Daily Archives: May 24, 2020

Pandemic politics, oligarchic times and the idiotic subject of ‘freedom’ – Open Democracy

Posted: May 24, 2020 at 3:30 pm

For, paraphrasing Immanuel Kant, no dignity can possibly exist without a public realm, but only price and servitude; if you cannot afford it, bad luck, because you will be left to die. Nor should you think yourself fortunate if, through a charitable donation, those who consider themselves masters and the fat cats pretend to save your life, because you are to live if you happen to save yourself with your servitude intensified and they with their domination recognised.

Why is the Right, i.e. the political forces which represent and defend the bourgeoisie, and the oligarchic strata with an even greater determination, so nervous and agitated (e.g. in Spain), and why is it so shaky and zigzagging after having boasted to subdue, or at least bully, the world (as is the case in the UK)?

The reason is that the Right has bumped into a real problem, namely, that the coronavirus pandemic has suddenly dissipated the smokescreens which usually pervade normal times, and has forced practically everybody to see and live in their own flesh the deathly consequences of the criminal politics the same Right has carried out against public health and public services, especially over the last ten years.

Furthermore, the pandemic compels almost everyone to truly realise, at least for a moment, about the absolutely vital importance of the public realm (including public services), that is, of that which belongs to everyone, in exactly the same measure and without exception indeed being self-constituted and not granted (by whom?), it is the nemesis of any kind of concession or donation. In other words, the existence and the very meaning of the public realm lie precisely in the guarantee it provides that no one, either individual or institution, will arrogate the power to grant or deny any portion of what is common that common which constitutes us as society to anyone.

This is the crucial point: the flash that reveals the unquestionable value of the public realm. It is also the best moment to underscore the fact that capitalism is not in crisis the world is, a world whose tragic fate seems to be that it cant be imagined otherwise than as a capitalist world. Indeed, the world may be falling apart, but capitalism continues to be open for business as usual, and profiteering and profiting more than usual.

We cannot pretend to be surprised, let alone shocked, to see that hedge funds [are] raking in billions during coronavirus crisis, or that the private firm running UK PPE stockpile was sold in middle of pandemic, or that hedge funds and Brexit supporter hedgies determine crucial aspects of the means to control the pandemic, and so on and on and on no surprise then, although I do reckon the unavoidable half-smile breaking through our faces when those servants of domination whose business is to defend capitalist practices regardless offer us headlines like this, hedge fund kings betting against our firms, as though there could be an our for capitalism other than in the well-known forms of exclusionary, classist, racist, misogynist in brief, criminal our.

It is the capitalist bourgeoisie, or rather oligarchy, which, despite the appearances (Americas super-rich see their wealth rise by $282 billion in three weeks of pandemic), has a cold, although a considerably annoying and potentially dangerous one should that possibility hinted at by the pandemic become articulated into a clear political disjunction between, on one side, the public realm and the mutual solidarity, fraternity and sorority that constitute it, and, on the other, alms or charitable donations and all they imply in terms of domination, brutal inequalities and foolish individualism.

This is a real contradiction, for a public realm, that is to say, the existence of a central aspect of social life which is ruled by principles and values, is the very nemesis of capitalism and what the capitalist logic does not tolerate. We will see in a moment that it is also what the capitalist oligarchies, chief carriers of that logic, are bent on destroying and appropriating, including at the level of an incipient global public realm to fight against the pandemic, as this shows: push against global patent pool for Covid-19 drugs.

It remains to be seen whether the massive popular support for the NHS as a public health system, and more generally for public services, will be articulated into an effective political force able to reclaim the public realm and institute some basic principles of collective life. What is certain is that this can hardly happen if there is no clarity about the current political conjuncture and orientation about how to act in it.

This article is a contribution to that labour of clarification and orientation, and this precisely in a moment when the Right and its lethal wealth defence industry are working hard to cover up, obscure, obfuscate and disorient. The task that emancipatory (or progressive, if you want) political forces have to confront requires them not only to sustain the flash revealing the decisive import of the public realm, but make people see the absolutely imperative necessity of taking a further step, the decisive one, and defend it actively as the most precious treasure of collective life, at least of a dignified collective life, in the Kantian sense of dignity, as reads the epigraph at the beginning of this article.

This is the only alternative, there is no other. But it can be said in different ways: Either dignity, or charity. And also: Either freedom, or servitude. We have to take sides, indeed everyone will take sides, whether we want it or not, for not taking sides amounts to taking the side of the powers in place, that is, of domination, and therefore of servitude. It goes without saying that the oligarchy and the political forces at its service have their side clear, in truth they do not need to take it because they are already there, they have always been there.

In other words: the Right needs not even think about this because it acts by instinct: the instinct of the owner who becomes at once convinced that possessing wealth and money is an automatic qualification for human excellence and for domination indeed, they go to enormous lengths to have this recognised, to the point of calling freedom the blatant assertion of the flurry of whims, appetites and desires that wealth unleashes, but this is obviously a big misnomer for something whose proper and only name is oligarchic instinct. This instinct is a full-fledged subjective disposition which, as Marx shows in his analyses of class struggles in times almost as thickly oligarchic as ours, is not a mere effect of the structure of the world but is itself a powerful maker of the world. The latest historical articulation of that instinct, the one suitable for capitalism and the capitalist oligarchy, was provided by the doctrine called with a certain exaggeration liberal for liberal it is, but only with capital, so we have here a second, closely related, misnomer.

Now, of the two sides of the liberal doctrine, let us start with the donations because they may be deceptive, while the appropriations, which we will address in a moment, are in principle straightforward. Of course, all oligarchs are liberals. Contrary to what we often hear, there are no bad (e.g. libertarian) and good (liberal) oligarchs, they are all of the same kind and the differences between them are only of degree. The central importance of charitable donations to maintain domination can be gathered by the bustle we are observing during the lockdown, with several donations announced urbi et orbi practically on a daily basis, and news outlets describing all the details (who, how much, to whom) and providing large lists of donors, there are even billionaire trackers.

Of course, billionaires very theatrically donate a fraction of what they used to give back in taxes, making sure to generate maximum publicity for their actions. This is certainly true. And yet, important as this may be, the point is not about how much the oligarchs donate, or about how loudly they blow (or rather have others blow) their own trumpet, nor is it about how generous they are, and this not only because poor people as is well-known donate infinitely more than the rich in relation to what they have, but because generosity is totally at odds with the logic on which voluntary and charitable donations are inscribed but to explain that logic in all its lethal simplicity, something that is rarely done, we need to return to Adam Smith, the father of the modern liberal regime.

Originally posted here:

Pandemic politics, oligarchic times and the idiotic subject of 'freedom' - Open Democracy

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on Pandemic politics, oligarchic times and the idiotic subject of ‘freedom’ – Open Democracy

UN freedom of speech rapporteur must wear several hats, says Bulgarian candidate – EURACTIV

Posted: at 3:30 pm

Iveta Cherneva, a Bulgarian author who writes about security, politics, human rights, and sustainability, and a EURACTIV contributor, has been shortlisted for the position of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech.

EURACTIVs Georgi Gotev talked to her about her plans.

How can an organisation such as the UN, where China and Russia sit in the Security Council, have a meaningful role in promoting freedom of speech?

The future UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech is not selected by the UN Security Council. In fact, the UN Security Council has nothing to do with the selection of the UN Special Procedures. The process on the selection of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech involves multiple screening and selection stages which include the staff of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Consultative Group of the UN Human Rights Council, the President of the UN Human Rights Council, and then the 47 member states of the UN Human Rights Council who will vote on the appointment. We are really talking about a multi-layer, multi-player process here.

Bulgaria ranks 111th in terms of media freedom, according to the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters without borders. Is this a handicap for you or perhaps not, I mean a candidate from the countries ranking first or second, like Norway and Finland, would be less acceptable?

Yes, Bulgaria is on 111th place in the recent Reporters Without Borders ranking. Of course, when selecting and evaluating the future Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech nationality will play a role.

First, because the UN Special Procedures seek diversity and representation, and never in history has there been a UN Special Rapporteur from Bulgaria, on any human rights issue. Bulgaria is not only an underrepresented country, it is a never-represented country.

Secondly, the reason why nationality is important is due to the fact that a Special Rapporteur has to be ready to respond directly to challenges to freedom of speech. It makes sense to have a candidate who comes exactly from a country dealing with the specific human rights issue, a candidate like me who has been an open advocate for media freedom in Bulgaria and one of the vocal leaders of the anti-corruption protests of 2013 which marked history.

Do you know who the other candidates are, and who do you think are your strongest competitors? Are there other candidates shortlisted from EU countries?

The long list of finalists contains 50 names which are already publically available. The top 5 candidate list, however, that I belong to, is not publically known. So I know that there are at least four other excellent candidates for the role. The first hearing for the post took place on Tuesday (19 May) with the Consultative Group of the UN Human Rights Council.

Are you an official candidate of Bulgaria or did you apply independently?

I did write to the Bulgarian Mission in Geneva and the Bulgarian Ambassador to the UN in Geneva to seek support for my candidacy for the UN Special Procedures but I did not hear back. Therefore, there is no government that stands behind me. I am a fully independent candidate and I will always be. I will serve no government, and I will spare no government, should I be selected as the next UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech.

Generally, support from a government is not necessary in order to be nominated and considered. Now, of course, governmental support, on the whole, is a key to being selected, approved and voted in because the UN Human Rights Council consists of member states.

Both governmental support and governmental opposition can help or harm a candidate. Governmental support is not everything in the process. Governmental support can really go either way. Lack of support from a certain government, for example, can also tell a lot. In fact, opposition from a certain government speaks volumes to the Consultative Group.

Tell us more about yourself.

I was a part of history in the making growing up as a little girl in Bulgaria. I lived in a society which realised what the difference is when Freedom of Speech was not there and when she came back.

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech needs to be the full package. He or she needs to wear several hats at the same time and this is something that the Consultative Group is aware of.

I combine several aspects necessary for the role of a UN Special Rapporteur. I have the legal and academic knowledge of human rights. I have the political element having worked with various political actors on human rights. I have that activist angle and experience, but also I got down the media aspect with my various media appearances, articles and opinions over the past decade. Last but not least, my career at the UN with five different agencies adds another layer of my candidacy. I have worked in the UN human rights system so now I am ready to take it to the next level to become the top global expert on freedom of speech, which is one of the most scrutinized and potentially explosive mandates really.

Finally, in terms of who I am as a person, I will quote one of my favourite rappers, G-Eazy: If I ever said Im never scared, just know I mean it.

[Edited by Zoran Radosavljevic]

See original here:

UN freedom of speech rapporteur must wear several hats, says Bulgarian candidate - EURACTIV

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on UN freedom of speech rapporteur must wear several hats, says Bulgarian candidate – EURACTIV

Fight for freedom: New research to map violence in the forgotten conflict in West Papua – Jakarta Post

Posted: at 3:30 pm

Indonesia has recently indicated it is considering investigating the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in the 1965 anti-communist purge under authoritarian leader Soeharto.

If the inquiry goes ahead, it would mark a shift in the governments long-standing failure to address past atrocities. It is unclear if they will include other acts of brutality alleged to have been committed by the Indonesian regime in the troubled region of West Papua.

According to Amnesty International, at least 100,000 West Papuans have been killed since the Indonesian takeover of West Papua in the 1960s.

While the number of killings peaked in the 1970s, they are rising again due to renewed activism for independence in the territory. In September 2019, as many as 41 people were killed in clashes with security forces and Jihadi-inspired militia.

Clashes between security forces and the West Papua National Liberation Army have escalated since January, which human rights groups say have resulted in at least five deaths. At least two other civilians were killed in another incident.

The latest violence was sparked by racial attacks on Papuan university students in Java last year, which prompted thousands of Papuans to protest against the government. The protests brought renewed media attention to human rights violations in the region and Papuans decades-long fight for autonomy.

However, because the international media have been prohibited from entering West Papua, the broader conflict has received relatively little attention from the outside world. (This weeks feature by ABCs Foreign Correspondent program in Australia was a rare exception.)

New project to map past atrocities

Late last year, we embarked on a project to map the violence that has occurred in West Papua under Indonesian occupation.

This was in part inspired by the massacre mapping project of Indigenous people in Australia by the Guardian and University of Newcastle, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centres mapping of violence in Sri Lanka.

Our aim was to bring renewed attention to the protracted crisis in West Papua. We hope that by showing the extent of state-sanctioned violence going back decades, we might encourage the kind of international scrutiny that eventually led to intervention in East Timor.

The map only documents some of the massacres that have taken place in West Papua since the 1970s, as conditions in the territory make it difficult to accurately record and verify deaths. The challenges include a lack of resources for record-keeping, internal displacement and frequently destroyed properties, and a fear of reporting deaths. Others have disappeared, and their bodies have never been found.

We also encountered a relative dearth of data from the 1990s to 2010s, in part due to few journalists reporting on incidents during this period.

For the purposes of our project, we relied largely on reportage from the Asian Human Rights Commission and the International Coalition for Papua (both of which have strong connections within West Papua), as well as research by the historian Robin Osborne, Papuan rights organisation ELSHAM, Indonesian human rights watchdog TAPOL and a comprehensive report by academics at Yale Law School published in 2004.

Among the most recent attacks is the torture and murders of scores of protesters on Biak Island in 1998, according to a citizens tribunal held in Sydney. Some estimates say the death toll may have been as high as 200.

Though far from complete, our mapping project reveals several broad trends.

The government claims the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) is conducting inquiries into some of the more recent incidents, although there are concerns the body doesnt have sufficient powers and the government has previously been reluctant to accept findings of abuses.

Why has the world stayed silent?

Both Australia and New Zealand have been hesitant about intervening in human rights crises in the region, particularly when Indonesia is involved.

In 2006, Australia signed the Lombok Treaty, which assured Jakarta it would respect the sovereignty of the Indonesian state and not support separatist movements.

However, Australia and the rest of the world did finally act when it came to the independence referendum in East Timor.

In his memoir, former Prime Minister John Howard mentioned East Timor independence as one of his key achievements. However, in office, he showed very little appetite for supporting East Timor independence and ruffling Indonesias feathers.

It was largely the diplomatic intervention at the international level by US President Bill Clinton, alongside the deployment of Australian Federal Police (AFP) working as unarmed civilian police for the UN mission in East Timor, that eventually secured the referendum.

Media coverage played a critical role in persuading the world to take action. In West Papua, the media have not had the same effect.

This is in part due to what the Indonesian security forces learned from East Timor on how to control the media. The Indonesian government has frequently cut internet services in West Papua, enacted a complete ban on foreign journalists and denied requests from the UN Human Rights Commission to investigate human rights violations.

Despite this, mobile phone videos of abuse continue to leak out.

In the absence of extensive media coverage, Papuan pro-democracy advocates and their supporters have been calling for a UN-sanctioned human rights investigation. There is also significant support from human rights defenders in Indonesia for such an inquiry.

As it now has a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, Indonesia should fully support such a move. However, the military retains considerable influence in the country, and holding commanders suspected of human rights abuses to account remains politically difficult.

In fact, President Joko Widodo last year appointed as his new defense minister Prabowo Subianto, who himself has been accused of human rights abuses.

Given these challenges, what will it take for the world to show enough moral courage to force change in West Papua?

The right way forward is clear. As a member of the UN Human Rights Council, Indonesia needs to put an end to the media ban in West Papuan, support an independent UN investigation and hold accountable those responsible within the government for violent acts.

If Indonesia does not take this course of action, then diplomatic pressure from the world will be required.

---

Camellia Webb-Gannon, Lecturer, University of Wollongong; Jaime Swift, DPhil (PhD) candidate, University of Oxford; Michael Westaway, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Archaeology, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, and Nathan Wright, Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official stance of The Jakarta Post.

See the original post:

Fight for freedom: New research to map violence in the forgotten conflict in West Papua - Jakarta Post

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on Fight for freedom: New research to map violence in the forgotten conflict in West Papua – Jakarta Post

Six of the best pizzas in Abu Dhabi: from Freedom to Khafayef Pastry – The National

Posted: at 3:30 pm

Finding the right pizza can be tricky.

Once, all you needed to make was a decision between fairly run-of-the-mill offerings from a few small institutions. Now, the ever-burgeoning Abu Dhabi food scene means finding a slice of pie is no longer just a matter of a trip to Pizza Hut.

We've already set out our picks for the best slices of pizza in Dubai, so what about the capital?

Thankfully, you don't have to look far for a wood-fired pizza base or an authentic margherita in Abu Dhabi, either.

Whether you're after a tried-and-tested favourite (the pepperoni, the meat lovers or the Hawaiian) or something a bit different (a cauliflower base, vegan cheese or a dessert pie), we've got you covered.

Here are our six favourite places in Abu Dhabi to grab a slice.

For wood-fired, handcrafted pizzas, Sopranos is a must-visit. Located in Mushrif, this place is known for its metre-long pizza, but it also has an entire menu of ordinary-sized pies that are just as delicious, thanks to their deliciously tangy tomato bases and generously-laden toppings. The Mac creamy macaroni cheese topped with flaming hot Cheetos is a delicious (if decadent) addition to any order, as is the seriously indulgent Nutella pizza for dessert.

What to order: The vegetarian (Dh38), with onions, capsicums, mushrooms, tomatoes, black olives, garlic and Italian herbs, is a good pick for veggies looking to mix it up from a standard margherita.

Details: Airport Road, Mushrif, Abu Dhabi; 02 641 8182, http://www.sopranos.pizza

For fast delivery and a fantastic range of toppings, this little joint in Etihad Plaza does some of the best authentic Italian pizza in Abu Dhabi.

Choose from white or wholewheat dough with no additional charges. There's also pasta, salads and antipasti if you want to mix things up a little. If you're feeling indulgent, go for the paneer tikka pizza, which is like having an Indian takeaway on top of a slice of pie. Vegans will love the specialised menu with no fewer than seven different options, some with vegan cheese and other cheese-less pies.

What to order: The Fattoria (Dh58) with mozzarella, caramelised onions, sundried tomatoes, roast pine nuts and goats' cheese is a must-try.

Details: Etihad Plaza, Abu Dhabi; 02 885 3222, http://www.pizzadirocco.com

Cheap and cheerful never tasted so good. Like its straightforward name, this small Khalidiya joint delivers quick and delicious pizzas with minimal fuss. If you are looking for something fancy, this is not the place for you.

The ingredients used here are simple, tasty and old-school, such as mortadella, hot dog bits, tuna and minced beef. But, my goodness, can they take these simple items and make them sing on a pizza pan. A perfect accompaniment to a Netflix session.

What to order: The mortadella pizza (Dh20 to Dh30)

Details: Opposite Prince Palace Mobile, Near Fathima Supermarket, Al Khalidiya, Abu Dhabi, 02 633 3877

Who doesn't love pizza with a side of live entertainment? Even though it's off limits for now, with government restrictions in place due to the coronavirus, Jazz@PizzaExpress in The Mall at World Trade Centre is worth a visit once it reopens. For pizza lovers, the restaurant offers many options worth trying, including ones for vegans, meat lovers or health nuts (where pizzas are under 600 calories).

What to order: American Hottest (Dh76) is a must-try dish for those who enjoy a spicy kick. Made up of ingredients that include chilli, spicy turkey chorizo, and hot green and roquito peppers, the pizza lives up to its name.

Details: The Mall at World Trade Centre, Abu Dhabi, 02 444 7752 and Arc Tower, Abu Dhabi, 02 666 0068; http://www.pizzaexpress.ae

This is best for the calorie-conscious dough lover. Pinza isn't quite pizza, but also isn't a flatbread: the dough is made with more water than your average crust, and so promises fewer calories. It's crispy and crunchy with bubbles of air in the middle. Sure, it's not authentic Naples-style, but it is its own, delicious, sourdough-laced creation. It's probably the pizza we'd choose at lunch if we had a hankering.

What to order: there are five vegan options, which is uncommon on a pizza menu. The OMV (Dh60) comes with vegan chipotle sausage. Points for difference.

Details: Umm Al Emarat Park; 800 Pinza (74692); pinza.com

This is arguably the best pizza house for people with specialty diets. While there are plenty of meat and dairy-filled pies on the menu, there are also options for plant-based and gluten-free diners.

Opt for the cauliflower crust, for example, or choose to top it with vegan cheese or even the animal-free product Beyond Meat. These options come alongside a range of other gourmet toppings, such as truffle oil, goats' cheese, fennel seeds and beef chorizo. Get a regular pizza or go for Detroit-style, and add any of the myriad side dishes to that, from the healthy quinoa power salad to all-natural chicken tenders. There are a range of gluten-free and vegan desserts up for grabs, too.

What to order: The Free-gan (from Dh39). It's topped with orange bell peppers, caramelised onions, jalapenos, onions, cherry tomatoes, coriander, vegan cheese and red sauce.

Details: Khalidiya, Abu Dhabi, 02 641 0029; http://www.freedompizza.ae

Updated: May 24, 2020 04:19 PM

See the original post here:

Six of the best pizzas in Abu Dhabi: from Freedom to Khafayef Pastry - The National

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on Six of the best pizzas in Abu Dhabi: from Freedom to Khafayef Pastry – The National

FreeSpeech.com If liberty means anything at all, it …

Posted: at 3:29 pm

Just to followup on the earlier blog post of today, I received the following email from Keith Drazek (GNSO Council Chair),

Dear Mr. Kirikos,

Receipt of your letter is acknowledged.

We note and regret that you have elected to not accept and agree to abide by ICANNs Expected Standards of Behavior (ESOB).

As such, per the notice provided in the Council Leadership Teams letter of 29 March, you will be placed in observer status in the RPM PDP WG and any other GNSO-related forum until such time we receive the necessary communication confirming acceptance of the ESOB, or until such time the ICANN Ombuds rules that you may return to member status following any appeal.

Sincerely,

Keith DrazekGNSO Chair (on behalf of the GNSO Council Leadership Team)

So, unless I bend the knee and swear an oath of fealty (or unless the ICANN Ombudsman says I can return), Im forever banished. Is that reasonable and proportionate?

And, this affects participation for all working groups (not just the RPM PDP), even though theres no issue in the IGO PDP!

ICANN, in an affront to free speech and due process, has threatened to restrict my participation on important domain name policy issues, and I think its crucial that these topics be brought before the public for debate. Continue reading ICANN Threatens to Restrict Participation Rights of critic George Kirikos

I have launched this new blog today at FreeSpeech.com, in order to better educate the public about domain names, internet governance, ICANN, free speech, and other topics. Continue reading Hello, World!

To understand Verisigns anti-competitive monopoly for dot-com domain name registration services, it is important to analyze its agreements with the US government. NTIA has a page on their website documenting aspects of their cooperative agreement with Verisign. However, that page is incomplete, as it only lists Amendments 10 through 35. The original agreement (between the National Science Foundation and Network Solutions) and the first 9 amendments are not published.

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was made to NTIA to obtain those additional historical records. Im happy to report that NTIA responded to that request and sent all the requested documents. [NB: the US government takes FOIA requests seriously, unlike ICANNs broken Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, which pretends to be like the FOIA but is far inferior to it]

Continue reading Original Cooperative Agreement That Laid The Foundation of Verisigns Monopoly

More and more people are coming to the realization that the ICANN comment periods are a sham, open to manipulation by ICANN insiders and staff. The comment period for the Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process ended on May 4, 2020, eleven days ago. I have previously written about it (see my prior blog posts here,here,here, here and here). Rather than diving in and actually doing the work of analyzing the public comments, ICANN staff are actively preventing working group members from having easy access to those submissions.

Continue reading ICANN RPM PDP Phase 1 Comment Period is another sham, part 6

The comment period for thePhase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process ends 23:39 UTC on May 4, 2020, just a day from now (which is not sufficient time to do a thorough analysis). I have previously written about it (see my prior blog posts here,here,hereandhere).

[Update: I finished my final comments at 1:30 am Toronto time on May 4, so Ive updated the article below with links to the newer PDF; the changes were relatively minor since the earlier draft, with just some tweaks on the TMCH comments, and stylistic changes, typos, etc.]

To help those who wish to submit public comments, or who wish to refine their own, Im posting a draft the final version of my extensive comments here. My answers are all in RED text. Im unable to use the broken online forms, so Ill need to submit via a DOCX file by tomorrow instead.

Continue reading URGENT: Last call to submit comments on RPM PDP Initial Report

The comment period for thePhase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process ends on May 4, 2020, less than 2 days from now (which is not sufficient time to do a thorough analysis). I have previously written about it (see my prior blog posts here,here,here and here). However, it continues to be fraught with problems. Continue reading ICANN RPM PDP Phase 1 Comment Period is another sham, part 5

Despite my misgivings about the sham that is the comment period for thePhase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process which Ive written about in the past 4 blog posts, I attempted to continue to submit my comments today, which I had already started over the weekend (already more than 20 hours invested, to get to about 25% through the various questions, including background research and reading the report, etc.). However, the comment system is entirely broken.

Continue reading ICANNs garbage public comment system

The comment period for the Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process ends on May 4, 2020, just 7 days from now (which is not sufficient time to do a thorough analysis). I have previously written about it (see my prior blog posts here, here and here). However, it continues to be fraught with problems, including coordinated duplicative submissions.

Continue reading ICANN RPM PDP Phase 1 Comment Period is another sham, part 4

ICANN actively mistreats stakeholders who dont understand English when it comes to policy development. While ICANN pretends to consider the global public interest, that cannot happen when non-English fluent participants are treated unfairly as second-class citizens. This is evident in the Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process which is now open for public comment, as Ive been writing about it for the past week (see my prior blog posts here and here).

Continue reading ICANN RPM PDP Phase 1 Comment Period is another sham, part 3

In my prior blog post, I wrote about the public comment period for the Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process. Any comments that are submitted by the public will be analyzed by the working group members. I believe that working group has been captured, and here are some numbers to back up that belief.

Continue reading ICANN RPM PDP Phase 1 Comment Period is another sham, part 2

ICANN has an open comment period for the Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process. It ends in just 14 days, would have a great impact on registrants rights and not a single person has submitted any comments to date, as of the time of this post.

To be able to comment, one has to first read the 147 page initial report. Then, one has to contemplate its contents, analyze it, and research related issues, including what its authors removed from it (see below). Then, one has to carefully submit thoughtful comments via an online form that has 192 separate sections! The document simply describing all the questions in the online form is a whopping 71 pages. To actually submit thoughtful comments would take an enormous amount of time, far more than is available.

Continue reading ICANN RPM PDP Phase 1 Comment Period is another sham, part 1

See the original post here:
FreeSpeech.com If liberty means anything at all, it ...

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on FreeSpeech.com If liberty means anything at all, it …

Can Free Speech Help Us Beat the Coronavirus? – Merion West

Posted: at 3:29 pm

(MATT ROURKE/AP)

We must remind those like Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Susan Wojcicki that they should not silence ideas from the get-go because they fear that people are incapable of evaluating information for themselves.

Since its founding in the early 1980s, the Internet has largely been an open and interactive environment, where users could freely express their views and opinions. Not surprisingly, the virtual world was considered to be a refuge of liberty, a land of freedom. However, as the Coronavirus (COVID-19) spreads rapidly throughout the world, Silicon Valley technology companies have been moving towards taking tighter control over what types of content can be readily accessed online. Using a version of the longstanding argument that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, technology companies have pushed forward constraints on speech under the guise of tackling misinformation.

Facebook, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and YouTube issued a joint statement on March 16th and updated their guidelines, writing that ever since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global public health emergency, weve been working to connect people to accurate information and taking aggressive steps to stop misinformation and harmful content from spreading. [] We remove COVID-19 related misinformation that could contribute to imminent physical harm.

Yet, the question remains: Is this a good idea? Will these restrictions on speech help curb the spread of the pandemic? Despite their intentions, these types of controls on free expression routinely generate more harm than good.

The Thin Line Between Right and Wrong

Theres often a gray area between information and misinformation. For instance, Facebook blocked videos of Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro endorsing hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment. Yet, at around the same time, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Mastercard were investing $9.2 million in hydroxychloroquine clinical trials.

Twitter, in turn, locked the account of The Federalist after it linked to an article published on its website that suggested herd immunity was the best method for combatting COVID-19. It is time to think outside the box and seriously consider a somewhat unconventional approach to COVID-19: controlled voluntary infection. The Federalists account tweeted minutes before the account was locked down. But what Twitter considers utterly unspeakable, Sweden reckons to be the most feasible solution to COVID-19, as the Scandinavian nation opts against implementing lockdown policies.

Then, YouTube removed videos of a press conference in which two doctors in California, who have been working on the frontlines with COVID-19 patients, recommended lifting shelter-in-place orders.

The fact is that individuals, groups, and even governments can disagree deeply on what measures should be taken to fight COVID-19. There is no problem with that; the problem lies in closing down the marketplace of ideas.

Who Possesses the Truth?

The reasoning behind regulating online content is straightforward: If people receive the wrong information, they can hurt themselves, hurt others, and hinder necessary efforts to combat the virus. This is a legitimate concern. However, is it sufficient for allowing technology companies to adjudicate what is or is not trustworthy?

Technology company CEOs have been arguing that we must trust science-based knowledge at this moment, which basically means putting the WHO in charge. Nevertheless, we cannot forget that the WHO stated in the middle of January that there was no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission (that was key misinformation) and insisted until the middle of February that no country should enact travel restrictions on China. This helped to enable the virus spread further beyond Chinese borders (that was very harmful).

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that some observers are not buying that the WHO is some sort of oracle of truth. We should never acquiesce to technology companiesor anyonedeciding what we are allowed to see, not even to get rid of bad ideas and not even during extraordinary times. Besides, science is not about monopolizing the truth; science is about asking questions, refuting non-verifiable consensuses, formulating hypotheses, and proceeding with systematic exploration. At the end of the day, as a society, we have two options: We can trust peoples intelligence and use social media as a tool to empower users to express different opinions on how to approach the problems we need to solve. Or, alternatively, we can grant technology companies the authority to enforce restrictions on speech, a road that leads ushowever well-intended it istowards a kind of censorship where information is evaluated based on its adherence to a current orthodoxy.

Now, it is important to note, as Dan Sanchez, editor-in-chief of FEE.org, reminds us that the constitutional right to free speech protects citizens from government censorship. Given that the properties of these technology companies are private platforms, if the government coerced their owners into keeping certain content online against their will, that would be much more a violation of the First Amendment. As such, using laws or the apparatus of the State to compel these companies to re-open their platforms to a diversity of ideas would be a terrible idea. However, we can use our most powerful weapon: free speech. We can urge them. We can remind them of their founding principles. We can convince them. In Sanchezs words: While the decision [of banning anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations] is not unconstitutional, it is unwise.

We are facing the most overwhelming challenge of our time. Therefore, we need as much help as possible. We need every idea and to explore and discuss every possibility. We must remind those like Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Susan Wojcicki that they should not silence ideas from the get-go because they fear that people are incapable of evaluating information for themselves. Indeed, in the past, many of these very executives used to make the case for freedom of expression, such as when Zuckerberg asserted in October of last year: In a democracy, I dont think that we want private companies censoring. [] As a principle, people should decide what is credible and what they want to believe.

Free speech: the More the Merrier

Of course, some might argue that free speech is normally desirable, but, in extreme cases such as during a pandemic, we should suppress harmful views. For instance, questioning social distancing can be quite dangerous; doing so may incite people to socialize and, as a consequence, spread the virus.

However, as John Stuart Mill teaches, this notion that we should suppress an opinion because it is false or harmful assumes the infallibility of the suppressor making that judgment. It happens that we are all fallible creatures; human beings do not have unfailing access to the truth. For this reason, all of our beliefs, even the ones we think of as securely founded, must remain open to discussion and revision. If not, true ideas will be suppressed because they arewronglythought to be false or harmful.

In his tremendously influential 1859 work On Liberty, Mill reasons that truths, for the most part, are only half-truths. Thus, unity of opinion ison the wholeundesirable. Diversity, therefore, is far from an evil and is a goodto make humankind more capable of recognizing all sides of the truth. Needless to say, most opinions are neither completely true nor false. That is why free speech is so important: It allows for the airing of competing ideas and preserves the partial truths within each one of them.

Finally, even if a belief is ultimately found to be false, the fact that it is being articulated can still drive us to secure the truth by refuting the error. Debate tends to lead to greater understanding. For a true idea to keep its vitality and power, it needs to be confronted and probed. With no active defiance, we risk losing the real meaning of the ideas we adopt. It is, therefore, essential to hear counterargumentsunless we prefer to hold onto dead dogmas, rather than living truths.

So yes, free speech can help us fight COVID-19 by fostering ideas that will allow us to get through this health crisis. However, we must open our ears and eyes to as many voices and opinions as possible. In this sense, the most harmful idea is the idea that censorship, even in a time of crisis, is the preferable alternative to the ever-important need for free speech.

Jean Vilbert is a freelancer writer in Brazil.

Excerpt from:
Can Free Speech Help Us Beat the Coronavirus? - Merion West

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Can Free Speech Help Us Beat the Coronavirus? – Merion West

Coronavirus Arrests Over Fake News Silence Journalists, Dissenters in Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Across Southeast Asia – Foreign Policy

Posted: at 3:28 pm

A 14-year-old in Kampot, Cambodia, was detained and forced by police to publicly apologize after expressing fear about the coronavirus in a Facebook message. A Siem Reap man was arrested after posting social media videos criticizing Cambodias lackluster coronavirus testing. Altogether, dozens of Cambodians have been arrested in recent weeks after being accused of spreading fake news about COVID-19, released only after signing apology documents. Among those still in jail are four members of the banned opposition party. Lumping together criticism with misinformation, Prime Minister Hun Sen has branded those who spread fake news as terrorists.

The Cambodian cases are part of a broader trend of Southeast Asian governments using the pandemic as an excuse to crack down on free speech. As the coronavirus continues to spread across the region, governments have adopted new measures, including emergency decrees, to slow the rate of infections. These effortswhile crucial to protect public healthhave been accompanied by sweeping free speech restrictions under the pretext of combating the spread of false information and maintaining public order.

Many of these new regulations have been used to arrest, detain, or question hundreds of people for criticizing government handling of the crisis, or merely for sharing coronavirus-related information. Authorities have also resorted to strict measures against the press to censor and stifle independent media, confirming fears that authoritarian governments are exploiting the pandemic to advance their political interests.

In my home country, Cambodia, 12 supporters or members of my former party, the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party, have been arrested since the outbreak began, under spurious charges including inciting military personnel to disobedience and provocation to commit offenses. The party was dissolved under politically motivated charges in 2017, and many of its former members, including myself, are now in exile.

This worrying trend looks set to continue. Last month, Cambodias National Assembly passed the state of emergency law, which grants the government broad powers to monitor, observe, and gather information from all telecommunication mediums and control the distribution of information that could scare the public, [cause] unrest, or that can negatively impact national security.

Given Hun Sens history of rights violations and use of any means necessary to retain power, this new law is likely to become yet another tool in his playbook to silence dissent.

Neighboring countries under strongman rule, including Thailand and the Philippines, have employed similar emergency powers to restrict information related to the virus. Just two days after the emergency law was passed in the Philippines, police filed criminal complaints against a mayor and two journalists for allegedly sharing false information that a patient with the virus had died at a hospital in Cavite City, close to Manila.

Governments are increasingly targeting reporters and news providers as part of efforts to curb so-called fake news, or they are using laws that grant authorities vague powers under the guise of national security. In Malaysia, the South China Morning Post journalist Tashny Sukumaran was questioned by the police for her reporting on the raids and arrests of hundreds of migrant workers and refugees as part of government efforts to tackle the pandemic. She is being investigated for provoking a breach of peace and misusing network facilities. In Myanmar, the Ministry of Communications and Transport blocked more than 200 websites, which they claimed spread fake news, under a provision that allows the government to suspend the use of telecommunication services for the benefit of the people. Such laws are problematic, as they confer extensive powers to states to determine what is true or false, as well as the type of information that can be published and accessed by the public.

Sign up for Foreign Policys latest pop-up newsletter, While You Werent Looking, for a weekly update on the world beyond the coronavirus pandemic. Delivered Friday.

Wider efforts in the region to tackle misinformation about the virus also saw Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-Cha warn that the government could suspend or edit news that is untrue, and Malaysian authorities have instructed the police and the Communications and Multimedia Commission to take stern action against online media that supposedly misreport the news.

There is no doubt that misinformation surrounding the coronavirus can be dangerousleading, for instance, to false treatments or the scapegoating of vulnerable populations. But governments in Southeast Asia are resorting to disproportionate methods to fight misinformation by censoring both legitimate information and valid criticisms that are vital to the promotion of transparency and accountability.

Journalists in the region are already operating in hostile environments, and governments heavy-handed approach will make reporting more difficult and exacerbate the decline of free speech and independent media.

Beyond reporters, anyone who dares to speak on social media about COVID-19 is increasingly at risk of arrestas the Cambodian cases demonstrate. In Thailand, a street artist was arrested and charged with causing damage to Bangkoks main airport after posting on Facebook about the absence of coronavirus screenings there. Meanwhile, an Indonesian man who criticized President Joko Widodo on social media for his response to the virus was slapped with charges relating to defamation and inciting racial hatred.

Reportedly, more than 600 Facebook users in Vietnam have been hauled in by the police for questioning, while hundreds more in Malaysia are being investigated for disseminating supposed fake news. A Malaysian lawmaker, Fuziah Salleh, has also been charged for allegedly causing fear or alarm to the public for a video posted on her Facebook page that appeared to show crowded scenes at a border crossingwhich the police said was an old video. While governments have the responsibility to counter misinformation, they should never resort to criminal prosecution or heavy censorship. This could stifle open communication and heavily restrict the right to freedom of expression, important to curbing the spread of the coronavirus. Instead, authorities should adopt less intrusive methods, such as supporting digital literacy and proactively disclosing information relating to COVID-19.

Now more than ever, citizens must remain vigilant and continue to urge their governments to uphold human rights during this pandemic. Even where parliaments are in recess, or where there is no longer an opposition, lawmakers past and present can use their influence to call out rights violations and support civil society and the mediawhich also play crucial roles in the fight against COVID-19.

While freedom of expression is not absolute and restrictions are warranted during crises, our leaders should be reminded that measures taken must remain necessary and proportionate to containing the virus. They should also not quash dissent or serve other aims. Although the spread of misinformation can undermine health efforts, ensuring an enabling environment for freedom of expressionincluding an independent mediawill safeguard the free flow of information that is vital in tackling the pandemic, and which can effectively address misinformation.

Any curtailment of rights that can be implemented for an indefinite period must be closely monitored to prevent the deepening of human rights violations beyond COVID-19.

Read the original post:
Coronavirus Arrests Over Fake News Silence Journalists, Dissenters in Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Across Southeast Asia - Foreign Policy

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Coronavirus Arrests Over Fake News Silence Journalists, Dissenters in Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Across Southeast Asia – Foreign Policy

Twitter expands on conversation tools | News, Sports, Jobs – Youngstown Vindicator

Posted: at 3:28 pm

After months of teasing changes to their conversation tools, Twitter officially announced major upgrades to how we control replies to our posts. This is good news for people who have been avoiding the microblogging platform because of its reputation for fostering online negativity.

Its true that some people abandoned their Twitter accounts years ago because they were unable to control unwanted replies. Im all about free speech, but unrelated, negative replies made it hard to have meaningful conversations with people who wanted to interact with me.

For example, I received everything from replies that encouraged debate and sought clarifications to Youre an idiot (negative) and Buy these sunglasses for $9.99 (unrelated) to my tweets.

Since last year, weve been working to give people more control over their conversations, starting with the ability to hide replies, Suzanne Xie, Twitters director of product management said last week. We also began trying out new ways to start conversations.

Now Twitter is testing new settings that let us choose who can reply to our tweets and join in on our conversations.

Being able to participate and understand whats happening is key for useful public conversation, Xie said. So, were exploring how we can improve these settings to give people more opportunities to weigh in while still giving people control over the conversations they start.

Heres how it works.

Before you post a tweet, choose who can reply with three options:

Everyone (this is the default setting);

Only people you follow;

Only people you mention.

Tweets with only people you follow or only people you mention will be labeled as such, and the reply icon will be grayed out. This makes it clear to those who are viewing your tweet as to whether or not they can reply.

For example, if someone tries to reply to a tweet that Ive set as only people you mention, theyll get a pop-up message that reads Why cant you reply with @adamearn chose to let only people they mentioned in the original tweet reply.

Those who cant reply will still be able to view tweets, like or retweet them, or retweet with comments (which doesnt necessarily stop the negativity, but helps foster positive conversations on your timeline).

One thing we know for sure is that youll be creative with this update, Xie said. Maybe youll host a debate on the benefits of pineapple on pizza (#TeamPineapple) with fellow pizza pals or invite a panel of distinguished guests for a fireside chat. You could even play a game of tic-tac-toe for people to follow along without messing up your moves.

Twitter is also trying to make it easier to read all conversations around a tweet by giving us better access to retweets with comments. Most users can now see a new layout for replies with lines and indentations to make it clear who is talking to whom. This was also done to help fit more of the conversation into one view.

For now, only a limited group of people globally on Twitter for iOS, Android, and twitter.com can Tweet with these settings, but everyone can see these conversations, Xie added.

So, while most of these changes are still in testing mode, some of you are the lucky few who can test these options now. Unfortunately, the rest of us will have to wait.

Dr. Adam Earnheardt is chair of the department of communication at Youngstown State University. Follow him on Twitter at @adamearn and on his blog at http://www.adamearn .com.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post here:
Twitter expands on conversation tools | News, Sports, Jobs - Youngstown Vindicator

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Twitter expands on conversation tools | News, Sports, Jobs – Youngstown Vindicator

Wuhan’s survivors find no closure from the coronavirus – Los Angeles Times

Posted: at 3:28 pm

The steelworker counted as corpses were dragged out of the hospital in twos and threes, loaded into funeral cars and driven away. Every body bag meant another empty bed and a chance for his fathers survival.

The steelworker, whose name is Yang, had been sleeping in his car outside the hospital for two days. His father was shivering on a bench in the emergency room, wrapped in a blanket and wheezing while breathing oxygen from a tank. Hed tested positive for the coronavirus, but there were no beds for the old man.

Yang had warned his father not to go out in early January, when he started seeing more funeral tents than usual and hearing rumors about a new virus in Wuhan. But his father wouldnt listen. No one else around them seemed worried at the time, only his stubborn son who read too much insidious information from the non-Chinese internet.

Im old. Ill die sooner or later, Yangs father had joked, sneaking out to take walks when Yang was at work.

A month later, he was dead.

Those days replay in Yangs mind even now, a month after Wuhans celebrated reopening. Here in the city where the coronavirus began, the governments victory narrative is filled with slogans about Peoples War led by the Chinese Communist Party printed on red banners and flashing on the Yangtze River skyline.

The Yangtze River at dusk next to Wuhan Yangtze River Bridge in Wuhan, China.

(Liu Bowen / For The Times)

Months of lockdown have wiped away the industrial centers usual haze of pollution, revealing open skies over soaring bridges and pink water lilies floating on lakes. People line up for buckets of crayfish, snack on crunchy, spicy lotus roots, and linger at breakfast stalls serving sesame-paste noodles and tofu skin stuffed with rice.

Fishermen and families are back on the riverbanks, flying kites, taking selfies and sleeping Sundays away in hammocks.

Yet anxiety lingers. Some fear a second wave of the coronavirus new infections were recently reported, sparking citywide testing. Others worry about the economic toll: lost jobs, looming debts and the cost of continuing shutdowns as much of the world recoils from a scourge that has infected more than 5 million people and killed more than 340,000.

For many in Wuhan, the initial fury at being lied to, locked down and abandoned has been replaced by horror at how other countries have failed to contain the virus despite early warnings. There is also a sense of anger that the world is blaming them for the coronavirus, when they were the first to suffer from it.

Beijing has meanwhile made a hero out of Wuhan, the sacrificial city whose people struggled and died to stop a virus and save the nation. But many in Wuhan say they never asked for that burden, and now they spend their days remembering the ones they lost while trying to make sense of what lies ahead.

Wuhans lockdown has lifted, but anxieties about the coronavirus remain. Travelers, above, take precautions while heading to the grocery store.

(Liu Bowen / For The Times)

It was hell, Yang said. His father got a hospital bed on Feb. 14, three days after he tested positive. But the doctor said it was too late to save him, and assigned a spot outside of the intensive care unit. There would be no nurses to feed or bathe him. Yang, 53, decided to stay and nurse his father himself.

But his mother, who lost her arm in a factory accident and suffers from Alzheimers, was still at home. His wife, daughter and sisters were locked down in other districts. By then, cars couldnt drive to the hospital, so for six days Yang biked back and forth between home and his fathers ward.

Three times a day, hed don a shower cap, raincoat, gloves, goggles and factory mask, feed his father, disinfect himself, then bike home, strip everything off, douse himself in alcohol, and cook for his mother who kept asking if her husband was dead. Hes not. I wouldnt lie to you, Yang told her.

Mr. Yang sat in his car in front of a hospital, watching funeral workers load corpses into vehicles to be cremated. Every body was another empty bed and chance for his fathers survival.

(Mr. Yang)

By the fourth day, his father was losing consciousness. He lost movement in his right arm and started punching the air and trying to pull off his oxygen mask with his left arm. Yang scolded him. Youre trying to kill me, his father said.

The old man stopped eating. Yang asked a nurse for help. She restrained his fathers arm and gave him a tranquilizer and a feeding tube. Yang and his sisters spent several thousand dollars on 30 nutrition shots to save him. The nurse gave him just one. The next day, on Feb. 21, he died.

Before the lockdown, few in Wuhan knew what danger they were in. For three weeks in January, government officials had said the virus was controllable, preventable, and not contagious between humans. Eight people, including the later-famous Dr. Li Wenliang, were rebuked on state TV for rumor-mongering about the new illness.

The Wuhan health commission insisted that there were no new cases of the virus for more than a week in January, while the city was holding political meetings. Residents kept shopping, eating and attending Chinese New Year potlucks with tens of thousands of guests, unaware of death spreading in their midst.

Only on Jan. 20 did Zhong Nanshan, a doctor famous for speaking up during the SARS epidemic, announce on state TV that there was human-to-human transmission. Three days later, the city of 11 million was locked down.

During the lockdown, residents of old, cramped apartment buildings in Wuhan like this one had poorer services than residents of newer buildings with better management and financial capacity.

(Liu Bowen / For The Times)

One front-line doctor, who asked not to be named because he is forbidden from speaking to foreign reporters, said his colleagues had already been wearing masks for weeks, trusting their own judgment over officials statements. He oversaw 50 of the hospitals 400 beds, all of which were quickly filled.

They had one ventilator for 50 patients and oxygen tanks for the others, but not enough pressure for the oxygen. People collapsed in the hallways, foaming at the mouth a sign that their lungs were drowning, the doctor said. Others collapsed in fear, he said, perhaps with sudden cardiac arrest.

Many of those early deaths went uncounted. Only patients with confirmed coronavirus infections were recorded, the doctor said, and many were dying too fast to be tested, especially as there werent enough tests. Worse, there wasnt any treatment.

There was no way to save them. Not enough beds, not enough equipment, not enough facilities, not enough people, he said. As a doctor, you feel helpless, trying to help them breathe. Youre just watching their oxygen go down, down, down, and you cant do anything. You cant keep up.

Elderly people in Wuhan, already more vulnerable to the coronavirus, struggled during the lockdown as they were separated from caretakers and family members.

(Liu Bowen / For The Times)

The city whose pain and loss would be duplicated across the world whispered with such stories. Outside the hospitals, the streets were cold and empty as if the city was dead, said MC, 35, a nail salon owner who became a volunteer, delivering food and masks to hospitals and poor families across the city.

On Chinese New Years Eve, Jan. 24, state TV had broadcast the annual Spring Festival Gala, complete with extravagant dances and glamorous hosts aglow with laughter. In Wuhan, it was the second day of lockdown; the city was silent.

I felt like: My city is sick, MC said. She remembers driving across bridges in the dark, seeing only ambulances and funeral cars on the road. She kept hearing people say China would sacrifice her city to save the nation. If thats true, we have to save ourselves, she recalls thinking.

One night, an ambulance dropped off an old man and woman in a Qiaokou district neighborhood, then sped away. They were Grandma Wu and Grandpa Xu, both 94. Their daughter who lived upstairs usually took care of them. But she had been hospitalized with COVID-19 on Jan. 28, and died two days later.

A security guard took this video of Grandma Wu walking toward her husband, who collapsed on the floor after being dropped off by an ambulance in early February. Their daughter, who usually takes care of them, had died of COVID-19 without their knowledge. The daughters husband soon died as well.

(Liu Bowen / For The Times)

Grandpa Xu had been a literature professor with a lifetime achievement award for his writing. He and Grandma Wu were honored last year at a city ceremony for respected scholars, as part of Chinas 70th anniversary celebration. It was also their 70th wedding anniversary, and Xu had been in his element, reciting poetry and singing Beijing opera.

A security guard took a video that night: Grandpa Xu fell down, crumpling to the floor. Grandma Wu tottered toward him in pajamas, pushing a walker. No one dared to touch them. Theyd just come from the hospital and their family had the virus. Who knew if they were sick?

I was pulling him and pulling him, and he wouldnt move, Grandma Wu said.

Somehow, the two made it to their apartment upstairs. But Grandpa Xu would not survive.

In October 2019, Grandpa Xu and Grandma Wu had been celebrated in a city ceremony for the the nations 70th anniversary, which coincided with their 70th wedding anniversary. In January 2020, seven members of their family fell sick after having dinner together, unaware of the coronavirus spreading in Wuhan. Two of them died.

(Liu Bowen / For The Times)

We couldnt see them, we couldnt care for them; we were helpless, their oldest daughter said in an interview. She and her husband live in New York, but had come to Wuhan for the holiday. After recovering from COVID-19, theyd reunited with Grandma Wu in mid-February, and stayed to care for her. They asked that their names not be used for their protection.

Wed already lost one, my sister. And my dad died without any reason or clarity. We have no idea how he died. What happened when he came home? What did he die of? the daughter said. Her mother began to cry.

For 10 days, the only person who cared for Grandma Wu was a government-employed grid worker, whose job was to monitor the households in their neighborhood.

Dont touch her, the workers colleagues said. But the worker came every day, coaxing Grandma Wu to swallow spoonfuls of congee.

America couldnt do what we are doing here, with workers checking every house, testing, taking temperatures and sending food, Grandma Wus daughter said. Her husband agreed: Local officials were three weeks late in announcing the disease, and he wanted to sue the hospital that expelled his in-laws. But the central government did a good job when it took over in February, he said though the city remains traumatized.

In Wuhan, those whove had the sickness also feel different from those who havent. You dont know that feeling of terror, said Grandma Wus daughter. We wrote our own wills and prepared to die.

While the coronavirus awakened some Chinese to the flaws of their government, it also shattered many peoples idealized notions of the West.

Mr. Liu, a migrant worker in Wuhan, took secret phone videos of overcrowded hospitals in hopes of spreading information to the world. He was shocked and disappointed when other countries seemed to fail in containing the coronavirus despite having more open societies and early knowledge of the epidemic.

(Liu Bowen / For The Times)

Im surprised and disappointed. Im rethinking what I thought I knew about America, said Liu, 43, a migrant worker and security guard who helped build the emergency hospitals for the coronavirus.

Liu called himself awakened hed long been critical of the Communist Partys authoritarianism, corruption and suppression of free speech. He had regarded the United States democracy as a model for what China could be. He was friends with activists, and had taken secret phone videos on the construction sites and in hospitals to alert other countries to what was unfolding in Wuhan.

We were trying so hard to tell the world, Liu said. Yet with their free press and free speech, they still failed. Why in the world did it become like this?

If even he was disillusioned with the United States, Liu said, there was no doubt that the Communist Party had won over most of Chinas population.

People were so angry. The government silenced our doctors. But now its the opposite: It seems the West is worse. The numbers speak for themselves, he said. Even with economic struggles, workers will say it was a natural disaster. They wont blame the government. They think it protected them well.

Key Zhou, 40, another Wuhan volunteer, said he worried most now about U.S.-China tensions and a rise in nationalism. He saw hateful rhetoric every day on state TV and online, where the Wuhan novelist Fang Fang was labeled a sellout to the West because her diary of life under coronavirus was being published in English.

The way people attacked one another reminded him of scenes hed seen during lockdown: Infected people had spat on elevator buttons out of spite, and screamed at volunteers, If I cant live, no one else can live! Sometimes hed felt like screaming, too.

Zhou feared a second Cultural Revolution or a third World War. Some of his friends are stockpiling food now, he said, not because of the coronavirus but in case of sanctions or coming inflation.

Whats scarier than the virus is how it rips our relations apart, Zhou said. When people are fearful, anxious, we harm one another. But this is our fault, not the virus fault. Its human, not Chinese or American.

Column One

A showcase for compelling storytelling from the Los Angeles Times.

Yang, the steelworker, hasnt had the time or heart to think about global affairs. After his father died, he had to be quarantined in a hotel. He resisted at first: He had two dogs, six chickens, his fathers rooftop vegetable garden, and his mother to take care of at home.

In the end, his mother came with him; the dogs were sent to a pet hospital and the chickens survived on some extra feed.

The dogs, the chickens, I saved them all, Yang said. The only one I didnt save was my father.

Yangs oldest sister had a mental breakdown after their fathers death. She has refused to see the rest of her family but is receiving psychological treatment. Yang fears a relapse of his own depression, which paralyzed him two years ago.

Hes returned to the steel factory, which has a special department for retired cadres. They supervised when he picked up his fathers ashes and stored them in a cemetery. He and his second sister placed a handful of chrysanthemums there, plucked from the rooftop. He eventually wants to bring his fathers ashes to their hometown in Hunan. The supervisors will probably follow him there, too.

Its political, he said. They wont let you go on your own.

Mr. Yangs fathers rooftop garden, which he and his mother now maintain.

(Mr. Yang)

When Yang thinks about his fathers death, he swears, then says: This was all preventable. We need justice from the heavens. But he also blames himself: He must have touched something with the virus. I should have given him gloves.

Every day, his mother asks where his father went. Her memory is going; all that once was is fading. Yang answers her questions, and keeps the garden alive.

More:
Wuhan's survivors find no closure from the coronavirus - Los Angeles Times

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Wuhan’s survivors find no closure from the coronavirus – Los Angeles Times

Column: Surrounded by people without masks on Niagara River gorge trail – Buffalo News

Posted: at 3:28 pm

One of the most spectacular places in Western New York is the lower Niagara River gorge.

That is where my wife and I took a hike Thursday afternoon from Devil's Hole State Park, along the Niagara Gorge rim, down the steep stone steps to the whirlpool rapids, along the Devil's Hole Trail on the river's edge, and then back up those steep Whirlpool State Park steps.

If you were among the hundreds of people I passed on the trail, perhaps you noticed me.

I was that guy with a mask that I put over my mouth and nose whenever I approached anyone.

If you saw me, you were probably among the 99% of the hikers that afternoon who didn't don a mask as you hiked along the narrow trail, which is about 2 feet wide in most places.

The no-mask crowd included moms and dads with kids, lots of young adults with college T-shirts, starry-eyed couples and groups of more than a dozen people.

I'm sure they are all good people whom I would love to meet.

But frankly, it was discouraging. I thought Western New Yorkers were smarter, more caring and more considerate of others.

When we passed, most of you didn't bother to turn your head away or walk on the edge of the trail as you labored up the steep steps by the whirlpool, breathing loudly, sending microscopic droplets of whatever was inside your lungs in my direction.

Normally, that wouldn't bother me. But I've spent the past two months editing stories about some of the 555 Western New Yorkers who have died with Covid-19 and the more than 6,000 who tested positive many of whom might have taken their last breath if not for ventilators or dedicated doctors and nurses.

I'm a freedom-loving guy. I'd start a revolution, if necessary, to preserve our rights to free speech, as well as our right to peacefully assemble, to vote, to worship the God that we want, and to seek redress if the government violates our rights.

I get it that as Americans we don't like the government telling us what we can and can't do.

But when you decide that it's your right to not wear a mask in public in places where it is impossible to stay 6 feet away from me and my wife, then you are infringing on our rights and you could cost us our lives.

If the droplets that come out of your mouth when you breathe or talk or cough carry the coronavirus, you freedom-lovers could take away someone else's rights all because you refuse to cover your mouth and nose with a piece of cloth for 15 seconds while you pass by them.

Now you say you didn't wear a mask on the trail because you don't have Covid-19. How do you know? Plenty of people have tested positive for the virus without showing symptoms.

Yes, epidemiologists say the risk of transmitting Covid-19 outdoors is lower than the risk indoors. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't help keep each other safe in our parks.

Perhaps you think that I should just stay the heck home and stop complaining. But don't you recognize others have the same right to take a hike as you?

So how do we resolve this?

Do we obey the advice of the top health experts in the country and voluntarily don a mask in public when social distancing is not possible, like on the crowded narrow gorge trails?

Or do state and local law enforcement authorities have to step in to safeguard the public health?

Would you be happier if the state put a police officer on the narrow gorge trails and barred every hiker who wasn't wearing a mask? How about if the state just shut down the gorge trails until the virus threat drops, like it has closed playgrounds, schools and businesses?

Would that make you feel free?

More here:
Column: Surrounded by people without masks on Niagara River gorge trail - Buffalo News

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Column: Surrounded by people without masks on Niagara River gorge trail – Buffalo News