It was a sunny spring day in Indian-administered Kashmir, and after more than three and a half years of visits to courts and police stations, they had received good news - Asif Sultan, a journalist, husband, father and son, had been granted bail.
The BBC has spent more than a year investigating accusations against the Indian government that it is running a sinister and systematic campaign to intimidate and silence the press in the region.
Journalists say the Indian government is trying to shut down reporting related to separatist movements and militant groups, but also any coverage critical of the security forces or the administration, even on day-to-day civic issues.
That’s when India revoked the region’s special status and divided the country’s only Muslim majority state into two territories which are now controlled by the national government led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
In a region ridden by conflict, one space where journalists could meet freely, discuss stories and share their anxieties was the Kashmir Press Club in central Srinagar.
Over the past decade, all of India has witnessed a serious decline in press freedom, which is reflected in global rankings, cases against journalists and raids against media houses.
The original article contains 2,173 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 91%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Plenty of good or interesting points being made by both sides so I appreciate the conversations. I’m not too sure of what the problem is though when the discussion and article mostly revolves around public spaces. Usually there are gathering/event requirements around anything that constitutes pyrotechnics or the use of fire in a performance as that can be a hazard and special precautions need to be followed (fire extinguishers, etc). I’m not too sure about the laws currently on the books of most countries but I doubt many places allow you to just walk up to a street corner and start a fire whether the item you’re burning is your property or not.
I’m also confused on the double standard of what constitutes public or private when it comes to online media. I think this is something that needs to be fleshed out more in this day and age. For instance the article references a current law Denmark has on the books,
The ban is expected to be added to a section of the criminal code that bans public insult of a foreign state, its flag or other symbol.
Is social media/the internet a public space? If so, does posting a video recorded on private property and then uploading it to said online public space nullify the private property? I’ve seen a lot of people use this double standard only when it benefits them. For instance, if you typed out something online that’s considered “free speech” but violates civil law because of it’s context then they are in the wrong. On the flip side, if you record a video of someone having a conversation at a private backyard bbq and upload it, has the person broken a law when they weren’t in “public” during the recording?
The ban above is a great example to use. I, myself, feel like the criminal code goes a little too far with no public insults of a foreign state. How does that work out with the scenario I presented when the video gets released. I’m not sure if the criminal code even touches on the digital aspect of it, or who is at fault (the uploader, the person making the statements, or the hosting site).
Another ironic stance I’m seeing is the freedom/protection of expression being used to allow the public burning of books and condemning those who are against it. There are specific and recognized groups which receive protections under the law from discrimination and targeting of hate speech (the Denmark suggested law also covers bibles so it’s not just a Quran issue). Are we picking and choosing who these protections are allowed for based on our opinion on whether we agree with them or not?
For example if religious text burning is allowed for a public display, are all forms of expression then allowed? Burning a cross in front of an historically African American church, burning a pride flag at a pride march, burning baby dolls in front of an abortion clinic, political rivals, medical clinics that perform care for transitioning, hell even nazis burning disney shit outside of disney world?
If you’re of the belief that all of this should be allowed under the umbrella of freedom of speech/expression, what do you feel should be the governments stance on protection of it’s citizens from harassment in public spaces? Should the government even address these problems, or is it the same as no one should expect privacy in a public space so therefor expect persecution and harassment as well? How does this not effect businesses and organizations from being targeted with hostile forces? I’m reminded of the civil rights era, groups of white nationalists armed and congregating outside of a business to intimidate anyone of color from using the premises or social services. Groups will maintain these tactics and multiply if there is no resistance from a governmental stance, this will only heighten confrontations when opposing groups are formed to combat these scenarios leading to civil unrest, physical harm/altercations, and potentially death of innocent bystanders if something were to escalate.
I am not of any of those targeted groups, not a policy maker, and have an indifferent stance so I’m open to honest debate on everyone’s side. I also feel like the remarks made by OIC needs to be investigated,
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called on its members to take appropriate action against countries where the Quran was being desecrated.
Any group that can be seen as calling for harm to members of that countries population should have legal ramifications in that country, but I’m unsure of what they mean when they say “appropriate action” which is why I said it should be investigated further.
Embassies are especially fair game (outside the grounds and in a safe fashion) . A protest in private is no protest at all.
So when the taliban make it illegal for women to go to school, citing the Quran….While I don’t think fire is the right thing to do, I absolutely agree it is a right to burn shit somewhere in front of the afghan embassy. If that includes a flag or religious text owned by the protestor, so be it.
However, people have the right to physically gain access to the buildings of use (service, home, food, etc) and safety first. Blah blah blah.
In general, the state should read public protest as a sign that local democratically elected officials are not aligning with the values of their constituents.
I don’t know about upholding time honored traditions, seems contradictory and subjective to me when your later stance includes an example of the Quran (another time honored tradition you don’t agree with). I don’t agree with making it illegal for anyone to attend school so it seems like a double edge sword that’s based solely on a personal morality which is hard to codify for an entire population.
I also agree a private protest is no protest at all, but it becomes complicated when you’re targeting a religious group’s texts just because bad faith actors are using it for control. Even burning their flag seems weird when it’s not the people of that country making the decisions but by the administration in charge (I’m not sure on what the target for the protest should be then in that case though).
Constitutionally you have to make a decision, I believe this has been debated and somewhat agreed upon though that access to a happy life (access to healthcare and freedom of religion) is more important than the right to “burn shit” as one has been documented and burning is not mentioned in most or any constitutions. Though freedom of expression is, which again becomes complicated when that expression is wished to be expressed through destruction of property (public/private). Again, I don’t have a particular stance on this subject but just pointing out contradictions in the arguments to better understand the ideology behind everyone’s thoughts.
The government of Mozambique says its armed forces have killed the leader of a jihadist group linked to Islamic State which is fighting in the north of the country.
Two years ago, the US state department designated Omar as a terrorist leader, blaming him for attacks in Cabo Delgado province, including the killing of dozens of people at a hotel in Palma.
A month before that, Mozambique’s military launched a major offensive against the Islamists with the support of hundreds of soldiers from Rwanda and several southern African countries.
According to the government, Omar and two associates from the Islamic State-linked group were killed in a forest in Macomia in an operation carried out with the army’s foreign allies.
The gas and ruby-rich province of Cabo Delgado has been a magnet for Islamists seeking to exploit its lucrative natural resources.
Rights groups say since the conflict began more than five years ago, civilians have suffered horrendous abuses from government security forces and jihadist fighters.
The original article contains 296 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 45%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Man, I can’t help myself comparing this to the opening of The Dark Knight Rises (that one guy injected Dr. Pavel’s blood/DNA, and then sacrifices himself).
This is ONLY the 677th time I’ve seen this posted in the last two days…Can someone do me a favor and post it 349 more times just so we’ve all seen it more than a couple of times.
bbc.co.uk
Top