Monthly Archives: May 2022

GENEVA (20 May 2022) A group of UN human rights experts* has urged States to ensure that ongoing multilateral negotiations on a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and recovery is grounded in human rights. As the 75th Session of the World Health Assembly prepares to deliberate on these initiatives, the experts issued the following joint statement:

Over the past years, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in, at least six million deaths officially registered globally, deepened economic and social inequalities, and exposed structural discrimination within societies and the pandemic exacerbated violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms. As COVID-19 has made clear, resilience to pandemics is inextricably linked with the economic, social, and political conditions in which people live, is shaped by inequalities within and between countries, and is dependent upon the full realization of all human rights notably the rights to health, life, freedom of expression, assembly and movement, among others.

As independent human rights experts, we have consistently called on States to adopt rights-based approaches to the ongoing pandemic response and recovery, and to adopt bolder measures and commitments to international solidarity. The world is grappling with the failures in pandemic preparedness regarding pathogen surveillance, data collection, including disaggregated and gender-sensitive data, and transparency, public health communications and equity in prevention, access to vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics, as well as adequate resources to cater for these concerns. To prevent and mitigate the toll of future pandemics, including recurrence of erosion of fundamental freedoms and related human rights violations, we are closely following recent global health law reform negotiations, including a new international legal instrument on pandemic preparedness and response.

As the 75th Session of the World Health Assembly prepares to deliberate on these multilateral initiatives, we urge States to ensure that negotiations draw from article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in particular its article 4 and take into account longstanding international human rights obligations that are essential to public health crisis preparedness, response and recovery, including social security - which is essential for the enjoyment of the right to health, as demonstrated by the pandemic - and fiscal considerations. They should also consider that emergency measures are justified, transparent and adopted in line with international human rights standards.In particular, we urge States to ensure that this new instrument is grounded in human rights and centres, in particular women, girls and other vulnerable groups and marginalized populations right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health without discrimination and that it guarantees the respect and enjoyment of interrelated rights, including freedom of peaceful assembly. We also encourage States to take into account the role of the private sector in providing access to essential services and medicines during such crises, and in ensuring business respect for human rights.

Aligned with human rights obligations, we commend the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response for concluding their first round of virtual public hearings with interested stakeholders last April. However, we are concerned since it remains unclear how the results of the public hearings and written submissions will be used, and more generally whether ongoing multilateral deliberations will be open to a broad spectrum of affected communities and civil society organizations. The full and meaningful participation of all concerned communities and civil society is essential to ensure a strong, transparent and legitimate process.

The World Health Assembly presents WHO Member States with an historic opportunity to reflect upon crucial lessons from the pandemic and build tangible movement towards realizing the pre-eminent purpose of worlds leading UN agency on global health to realize the highest attainable standard of health for all with no discrimination.

ENDS

*The experts: Ms. Tlaleng Mofokeng, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mr.Saad Alfarargi, Special Rapporteur on the right to development, Mr. Obiora C. Okafor, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, Mr. Clment N. Voule, Special Rapporteur on the right to peaceful assembly and association, Ms. Attiya Waris, Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, Mr. Livingstone Sewanyana, Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Mr. Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty, and Ms. Elbieta Karska (Chair-Rapporteur), Ms. Fernanda Hopenhaym (Vice Chairperson), Ms. Anita Ramasastry and Ms. Pichamon Yeophantong, members of the Working Group on Business and Human Rights.

Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Proceduresof the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

Link:

Negotiations for international instrument on pandemic preparedness must be guided by human rights: UN experts - OHCHR

Congressman Chris Jacobs (NY-27) released the following statement announcing he will seek re-election in the new 23rd Congressional District drawn by the Special Master.

Serving Western New York for the past two years has been an honor, it is my home, and we value freedom, family, national security, and fiscal responsibility. With this in mind and after much consideration, I am announcing my candidacy to run in the newly drawn 23rd district. NY-23 shares these conservative values. They draw across county lines and connect cities, towns, and villages throughout the region. Many of these communities I have been honored to represent in Congress and previously in the New York State Senate and as Erie County Clerk. I look forward to getting to know new communities throughout the Southern Tier, and I am committed to being out and about in each and every community, continuing my track record of working effectively with localities.

In my first two years in office we have faced and overcome many challenges, but this coming election is one of the most consequential in my lifetime. One-party Democratic rule and the Biden administration in Washington have been disastrous for our nation. We face an inflation crisis not seen in 40 years. Families face record-high prices at the pump, leaving them to choose between filling their tanks and buying medicine and essential goods. Our southern border remains open to criminals and dangerous fentanyl due to weak policies from the current administration. And Americans are being forced to foot the bill for the administration's partisan policies. Now, more than ever, we need a strong, conservative majority in the House to deliver real solutions that bring down costs, restore our energy independence, end reckless spending, and secure our nation. I will fight to deliver that majority and continue my work for the people of New York to defend our constitutional rights, economic prosperity, and our future."

Read the original:

Jacobs will run for newly formed 23rd Congressional District - The Batavian

Wall Street analysts forecast that The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS Get Rating) will report earnings per share (EPS) of $8.65 for the current fiscal quarter, Zacks Investment Research reports. Six analysts have made estimates for The Goldman Sachs Groups earnings, with the lowest EPS estimate coming in at $7.52 and the highest estimate coming in at $9.22. The Goldman Sachs Group posted earnings of $15.02 per share in the same quarter last year, which suggests a negative year-over-year growth rate of 42.4%. The firm is scheduled to report its next earnings results on Monday, January 1st.

According to Zacks, analysts expect that The Goldman Sachs Group will report full year earnings of $37.99 per share for the current year, with EPS estimates ranging from $32.52 to $40.30. For the next fiscal year, analysts anticipate that the company will report earnings of $40.52 per share, with EPS estimates ranging from $34.42 to $44.48. Zacks EPS averages are an average based on a survey of research analysts that follow The Goldman Sachs Group.

The Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE:GS Get Rating) last announced its earnings results on Thursday, April 14th. The investment management company reported $10.76 earnings per share for the quarter, topping analysts consensus estimates of $8.61 by $2.15. The business had revenue of $12.93 billion for the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $11.76 billion. The Goldman Sachs Group had a return on equity of 19.08% and a net margin of 31.21%. The companys quarterly revenue was down 26.9% compared to the same quarter last year. During the same period in the prior year, the company earned $18.60 EPS.

NYSE GS traded down $1.40 during trading on Friday, reaching $306.80. The companys stock had a trading volume of 2,201,054 shares, compared to its average volume of 2,585,509. The stock has a market capitalization of $105.37 billion, a PE ratio of 5.95, a P/E/G ratio of 0.63 and a beta of 1.41. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 2.47, a current ratio of 0.88 and a quick ratio of 0.88. The firm has a fifty day moving average of $322.88 and a 200 day moving average of $356.01. The Goldman Sachs Group has a one year low of $293.90 and a one year high of $426.16.

The business also recently announced a quarterly dividend, which will be paid on Wednesday, June 29th. Shareholders of record on Wednesday, June 1st will be issued a dividend of $2.00 per share. The ex-dividend date of this dividend is Tuesday, May 31st. This represents a $8.00 dividend on an annualized basis and a yield of 2.61%. The Goldman Sachs Groups dividend payout ratio is currently 15.53%.

In other news, Director Goldman Sachs Group Inc sold 123,843 shares of the stock in a transaction dated Thursday, May 19th. The shares were sold at an average price of $19.16, for a total transaction of $2,372,831.88. Following the sale, the director now directly owns 2,977,489 shares of the companys stock, valued at approximately $57,048,689.24. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the SEC, which is available at this hyperlink. Also, CEO David M. Solomon sold 9,768 shares of the firms stock in a transaction dated Tuesday, April 19th. The shares were sold at an average price of $334.57, for a total transaction of $3,268,079.76. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief executive officer now directly owns 96,467 shares in the company, valued at $32,274,964.19. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Over the last ninety days, insiders have sold 224,038 shares of company stock worth $7,373,493. Insiders own 0.57% of the companys stock.

A number of institutional investors and hedge funds have recently added to or reduced their stakes in the business. Freedom Day Solutions LLC increased its holdings in The Goldman Sachs Group by 0.9% in the 4th quarter. Freedom Day Solutions LLC now owns 3,205 shares of the investment management companys stock valued at $1,226,000 after buying an additional 29 shares during the period. Ancora Advisors LLC increased its stake in The Goldman Sachs Group by 1.2% during the 3rd quarter. Ancora Advisors LLC now owns 2,471 shares of the investment management companys stock worth $934,000 after purchasing an additional 30 shares in the last quarter. Bank of Marin increased its stake in The Goldman Sachs Group by 3.6% during the 3rd quarter. Bank of Marin now owns 872 shares of the investment management companys stock worth $330,000 after purchasing an additional 30 shares in the last quarter. Tower Wealth Partners Inc. boosted its position in The Goldman Sachs Group by 4.0% during the 3rd quarter. Tower Wealth Partners Inc. now owns 777 shares of the investment management companys stock worth $294,000 after acquiring an additional 30 shares during the last quarter. Finally, Main Street Financial Solutions LLC boosted its position in The Goldman Sachs Group by 3.0% during the 4th quarter. Main Street Financial Solutions LLC now owns 1,037 shares of the investment management companys stock worth $397,000 after acquiring an additional 30 shares during the last quarter. 71.42% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.

The Goldman Sachs Group Company Profile (Get Rating)

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc, a financial institution, provides a range of financial services for corporations, financial institutions, governments, and individuals worldwide. It operates through four segments: Investment Banking, Global Markets, Asset Management, and Consumer & Wealth Management.

Recommended Stories

Get a free copy of the Zacks research report on The Goldman Sachs Group (GS)

For more information about research offerings from Zacks Investment Research, visit Zacks.com

Receive News & Ratings for The Goldman Sachs Group Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for The Goldman Sachs Group and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

View original post here:

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) Expected to Announce Earnings of $8.65 Per Share - Defense World

Northern Ireland should be able to set its own limited income tax policy and have complete freedom over stamp duty and business tax, a report has said.

he IndependentFiscal Commission for NI was set up to consider how having more powers over taxes could help the province.

However, its chairman admitted that with no Executive in place, it could seem like an odd time to be giving advice.

Itsfinal reportmakes 23 recommendations and overall, suggests NI should gaintax powers gradually but with significant tax devolutionpossible by 2027/28.

It recommends partial devolution of income tax which would give the Assembly some control over rates and possibly come control over income tax bands, but with HMRC still administering the levy.

And if income tax is devolved, it also recommends devolving the apprenticeship levy, which is paid by companies.It also suggests completing devolution of corporation tax but in close co-operation with the UK government over how a cut to the main rate of corporation tax would be paid for.

At the moment, the only taxes NI has control over are rates, the carrier bag levy and air passenger duty (APD) on long-haul flights.

But tax devolution means NI losingout on its block grant from Westminster and in the case of long-haul APD, it has had to pay 2m a year back to the Treasuryfor its decision to zero-rate the tax to preserve a transatlantic flight in 2013.

Payment continues despite NI no longer having a long-haul connection, with the amount estimated at 2.3m in 2020/21.

The fiscal commission, which is led by economist Paul Johnson, rules out devolving other tax such ascapital gains tax, inheritance taxand stamp duty on shares.

On stamp duty land tax (SDLT), the report said: While it only raises 80mper annum, given the lower values ofproperties in Northern Ireland, relative to UK, there is a case for having different rates of SDLT inNorthern Ireland.

"As a tax on property, SDLT is well suited to devolution and has been successfullydevolved to Scotland and Wales, and significantly reformed by the Scottish Government.

Werecommend full devolution of revenues and tax powers relating to SDLT.

Mr Johnson said: Devolving additional powers would increase the accountability of the Executive to the people of Northern Ireland and provide additional tools to boost the economy, raise or reduce the taxes of local people and change behaviours.

While this period, with no Executive in place, might feel like an odd time to be launching our report, tax devolution wont happen overnight. It will require time to consider, to build consensus and to plan carefully. It is our hope that all the parties will take the opportunity to consider our report as they prepare for the resumption of devolved government.

We also recommend the full devolution of stamp duty land tax, landfill tax and air passenger duty. We recommend that if these taxes are devolved, the Executive should establish a local revenue authority to administer them.

"This will increase the accountability of local politicians in respect of these taxes and provide for greater policy flexibility and innovation, while also building institutional capacity in Northern Ireland.

And in the longer term, it said that there would be value in the NI Executive seeking devolution of excise duties for fuel, alcohol and tobacco.

But Mr Johnson saidthere were pros and cons to fiscal devolution. If revenues were to grow more slowly than in the rest of the UK then Northern Ireland could lose out.

However, some tax devolution could be an important step towards a more accountable devolved government for the people of Northern Ireland.

Finance Minister Conor Murphy said the report identified potential benefits from greater local control of taxation.

It would give us more options to grow the economy, raise revenue for public services, and encourage the transition to zero carbon, he said.

"This report provides a solid evidence base to start a public conversation on tax and will enable a future Executive to consider how fiscal matters could be best managed here.

Read more here:

'Give Northern Ireland Assembly more tax powers,' report says - Belfast Telegraph

Conservative Party leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre speaks to journalists on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Feb. 16.BLAIR GABLE/Reuters

The gatekeepers were reunited in one of their favourite spaces: the ballroom of the Ottawas Chateau Laurier hotel. Tuesdays Politics and the Pen gala was the first major opportunity for politicians, journalists and corporate sponsors to enjoy each others company since the lifting of pandemic restrictions. But there was a shadow in the room.

The scuttlebutt is that Pierre Poilievre has signed up so many new members that he could win the Conservative leadership race on the first ballot.

Even worse, people murmured over their drinks, the Carleton MP could win the next election, unless the Liberals find a way to re-energize their tired government. The MAGA wars are coming to Canada. Trumpists have arrived among us. The Conservative Party is turning into the Republican Party.

Nonsense.

Mr. Poilievre will almost certainly win the Conservative Party leadership; he may very well become prime minister. If he does, some people in that room may lose their jobs as he trims the bureaucracy, slashes regulations and cuts funding to the CBC and other media.

But Poilievreism, or whatever we end up calling it, is not Trumpism. Not even close. If you need proof, check out last weeks Conservative leadership debate.

Moderator Tom Clark asked the candidates whether they agree with the Liberal governments policy of increasing the annual immigration intake to more than 400,000.

We need the work force, frankly, Mr. Poilievre replied, but when we bring immigrants here we need to make sure they have the freedom to own a home by getting rid of the gatekeepers that prevent housing construction and the freedom to work in their field by getting rid of the gatekeepers that prevent them from getting licences in their professions and trades. So I will get rid of the gatekeepers and give them that opportunity.

Canada isnt vulnerable to same forces that could imperil abortion access. Heres why

Why Pierre Poilievre should reconsider his rhetoric about firing the Bank of Canada Governor

If both the Conservatives and the Liberals support the developed worlds most robust immigration policy, then just how polarized has politics really become? The answer is: not very.

Of course there is racism in this country, and acts of violence based on racial hatred. As Huda Idrees wrote in this paper, the evil of so-called replacement theory is alive and well in Canada. If we cannot acknowledge that the problem exists within our own borders, we have no hopes of tamping it out.

But Mr. Poilievre knows that no one becomes prime minister without the support of immigrant voters. His campaign actively courts visible-minority communities. At rallies where the population of the community is diverse, the crowd at the rally is also diverse.

It is true he supported the protests that paralyzed Ottawa last winter, and some of those protesters were white nationalists. But I can find no instance when Mr. Poilievre has criticized multicultural diversity. Members of his campaign staff and caucus supporters are racial minorities. Some are LGBTQ.

Sometimes he goes too far. He spouted offensive remarks about First Nations needing to embrace the values of hard work and independence and self-reliance on the very day in 2008 that Stephen Harper apologized for the abuse of First Nations children at residential schools. Mr. Poilievre later apologized for his remarks.

He says things he must know arent true.

Finance officials were impressed by his grasp of fiscal and monetary policy when they briefed him in his role as finance critic. So when Mr. Poilievre goes on about the Bank of Canada being solely responsible for inflation, and crypto currencies being an effective hedge against it, hes talking through his hat. He knows the World Economic Forum is not the conspiratorial cabal some of his supporters believe it is, but he caters to their fears regardless.

Most Conservative leaders run to the right to win the leadership and then pivot to the centre for the election. Mr. Poilievres challenge will be to pivot to sane from crazy.

But many Canadians are angry at the indifference of elites in Ottawa. People struggle to find a house that hasnt been priced out of reach; to fill the tank; to pay for groceries. Many of them blame the indifference of the people in the Chateau Laurier ballroom to their struggle.

Mr. Poilievre gets that. A lot of people in that ballroom dont. Theyre afraid of him. They should be.

For subscribers: Get exclusive political news and analysis by signing up for the Politics Briefing.

Read this article:

Pierre Poilievre gets what many others do not - The Globe and Mail

The Memorial University student who has faced disciplinary action after holding a silent protest last December is now taking the university to court.

Matthew Barter, a 25-year-old political science undergrad and activist, filed an application with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Tuesday asking the court to quash Memorials decision to place him on non-academic probation for one year and require him to attend a seminar on bullying and harassment.

The court document, filed by Barters lawyer Kyle Rees, reveals for the first time new details surrounding Memorials response to an external investigation into Barters December 2 protest at a joint university-government announcementand into an alleged pattern of problematic behaviour from Barter the university is using to justify its sanctions against him.

In a February 28 report, the St. Johns lawyer who conducted the investigation upheld the universitys position that Barter had violated sections of Memorials student code of conduct that prohibit bullying and harassment, and the disruption of events.

Kim Horwood noted, however, that it was unclear whether the rules had been fairly applied to Barter, and that she believes Barter did not intend to violate the code in the course of his protest. She recommended that the university lift its sanctions against Barter, which had included a ban from parts of campus and a requirement to report to security when he arrived on campus to attend classes. During the investigation the university lifted some of the measures but continued to prohibit Barter from attending extracurricular activities.

Horwood recommended that Memorial require Barter to refrain from personal attacks in future and to refrain from protesting inside any class, meeting or event.

During his December 2 protest against what he has characterized as Memorial President Vianne Timmons fiscal mismanagement of the university, Barter affixed a small paper stop sign-like poster that read Stop Vianne and no to tuition hikes and out of control spending to the front of the podium where Timmons was speaking. Without saying anything, and wearing a non-medical safety mask, he then stood a few feet to Timmons left and held up an identical sign.

Memorial Director of Student Life Jennifer Browne, in a March 18 letter to Barter, justified the new sanctions against Barter in part due to the nature of the complaints, the impact of the conduct on others, your past Code violations, and your behaviour during and after the investigation. Barter appealed the decision internally but the person tasked with adjudicating the appeal, then-Marine Institute Registrar Leslie Noftall, upheld Brownes conclusions.

However, former MUNL Provost and Vice President (Academic) Noreen Golfman, herself a subject of Barters past protests, is speaking out in the students defense.

I think this is a real overreach here, Golfman told The Independent in a phone interview Thursday.

Barter, a former executive member of the universitys student union and an active blogger who is routinely critical of the administrations fiscal management of the university, maintains the university is targeting him because it doesnt like his messages or methods of protest, and that the effort to silence him is an attack on his Charter right of freedom of expression.

Though Barters application to the court doesnt explicitly invoke Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Rees says that since Memorials student code of conduct makes an exception for peaceful demonstrations and silent or symbolic protest, we will be suggesting that the administration failed to interpret that correctly in light of Charter principles.

In his written complaint to Browne on December 8, McDougall describes patterns of behaviour he says include targeting senior female leadership and other employees of the University; a history of aggression, intimidation []; and despite repeated warnings to him, his refusal to change his actions. McDougall says those patterns suggest his actions can be volatile and unpredictable, and which have led individuals within the Memorial community to feel threatened in the workplace.

McDougall cites incidents dating back to 2018, including conversations at the Provosts Office in which panic buttons were deployed for fear of personal safety by female office staff, and to which Campus Enforcement and Patrol had to respond.

Barter previously told The Independent that Golfman had agreed during a public budget consultation that she would meet with him to discuss concerns he had about the universitys fiscal management. When he later attended her office to request the meeting, Barter says he was told she would not meet with him. He said he was frustrated at the time but peaceful in his interactions.

On Thursday Golfman disputed Memorials characterization of Barter as deliberately targeting women.

I just dont buy it, she said, explaining she never once felt Barters protests against her as a senior administrator were personal or that they had a sexist or misogynistic element. I just never felt that, she said. Golfman noted that much of Barter and the Memorial student unions attention at the time was focused on the salaries of senior administrators, including then-President Gary Kachanoski. He was a kind of equal opportunity activist as far as I was concerned.

During the budget consultation in question, Golfman said Barter interrupted her and disrupted the meeting. I knew where he was coming from, but I didnt personally feel threatened by him. It was for me more annoyance and frustration.

She said that when she arrived at her office the following morning she shared her frustration with some of her staff about Matts behaviour during the consultation. Then, when Barter arrived at her office unannounced to request the meeting, Golfman said she was already in another meeting. While she cant speak for how her staff felt at the time, she said Barters unconventional route of just showing up and demanding to see me then [] I think that kind of freaked them out, she explained.

I think they were thrown off guard or unnerved by him just showing up, which is kind of not the way what theyre used to.

Barter says his previous code of conduct violation is in relation to a 2017 dispute between him and another former student union executive member, which led to the resignation of the other student from the union. The two filed complaints against each other, and documents reviewed by The Independent confirm that both were found to be in violation of the code for bullying, intimidating or harassing another person.

The documents show that Barters sanction included working with a counselor in the areas of effective communication and conflict resolution, while the other individual was required to apologize to Barter for disclosing personal information regarding his disability on social media and to remove the post.

Barter is on the autism spectrum. He says that in response to the student code violation he attended the session with a counselor and the two spoke about autism and effective communication. He says he doesnt recall any element of the conversation related to gender, and that he left feeling it was worthwhile.

In a post published to his blog in March, Barter accuses the university of trying to present him as dangerous and unhinged without any supporting facts. These are disablist stereotypes and could have a chilling effect on other students with disabilities participating in protest actions on campus.

Barter argues in his court application that while Browne, Horwood and Noftall, all of whom are named in the filing, based their judgements in part on McDougalls references to past incidents, no evidence was provided in relation to the incidents referenced by McDougall in his complaint. As a result, Barter had no opportunity to address them.

They also identify what they say are two dozen other errors made in the complaint, investigation and sanctioning processes. Among those errors, they claim, Horwood and Browne attached an unreasonable amount of significance to a single witness subjective experience about how they were impacted by Barters December 2 protest, while Horwood failed to consider interviewees Barter offered to propose and instead interviewed those suggested by the university.

During the investigation, Deneice Falconer, an employee of the university who was present at the December 2 announcement testified that she was panicked and shocked that Barter put the sign on the podium, and that she felt Barters attack on Timmons was personal and disrespectful. Because she didnt know Barter, she said she was quite alarmed and had no idea what this stranger might do next, Horwood writes in her report.

Explaining her finding that Barter violated the code where it prohibits disruption of events, Horwood says the degree of discomfort that employee felt during Barters protest is an indication that Barter substantially interfered with the purpose of the event.

The Independent reached out to Falconer for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Leading civil liberties experts have suggested that Memorials treatment of Barter could represent an infringement of his charter rights.

Effective protest always makes people feel uncomfortable, Toronto Metropolitan University Centre for Free Expression Director Jim Turk said in a recent interview. Its when that protest crosses the line and inflicts bodily harm on them or prevents people from speaking or people from hearing that it crosses the line at the university. But he did none of those things.

Golfman said she was contacted by Horwood and asked if she would be willing to speak with her for the investigation. Golfman responded affirmatively, but then was never summoned for an interview. She said she agrees with Turks point that protests are intended to make people uncomfortable.

The Independent asked Memorial University for comment in response to Barters court challenge.

This matter is now with the university lawyers and will be dealt with accordingly. Thats all we have to say right now, David Sorensen, Memorials manager of communications, responded in an email.

Barter says he wants the sanctions reversed because they could hurt him and any future opportunities he may otherwise have.

But its also about the principle of protest and freedom of expression, he adds, and how it can set a precedent and make it difficult for students to protest.

Follow Justin on Twitter.

Did you enjoy this article? Fund more like it, and support thefuture of journalism in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Justin Brake (he/him) is an independent journalist from Newfoundland who currently lives on unceded Algonquin territory in Ottawa.

Read more here:

Student Taking MUNL to Court Over Punishment for Protest The Independent - TheIndependent.ca