Monthly Archives: March 2012

For daring to read a poem to David Willetts, the student has had his prospects ruined.

No combination in the world is more lethal than that of byzantine feudalism and gung-ho corporate technocracy. Cambridge PhD student Owen Holland ran afoul of it last December when he participated in a 'people's mic' where dozens of students and a handful of dons told the visiting minister for Universities and Science what they thought of his destructive policies.The group collectively recited at David Willetts: "You have professed your commitment/to the religion of choice/but you leave us with no choice . . . your gods have failed."

In the face of this poetic outburst, Willetts skipped class and flounced back to Westminster, his ego and, apparently, his right to free speech sadly injured.

While scores took part in the protest and were photographed doing so in a surveillance-heavy environment (another worrying development in this university), only Holland was charged with 'recklessly or intentionally' impeding free speech. He was brought before a University Court, the workings of which remain opaque to most dons and students.

His now internationally notorious sentence for reading aloud to the minister before he took the podium? "Rustication" for two and a half years. Back in the good old days, young Cambridge men were 'sent down' in disgrace to the family country pile to spend their suspension presumably shooting grouse and molesting the milkmaids. In Holland's case the intention is clearly to end his academic career.

The vindictiveness of this judgement in an institution of advanced learning is matched only by the familiar divide-and-rule crudity of singling out an individual for exemplary punishment in a collective peaceful protest. More than 70 students and dons turned themselves in and asked to be charged alongside Holland.

The sentence is absurd. But what should really concern us all is what this incident says about British democracy. It tells us that 'free speech' has become an inalienable right only for the powerful, for those who already have access to every newspaper and television outlet in the country. That citizens with fewer means should not find ways to express audible disagreement with the heavy-handed imposition of the profit principle across society at their own expense. That we are to worry about the abrogation of the rights of citizens only in countries we don't like.

What is shocking about the Cambridge decision is not that this sort of disproportionate use of judicial force is exceptional but that it is increasingly the norm. Ever since young people began to challenge this coalition's brazen marketisation and privatisation of everything from welfare and education to health and policing, the courts have sent out a single message: resist the relentless subordination of all aspects of human life and our society to the profit principle at your peril.

Apparently all clear and meaningful dissent is fundamentally unpatriotic: when not meek, young people are 'violent' and when they are actually peaceful -- it's difficult to imagine more calm forms of dissent than reading out a poem in a lecture hall -- then they are culpable of a 'reckless' violation of the rights of the powerful to impose their views and will on us all.

Our shock at Holland's treatment -- and that of many other principled protesters like Alfie Meadows, who comes up for trial next week -- should not obscure the issues they've been fighting to highlight: the deliberate transmutation of universities from spaces of debate which push the boundaries of knowledge into business-driven idea-free degree mills. As we metamorphose from citizens of a democracy into consumers in one large desolate supermarket, all of us are being disciplined. Resistance is not futile: it's the only option.

Read the rest here:
Owen Holland's case shows the crackdown on dissent

Politics of Sunday, 18 March 2012

Source: Joy Online

The Young Patriots of the New Patriotic Party has demanded the unconditional release of Mr Owusu Bempah, the Operations Director of FONKAR with immediate effect.

The group has in a statement accused President Mills of seeking to criminalize free speech by arresting and detaining Ghanaians of varying opinions to his governments policies and programmes since taking over the reins of power.

A government that superintends over gargantuan corruption, ineptitude, incompetence and mediocrity would not have lasted long in another political era. However, as Ghanaians, we have opted for democracy, and free speech is the best way to exercise that right.

The group said it found it hypocritical for a government which came to power on the back of free speech and propaganda to turn around and incarcerate its citizens for exercising their democratic right, citing for examples instances including NDC General Secretary Johnson Asiedu Nketias reference of all 17 persons who sought to lead the NPP as 2008 presidential candidate as thieves.

Madam Ama Beyinwa Doe referred to Nana Akufo Addo as a drug dealer and when she was asked to substantiate it, she said it was campaign talk during here vetting to become the Central Regional Minister.

The arrest and detention of Mr Owusu Bempeh for expressing his opinion on the disbursement of the Woyome money is simply against his constitutional right to free expression. The act is abominable and should be condemned in no uncertain terms and we the Young Patriots will consider further action should the President continue to have him detained.

Richard Nyamah Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover Hopson Adorye John Kumah **

Continued here:
Young Patriots: Dont criminalize free speech Mr Presiden

Feature Article of Saturday, 17 March 2012

Columnist: Young Patriots

We the Young Patriots of the New Patriotic Party demand the unconditional release of Mr Owusu Bempah, the Operations Director of FONK AR with immediate effect. President Mills since taking over the reins of power has sought to criminalize free speech by arresting and detaining Ghanaians of varying opinions to his governments policies and programmes. A government that superintends over gargantuan corruption, ineptitude, incompetence and mediocrity would not have lasted long in another political era. However, as Ghanaians, we have opted for democracy, and free speech is the best way to exercise that right. We the Young Patriots find it hypocritical for a government which came to power on the back of free speech and propaganda to turn around and incarcerate its citizens for exercising their democratic right. It is on record that Mr Aseidu Nketia called all 17 aspirants of the candidature of the NPP as thieves and President Kufour as the chief thieve and yet walked the streets of Ghana as a free man and today has been rewarded as a major contractor for the Bui Hydro dam project though he is a board member of the same organization. Mr Fiifi Kwartey, the deputy minister of finance told Ghanaians, that President Kufour and his government had hoarded all of Ghanas gold reserves in a foreign country; his insults and propaganda have been rewarded with oversight responsibility of our gold reserves. Madam Amaa Beyinwaa Doe referred to Nana Akufo Addo as a drug dealer and when she was asked to substantiate it, she said it was campaign talk during here vetting to become the Central Regional Minister. The arrest and detention of Mr Owusu Bempeh for expressing his opinion on the disbursement of the Woyome money is simply against his constitutional right to free expression. The act is abominable and should be condemned in no uncertain terms and we the Young Patriots will consider further action should the President continue to have him detained.

Richard Nyamah 0203-418-85 Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover 0246-850-138 Hopson Adorye 0201-433-925 John Kumah 0244-171-471

Read this article:
Dont Criminalize Free Speech Mr President

Strong opinions often stretch the tolerance of Americans to embrace free speech, even among people who would normally call themselves supporters of the First Amendment. Yet two acts of speech the past several weeks each very different from one another have demonstrated why we must embrace the right of all Americans to speak their minds, and how to respond to speech we deem to be offensive.

As a talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh has crossed the lines of civility on repeated occasions. The latest example is his use of the words "slut" and "prostitute" to describe a young woman testifying before Congress.

Limbaugh was rightly condemned for his comments and was forced to offer a halfhearted apology. That's not enough for some of Limbaugh's critics.

MoveOn.org has recently launched a petition drive to get Limbaugh off the air in Sacramento and other cities. Limbaugh's supporters, in turn, have accused MoveOn of attempting to "censor" the conservative radio host.

Allegations of censorship have also arisen as many newspapers nationwide have weighed whether or not to run Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury strip this week. The series, which concludes today, uses graphic imagery to mock a Texas law requiring women to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion.

Some papers have chosen to run the controversial series on the comics pages, or move it to the opinion pages (as The Bee did). Other newspapers have decided not to run it, resulting in some readers accusing them of censoring Trudeau.

The debate offers a good lesson on what constitutes censorship and what doesn't. As defined by Webster's, a censor is "an official with the power to examine publications, movies, televisions programs, etc., to remove or prohibit anything considered obscene, libelous, politically objectionable, etc." By definition, censorship involves a government act to limit objectionable forms of speech, a frequent occurrence in China, Iran, North Korea and other authoritarian regimes.

In free countries, newspapers and broadcast outlets have the right to determine what kind of opinions they do or do not want to publish or air.

Declining to disseminate a certain opinion does not constitute censorship.

That said, in a free country, readers and listeners should expect their media outlets to provide space and airtime so publication and broadcast decisions can be criticized. That's why The Bee each day sets aside space for letters, along with longer "Another Views," like the one published today.

Originally posted here:
Editorial: Doonesbury, Limbaugh flaps offer a lesson in free speech