real freedom for all, now. This anger simply drives me to expect justice for all. This anger insists on being called the name I chose for myself, to use a Kwanzaa term: Kujichagulia (self-determination). The root of the word is "Angr," the Old Norse word for "grief." I grieve for the lack of equity; I grieve that no one is really free.

Self-love as survival love No. 3 is something I developed as a child, and for much of my life, it was my main source of love for self. Earlier this year, I dismissed this as not enough love to thrive, and it may not be, but truth be told it is how I still exist to this day. It is part of the base of my internal self-love source sauce, on the downest down days I can dip into its rich simmering broth and remember how I saved my life.

The final form is self-love as an absolute love: a highly concentrated rich gooey resin-like molasses compared to the gravy-thick survivor sauce. After graduate school, I returned to the United States in such a state that a friend said to me, Tereneh, you need to see someone. That someone was a therapist and after several therapy sessions, the counselor asked me a simple enough question that changed my life:

Do you love yourself unconditionally?

My reaction was physical. It felt as though an explosion started in my pelvis and moved down to my feet, then erupted back through my legs, coursing up my spine and bursting from the base of my neck then out through my mouth and eyes in the form of tears, snot, and an animalistic wail. It took me about a minute (or 30?) to finally form the simple one word answer: No.

Fast-forward several years and a friend of mine who had seen me at my worst just a few weeks before that fateful therapy session said, Tereneh, your Patronis (Harry Potter reference to a manifestation of protection) is self-love. This self-love is not the idea of self-perfection; this is unconditional love like all forms of love includes accountability. In the words of bell hooks, Love is intention and action.

It may look happy, messy, angry, joyous, insistent, quiet or loud, but it is all love.

And what I have learned is that love of self is a revolution.

Go here to read the rest:

True freedom is learning to love yourself | Opinion | Pittsburgh - PGH City Paper

A Trump sweatshirt and some thoughts on freedom – LancasterOnline

Posted on by

The blasting sounds of cannons and muskets exploding in the distance rang out as the distinct smell of burning gunpowder permeated the landscape. Unaware of what was hiding behind the trees, British soldiers marched in unison down the tree-lined dirt road. Hiding in the forest were patriots, farmers and common men both young and old holding rifles, swords, axes and rustic farm equipment. As their hearts pounded and their shallow, rapid breaths created small clouds of fog in the cold morning air, they stood silently. They stood as free men, free men willing to die rather than merely exist under the shackles of tyranny. Against all odds, they were willing to stand up to perhaps the most powerful army in the history of the world to build a nation of their own ... and what a nation they built.

244 years later

At the suggestion of Siri, my iPhone alarm woke me up a little early on my day off. I slowly arose from my adjustable bed and stumbled to the kitchen to make a perfect cup of pick-me-up with my instant coffee maker. After filling my stomach with some leftovers from my wonderful wifes cooking, I began rummaging through my overflowing closet to pick out something to wear. As I shuffled through my shirts, I suddenly came across the Trump sweatshirt that I had worn to a rally a couple of weeks before.

A little apprehensive to wear it in the public square, the blood of my forefathers began to boil through my veins as I remembered the Democrats scheme to remove President Donald Trump from office and render my vote meaningless. Defiantly, I threw on the sweatshirt, jumped in my Jeep and headed out to do some last-minute Christmas shopping.

Driving to my destination, I began to wonder, Why the apprehension? Im an outspoken Trump supporter !q why do I feel any hesitation at all about advertising it on a sweatshirt in public?

The answer came quickly. People with loud voices on large media and social media !q stages are trying to label this president and his supporters as something that we are not. They call us racists; they call us bigots, sexists, uneducated and hate-mongers full of incoherent rage.

None of this is true.

I was raised to believe we should love everyone at a human level regardless of ethnicity, religion or political persuasion. That every human being should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of disability or social status. Our culture has produced this massive lie that somehow disagreement equals hate.

Maybe thats a big part of the political and social chasm that exists today. The truth is I can disagree with aspects of your life, with your beliefs, with your decisions and still love and respect you as a fellow human being.

Why are we silent?

As I arrived at my first destination and maneuvered through the busy aisles, I began to observe peoples faces as they spotted my sweatshirt. Some people smiled and nodded; some couldnt hide their disdain, while a few actually whispered, Nice sweatshirt. A woman at a register lowered her voice and spoke quietly but vehemently of her disdain for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and described the impeachment as a total travesty.

In the next store, the man at the checkout looked quickly over his right shoulder before pointing at my sweatshirt and giving me a silent thumbs-up.

Driving home, I tried to sort it all out. Why are people afraid to express themselves with their voices at normal volume? Why the secrecy?

Maybe living in the most comfortable time in the most prosperous place in human history has made us forget about how all of this came to be. Have we forgotten the brave men and women who were willing to sacrifice everything to give us this nation? Has our comfort somehow caused us to bow to mischaracterizations and lies in order to avoid any form of confrontation? Do we lack the courage to speak truth regardless of the risk of offending others? Have we ever second-guessed saying the words Merry Christmas to a stranger? Does the fear of being falsely labeled cause us to lower our voices to a whisper?

Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Hasnt the incredible courage of common men standing up to the mighty British Empire for freedoms sake afforded us the right (at the very least) to wear whatever sweatshirt we want? To have our say?

This quote from the author G. Michael Hopf has stayed with me: Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.

The late, great Ronald Reagan said it perhaps better than anyone: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didnt pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our childrens children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

So if you ever wear a Trump sweatshirt out in public and you suddenly hear someone yell from across the aisle, Hey buddy! Nice sweatshirt! that will probably be me.

God bless and merry Christmas.

Charles Stouff owns A+PC, a computer repair company in Manor Township. Hes also a former freelance cartoonist.

Read more:

A Trump sweatshirt and some thoughts on freedom - LancasterOnline

Freedom Of Assembly – The Nation

Posted on by

Tolerating polar opposite ideologies and practising different politics are only possible in a true democracy. Ironically, the government of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) does not know this. The partys understanding of real democracy is hypocritical. When in opposition, the PTI lambasted the previous governments for creating hurdles for opposition parties protests. Now that PTI is in power, its practices are no more different than those of the parties it once vehemently criticised. Nevertheless, the Lahore High Court (LHC) setting aside the governments ban on Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) to hold a rally at Liaqat Bagh is welcome. The constitution grants PPP the right to assemble. And the party reserves every right to hold a rally at Liaqat Bagh to mark the death anniversary of the former prime minister (PM) Benazir Bhutto.

What the court did was the right thing to do; what the government had done before was wrong and suggestive of sidelining the opposition voices. The district administration while refusing the PPP permission to hold a rally to mark the Benazirs anniversary probably forgot that it was peoples constitutional right to enjoy the freedom of assembly. Denying political parties and people the freedom of assembly citing security reasons is not a very convincing reason. It is, in fact, the other way around. People practice their right to assemble, and the state ensures their protection and security.

Now that the PPP will mark the death anniversary of Benazir at her assassination place, will Bilawal succeed in completing the mission that his mother died for? PPPs chairman has already hinted at initiating a new battle against the incumbent government. For him, the key goal is dislodging the PTIs government and re-establishing the peoples rule in the country. But will he achieve what he aims for? How will he dismantle the incumbent government, which Moulana Fazl-ur-Rehman failed to topple? At present, the opposition is not unified; nor is there any such possibility in the future.

The rhetoric that the PPP chairman relies on sounds appealing but only to the party workers. Unlike the martyred Benazir, Bilawal has yet to grasp and exploit the common mans frustrations against the incumbent government. He cannot bring down the government with the help of jiyalas. He needs to galvanise the ordinary people. But can he do so when Sindh is the only province where PPP has a presence? Instead of bringing down the present government, Bilawal will be a source of solace to Benazirs soul if he can re-establish his party all over the country.

See the original post:

Freedom Of Assembly - The Nation