Monthly Archives: January 2020

A new vaguely-worded law which criminalizes a broad range of speech and publishing activities stands to significantly restrict freedom of expression in Qatar, barely two years after it acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Amnesty International said today.

This law effectively signals a worrying regression from commitments made two years ago to guarantee the right to freedom of expression.

The law, issued by Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, amends the Penal Code by adding a new provision, Article 136 bis, which authorizes the imprisonment of anyone who broadcasts, publishes, or republishes false or biased rumours, statements, or news, or inflammatory propaganda, domestically or abroad, with the intent to harm national interests, stir up public opinion, or infringe on the social system or the public system of the state.

Qatar already has a host of repressive laws, but this new legislation deals another bitter blow to freedom of expression in the country and is a blatant breach of international human rights law

This law effectively signals a worrying regression from commitments made two years ago to guarantee the right to freedom of expression. Qatar already has a host of repressive laws, but this new legislation deals another bitter blow to freedom of expression in the country and is a blatant breach of international human rights law, said Lynn Maalouf, Research Director for the Middle East at Amnesty International.

Qatars authorities should be repealing such laws, in line with their international legal obligations, not adding more of them

It is deeply troubling that the Qatari Emir is passing legislation that can be used to silence peaceful critics. Qatars authorities should be repealing such laws, in line with their international legal obligations, not adding more of them.

Under the new law, biased broadcasting or publishing can be punished by up to five years in prison and a fine of 100,000 riyals (over $25,000 USD). This is contrary to the ICCPR, which Qatar received international praise for joining in 2018, Article 19 of which guarantees the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas.

Background

The full text of the law which Amnesty International has reviewed appeared in the Official Gazette issue of 19 January, though it had in fact been issued by the Emir almost two weeks earlier, on 8 January.

On 18 January, the Qatari paper al-Raya published a substantially accurate report of the new law on its website. The article reproduced the content of the law, limiting itself to summarizing several of its provisions without any editorial comment or analysis. Some of the phrasing is different from the final text but the basic details are correct, including an accurate reference to the potential five-year prison sentence for stirring up public opinion. Within 24 hours however, the paper issued an apology for publishing the news, expressing regret for having stirred up argument, deleting the piece from their website and social-media accounts, and stating that they had gotten the text from an unofficial source, and published it without verifying with the responsible authorities.

Qatar already has laws arbitrarily restricting freedom of expression, such as the Law on Printing and Publication issued in 1979 and the Law on Combatting Information-Technology Crimes issued in 2014. In 2012, the Qatari poet Mohammed al-Ajami was sentenced to a lengthy prison term for reciting a poem critical of the Emir in his private apartment while living abroad. (He was released more than four years later on a pardon.)

There are broader concerns about Qatars human rights record, particularly its treatment of migrant workers. Last week, after Qatar announced a new law eliminating the requirement of an exit permit for migrant domestic workers, the Ministry of Interior stated that it would nonetheless continue to apply financial and immigration penalties to household workers who left without their employers permission despite the absence of any authorizing article in the law for such penalties.

Read more:

Qatar: Repressive new law further curbs freedom of expression - Amnesty International

Communications Intern

Luke Henkhaus is a communications intern at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Born and raised in Texas, Henkhaus graduated from Texas A&M University with a B.S. in economics and a minor in journalism.

While attending Texas A&M, Henkhaus worked for the schools multi-platform student-run news outlet, The Battation, serving as a new editor, managing editor and editor-in-chief. During his time there, Henkhaus covered student government, co-led a series on the schools Corps of Cadets as part of the Poynter College Media Project and coordinated extensive coverage of George H.W. Bushs state funeral, which culminated on the Texas A&M campus. For its work during the 2018-2019 school year, The Battalion received a Newspaper Pacemaker Award for the first time since 2008.

Henkhaus has also worked as a reporting intern for The Bryan-College Station Eagle, a daily newspaper covering the university and surrounding communities.

See the rest here:

Luke Henkhaus - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

For the first time, Vitali shares some simple technological (and other) ruses which helped him escape from the USSR 30 years ago.

As I noted in passing in my previous View from Vitalia, in everyones life time comes when certain memorable dates, like birthdays, anniversaries, and even jubilees, can be safely ignored to allow for a clearer focus on the present moment. Ive been trying to follow this rule for some time.

But there is one date I simply couldnt and cannot ignore. On 31 January this year not only will the UK leave the EU, but, much more importantly (to me at least), it will be exactly 30 years since the day of my defection from the USSR, when with my family in tow I covertly fled from the disintegrating evil empire never to come back.

That was my second birth, or rather (in Buddhist terms) my rebirth as a citizen of the free Western world, where I had to start everything from scratch. Yes, at the age of 35, I had to get a new home, a new job, a new country of residence and a new language to write in a massive change. In a way, it was the start of an entirely new life with its own birthday (31 January), youth, schooling, maturity and old age, the journey that would take me through countries and continents, marriages and divorces, happiness and depression, books and films, awards and setbacks. It was a difficult choice to make, but besieged and threatened from all sides by the system for simply trying to improve it by writing the truth (a common Russian predicament) I had no option. ButI did have a family to think of...

In any case, it is difficult to judge your own past decisions, so let me give the floor to my recently deceased friend Clive James. In the fifth volume of his 'Unreliable Memoirs','The Blaze of Obscurity', he wrote about my live appearances on his BBC TV show 'Saturday Night Clive' by satellite from Moscow in 1988-89:

It was remarkable how much he was able to say, but it soon turned out that the new freedom of speech under glasnost [in the Soviet Union VV] had its limits. The KGB was phoning him in the night, and in their fine old style they reserved their most obscene threatening calls for his wife and little son. Vitali was hard to scare but anyone can be scared by a threat to his family, and the day arrived when he felt it prudent to do a runner...

Thanks, Clive, for helping me out again, this time from the grave.

How does one celebrate, or rather mark, an anniversary like that?

With my English wife, we travelled to Berlin a couple of weeks ago. We stayed at a brand-new super-comfortable Staycity Wilde Aparthotel, next to the former Checkpoint Charlie and right across the road from the peculiar and rather quirky Museum of the Trabants (or Trabies) the iconic East-German tin-shaped car, designed to the principle the fewer parts the better (it did have wheels!). My own past was facing me everywhere in Berlin, particularly near the specially preserved remnants of the Berlin Wall. Reading the life stories of those80 desperate and courageous people who lost their lives trying to flee across the Wall to Freedom, I felt very acutely how lucky I was not to become the 81st victim here in Berlin, or the multi-millionth one in Moscow, had I stayed put.

Well-aware of the sheer technological inefficiency of my oppressors, of their lack of motivation and constantly malfunctioning equipment in the late 1980s, I decided I could try and outwit them using my own equally primitive technology, read: phone. I was very proud of the red cordless telephone apparatus I had brought from my latest trip to Britain one of the first in Moscow, in the words of a telephone engineer who came to install it. He must have also tapped it, for since his visit the apparatus started making suspicious ear-grating noises during conversations. But that was precisely what I needed. For over a month, I was telling everyone over my tapped phone that I was flying to London for the publication of my first book on3 February 1990. I even bought myself a plane ticket for that particular flight, knowing only too well I was never going to use it.

Instead, on the first night of the New Year, having left home shortly after midnight, I took a taxi (or rather one of privately owned cars roaming Moscow streets 24/7 the only kind of taxi that was easily available in the Soviet capital then) to the downtown Central Railway Ticketing Offices, where I joined a very long queue (yes, in the middle of the night). By 11am the same morning, I had got us (my wife, my son and myself) second-class tickets for the train to Hook of Holland. It was, in actual fact, just one carriage, getting attached to several different trains on the route.

Travelling to London by train a very unusual thing to do, remembering that the journey took near three days and cost more thanflying was another simple technological ruse of mine, with which I was hoping to mislead the KGB.

My biggest worry were the 24/7 KGB escorts outside our block of flats. But I was hoping for the better...

Below are some extracts from the diary I kept during those cursed days:

31 January 1990

I am writing these lines on the train. Yes, weve almost made it. Almost. We are still in the Soviet Union. The border control will be tomorrow morning.

The train wheels are rattling soothingly. Ive always liked trains. The very fact that the carriage is moving gives me reassurance. We are moving in the right direction now, towards normal life. Away from the impending chaos. But also away from the dear faces of our friends and family. Soon through this very train window Ill probably see the Western world. Probably. Before that I am in for one more encounter with the KGB: border guards in the Soviet Union are part of the Sate Security Committee. Now, before going to bed (or rather to berth), I am recording the events of the last day in Moscow.

Last night I had a bad dream: a KGB man in a fur hat and leather jacket was stretching out his black-gloved hand towards me. One more second and he would grab me... I woke up in cold sweat. Five am. No matter how hard I tried, I couldnt get back to sleep. At six-thirty, after much tossing and turning, I got up and decided to go out and buy some newspapers. Today the announcement of my Ilf and Petrov Award for satirical journalism was to appear in the press.

As I went out, I saw a man wearing a big shapka [fur hat] and a black leather overcoat. Our block of flats small courtyard is usually deserted even during the day and the man looked very conspicuous there. As I turned the corner, I quickly looked back. The man was following me at a little distance. When, ten minutes later, I returned with the newspapers, he was not in the yard. I looked back, and there he was, about50 or60 metres behind me. Back in my flat, I looked out of the window and saw another man in exactly the same apparel pacing back and forth near the house.

Later in the morning, we switched off the telephone in our flat. It looked very miserable, this noisy troublemaker, but also a helper, with its two-pin plug lying on my desk like a paralysed limb. At times I thought I could hear the silent rings it was giving as my persecutors were trying vainly to reach me...

Shortly before midday, I went to the city, to the Union of Journalists headquarters, to pick up the badge and the diploma which went with my newly-won award. A black Volga sedan was parked near the house, its engine running. They were probably warming themselves in there as I rushed to the Metro station only 100 metres away...

...Three hours before the planned departure, my mother and my in-laws came. We had an impromptu farewell dinner. It was rueful surprise party... The unplugged telephone was staring at us silently from my desk but the desk, the flat, the city, the country, they were not mine any longer.

The cab arrived (we had to book two weeks in advance, and it was still 40 minutes late!). Are we going away today, Dad? I didnt say goodbye to the kids in my class, my son Mitya (he was nine) was genuinely surprised. We couldnt tell even him the true date of our departure until the very last moment.

We kissed our parents hastily (they were to stay on in the flat for the night and burn the lights as if we were still there) and rushed out, with several suitcases full of books, papers and basic clothes. Our courtyard and our street and our Moscow were absolutely deserted. It was dark and cold minus 21C. No-one was in sight...

1 February 1990

We are about to cross the border. The train is standing still at Brest, the old Brest-Litovsk on the Polish border, but both passport and customs controls are over. I cant believe it. My simple ruses must have worked, for they didnt even look into our suitcases where, among other things, were the notes, files, clippings and photographs for my next book. I was worried they would confiscate them, since, according to the Soviet Customs regulations, one could not take manuscripts, books or newspapers across the border without authorisation...

I am writing these lines as the train crawls towards the Yuzhni Bug River, along which the border with Poland runs. We are moving past the drab outskirts of Brest: depots, log cabins, warehouses with peeling stucco slowly recede. In the distance, I can already discern rows of barbed wire and the river behind them. The sky is cloudy and dull. A thin middle-aged woman in fur coat and clumsy hand-knitted cap with two bulging perhaps string bags in both hands is trudging through the snow alongside the tracks. Her face is grim and tired. The last human being on the Soviet side.

Barbed wire. A patch of ploughed neutral land with neat regular furrows, looking like wrinkles, as if the ground itself is frowning at us. A frontier post with the sign USSR on it. A small whitewashed cabin with big windows facing the track on the very bank of the river. A young Soviet border guard, with blue KGB lapels, standing to attention with a Kalashnikov sub-machine gun on his shoulder and looking sternly at our train. The brownish gleaming surface of the Yuzhni Bug with a flock of carefree stateless ducks floating on it. A little cabin on the opposite bank of the river which looks like a twin of the Soviet one. The only difference: inside, instead of a stern, vigilant border guard, theres a Polish railway worker in a dirty orange vest sitting on the floor, smoking.

And suddenly, the bright sunlight bursts through the clouds and nearly blinds us. Small patches of new green grass are springing out along the track here and there.

(Until now I cant understand how it happened on the Soviet side there was winter, and on the Polish bank across the river spring! It looked as if nature itself was welcoming us to the West.)

Freedom...

Sign up to the E&T News e-mail to get great stories like this delivered to your inbox every day.

Here is the original post:

View from Vitalia: By train to freedom - E&T Magazine

The mainstream media likes to insinuate that the NRA is a partisan organization. It isnt. Politicians earn their grades and endorsements from us (nrapvf.org/grades) based on how they vote and on what their positions are with regard to the Second Amendment. Its that simple. A politicians grade has nothing to do with their party affiliation.

If it seems as if the NRA is partisan today, this is because the Democratic Party is a much smaller tent than it used to be. When Barack Obama first won the presidency in 2008, for example, there was a sizeable block of Democratic members of Congress who understood that our Second Amendment freedom is a good thing that must be protected. Many of those Democrats, however, lost their seats in Congress as Obama pushed the party left.

This purge of Democrats in Congress who vote for your Second Amendment rights has continued. Today, the party has pushed out almost all of it pro-freedom politicians. By 2016, in fact, the Democratic Partys official platform, under Hillary Clinton, was more anti-Second Amendment than it had ever officially been before.

All of the candidates currently fighting for the Democratic Partys nomination for president want to ban popular semi-automatic rifles; they want to bankrupt Americas gun manufacturers by once again giving frivolous lawsuits legal cover; they want to nominate judges who dont believe the Second Amendment is an individual right and so much more.

These extreme positions arent even smart politics. Past polling has indicated the number of union households with guns in them in the United States goes from a low of 40% in California, to a high of 607080% in states like West Virginia, Michigan and North Carolina. These gun owners in those states want their Second Amendment rights protected.When Democrats go against the Second Amendment, they go against a large part of their base.

This isnt true of the Democratic Party in every local election, and I have hope that the Democrats will come to their senses. Nevertheless, the polarization on this issue, which again is coming from the left, is not helping us.

So why did the Democratic Party decide that its own partys platform should blame law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals? Why did their partys elites purposely expunge more rational opinions from their political party with regard to this constitutional issue?

Here are two big reasons.

First, mainstream-media outlets located in big cities along the coasts dominate the conversation on the left. These left-leaning media outlets arent interested in honestly investigating gun-related issues. They are instead solely focused on pushing an anti-gun narrative. They dont host guests who can humanize the freedom side of this issue; for example, they have little interest in having a woman on who just had to use her self-defense firearm to defend herself or her children. What these media outlets are interested in is pushing gun control. One way they do this is by helping candidates who express anti-gun opinions.

The other big reason is these politicians follow the money. Michael Bloomberg is a good example of the lefts deep-pocketed elites. Bloomberg has long used his $50-plus billion war chest to further restrict or outright take away your right to keep and bear arms. He is now in the race for president, and he is spending big. Whether Bloomberg wins the Democratic Partys nomination or not, his money is a real factor in this election.

Many of the Democrats big donors hold fundraisers in places like Beverly Hills and New York Citys Upper East Side. These far-left donors have pushed the Democratic Party further leftespecially on issues like Second Amendment rights. These wealthy Democratic donors live behind walls and have armed securitythey live separate, elite livesand they look out over America and think that all those little people between the coasts should not have the Constitutional right to own a firearm nor should they be entitled to the same level of self-protection they themselves enjoy. Voters need to remind themas they did to Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016that American freedom should not be a partisan issue, and Americans will always stand and fight for their Second Amendment freedoms.

Read the original post:

Standing Guard | Why The Democratic Party Turned Against Your Freedom - America's 1st Freedom

Clay Sterling Harvey, 44, of Beaumont, was sentenced to 40 years in prison Wednesday in the 75th District Court by Judge Mark Morefield.

On Aug. 20, 2019, around 1 a.m., Harvey and fellow jail prisoner Chance Hunt stacked items in their cell in the Liberty County Jail so they could enter a maintenance hatch in the ceiling. Once inside, they crawled through duct work and exited onto the roof.

They used sheets to cover razor wire and climb down the side of the building. They then entered the recreation yard and located wire cutters which had been thrown over the fence by accomplices on the outside. Using the wire cutters to create a hole in the exterior fence, they ran south over the railroad tracks to a waiting car. Several hours passed without the discovery of their escape because guards falsely indicated on their count sheets that all inmates were in custody.

When the next shift began, a proper count was done. It was then that the discovery of the missing inmates was made but they had a 5.5-hour head-start. A manhunt ensued that resulted in the quick capture of the inmates in San Jacinto County around 5 p.m. the same day.

Harvey pleaded guilty to the escape charge and admitted to possessing 14 ounces of methamphetamine, the charge for which he was in jail at the time of the escape.

District Attorney Logan Pickett presented evidence of numerous prior felony convictions including felony drug possessions, burglary of a habitation and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Prior to sentencing and in exchange for Harveys waiver of a jury trial, Pickett agreed to a cap on sentencing of 45 years. Harveys minimum possible sentence, due to his status as a habitual offender, was 25 years. The defense offered evidence of Harveys cooperation after his capture as mitigation for his punishment and asked for 25 years. Pickett countered that the criminal resume of Harvey necessitated the maximum of 45.

Judge Morefield heard both arguments, considered all the evidence and sentenced Harvey to 40 years in TDC. Though Harvey is eligible for release on parole after serving less than 5 years of his sentence, it is unlikely he will be released for a long time after that because of his criminal history and the danger a convicted escapee poses to the community, Pickett said in an emailed statement.

Hunt has previously been sentenced to 15 years for the escape. Four guards have been terminated and all face tampering with government document charges for their false statements in the count sheets. Two accomplices who drove Harvey and Hunt away from the jail await disposition or trial of their cases.

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:

Escapee sentenced to 40 years for 15 hours of freedom - Bluebonnet News

Pool/Samir HusseinGetty Images

In the end, it all came down to two statements. The first, sent by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on January 8, announcing that the couple was carving out a progressive new role within the royal family; and the second, issued 10 days later from Buckingham Palace, announcing that they are not.

When the Sussexes outlined their ideas for an innovative "working model" on a their newly-launched website, sussexroyal.com, it immediately raised a slew of questions. It also became apparent that what they desiredroles that can best be described as "half in and half out" of the royal familyhad not been signed off by "the firm." So, against the backdrop of unrelenting coverage, the royal family sat down to negotiate Harry and Meghans future.

They hoped for solutions within "days," and, somewhat miraculously, they found some. The outcome? Harry and Meghan did not get exactly what they wanted, but it is very clear where their priorities lie. In a new model which will take effect this spring, the couple are giving up the use of their HRH titles and their roles as working royals. Harry will lose his official military appointments and his recently-announced role as Commonwealth Youth Ambassador. They will not receive Sovereign Grant funds and will pay back 2.4 million of public money already spent renovating Frogmore Cottage, their home in Windsor. They will retain their private patronages. But they have got the one thing that clearly matters most to them: their freedom.

Max Mumby/IndigoGetty Images

Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (as they will be known moving forward) are now expected to spend more of their time away from the UK than in it. With Meghan and Archie currently in Canada and Harry expected to join them soon, it appears that the North American country is likely to become their main base. They have not yet struck any commercial deals with their new foundation, but would be free to do so once they cut ties as working royalshowever, it is not yet known whether they will still use Sussex Royal as their brand name. They have said they will "continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty" in any future endeavors, but the royal family and Buckingham Palace will have no oversight over any deals the Sussexes may make.

In many respects this is a sad ending. Its the end of Prince Harrys life as working royala role he grew up expecting to carry out. Its the end of Harry and Meghan representing the Queen on the world stage with their powerful ability to galvanize a young global audience. It may even be (although one would hope not) the end of the close brotherly bond between Harry and William. The word abdication sounds so dramatic (at sixth in line to the throne Harry was never going to be king), but it feels like a seismic moment for the British monarchy.

Yet for Harry and Meghan, this is a new beginning. The start of a life, in which they are in control. In astonishing personal statements, the Queen has made it clear that she supports their decision.

There has been much written and discussed about whether Harry feels sad or conflicted about this choice. Certainly, he and Meghan did not get the outcome they initially wanted. He gave little away during an appearance at Buckingham Palace before the British media on Thursday, as he paraded before the press pack that he and Meghan have made it clear they want nowhere near their new life.

How are the discussions going on your future? Royal correspondent Emily Andrews asked. According to another journalist, he laughed out loud.

See the article here:

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's New Arrangement Gives Them What They Want Most: Freedom. - TownandCountrymag.com