In a robot showdown, humanity may happily surrender – Washington Post

Posted on by

By Matthew Hutson By Matthew Hutson March 9 at 12:33 PM

Matthew Hutsonis a science and technology writer and the author of The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking.

Many people fear that the path of artificial intelligence will eventually lead to a standoff between humans and machines, with humans as the underdogs. Confrontation looms in the forecasts of futurists and in the narratives of science fiction movies such as The Matrix, The Terminator and Westworld. But theres another way our demise could go down. We could begin wondering what makes people so special, anyway, and willingly give up the title of supreme species or even the preservation of humanity altogether. This is the path explored by historian Yuval Noah Harari in his new book, Homo Deus. Theres no need for a Terminator to come after us when, instead of fighting the network in the sky, we assimilate into it.

At stake is the religion of humanism. Whereas theists worship gods, humanists worship humans. Harari, whose previous book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, foreshadows this one, defines religion as any system of thought that sees certain values as having legitimacy independent of people. Thou shalt not kill derives its force from God, not from the mortal Moses. Similarly, humanists believe in human rights as things earned automatically from the universe, whatever anyone else says. The right not to be tortured or enslaved exists outside human convention. (Philosophers call this bit of magical thinking moral realism.)

[Will technology allow us to transcend the human condition?]

We may take for granted the right not to be tortured or enslaved or various other humanist doctrines, such as the idea that were all inherently valuable individuals with the free will to express our authentic selves but we have not always done so. People were seen as property even well after that bit about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was inked to parchment. As Harari argues, weve lived with alternatives to humanism, and we can again. And ironically, he writes, the rise of humanism also contains the seeds of its downfall.

Thats kind of a fudge, one of a few in the book. Its not the humanist revolution per se that planted those poison seeds. Its more the (somewhat symbiotic) scientific revolution. You dont need universal rights to study electricity and invent computers. Or to apply our inventions toward the evergreen pursuits of health, happiness and control over nature (or as Harari calls them, immortality, bliss and divinity). Nevertheless, scientific and technological progress might eventually undermine the humanist ethos.

On the scientific front, research is pushing back on the idea of free will (as philosophers have for ages). The more we can explain human behavior with neuroscience and psychology, the less room there is for some magical human soul.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is rendering us useless, taking the jobs of taxi drivers, factory workers, stock traders, lawyers, teachers, doctors and Jeopardy! contestants. And, Harari argues, liberal humanism rose on the back of human usefulness. It advanced not on moral grounds but on economic and military grounds. Countries such as France offered dignity to all in exchange for service to the nation. Is it a coincidence, Harari asks, that universal rights were proclaimed at the precise historical juncture when universal conscription was decreed? But with robots making and killing things better than we can, who needs people? Intelligence will matter more than consciousness. Whats so sacred about useless bums who pass their days devouring artificial experiences in virtual reality?

[Do we love robots because we hate ourselves?]

Even if the human species does continue to serve the system meaningfully, we might not matter as individuals. Harari suggests that algorithms might get to know us better than we know ourselves. As they collect data on our Web searches, exercise routines and much more, theyll be able to tell us whom we should date and how we should vote. We may happily take their advice, literally ceding democracy to databases. Once our authentic, enigmatic, indivisible selves are exposed as mere predictable computations not just by philosophers and scientists but by our every interaction with the world the fiction of free will might finally unravel. (Personally, Im not sure our brains will allow this.) Well enlist as mere specialized processors in the global cyborganic network.

Harari presents three possible futures. In one, humans are expendable. In a second, the elite upgrade themselves, becoming essentially another species that sees everyone else as expendable. In a third, we join the hive mind, worshiping data over individuals (or God). Connecting to the system becomes the source of all meaning, he writes. In any case, he says convincingly, the most interesting place in the world from a religious perspective is not the Islamic State or the Bible Belt, but Silicon Valley.

I enjoyed reading about these topics not from another futurist but from a historian, contextualizing our current ways of thinking amid humanitys long march especially a historian with Hararis ability to capsulize big ideas memorably and mingle them with a light, dry humor.

In Homo Deus, Harari offers not just history lessons but a meta-history lesson. In school, history was my least favorite subject. I preferred science, which offered abstract laws useful for predicting new outcomes. History seemed a melange of happenstance and contingency retroactively cobbled into stories. If historys arcs were more Newtonian, wed be better at predicting elections.

Harari points to an opposing goal of his field. He writes that studying history aims to loosen the grip of the past, showing that our present situation is neither natural nor eternal. In other words, it emphasizes happenstance. Thats a useful tactic for the oppressed fighting the status quo. Its also a useful exercise for those who see the technological singularity as a given. We have options.

Its possible well choose to avoid our loss of values. On the other hand, its possible well choose to accelerate it. Harari, a vegan who disputes humanitys reserved seat atop the great chain of being, briefly ponders this option: Maybe the collapse of humanism will also be beneficial. Indeed, dont we owe a chance to animals and androids, too?

Homo Deus

A Brief History of Tomorrow

By Yuval Noah Harari

Harper. 449 pp. $35

Read more:

In a robot showdown, humanity may happily surrender - Washington Post

Amnesty International and ProtonMail join forces to fight cyber censorship – Amnesty International

Posted on by

On the occasion of World Day Against Cyber Censorship, ProtonMail and Amnesty International join forces to show how internet restrictions affect people around the world.

As the worlds largest encrypted email provider, ProtonMail is the privacy tool of choice for journalists, activists and privacy conscious everyday users. Today when logging into their inboxes, ProtonMails 2 million users from 150 countries will see Amnesty Internationals latest findings on cyber censorship.

The internet is a powerful tool for free speech and activism, but in the wrong hands it can also be a tool for repression.

The internet is a powerful tool for free speech and activism, but in the wrong hands it can also be a tool for repression. Amnesty International has documented cases of advanced "techno-censorship" across the world, as governments race to find new tools and tactics to silence dissent. The range of cyber censorship and surveillance tactics being employed by governments is getting more sophisticated with each passing year, with dire consequences for freedom of expression, said Sherif Elsayed-Ali, Head of Technology and Human Rights at Amnesty International.

Amnesty International and ProtonMail want people who believe in a free internet to take action. The tech firms developing the architecture of the internet need to build in stronger security, with end-to-end encryption for example, that we can use to protect our rights to privacy and free speech online. The decisions made about the nature of the internet will affect our societies for a generation to come.

The decisions made about the nature of the internet will affect our societies for a generation to come.

Each year governments around the world are increasingly restricting internet freedom. With the use of IP address blocking today Turkey and Saudi Arabia block over 50,000 and 400,000 websites respectively; including news and social media networking sites. Chinas Great Firewall continues to restrict internet to over 800 million users.

Cyber censorship not only steals peoples rights to freedom of information but can also have the disastrous effect of hampering creative and scientific development needed for a brighter future.

Cyber censorship not only steals peoples rights to freedom of information but can also have the disastrous effect of hampering creative and scientific development needed for a brighter future Dr. Andy Yen, co-founder and CEO ProtonMail.

It is becoming an increasingly common practice for governments to shut off the Internet during moments of unrest and protest, such as Ethiopia did on more than one occasion in 2016. Last year several governments also shut down encrypted messaging apps, like Signal in Egypt and Whats App in Brazil.

Cyber censorship is further exacerbated by the indifference from some of the biggest tech companies towards their users privacy. Last year, Yahoo confirmed that it cooperated with the NSA to implement a special surveillance software to scan all its users emails for the agencys use.

On 21 October 2016, Amnesty International warned that tech companies like Snapchat and Microsoft are failing to adopt basic privacy protections on their instant messaging services, putting users human rights at risk. Only 3 of 11 tech firms examined in Amnesty Internationals Message Privacy Ranking provide end-to-end encryption by default on all their messaging apps.

Today we are changing our login page to stimulate a debate about online privacy, digital freedom and cyber censorship. Many of our users are journalists, dissidents and everyday users who have experienced internet restrictions in one way or another and who have turned to encrypted email to secure their communications, said Dr. Andy Yen, ProtonMail co-founder and CEO.

Cyber censorship not only steals peoples rights to freedom of information but can also have the disastrous effect of hampering creative and scientific development needed for a brighter future. Earlier this year ProtonMail launched a Tor hidden website to combat censorship and today we are happy to highlight the brave work Amnesty international is doing to protect civil liberties online.

See the original post here:

Amnesty International and ProtonMail join forces to fight cyber censorship - Amnesty International

Taiwan Is Desperate for Fee-Paying, Mainland Chinese Students. That Could Be Bad for Academic Freedom – TIME

Posted on by

Taiwan's universities are reeling from accusations that they are indulging in widespread academic censorship to secure lucrative fee-paying exchange students from the Chinese mainland.

This week the Ministry of Education launched an emergency probe of pledges allegedly signed by universities with their Chinese counterparts to uphold Chinas official view on Taiwans status and avoid teaching sensitive content like Taiwanese independence.

The controversy has struck at a particularly sensitive time, with the island nation smarting from a strong rebuke last weekend by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who warned that China would not tolerate any activity attempting to separate Taiwan from the motherland.

Taiwan, a democracy of 23 million, has its own parliament, military and foreign policy, but Beijing views it as a renegade province that will eventually be reunited with the mainland by military force if necessary.

The Education Ministry refused to confirm press reports that at least 80 out of 157 universities may have compromised their academic independence to attract Chinese students, until it completes its full investigation next week.

But Yang Min-ling, head of the ministrys International Department, warned that any institution found guilty of violating laws governing cross-strait relations between Taiwan and China could face fines of up to $16,000.

Fearful that Beijing is trying to erode their jealously guarded academic liberties, Taiwanese professors and students are in revolt.

A new campaign against political restrictions on academic freedom by Professor Fan Yun, who teaches sociology at National Taiwan University, has been supported by professors and students from over 20 institutions.

Universities are supposed to protect the democratic values of a society, says Fan.

I visit Hong Kong universities and whats happening there is quite depressing. They already lost the freedom to talk about what they want to. So I hope that we are overworried, but we dont want to wait until its too late, she argues.

We still want to facilitate academic exchange with China, but we have to have our bottom line.

With Taiwans low birth rate fueling fears of a future shortfall in students, however, that line appears to be flexible for many universities competing for funding. Taiwan, which has a glut of universities, gratefully receives over 30,000 Chinese exchange students every year.

The latest controversy began at Shih Hsin University in the capital, Taipei, after it revealed that in letters to some mainland Chinese students it vowed to avoid sensitive subjects.

A spokesman, Yeh I-jan, argued that the letters were nonbinding and only necessary for about 5% of the institutions annual 1,500 Chinese students.

Shih Hsin and other universities claim such documents are a formality to placate the Chinese authorities, denying that teaching standards are compromised. But Yeh did recall several instances where Chinese students had complained about the content of lessons and stopped attending.

Young activists in both Hong Kong and Taiwan have irked Beijing in recent years by pushing for greater autonomy or even independence. In 2014, hundreds of students formed the Sunflower Movement and occupied Taiwans parliament to protest Chinas political influence.

Lin Fei-fan, one of Sunflowers leaders, is alarmed that the letters issued by universities have both violated Taiwans academic freedom and burdened visiting Chinese students with self-censorship. But he also sees an opportunity.

This incident actually gives us a rare chance to rethink how a democratic Taiwan can engage with an authoritarian and inimical neighbor country through education exchange, he says.

Concerns about China using its overseas students for political leverage have occurred elsewhere.

In San Diego, Chinese students protested against a decision by the University of California to invite Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. Meanwhile, the Chinese embassy in the U.K. is said to have warned students at Durham University against engaging with human-rights activist, Anastasia Lin.

Its part of how they want to promote their cultural and social agenda in other societies, particularly in Taiwan, said Hsu Yung-ming, a legislator with the government-aligned New Power Party.

We worry that our universities maybe have some under-the-table compromise with China.

But Jason Hsu, a legislator from the opposition party, the Kuomintang, warned the government against a kneejerk reaction.

While opposing pledges to Chinese universities, Hsu believes that the Ministry of Education probe, with the threat of financial penalties, is also overreaching.

He asks: Do we want zero students from China in Taiwan, or do we want to promote more exchange and understanding towards each other? I think I would vote for the latter.

Follow this link:

Taiwan Is Desperate for Fee-Paying, Mainland Chinese Students. That Could Be Bad for Academic Freedom - TIME

Twitter Fights Abuse, But Free Speech Activists Worry About Censorship – Voice of America

Posted on by

The social networking website Twitter has put new measures in place to try to stop users from being harassed or from seeing things that offend them.

Some free-speech activists are worried that the changes could lead to unpopular ideas being censored.

The measures were announced last week. They include hiding possibly threatening messages even if no one has complained to the company that the person who sent them is abusive.

In a statement announcing the change, the company said, Were working to identify accounts as theyre engaging in abusive behavior -- even if this behavior hasnt been reported to us."

The company said it would take action only when it strongly believes abuse has taken place. It uses software to identify abuse.

Risk to free speech?

But some free speech supporters are worried about the changes.

Suzanne Nossel is the executive director of the free speech activist group PEN America. She said Twitter is considering taking action, in her words, where there is really no problem that needs to be solved. To take action when there hasnt been a complaint raises the concern of whether there will be mistaken blocking of accounts or suspending of accounts, she said. That raises a risk.

Twitter has been pressured to deal with abusive speech in the past few months after some famous people complained about long-term, planned abuse campaigns.

Actress Leslie Jones left Twitter for a brief time last year after she received many racist messages and death threats. Several months after she met with the head of Twitter, the company announced it had developed new ways to deal with abusive messages.

Those ways included strengthening the ability of users to stop receiving messages that had certain words or expressions in them, and expanding the ability of users to report abuse.

Twitter also retrained its workers on how to deal with online abuse.

Esha Bhandari is a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Unions Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. She told VOA that she supports these kinds of changes, which permit users to have more control over what messages they see and from whom they receive messages.

She said the ACLU encourages companies to focus less on ways it can stop abuse and more on tools that allow users to control their experience on the platform."

Low-quality tweets and safe search function

But some tools launched by Twitter give the company a lot of power to decide what messages are seen. In February, the company began hiding what it called potentially abusive or low-quality tweets. The messages will still be able to be seen, but only if people search for them.

VOA asked Twitter many times for more information on how it decided which messages are low-quality. Twitter did not answer our questions.

Also in February, Twitter introduced a safe search function that removes messages that have potentially sensitive content from search results. VOA also asked the company how it identified this kind of message, but Twitter again did not answer our questions.

Global town square

As a private company, Twitter is not forced to permit free speech. However, spokespeople say the service permits free expression. And they say they believe in speaking truth to power.

PEN America and the ACLU support this role. Nossel and Bhandari say they consider Twitter a kind of global town square, where everyones voice has equal weight.

Bhandari said, As a practical matter, decisions made by Twitter have a huge impact on the messages that we receive, and I hope that Twitter and other companies take those responsibilities seriously."

Nossel noted that Twitter has financial reasons to be careful as it seeks to balance free expression and stopping abuse.

The power and influence of their platform depends on the free flow of ideas, so I think there are commercial reasons why they would not want to limit (free speech), Gnossel said. And I think for their users, they do have a kind of softer, implicit contract that they are going to be a platform in which you can express things freely.

Im Ashley Thompson.

VOA News Writer Joshua Fatzick reported this story from Washington. John Smith adapted the story for Learning English. Kelly Jean Kelly was the editor.

We want to hear from you. Write to us in the Comments Section, or visit our Facebook page.

________________________________________________________________

account n. an arrangement in which a person uses the Internet or e-mail services of a particular company

complain v. to say or write that you are unhappy, sick, uncomfortable, etc., or that you do not like something

engage in phrasal verb to do (something)

encourage v. to make (something) more appealing or more likely to happen

allow v. to make it possible for someone or something to have or do something

focus v. to direct your attention or effort at something specific

racism n. the belief that some races of people are better than others

potentially adv. capable of becoming real

function n. the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

platform n. something that allows someone to tell a large number of people about an idea, product, etc.

practical adj. likely to succeed and reasonable to do or use

impact n. logical and reasonable in a particular situation

implicit adj. understood though not clearly or directly stated

Follow this link:

Twitter Fights Abuse, But Free Speech Activists Worry About Censorship - Voice of America

Where Have All the Free Speech Fans Gone? – Reason (blog)

Posted on by

Starting in the '70s, the General Social Survey has periodically asked Americans if they think someone should have a right to give a racist speech in their community. John Sides has charted the responses over at The Washington Post, dividing the people surveyed into four groups: Americans aged 18 to 25 who have had at least some college education, Americans aged 18 to 25 with no college education, older Americans with at least some college education, and older Americans with no college education. The results are striking:

Washington Post

The first thing you'll probably notice is that the percentage of the college-age crowd supporting the racist's freedom of speech has decreased dramatically over those four decades. Another thing you'll notice is that the college kids aren't leading the way so much as they're converging with the non-college crew. But what really leaps out for me is when most of the drop happened. For the people who are actually on campus, the big plunge ended in the late '80s. Things then flattened for a while, sliding slightly but not severely in the 1990s; the decline didn't accelerate again until the 21st century.

This flies in the face of folk memory, which tends to treat the '90s as the first age of political correctness. But it's probably better to remember that period as a time of backlash against political correctness. That first big wave of "P.C. Kids Gone Mad!" stories that hit the national press in 1990 wasn't a sign that pro-censorship sentiments were taking off; it was a sign that more people were resisting those sentiments. When there's a backlash against some social force, many people assume that force is surging, just because they didn't really notice it before. That doesn't mean it's actually on the rise.

But that's not all that happened in the '90s. Sides also charts the percentage of Americans in each group who support free speech for communists. Here the decline in the college crowd isn't as severethe share supporting the communist's rights is well north of 50 percentbut there's still a noticeable drop at the beginning, followed by a flattening in the '90s and then a resumption in the post-9/11 era:

Washington Post

So the fall-off in campus tolerance for controversial speech doesn't just affect the right. The good news here is the trend among those 26-and-uppers. The ones with a college education didn't see any decline, and the ones without a college education have actually grown steadily more tolerant. (A third chart, which I won't repost here but you can find in Sides' article, shows a similar jump in the number of non-college-educated older Americans willing to back the free-speech rights of an atheist.)

The biggest question for me, looking at those data, is why the decline in collegiate civil libertarianism resumed after the '90s. One possible factor: The further you get into the 21st century, the more college-age people there are who don't remember the '80s. Backlashes fade with memory.

More:

Where Have All the Free Speech Fans Gone? - Reason (blog)

Yes, free speech for fascists a confession – Learn Liberty (blog)

Posted on by

Last week when one of my students caught sight of me approaching on a campus walk, he pulled out his smartphone to show me a picture he had taken. Look at this, he said, disgusted, it was in the Liberal Arts building. The picture showed a hand-lettered sign, hung over an atrium railing, that read, No free speech for fascists.

Because I care intensely about free speech, especially in a university, and more especially still in my university, I was sorry and angry to see the sign. It pained me that shutting down the opinions of others, even fascists, should be publicly advocated.

I tore it down, my student said.

Good for you, said I.

Was I right to say that? Was my student right to tear down the sign? I dont think so. Im ashamed of it now.

The lights came on for me when I told a colleague about the incident a couple of days later. Something in his tone when he asked, He tore it down? gave me pause.

For the first time, I questioned the act. I saw myself in a contradiction. The sign had urged silencing fascists. I hold fascism to be contemptible and wrong, but I believe fascists should be allowed to express their mistaken ideas as freely as anyone else. And that sign was attacking freedom of expression. The signs message was wrong.

But the sign was expression. And my student had silenced it. And I had approved. We were both wrong to do so.

Free expression is so important that we must tolerate even the expression of opposition to free expression. The proper response to bad speech is better speech, not shutting it down.

So what should my student have done? Next to that sign that read, No free speech for fascists, he should have posted another with an arrow toward the first, saying, Free speech for all, even those who are wrong, like fascists and the person who posted this sign.

Follow this link:

Yes, free speech for fascists a confession - Learn Liberty (blog)

Disruptive Protest Report Suggests Creation of Free Speech Deans … – The Chicago Maroon

Posted on by

The final report from the Committee on University Discipline for Disruptive Conduct (CUDDC) was released on Tuesday, detailing several recommended changes to the way the University handles protests, event disruptions, and related disciplinary cases.

Among the reports recommendations are proposals to implement Deans-on-Call specifically trained to respond to disruptive conduct, make more efforts to publicize rules and punishments regarding disruptions, and to create a system by which protests would be authorized in advance.

The report lists framing principles, including a statement that argues that [d]isruptive conduct may itself be a form of speech, but that does not mean that it is a protected form of speech. Like other forms of civil disobedience, disruptive conduct may lead to disciplinary consequences for those engaged in such conduct. Other listed principles for the report include affirmations of the Universitys commitment to creating a welcoming and inclusive campus climate and to an approach to free speech centered around individual expression by members of the community and upheld by the Universitys administrative authority.

The reports recommendations are divided into five sections covering different aspects of University responses to disruptive conduct. One of these sections proposes that the All-University Disciplinary System be replaced by a new central process with a five-member panel of three faculty, one student, and one University staff member presiding over individual disciplinary conduct cases. The report also suggests that information about audience rules and Dean-on-Call and UCPD roles for speaking events, as well as consequences for disruptions, should be included in the Student Manual and posted on a new University website.

One of the reports sections recommends that the University change its policies toward disruptive conduct by people who are not affiliated with the University, who are able to attend many University events but cannot be handled as easily as students or faculty under existing guidelines. In the future, according to the recommendations, [w]hen appropriate, unaffiliated individuals who engage in disruptive conduct can be barred from all or part of the University permanently or for discrete periods under standards and processes set forth in the Universitys No Trespass (Ban) Policy.

The report recommends revising the University statute that defines disruptive conduct to highlight that disciplinary actions can be taken against individuals who act as part of a group. The new statute would also note that individuals could face punishment for involvement in multiple obstructive incidents over a length of time, because [p]ersistent and serial conduct may in the aggregate rise to the level of disruptive conduct even if a single instance of such conduct does not.

The CUDCC was created in June of 2016 following a charge by Provost Daniel Diermeier to review and suggest modifications to the existing All-University Disciplinary System, which was first implemented in 1970. The committees charge noted that the current system is inefficient and, as a result, rarely used. In recent years, the University has seen an increased frequency of protests at events featuring invited speakers, including former Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez and Trump staffer Corey Lewandowski.

Continue reading here:

Disruptive Protest Report Suggests Creation of Free Speech Deans ... - The Chicago Maroon

Who had the Impudence to Change our Values Regarding Free Speech? – Dissident Voice

Posted on by

Desperation tactics to shut down discussion of the Israeli regime's mega-crimes reach new heights of absurdity

A fake anti-semitism campaign masterminded by the usual Zio suspects, their Israel lobby colleagues and their stooges in the corridors of power, continues to sweep across UK universities and our political parties, especially shambolic and rudderless Labour.

The University of Central Lancashire cancelled an event due to be held last month entitled Debunking Misconceptions on Palestine and the Importance of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions organised by the Universitys Friends of Palestine Society. The University said it would contravene the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliances new definition of what constitutes anti-semitism and would therefore be unlawful. The event went ahead, off campus, at the premises of a local voluntary organisation.

Exeter University banned students from staging a re-enactment called Mock Checkpoint, in which some dressed up as Israeli occupation soldiers while others acted the part of Palestinians trying to go about their daily lives. The event was approved by the students guild but banned for safety and security reasons less than 48 hours before it was due to take place. An appeal was rejected.

At Leeds former British ambassador Craig Murray was asked by the trustees of the University Union to provide details of what he was going to say in his talk Palestine/Israel: A Unitary Secular State or a Bantustan Solution just 24 hours before he was due to speak. Craig reluctantly gave them an outline to allow the lecture to go ahead. He writes in his blog: I have just been told by Leeds University Union I will not be allowed to speak unless I submit what I am going to say for pre-vetting.

I am truly appalled that such a gross restriction on freedom of speech should be imposed anywhere, let alone in a university where intellectual debate is meant to be an essential part of the learning experience. I really do not recognise todays United Kingdom as the same society I grew up in. The common understanding that the values of a liberal democracy are the foundation of society appears to have evaporated.

Also at Leeds the student Palestine Solidarity Group was refused permission to mount a visual demonstration outside the Leeds Student Union Building or to have a stall inside.

At Liverpool Professor Michael Lavalette was contacted the day before he was due to speak with a demand that he sign the Universitys risk assessment for the event. This included reading the controversial IHRA definition of anti-semitism and agreeing with it. He emailed his response in which he carefully avoided mention of the dodgy definition and the meeting went ahead.

The University of Manchester allowed a series of talks marking Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) to go ahead, but only after several meetings and imposing strict conditions which the organisers called unheard of. other societies and groups do not face the same problems. University authorities, however, vetoed the students choice of academic to chair an IAW event on BDS over concerns about her neutrality, and other speakers had to acknowledge the British government-endorsed definition of anti-semitism.

Meanwhile some reports say that a conference with the title International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism to be held at University College Cork at the end of this month has been cancelled thanks to pressure from Zionist groups. StandWithUs Israel, in cahoots with Irish4Israel, claim the University has been persuaded to impose added security stipulations and other limitations that amount to a de-facto cancelling of this hateful event. But these are desperation tactics. Checking with the organisers Im told the event is 100% going ahead. The Irish, it seems, are not as easily pushed around as the English. The conference, if you remember, was chased away from Southampton University two years ago by a similar campaign against free speech. The official reason, as usual, was security concerns.

Now comes the scandal of the 26 year-old Exeter student, noted for her work on anti-racism, being smeared by the Zionist Inquisition for her Pro-Palestinian activism.

She is accused of having tweeted two years ago: If terrorism means protecting and defending my land, I am so proud to be called terrorist. So what? As everyone and his dog knows, or ought to know, the Palestinians are perfectly entitled, under international law, to take up arms and resist a brutal illegal occupier. As Malaka Mohammed herself says:

It may appear as a radical statement that could raise serious concerns at both the University of Exeter and its Students Guild. However, it is my honest belief, and as I will attempt to explain, these kind of statements by Palestinians in general, and me in this instance, are most commonly in response to efforts by Israel advocacy groups and the Israeli government to demonize and dehumanize Palestinians. This is done by using the emotive dog whistle by Israeli descriptors of terrorist and terrorism whenever referring to the Arab population. Palestinians who throw stones in response to Israeli soldiers invading their villages are labelled violent thugs, rioters and terrorists. Palestinians who non-violently protest the illegal occupation are portrayed as violent individuals who terrorize Israeli Jews. Practically any Palestinian who resists the Israeli occupation and its plethora of human rights violations, war crimes and serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law is stigmatized in this way.

After reading that, I dropped the Vice-Chancellor a line:

Sir Steve Smith, Vice-Chancellor University of Exeter

Dear Sir Steve,

Im writing as a graduate of Exeter University with fond memories of the place, and because Im shocked to see its good name besmirched by ludicrous accusations linking Palestinian PhD student Malaka Mohammed (aka Shwaikh) to anti-semitism and supporting terrorism.

As an acknowledged international relations specialist you will know the score regarding Israels decades-long illegal occupation of the Palestinians homeland and its brutal subjugation and merciless dispossession of the Palestinian people. You will also, I imagine, understand who the true terrorists and anti-semites are.

Lest we forget, the US defines terrorism as an activity that

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and

(ii) appears to be intended

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

And the US has used this definition to terrorise and degrade individuals, groups and countries it doesnt happen to like.

Ironically its a definition that fits the US administration itself and the thuggish Israeli regime like a glove.

I sincerely hope that amidst the flurry of investigations going on you will take steps to ensure that plucky Ms Mohammed/Schwaikh ceases to be victimised by tiresome Zionist Inquisitors and is allowed to get on with her studies, and from now on free speech prevails across the beautiful Exeter campus.

Sir Steve is said to earn 400,000 a year according to this report. Perhaps he and many other university bosses need rousing from their plumptious comfort zone.

Im with Craig Murray on this. I too dont recognise our society today as the same one I grew up in. Who had the impudence to change our values regarding free speech?

Stuart Littlewoods book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, can now be read on the internet by visiting radiofreepalestine.org.uk. Read other articles by Stuart.

This article was posted on Thursday, March 9th, 2017 at 8:08am and is filed under BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement), Censorship, Freedom of Expression/Speech, Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Narrative, Propaganda, United Kingdom, Zionism.

View original post here:

Who had the Impudence to Change our Values Regarding Free Speech? - Dissident Voice

U. Lincoln | students censored | over lack of free speech – legal Insurrection (blog)

Posted on by

We feel the decision that was made is misguided and disproportionate

A conservative student group at the University of Lincoln in the UK criticized their students union over a lack of free speech over criticism of an online magazine. In response, the students union shut down the groups social media accounts, thus proving their point.

A student paper called The Linc reported:

Conservative Society suspended from Twitter by SU after criticising their record on freedom of speech

The University of Lincoln Conservative Society has been forced to hand over control of their twitter account to the Students Union.

It follows a tweet sharing a report which said the University of Lincoln had a bad record on freedom of speech.

The university as a whole was given a red status by online magazine Spiked, which means the institution has banned and actively censored ideas on campus.

On Monday afternoon the society tweeted confirmation their twitter account will be suspended until May, however they plan to appeal the decision by the SU.

A spokesman for the student group made this statement:

On the 6th March 2017, the University of Lincoln Conservative Society, in compliance with a decision by the Student Union (SU) disciplinary panel, handed over control of all social media accounts to the University of Lincoln Students Union, with the accounts to be suspended until the 1st of May 2017.

This decision was reached by the SU following an anonymous complaint over two tweets by the society account. The first, in relation to freedom of speech, linking an article from Spiked and the second was in relation to an SU questionnaire that had to be completed before voting in recent SU elections

We feel the decision that was made is misguided and disproportionate, as the society was simply trying to raise the important issues of free speech and democracy, and the tweets in question have been taken out of context.

Here is part of a statement by the Students Union, also courtesy of The Linc:

Freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the Students Union. The SU is built on a foundation where students can express opinions and ideas freely within the law.

The Students Union is run by students for students. There are agreed policies in place based on national guidance for charities which protect students and aims to provide a safe environment in which complex issues can be discussed and debated.

Ahh, a safe environment. That almost sounds like a safe space doesnt it?

Robby Soave of Reason has more on this:

University of Lincolns Conservative Student Group Censored for Complaining About Censorship

Talk about proving a point. The University of Lincolns student union has suspended a conservative student groups social media accountsan act of retaliation against the group for daring to criticize the student unions hostility toward free speech.

In effect, the British universitys student government is censoring students because they objected to censorship.

Just to reiterate the irony of this situation, wrote a different conservative club at another university, their student union, upon being criticized for being anti-free speech, have silenced those complaining about a lack of free speech!

The story has gone international as concerns over free speech are growing throughout academia. Heres a video report from the BBC News:

Even though the group being censored is conservative, there are student protests being planned.

Heres more from The Linc:

Protest organised against SU over freedom of speech clampdown

A sit-in protest is being organised at the Engine Shed a student union venue on Friday in opposition to the University of Lincoln Students Union (SU).

It follows the SUs decision to suspend the Conservative Societys social media accounts after they tweeted a link to a report which criticised the universitys approach to freedom of speech.

Lincoln MP Karl McCartney has also described the SUs actions as intolerant, illiberal and totalitarian.

The SU have defended the suspension saying there was a suspected breach of the code of conduct and freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the Students Union.

The event is called the UoL Free-Speech/Repeal the Conservative Society Ban Protest.

Featured image via YouTube.

Go here to see the original:

U. Lincoln | students censored | over lack of free speech - legal Insurrection (blog)

CN student helps push ‘Free Speech’ legislation – The Standard Banner

Posted on by

Carson-Newman Political Science major Mickey Shelton II got some real life experience when he attended a post-election protest rally at UT dressed as President Trump complete with wig.

I believe students shouldnt have to have a permit from a university to exercise their right to freedom of speech, claims Shelton.

Last month, Shelton continued to explore the right to freedom of speech on campuses. He went to a press conference at the Tennessee State Capitol and spoke in favor of State Rep. Martin Daniels bill, the Tennessee Student Free Speech Protection Act.

He told his story about the five-hour UT campus protest attended by over 100 students and faculty. Trump supporters were outnumbered and police were called in after several reports of physical violence, including one involving Shelton.

In addition to the bills author, the Carson-Newman student got to hear the opinions of others including Senator Joey Hensley and political commentator Scottie Nell Hughes at the press conference.

The bill states that students enrolled in a university should be able to exercise their first amendment right. Members of the public who are not enrolled as students or employed by the institution may be required to obtain a permit.

Tennessee Students Free Speech Protection Act mainly outlines ways all state institutions of higher education can confirm their commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate by students whether on or off campus. It states that institutions shall include such policies in the student code of conduct that guarantees students the broadest possible latitude to speak, write and discuss any issue that presents itself on campus.

The bill continues with the statement that a state university shall not shield individuals from opinions considered unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive as long as activities do not disrupt the essential processes of the institution.

Shelton says he thinks it is a public universitys job to provide an environment where freedom of expression and thought can thrive Students can hear both sides of any issue and formulate their own educated opinions.

More:

CN student helps push 'Free Speech' legislation - The Standard Banner

Why I’m not an atheist – MyAJC

Posted on by

The more-direct sun of spring has already arrived, the azaleas in my front yard have opened, and green sprigs of Bermuda grass are starting to emerge.

After fall, this is my favorite time of year, when in the words of Tennyson, a young mans fancy turns to thoughts of love, and everywhere I look I see God.

I understand belief in Him/Her take your pick is becoming less popular and the number of atheist is on the rise.

Why?

Apparently theres ample evidence pointing overwhelmingly toward the non-existence of God, particularly the non-existence of a loving and all powerful deity, the God that I believe in.

You wont get any argument from me for or against. I can only say what I believe and why.

I believe that there is one God who created all that there is in all the universe. I believe he sent the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, to be born literally of a virgin to come to earth to save me because He loved me. I believe that unlike me, he lived an absolutely perfect life.

Why do I believe that? Because I need to and Ive discovered over the years that thats what works for me. Its the thing that gives me joy and, on most days, no matter what Im going through, the peace that surpasses understanding.

Ive held fast to this belief since I was a 10-year-old growing up in Mississippi, and never once have I doubted God is real. That doesnt mean my faith has never wavered. It has. It doesnt mean Ive blindly followed without question. I havent.

But my faith doesnt demand I have all the answers or that I understand all the workings of God. That, by the way, includes the arrival of, yes, an early spring.

Ive thought of little else since reading the news story about the rise in atheism in which Drew Bekius, president of the Clergy Project, said that about a third of its members no longer believe in a higher power.

They see tragedy in the world, yet you see people claiming God just got them a parking space. So God will answer the prayer for a parking space while millions of people are in poverty?

It reminded me of these words from Job: Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?

If you believe as I do that God is sovereign the answer is a resounding no. God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants.

Bekius and others quoted in the story seem to have a problem with that. Sometimes I do, too. The difference is I dont disown God just because He and I disagree.

But in my search to understand, I reached out to the only former atheist I know, the Rev. Fredrick Robinson.

Robinson, now a resident of Charlotte, N.C., grew up in the church but in 1984 began to question the existence of God for the first time.

Little by little, he said, he struggled to believe the literal story of creation in Genesis and the idea that the world was only six thousand years old. More than that, there seemed to be a disconnect between what Christians believed and how they behaved.

Because of its ostensible rejection of reason and science, I started to believe that religion was an enemy to human progress, he said.

At the same time he continued to attend church, taking every opportunity to challenge believers faith in God.

Eventually, though, he said the Holy Spirit moved in my heart to show me how religion and how faith in God was a powerful thing, how it helped African-Americans through slavery and subsequent generations of discrimination. I was reminded that faith doesnt necessarily lead to passivity. After all, it was faith that was responsible for so many of the freedom movements in our history, from the rebellion of Nat Turner to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

From the point of view of science, he decided science couldnt explain everything.

He was also starting to see firsthand the transformative power of the gospel in his brother, whose faith led him out of a life of addiction.

That was a turning point for me. I had overlooked how impactful some churches were in the lives of hurting people, Robinson said. It helped to rekindle my faith in God.

And so in 1993, Robinson walked away from atheism and became a believer because while still in Atlanta he sensed a divine call on his life. He accepted his call into the ministry and eventually became a pastor. His goal, he said, is to be Gods hands, feet and heart in the world. To save bodies as well as souls.

Today Robinson is coordinator of MeckMin (formerly called Mecklenburg Ministries), a nonprofit interfaith organization representing 14 faith traditions and 100 churches that works to foster understanding and compassion; vice president of the Charlotte/Mecklenburg branch of the NAACP and executive board member of the Charlotte Clergy Coalition for Justice.

He believes the recent uptick in atheism has more to do with rejecting the way Christianity is practiced than with rejecting God.

In its desire to be all things to all people, Christianity in America glosses over injustice, turns a blind eye to evil and rubber stamps greed, racism, sexism, homophobia and the status quo, he said. People are rejecting a religion that has become more about what you believe than what you do. More about church attendance than living out the principles of Christ.

As we witness the rise in police brutality, income inequality, poverty, the shrinking middle class, hatred of the foreigner, mass incarceration, and a host of other injustices, people are wondering where the church stands. And to the extent that it stands with the status quo, it is being rejected. They are rejecting a religion that makes justice secondary.

Weve created a religious culture where we worship Jesus rather than following him, Robinson said. We have turned faith into a system of beliefs rather than a journey toward union with God. We are more interested in belonging and being instead of being transformed.

But that doesnt mean he agrees with atheists who reject God by focusing on the ills of religion. He doesnt and neither do I.

Bottom-line faith comes down to a personal experience with God. It doesnt demand that I be right, it simply says why I believe in the existence of God, the source of my joy, hope and peace.

Even as a child I needed that, because no matter when spring shows up, Hes still God the reason I attend church each Sunday and why, despite all the reasons to leave, Ive stayed.

RELATED: Liberal or conservative? Religious outlook can blur the answer.

Originally posted here:

Why I'm not an atheist - MyAJC

These Networks Are Now Airing Once Banned Atheist Commercial – CBN News

Posted on by

For the first time, an ad inviting viewers to join the Freedom from Religion Foundation is airing on multiple cable news networks.

The 30 second spot features Ron Reagan proudly proclaiming his atheist views.

It originally aired in 2014, but had been refused by CBS, NBC, ABC and Discovery. The ad had aired on some regional network markets, as well as CNN and Comedy Central.

Now the spot will run on "Morning Joe" and the "Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC through March 12. It will also return to CNN.

Michael Reagan, the adopted son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is boycotting MSNBC and CNN for airing the commercial featuring his atheist brother.

Now a conservative commentator, Michael Reagan took to Twitter to denounce the ad and called for a boycott of media outlets running it.

He said his father was "crying in heaven" about Ron's endorsement of the atheistic organization.

"Our father is crying in heaven! MSBNC, CNN airing FFRF's Ron Reagan endorsement ad - Freedom From Religion Foundation," he tweeted.

He also wrote, "I AM BOYCOTTING BOTH. MSNBC, CNN, airing FFRF's Ron Reagan endorsement ad - Freedom From Religion Foundation."

Michael Reagan tweeted this response when asked about the ad.

"Not upset with Ron as much as CNN and MSNBC for reairing it...3 years later as we begin the Holy Days leading up to Easter," he wrote.

"I'm Ron Reagan, an unabashed atheist, and I'm alarmed by the intrusions of religion into our secular government," Ron Reagan says in the ad.

"That's why I'm asking you to support the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the nation's largest and most effective association of atheists and agnostics, working to keep state and church separate, just like our Founding Fathers intended."

He ends the ad with a wry smile, saying, "Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist, not afraid of burning in hell."

According to the New American, Michael had seen the ad back in 2014.

"I remember having dinner with my father - with our family," he recalled. "And he (Ron) was talking about his atheism at dinner one night and my dad leaned over to me and grabbed my hand and said, 'My only prayer is that my son becomes a Christian'...and that was his prayer."

Read the original:

These Networks Are Now Airing Once Banned Atheist Commercial - CBN News

Hubble Telescope Snaps Photo of Massive (and Weird) Hybrid Galaxy – Space.com

Posted on by

Hubble collected this stunning image of galaxy UGC 12591, located in the Pisces-Perseus Supercluster. This hybrid galaxy is a combination of a lenticular and a spiral galaxy and is one of the largest known structures in the Universe.

The Hubble Space Telescope has captured an amazing view of a strange hybrid galaxy 400 million light-years away.

The galaxy, called UGC 12591, is odd because it's a cross betweena typical lenticular and spiral galaxy. It is located in the westernmost reaches of the Pisces-Perseus Supercluster - a vast chain of galaxy clusters that extends across hundreds of millions of light-years. The galaxy is also a fast spinner, rotating at a mind-boggling 1.1 million mph (1.8 million km/h), according to a NASA description. [8 Galaxies With Really Weird Names]

"The galaxy itself is also extraordinary: it is incredibly massive," NASA officials wrote in an image description. The galaxy and its halo together contain several hundred billion times the mass of the sun; four timesmass of the Milky Way."

Using the Hubble Space Telescope astronomers are beginning to understand the mass of UGC 12951, NASA officials added. Scientists are using data from Hubble to establish whether the monster galaxy formed and stretched over time, or if it was formed from two large galaxies colliding at some point in the distant past, they added.

The Pisces-Perseus Supercluster of galaxy clusters, which UGC 12951 calls home, is one of the largest known structures in the universe, NASA officials added.

You can follow us @Spacedotcom and on Facebook & Google+. Original story on Space.com.

View original post here:

Hubble Telescope Snaps Photo of Massive (and Weird) Hybrid Galaxy - Space.com

Norwegian politico Odd Einar Dorum remarks on Trump, Putin … – The Dickinson Press

Posted on by

He even cracked wise for a short moment, joking about the bond between the U.S. and Norway. Part of the Norwegian-American experience is to think about the past, and he's got nothing against going to Minot and eating lutefisk, he said, drawing laughs from a group of several dozen attendees.

"But I would also like people to know contemporary Norway," he said.

Dorum is a former member of Norway's Parliament, as well as a former justice minister and transportation and communications minister. The lion's share of his remarks Thursday were about Norway's relationship with NATO and Russia. He characterized Russia as a quiet, consistent threat with a military that's been revitalized by President Vladimir Putin. He traced Norway's relationship with Russia back through the Cold War and all the way to Norway's membership in NATO in the late 1940san alliance he described as critical and deeply dependent on the U.S. for credibility.

"During the Cold War, (Norway) was a peaceful place," he said. "But if there had not been peace, it would have been close to destruction."

NATO has been in the spotlight since Trump's election to the White House. The president previously called NATO "obsolete," though he since declared his support for the alliance. The president has continued to demand that member nations contribute more to the organization.

"We strongly support NATO," Trump said last month. "We only ask that all of the NATO members make their full and proper financial contributions to the NATO alliance, which many of them have not been doing. Many of them have not been even close. And they have to do that."

Concerns about Trump's attitude toward NATO have been amplified by recent unsubstantiated reports of connections between his campaign and Russia and suggestions that Russia interfered in the presidential election.

Dorum offered a range of comments on the Trump administration on Thursday, both during his remarks and to the Herald in an interview after his presentation. He praised the credibility of key Trump appointments such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster.

He also said he thinks it's reasonable that NATO countries pay their fair share, and he made apparent reference to Trump's suggestion the U.S. "get along" with Russia.

"If it is possible, by some means, to lessen some tensions, that is good," Dorum said.

He said he's standing firm though that the NATO treaty agreementthat nations stand ready to support and defend one anotheris binding. Norway has to be able to count on the U.S. for support, he said.

"If you want some dialogue in addition to deterrence, that's fine with me," Dorum said. "But if you want to put dialogue instead of deterrence, that's dangerous. I'm a strong supporter of D and Ddeterrence and dialogue."

See the rest here:

Norwegian politico Odd Einar Dorum remarks on Trump, Putin ... - The Dickinson Press

NATO – News: NATO marks International Women’s Day, 08-Mar.-2017 – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on by

An organisation, society or country can only succeed if it uses the full potential of all of its members men and women, said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, marking the occasion of International Womens Day on Wednesday (8 March 2017). He stressed that equal participation of men and women is a core security requirement, essential to the resilience of societies, to the effectiveness of NATO forces and to achieving and preserving peace.

NATO strongly supports the global women, peace and security agenda. The Alliance has integrated gender perspectives in its three core tasks collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security. NATO works to promote womens rights in training and operations, and in our assistance for partners, such as Jordan, Georgia and Ukraine. The appointment of NATOs Special Representative on Women, Peace and Security Ambassador Marriet Schuurman demonstrates the importance of these issues.

Today, NATO has more women in leadership positions than ever before as ministers, senior officials and military commanders. A quarter of NATO Defence Ministers are women, six of 28 NATO Ambassadors are women, and last year, the Alliance welcomed its first female Deputy Secretary General, Rose Gottemoeller. NATOs Joint Force Command in Naples is also led by US Admiral Michelle Howard, a four-star officer, and US Army Brigadier General Giselle Wilz is the first woman to head NATO HQ Sarajevo. Canadas most senior female military officer, Lt.-Gen. Christine Whitecross, is currently commandant of the NATO Defense College in Rome.

The Secretary General has highlighted that making the best potential of both men and women makes NATO stronger and better prepared to deal with current security challenges. I look forward to the day when not just a quarter but half of NATO ministers are women; I am sure that time will come, said the Secretary General.

Read more:

NATO - News: NATO marks International Women's Day, 08-Mar.-2017 - NATO HQ (press release)

NATO forces harmonize the big guns – Stars and Stripes

Posted on by

Stars and Stripes
NATO forces harmonize the big guns
Stars and Stripes
A big goal of the exercise was to promote Artillery Systems Cooperation Activities, a software-based program used by five NATO nations to digitally communicate real-time, linking their field artillery and command and control systems. ASCA is a common ...

and more »

Visit link:

NATO forces harmonize the big guns - Stars and Stripes

Chairman of the NATO Military Committee: NATO and Jordan have a strong and longstanding partnership – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on by

General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee stressed his gratitude for Jordans contributions to NATO-led operations over many years when he visited Amman, Jordan on 7-8 March 2017. During the trip, the Chairman met with the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff of the Jordanian Armed Forces, Lt General Mahmoud Freihat and the Director of the Military Intelligence Directorate, General Emad Adaileh.

Jordans participation in NATO exercises, its active and valuable contribution to NATO-led operations, as well as NATOs Defence Capacity Building (DCB) assistance to Jordan were discussed by the Generals. The Chairman stated, NATO is committed to strengthening NATO - Jordanian relations. Jordan is a key partner - both a security provider and a security contributor.

During the Generals meeting with General Emad Adaileh, regional security challenges and threats were discussed as well as their worldwide impact. The Chairman welcomed the discussion as Jordan has a wealth of expertise and experience and in todays complex world, sharing information and cooperating closely is key when addressing global threats.

While in Jordan, General Pavel also delivered opening remarks at the NATO Science for Peace and Security Border Security Symposium. Only through existing relationships, expanding networks, and cooperation with multilateral security organizations can we guarantee our collective peace and security, stated the Chairman.

Link:

Chairman of the NATO Military Committee: NATO and Jordan have a strong and longstanding partnership - NATO HQ (press release)

Russia’s deployment of nuclear-capable missile threatens Nato, senior American general says – The Independent

Posted on by

Russia has deployed a long-rangemissilethat threatensthe US and Natoand violates an international arms treaty, a senior American general has claimed.

Paul Selva, vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee that Moscow hadintentionally deployed the weapon in order to threaten the West.

"The system itself presents a risk to most of our facilities in Europe and we believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO and to facilities within the NATO area of responsibility," hesaid.

The deployment of theland-based cruise missile violatesthe spirit and intent of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) between the US and Russia, Mr Selva added.

Russian leaders do not intend to return to compliance of the treaty, hesuggested, adding that US officials had raised the issue with Moscow.

His comments mark the first time US officials haveconfirmed media reports last month relating to the deployment of the nuclear-capable SSC-8 missiles, which is said to have taken place late last year.

During the Armed Services Committee hearing, US military officials also gave their support to the START agreement between America and Russia that seeks to reduce both countries stock of nuclear weapons.

Mr Trump appeared to question the value of the treaty after it was reported he had told Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, that the deal was not beneficial to the United States.

But military leaders told congressmen the treaty was needed to prevent an arms race.

"I have stated for the record in the past, now I'll state again that I am a big supporter of the New START agreement," said Air Force General John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command.

"The risk [of scrapping the agreement] would be an arms race, we are not in an arms race now."

Follow this link:

Russia's deployment of nuclear-capable missile threatens Nato, senior American general says - The Independent

Officials to review how Canada, NATO members calculate defence spending – The Globe and Mail

Posted on by

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he has ordered officials to look at how Canada calculates military spending compared to other NATO members, to ensure all allies are comparing apples to apples.

We have to be cognizant that different nations use a different formula, Sajjan told the House of Commons defence committee on Thursday.

So right now the deputy minister is working with our closest partners to look at exactly the formula that they were using so we can have a good comparison.

The comments come as Canada and other NATO allies are facing pressure from the Trump administration in Washington to increase the amount they spend on their militaries.

While all NATO members agreed in 2014 to work towards spending two per cent of their gross domestic product, or GDP, on defence, only five have reached that goal.

Canada is not one of them, and is actually near the back of the pack. It currently spends less than one per cent of GDP on defence, which ranks it 23rd among 28 NATO members.

Sajjan would not say whether the government will actual rolling in the spending on the coast guard or veterans programs like the U.S. and Britain, which would inch Canada closer to two per cent.

But at the same time, we do need to look at what our closest allies are actually using so that we can then compare apples to apples in terms of that commitment, he told The Canadian Press after the meeting.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to all but dismiss the two per cent target during a visit to Germany last month, saying: There are many ways of evaluating ones contribution to NATO.

That is the message the government has repeatedly delivered to Washington, emphasizing Canadas military contributions to Latvia, Ukraine and Iraq in lieu of large spending increases.

Sajjan repeated it during and after his committee appearance, adding that the government would invest in what it believes the military needs to do its job rather than to meet a specific target.

We are going to invest in defence and what we need for outputs, he said. Thats how we conduct a defence policy review. Thats what makes it credible.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said there is validity to the governments argument that spending alone isnt a good measure of a countrys contributions to NATO.

But the fact the government is reviewing the formula indicates it is at least a little concerned about how Canada compares to other NATO members, particularly given the messages coming out of Washington.

It is also another indication that the government is not planning to include any big injections of money into the military in the upcoming budget or its new defence policy, which is expected in the coming weeks.

If they were about to unleash a big increase to the budget, Perry said, youd kind of wonder whether or not theyd be going through the exercise of figuring out what to count.

Read the original:

Officials to review how Canada, NATO members calculate defence spending - The Globe and Mail