A leading Chinese university deleted the phrase freedom of thought from its charter and added a clause pledging allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party, The Washington Post reported.

The changes to Fudan Universitys charter come amid a widespread crackdown on freedoms of expression in China. Some students and graduates protested the changes.

The former version of Fudan's charter asserts that the educational philosophy of the university is academic independence and freedom of thought as extolled in the university anthem.

The revised version states, The university upholds the motto of Rich in Knowledge and Tenacious of Purpose; Inquiring with Earnestness and Reflecting with Self-practice. We promote the spirit of unity, service and sacrifice, practice earnestly patriotic dedication, academic independence, pursuit of excellence.

Another section of the revised charter states that Fudan adheres to the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party and will fully implement the party's educational policy.

See the original post:

Chinese University Drops 'Freedom of Thought' From Charter - Inside Higher Ed

What a difference a year makes. Today marks the one-year anniversary of the first protests that would eventually topple the brutal dictatorship of Sudanese President Omar al Bashir. Marked by corruption and violence, Bashir ruled Sudan for 30 years after a 1989 military coup brought him to power. Following Bashirs ouster in April, demonstrators faced down the military and security services before securing a power-sharing agreement that will allow a transitional government to rule the country until democratic elections in 2022.

Such an outcome seemed nearly unthinkable only a year ago. And while there are well-founded concerns that the military and security services may yet try to revert the country to authoritarian rule, there is also room for optimism as the transitional government continues to forge a path towards a democratic and inclusive Sudan.

Sudans Path towards Democracy

On Dec. 19, 2018, protests began in the city of Atbara, where the removal of a subsidy tripled the price of bread and sparked public outrage. The protests quickly spread throughout the country as demonstrators shifted their focus to removing Bashir and his deeply corrupt government from power. In the capital Khartoum, demonstrators organized massive marches and began a peaceful sit-in near the military headquarters. The regime fought back through harassment and violence. But the demonstrators would not be deterred and the military and security apparatus that Bashir relied on for years decided that he had become a liability and removed him from power on April 11.

However, Bashirs removal alone did not satisfy the demonstrators, who remained in the streets and at the sit-in, refusing to disperse until the military relinquished power and agreed to civilian rule. This stalemate led to an increasingly tense standoff that culminated in a June 3 massacre, where military and security forces launched a concerted attack against peaceful protesters that killed more than 100 people and left many more injured. Even after this horrendous attack, which Human Rights Watch recently concluded amounted to war crimes, the demonstrators refused to cede power to these forces and again took to the streets in a huge protest on June 30.

Surprised by the resiliency of the demonstrators, and coupled with strong pressure from the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, and other countries, as well as the United Nations and the African Union, the military leadership relented, and on July 4 agreed to a power-sharing arrangement that created a transitional government to lead the country until democratic elections in 39 months. On Aug. 17, the transitional government put forth sweeping reform plans through a political agreement and Constitutional Declaration, which will help guide the countrys move towards democracy.

As incredible as these events were and as heartening as this transition towards democratic rule has been, much work remains before this transformation is complete. In addition to concerns that the military may reverse course and attempt to reestablish an authoritarian state, the Sudanese economy remains in crisis after decades of misrule and corruption. Economic conditions are unlikely to improve considerably until the United States removes Sudan from its State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) List. Inclusion on this list makes Sudan ineligible for debt relief from the World Bank and certain types of financing from the International Monetary Fund. It also stifles investment and economic development. Accordingly, Sudanese Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok has made Sudans removal from the SST List his highest foreign policy objective and championed removal while visiting Washington earlier this month.

Welcome to Washington and about that List

Since Bashirs ouster, the United States has taken significant steps to support the civilian leadership and improve bilateral relations with Sudan. Most notably, on Dec. 4, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States and Sudan plan to exchange ambassadors for the first time in 23 years. This announcement occurred during Prime Minister Hamdoks visit to Washington in early December, where he met with David Hale, undersecretary for political affairs, and members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Hamdok also participated in an event at the Atlantic Council where he outlined his vision for Sudans transition to a democratic country. Hamdoks visit was meaningful in and of itself, as it marked the first visit by a Sudanese head of state to Washington since 1985.

Sudan has been on the SST List since 1993 when the Clinton administration designated the country a state sponsor of terrorism. The transitional government has pressed for Sudans removal from the list, but the State Department has said only that it may remove Sudan and that the U.S.-Sudanese relationship is no longer an adversarial one. The Sudanese government clearly hoped for a more favorable outcome and a more definitive timeframe for its removal. On Nov. 15, U.S. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Tibor Nagy removed any doubt that SST delisting or sanctions removal was imminent. Nagy stated the Trump administration is not committed to lifting sanctions, but only that it hopes to do so provided the transitional government meets the administrations conditions. Nonetheless, Nagy noted the hardships that the sanctions are causing the Sudanese people. As things stand, there is no clear timeframe for this decision and Congress would need to approve the decision to remove Sudan. Sudan also faces U.S. sanctions from 1997 and 2007, although most of these were lifted in 2017 and 2018.

Given the previous regime and the ongoing transition, U.S. officials are right to be cautious before normalizing relations with Sudan. However, keeping Sudan on the SST List also carries risks and may undermine the countrys best chance at meaningful reform in decades. As the Atlantic Councils Cameron Hudson notes, while U.S. officials are correct to fear that the military will reassert itself and that Sudan will again become an authoritarian state, delaying the lifting of the remaining economic sanctions also risks turning this possibility into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hudson has argued for removing the remaining sanctions previously, concluding that without a democracy dividend, the lingering elements of the former regime will maintain power.

The economic difficulties within Sudan are hard to overstate and the longer the countrys economic crisis continues, the more likely that the Sudanese people will lose patience with the transitional government and the greater the risk that the remnants of the Bashir regime will feel emboldened to act. Several states, including France, Egypt, and Qatar, as well as the U.N. Secretary-General Antnio Guterres have pushed the U.S. to remove Sudan from the SST list. The African Union also urged the international community to lift all remaining sanctions on Sudan. Likewise, a wide array of Sudanese civil society members, human rights activists, academics, and professionals have urged the U.S. to remove Sudan from the SST list, arguing that the continued designation undermines the current government while also punishing it for the crimes of the Bashir regime.

Still, removing Sudan from the SST List will not provide an immediate fix to the economy, just as lifting the U.S. sanctions in 2017 did not transform the Sudanese economy overnight. However, it will help the reformists by allowing the country to pursue debt relief and regional trade and investment opportunities. It will also help the government address corruption. One particularly good idea is to convene a pledging conference to mobilize donors and investors and focus recovery efforts. Finally, removing the SST designation now does not mean that the United States could not reverse course and reapply the designation should conditions change to warrant this action. Likewise, a conditional lifting of the SST designation in return for an action that demonstrates the governments willingness to reform the military and security sector is also a possibility. In contrast, doing nothing and keeping these financial restrictions in place weakens the possibility of a democratic transition and strengthens the position of the military and security forces.

Bashir and the Armed Opposition

Another looming question is the fate of Bashir. After his ouster, Sudanese officials placed Bashir under house arrest before taking him to Kober prison, a maximum-security facility where he once sent his political opponents. On Dec. 14, Bashir received a two-year sentence for corruption stemming from the millions of dollars in various currencies found at his home during his arrest. Earlier last week, Bashir faced questioning for his role in the 1989 coup that brought him to power. He also faces charges for his role in the killing of demonstrators last May.

The much weightier issue is whether Bashir will stand trial for his role in the atrocities committed in Darfur. The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Bashir for crimes against humanity in 2009 and genocide in 2010. During his rule, Bashir made a point of flouting the ICC, particularly by traveling to states that did not have a legal obligation to arrest him and sometimes to those that did. The Ministry of Justice has yet to decide whether to extradite Bashir to the ICC.

Public opinion remains somewhat mixed over whether the transitional government should extradite Bashir. The Forces for Freedom and Change Coalition that spearheaded the demonstrations leading to Bashirs ouster support his extradition. Unsurprisingly, former members of Bashirs National Congress Party (NCP) oppose it, while civil society tends to support extradition. Publicly, military officials have said that they oppose surrendering Bashir. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the head of the Sovereign Council and the de facto leader of the military block of the transitional government opposes extradition and argues that a Sudanese court could try the ousted leader. However, many well-positioned military and security figures are implicated in some of the same crimes as Bashir, and may wish to see the autocrat removed from the country.

Such well-positioned figures include Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as Hemeti, who is by far the most controversial figure on the 11-person Sovereign Council representing the transitional government. Hemeti is also perhaps the most powerful (and feared) person in Sudan. He leads the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and like Bashir is connected to numerous atrocities in Darfur. Many witnesses blame the June 3 massacre on the RSF and accuse the group of committing mass rapes during the attacks. The RSF is also involved in illegal gold mining and smuggling operations in Darfur, where Hemeti owns or controls several lucrative mines, and in selling weapons to armed groups in the Central African Republic, threatening a fragile peace process in that country. For civilian rule to take hold, Hamdok and the reformists must outmaneuver Hemeti by winning poplar support and stabilizing the economy.

A related question is what role the opposition groups that took up arms against the government will have in post-Bashir Sudan. The Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), an umbrella organization composed of three of the four significant armed groups in Darfur, as well as the largest armed group in South Kordofan and Blue Nile (the Two Areas), formed a unified delegation to meet with the transitional government this month. These discussions resumed last Friday and followed an initial meeting in October. The power-sharing agreement gives the transitional government until February to conclude a peace agreement with these groups.

While mostly in-step with the civilian leadership of the transitional government, one important difference is the priority given to securing a formal peace agreement to the conflicts in Darfur and the Two Areas and the creation of a transitional parliament. In a November meeting with U.S. Special Envoy Donald Booth, the SRF stated that a peace agreement should precede the formation of a transitional parliament, while the Forces for Freedom and Change announced that it will form a transitional parliament as soon as the Constitutional Declaration allows.

Bashirs extradition is also a sticking point. These armed groups insist on surrendering Bashir to the ICC, as SRF Spokesperson Osama Said stated that the prompt surrender of Bashir to the ICC is a red line that is not negotiable.

Legal Reform and the Gray Zone

In late November, the transitional government enacted two key legal reforms, dissolving the NCP and repealing public order laws used to oppress women. To date, these acts are the most significant accomplishment of the transitional government and provide reason for optimism for the countrys move towards democratic rule.

The dissolution of Bashirs party removed the entity that lent Bashir the support to loot the state over three decades of misrule. The law that disbanded the NCP allows the government to seize the partys assets and is part of a broader push to dismantle the architecture of the former regime. The law also bars those holding leadership positions within the NCP from participating in political activities for the next 10 years.

The repeal of odious public order laws is equally important. Under Bashirs rule, government officials employed public order laws to harass, intimidate, and oppress women. These sweeping laws allowed morality police to exercise control over nearly all aspects of womens lives and to deny women their basic human rights. Officials targeted women for how they dressed, where they went, and what they said. Punishments were intended not just to harm, but also to humiliate. Here, the most notable example is public flogging. Though employed only sporadically, this punishment remained a possibility and acted as a severe chilling effect on womens ability to enjoy fundamental freedoms. Providing a much-needed improvement to womens rights, this legal reform meets a key demand of the demonstrators.

On a recent trip to Sudan, Rebecca Hamilton wrote, One can dream of a Hollywood script: The people overthrow the dictator, every remnant of his regime disappears, and democracy takes hold overnight. But in the real world there is a prolonged period of navigating a gray zone. Thus far, the transitional government has successfully negotiated the challenges of this gray zone. Its most impressive accomplishments are the legal and political reforms that move the country closer to the inclusive democratic state that the demonstrators insisted upon. However, the transitional government remains fragile and perhaps more than anything else, the economic situation must improve to sustain the move towards democracy. And although not a panacea, removing Sudan from the SST list will provide an important win for the transitional government, both reassuring the Sudanese people of its ability to deliver results and allowing critical economic reforms to begin.

Originally posted here:

Freedom, Peace, and Justice: The Surprising Success of Sudan's Glorious Revolution - Just Security

Pixabay.

This is an excerpted chapter fromThe Purpose of Capital: Elements of Impact, Financial Flows and Natural Being.

What professors mean by the phrase highest and best use is that dierent types of capital seek dierent levels of nancial return in exchange for various levels of assumed risk and liquidity lock ups. Capitals highest and best use is to seek that combination of highest nancial return and lowest assumption of risk possible to optimize nancial returns. The thinking is that xed incomedebt, bonds and various forms of lending secured by an underlying asset and rst position in the event of bankruptcyare understood to generate levels of lower nancial gain in exchange for lower levels of assumed risk exposure. Equities (public or private) carry greater risk and therefore will seekand deservehigher nancial return in exchange for that increased risk exposure. In creating a portfolio of investments, one deploys a certain amount of capital into various types of investment instruments across an array of asset classes to achieve the overall returns a portfolio needs to reach the investors goals, some investors being more or less risk averse than others in their pursuit of total nancial returns for any given portfolio.

All of itthe notion of capital, the metrics by which we divide and track the performance of that capital, and the measures by which we assess its volatility, risk, and nancial returnsis merely a conceptual framework upon which one set of actors has come to agree and with which we all must nally come to terms. In dening parameters of nancial performance, we state capital seeks its highest and best use and in that way are asked to embrace a nancial faith that believes capital itself to be neutral; it is viewed as assuming no moral, social or other character. Capital is considered as existing within some Swiss neutrality until being released in pursuit of its own highest and best use as dened by the asset owner or asset owner in collaboration with an advisor, but it does so outside of any consideration or assessment of social, ethical or probative value.

Folks in mainstream nance take this point very seriously. As previously discussed, I recall one conversation with a good colleague of mine who became downright incensed when I stated the run up in the public markets over the months since Trumps inauguration to be immoral since it represented investors greed in anticipating a President who would roll back taxes, environmental protections, and pretty much everything else save defense spending. My friend became as emotional as Id ever seen him, exclaiming, Markets are amoral.They merely exist; they just are.

Within this frame, capital is viewed as a vehicle, or again, more accurately, a transparent social construct weve created as a proxy for a reality we have built in our world; a fact based upon materialism expressed in economic terms to the exclusion of social or environmental considerations. As described elsewhere in this document, it is a reality understood to be rational, quantitative and objective, while review of social and ecological aspects of our world have traditionally been interpreted as subjective, qualitative and eetingand therefore existing outside a logical framework of economics and nancein some ways, outside of reason itself. (Give up nancial return for greater equity and justice? Why, thats just crazy!! Who would leave money on the table for someone else to benet?? Who would do that??)

We have the hidden potential to invest in good or badbut at any one time, we and what we come in contact with is empty and neutral regarding whether or not the object under observation becomes good or bad. One could say, therefore, at risk of sounding like an NRA commercial, capital is viewed as neutralit is a tool, a vehicle through which we may pursue something or bring something about. Its relative quality, its essence, comes not from what it is but rather what it becomes as a result of our putting it into motion, our releasing its energy upon the world. Accordingly, our ad would be along the lines of: Capital Investing doesnt kill peoplepeople kill people!or something like that?!

As has been said, it is not money that is evil, but rather the love of money. It is how we manage, deploy and utilize capital in the world that it manifests as good or bad or degrees in between. However, I would argue capital markets, in reecting the character of those within them, do also assume that character (and therefore, if humanity is greedy, then capital markets are greedyif immoral, they are then to my mind, immoral). The irony in all this is that of the well known phrase, Markets function in response to one of two things: fear and greed. Well, if that is true are not these both examples of human, social emotions? But for now lets accept the premise that markets simply reect the values and practices of those within them and move on to the next part of our discussion, that of the social foundations of capital.

It is within a conceptual framework, inside this intellectual boundary set of what we take for a collective reality, that we dene what is true for us, in this timethat capital and by extension capital markets reect the purpose were driving toward and how we will understand whether we have achieved that purpose. And we as a society recognize the use of capital as author and environmentalist Jerry Mander presents it:

Our society is characterized by an inability to leave anything in nature alone. Every piece of land, every creature, every mineral in the oceans, every growing plant, every mountain, every inch of desert is examined for its potential contribution to commercial development and exploitation, and to the expansion of technological society. Even the essential building blocks of naturethe atom, the proton, the electronare subject to commercial scrutiny. Where science can intervene, science does so; corporations then package the process and sell it.1

Many asset owners accept without question nancial performance, that which we seek to do with our wealth, as its fundamental purpose, as simply a question of preserving and generating greater amounts of itself. The purpose of capital is to grow exponentially over time and increase its value in the form of nancial wealth. To win is to generate more wealth whereas to lose is to reduce the amount of capital under our immediate control. We fear nothing more than societys cold description of our selves or our progeny as having trod the well-worn path from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in but three generations, as the saying goes. The only measure of not only our capital but also our performance is the amount with which we began versus that with which we conclude our journey at lifes end or the greater overall economic value we generate in the course of a life. The purpose of money is to be applied to its preservation and growth; any other outcome is a shame and a disgraced result of our entrepreneurial inabilities or duciary failures. Within this mindset, the purpose of capital is to make more capital.

By extension, many impact investors, with their commitment to doing well and good, enter the arena of capital considerations with the understanding their investments must rst and foremost generate market rate, risk adjusted nancial returns, together with the creation of social and environmental value. Some embrace this goal to convince traditional, mainstream investors focused solely upon nancial performance that the pursuit of social value does not have to be at the expense of nancial return, because as just stated, to end with less capital than one started with is assumed to be failure. Others embrace this notion of doing well as a possible way of preventing the potential loss of their capital, viewing consideration of impact factors as a form of risk mitigation. These asset owners do not want to be the ones who lost the family fortune on their watch or may not trust their capacity to create other forms of value in the world and so hold fast to this notion of nancial return as the sole measure of their worldly worth or goal as duciary.

That said, one must still ask what the highest and best use of capital indeed isits ultimate purpose and not that measured by nancial performance alone. If one does believe capital to be merely a value-neutral demonstration of nancial performance within an exclusively economic framework, then our inquiry should conclude and be done. With the pride of the Chicago School, Milton Friedman (and perhaps, Friedrich Hayek) beaming down upon them, the current and historic practices of asset owners, mainstream nancial advisors, fund managers and investment institutions may be celebrated and armed, whilst any notion of social value as commensurate with monetary value rightly turned aside and, having been briey considered, now placed in a wholly subordinate position to the goal of maximizing nancial returns to asset owners of all stripe and nature.

However, if one accepts the idea that capital is itself a neutral substance, void of moral or social considerations, and if we take as valid the idea that capital only assumes the measure of social attention we are willing to assign it, then the phrase the asset owner is the market is, in fact, correct and each investor is free to dene the character, nancial terms and any other parameters of capital as she sees t. The mainstream, institutional, Wall Street and Chicago School denitions are merely thatthe descriptions of institutional and social lemmings driven to the edge by warped crowd wisdom, seeking to organize themselves to squelch consideration of social or environmental factors and squeeze such notions right out of any nancial deal. But if capital is neutral, we must embrace an understanding of the purpose of wealth as being whatever we see t to assign it, with us each free to rene our denitions, boundaries, and parameters as we like.

Each age is also then free to dene the purpose of capital, its highest and best use, as it prefers. And we must acknowledge it is in each age, culture, and nation, that such has been the case. The aberration rests not with the past, but the present for in the past the purpose of capital was in points of history and within certain communities broadly understood to be that of service to society, to family and, lastly, to self.

Notes:

See more here:

The Gift of Fire: The Purpose of Capital as Freedom - Nonprofit Quarterly

In the Ayn Rand Institutes 2019 annual report, Onkar Ghate explains how ARI is uniquely positioned to succeed in the worldwide battle for individual freedom. Alone among pro-freedom institutions, Ghate observes, ARI understands that philosophy determines long-term trends in any culture. Thats why the Institutes activities, including New Ideal, are aimed at making a difference in the long game, by injecting the right philosophic ideals reason, individualism, capitalism into our civilizations lifeblood. Join us. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member.

When the Ayn Rand Institute was established in 1985, its founders understood they were playing the long game. ARIs founding documents quote Rand herself: The present state of the world is not the proof of philosophys impotence, but the proof of philosophys power. It is philosophy that has brought men to this state [of cultural bankruptcy] it is only philosophy that can lead them out. (For the New Intellectual, 1961)

ARI is the only institution fighting for freedom in the world today that understands this fundamental truth.

To the extent the world has moved forward since the 18th century, it has done so by implementing, however imperfectly, the ideals of the Enlightenment: reason, science, individualism and a government limited by the principle of individual rights. To the extent the world has stagnated or retrogressed, it has done so because of the ascendency of opposite philosophic ideas: mysticism, dialectical logic and other pseudo-scientific approaches, collectivism/tribalism, and unlimited government given the power to sacrifice the property and lives of individuals, when doing so is said to be in the public interest.

Rand viewed her new philosophy, Objectivism, as putting the Enlightenments ideals for the first time on a fully rational, fully defensible foundation.

Rand viewed her new philosophy, Objectivism, as putting the Enlightenments ideals for the first time on a fully rational, fully defensible foundation.

ARI exists to inject that philosophy into the lifeblood of civilization. The Institutes progress, accordingly, is not measured in days, but in decades. Perhaps the clearest sign of progress is that Rands ideas are following a trajectory similar to what J.B.S. Haldane outlined for the acceptance of radical ideas: first the idea is dismissed as worthless nonsense; then it is regarded as an interesting but perverse point of view; then it is regarded as true but unimportant; then it is said to have been everyones viewpoint all along. Arguably, we have moved into the second stage, as evidenced by the growing worldwide interest in Rands ideas, by how often her ideas are mentioned in the media and in ideological discussions, and by the growing difficulty of simply dismissing her ideas as nonsense.

This change over the last thirty-plus years is in large part due to ARIs activities: our essay contests, books to teachers program, educational talks, conferences and courses, media appearances, and published essays and books. We are trying to change peoples fundamental convictions and to normalize discussion of Rands radical ideas.

Our focus on the long-range dissemination of philosophic ideas does not mean there are no shorter-term successes. But it does mean that these successes are created through the impact we have on other individuals and organizations. For instance, one of ARIs long-standing, vital activities is educating individuals about Rands ideas and their application. Many of these individuals go on to do impactful work. We have helped train individuals who are now teaching and publishing at universities, are involved with legal think tanks like the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Institute for Justice, and the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, and have founded organizations like the Center for Industrial Progress and Higher Ground Education. We need thousands more individuals like these who are knowledgeable about Rands ideas and are working to apply them to forge a new culture.

Its an exciting journey, in which I hope you join us. If you already have, thank you for your support.

Become a member of the Ayn Rand Institute, starting at $10 per month, by December 31, and receive an invitation to an exclusive online Q&A session with New Ideal writers.

Share this article:

Read the original here:

Fuel the Fight for Reason, Individualism and Freedom - New Ideal

Dozens of Chinese students staged a rare protest on a university campus in Shanghai after their school amended its charter to remove references to academic freedom and replaced them with a pledge of loyalty to the ruling Chinese Communist Party.

At least three top Chinese universities have edited their charters since the beginning of December, with Shanghai's prestigious Fudan University removing references to "freedom of thought," prompting the daring clap-back on social media from students.

A video posted to Twitter showed a group of Fudan students singing the college song during a flashmob protest. The song includes a reference to freedom of thought.

China's ministry of education said Nanjing University and Shaanxi Normal University had also submitted amended versions of their charters to the ministry, which had approved all three.

Fudan ranks 109th in the Times Higher Education's 2020 World University Rankings, and the changes to its charter prompted millions of retweets and comments on social media platforms inside China.

The revised charter instead refers to "patriotic dedication," and states that the ruling Chinese Communist Party committee is "the core of the university," and will be responsible for setting its direction and making decisions.

The university will also "weaponize the minds of teachers and students through Xi Jinping's socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era," a reference to the president's personal brand of political ideology.

A reference to "independence" was deleted from the section on academic research.

Other universities will soon follow suit

Wu Qiang, former politics lecturer at Beijing's prestigious Tsinghua University, said other universities will soon follow suit.

"This is going on across the country in batches: the constitutions of all the universities are being revised," Wu told RFA. "Since the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Party Congress ... universities are being turned into strongholds of political and ideological education."

The move comes after a number of Maoist students from top universities flocked to the southern city of Shenzhen to support workers at Jasic Technology in their bid to set up an independent labor union.

Dozens of students were detained and arrested, while some remain incommunicado to this day.

"This is systematic action being taken by the authorities to comprehensively strengthen ideological control over teachers and students," Wu said. "Any remaining liberalism among university teachers is being completely eliminated through institutional intervention."

"It was precious to see Fudan University students protest by singing the school song, persisting in that tradition of academic independence and freedom of thought, much like Peking University students participating in the labor movement," he said.

Since taking power in 2012, President Xi has launched an unprecedented set of ideological controls and boosted the institutions needed to enforce them.Student informants

Xi has repeatedly warned members of the political class not to go off message in public, and set up a nationwide monitoring agency to supervise and detain anyone remotely connected with the government, including civil servants, teachers and academics, journalists, and contractors.

The authorities are stepping up monitoring of staff and students at the country's higher education institutions through the use of personal data, surveillance cameras in classrooms, as well as via student informants. who are the ruling Chinese Communist Party's eyes and ears on the ground.

Student informants are continually being recruited at China's universities and typically report back to the authorities around once every two weeks, according to online documents.

In October 2018, Beijing appointed its own representative to head Peking University (Beida), one of the country's most prestigious schools.

The personnel changes to a position that is ranked similarly to a provincial governor in China's government and party hierarchy came after the university was dogged by a campaign from its own students to find out the truth behind a decade-old student suicide as part of the #MeToo movement.

Xi's approach stems from a 2013 article titled "Improving Ideological and Political Work Among Young Teachers in Colleges and Universities," and from his reiteration of the "Seven Taboos" that mustn't be discussed in public by servants of the state, including teachers.

The seven banned topics are: universal values of human rights and democratic, constitutional government; press freedom; civil society; citizens' rights; the historical mistakes of the Chinese Communist Party; the financial and political elite; and judicial independence.

Reported by Gao Feng and Wong Lok-to for RFA's Mandarin and Cantonese Services. Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie.

Go here to see the original:

Top Chinese Universities Amend Charters to Remove Reference to Freedom - Radio Free Asia

SHANGHAI: Changes to the charter of one of China's top universities that dropped the phrase "freedom of thought" and added a pledge to follow the Communist Party's leadership have sparked heated debate and a rare act of student defiance.

The changes to the charter of Fudan University in Shanghai, considered one of China's more liberal institutions, came to light on Tuesday when the education ministry said it had approved alterations for three universities.

Within hours, the Fudan amendments were trending on the Weibo social media platform with one hashtag viewed more than a million times.

"If I may dare to ask those who initiated the amendment of the Fudan University charter, how do you expect our generation of Fudan people to face our ancestors," said one Weibo user.

But that post and many similar ones questioning the changes - in particular the removal of the phrase "freedom of thought" - were deleted by Wednesday afternoon, although the issue was being discussed in private WeChat groups.

Since Communist Party leader Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, China has tightened controls on the internet and civil society in a campaign that has seen increasing censorship and shrinking space for dissent, including on campuses.

Xi has also sought to boost the party's role and deepen its influence across society.

A video circulating on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon showed a group of Fudan University students singing their college anthem, which includes the phrase "freedom of thought", during their lunch break.

Students there confirmed to Reuters that the event had taken place.

Calls to Fudan University's press department on Wednesday to seek comment went unanswered. The Ministry of Education did not immediately respond to a faxed request for comment.

Late on Wednesday, the 114-year-old university posted a statement on social media saying the charter alterations had been made "in strict accordance with legal procedures".

It also noted, however, that the school would continue to have the same anthem. The song, composed in 1925, includes the phrase "academic independence and freedom of thought".

The party has kept an eagle eye on campuses to nip would-be dissent in the bud since university students led pro-democracy protests centred on Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Universities in China have long operated without full academic independence. Curricula are bound by Communist Party diktats and political norms that render certain topics or positions off limits.

Still, some commentators on Weibo noted how the amendments pointed to an expansion of Communist Party control, with the revised charter saying that Fudan's "party committee is the core of the university" and would be responsible for setting its direction and making major decisions.

The new charter said the university would "weaponise the minds of teachers and students using Xi Jinpings socialism ideology with characteristics of China in the new era.

Fudan is ranked 109 globally in the Times Higher Education's 2020 World University Rankings.

The two other universities that made changes to their charters were Shaanxi Normal University and Nanjing University, according to documents published by the Ministry of Education, which showed that it had approved the changes on Dec 2

Their revised charters similarly included references to strengthening the leadership of the Communist Party at the universities.

See the rest here:

Leading Chinese university drops 'freedom of thought' from charter - Bangkok Post

Most of us think of Judaism as a religion, rather than a race, color, or national origin. So here is the first thing about the Executive Order on Anti-Semitism President Trump signed on December 11 that has raised eyebrows: his order draws attention to anti-Semitism by making it a potential Title VI violation. Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance.

However, since the executive order concedes that Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, how can it serve the protection of Jews from anti-Semitic harassment?

It asserts that (d)iscrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individuals race, color, or national origin. This means that Jews may claim a violation of their civil rights if they feel discriminated against on the basis of their (perceived) race, color, or national origin as Jews.

This all sounds strange when we consider that the worst excesses of anti-Semitism had to do with the definition of Judaism as race. At the same time, the executive order does nothing to protect Jews from religious discrimination, which does not fall under the protection of Title VI.

And thats the problem.

The introduction states that anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents are on the rise in the United States and around the world. Specifically, it claims that (a)nti-Semitic incidents have increased since 2013, and students, in particular, continue to face anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses. [In other words, the main thrust of this executive order is to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses across the United States.

Branding views that are critical of Israel as anti-Semitic and making these views actionable, as the Trump Executive Order on Anti-Semitism does, will have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech at schools, colleges, and university campuses that rely on federal financial assistance.

It is not immediately apparent what kind of speech is flagged by the policy statement. In order to make anti-Semitism actionable in the sense of this interpretation of Title VI protection, Section 2 of the order refers to the May 26, 2016, definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), signed by 32 of its member states, including the United States, which states, Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. This definition was adopted by the US Department of State and posted on its Office of International Religious Freedom website. According to that website, as a member of the IHRA, the US government encourages other countries to adopt the same standards.

In addition, the Office of International Religious Freedom and the Executive Order on Anti-Semitism also refer to a list of examples included in the May 2016 resolution that many perceive as troubling because they conflate anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews) with anti-Zionism (criticism to the State of Israel). Such examples include:

While the IHRA declaration and the State Department website include a statement to the effect that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic, the Executive Order on Anti-Semitism does not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel. Omitting this sentence from the policy directive opens the door to civil rights proceedings being triggered by entirely legitimate Israel-critical protests on campus. Furthermore, including Israel-critical campus protests in statistics of anti-Semitic incidents leads to a misreading of trends and likely exaggerates the threat against Jewish students.

Branding views that are critical of Israel as anti-Semitic and making these views actionable, as the Trump Executive Order on Anti-Semitism does, will have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech at schools, colleges, and university campuses that rely on federal financial assistance.

As I pointed out in a recent opinion piece, we need to be careful when citing statistics. Hiding behind vague references to the rise of anti-Semitism are two potential fallacies. One fallacy hides behind the naturalistic imagery we use when speaking of social trends as waves and the like. Speaking of social movements as waves increases our sense of helplessness in the face of impersonal forces of violence. The other fallacy hides behind the conflation of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Anti-Semitism is hateful, whether you define Jews as a community of national origin or as a religious community. Criticism of Israel may be painful to Jews and friends of Israel, but it is not necessarily a form of anti-Semitism. It can be part of a legitimate struggle and advocacy for Palestinian rights and a form of protest against Israeli human rights abuses of the kind tracked by Israeli human rights organizations such as Btselem.

Opposition to the existence of a Jewish State is as old as the Jewish State. Some ultra-Orthodox and ultra-liberal Jews have opposed Jewish statehood, albeit for different reasons. Neturei Karta and the Satmar Hasidim oppose a secular Jewish state for religious reasons. In their understanding, only the Messiah, and hence G-d himself, can end the exile, return the Jews to the land of Israel, rebuild the temple, and bring about the kingdom of G-d. To these religious Jews, Zionism is rebelliousness against the divine edict of exile. Other Jews, devoted to various doctrines of internationalism or post-nationalism, believe that all nation states are evil. For them, Jewish statehood falls short of the ideals of Jewish ethics, and makes Jews and Judaism into stooges of capitalism and colonialism. Neither of these groups can be called anti-Semitic, simply because they subscribe to views critical of Jewish statehood even though both deny the right of Israel to exist.

The executive order was welcomed by many Jews and organizations combating the rising tide of anti-Semitic hate speech and violent incidents that target Jews simply for being Jews. Anti-Semitism is real and it is a danger to Jews, and of late, also to people who socialize with Jews, attend synagogue services on High Holidays, or simply shop in a kosher market. But the executive order neither combats white supremacism nor offers law enforcement a useful tool to fight bigotry in its many forms.

It merely instigates a new era of government interference in American campus life and policing of speech that feels like the beginning of a new McCarthyism. Liberal watchdogs see the measure as advancing the ongoing conservative crackdown on freedom of speech at universities and colleges under the guise of both side-ism. As reported by Erica L. Green for the New York Times, the brain behind the new executive order is the head of the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Kenneth L. Marcus. His intention, and that of the most vigorous supporters of the measure, is to create equivalence between anti-Zionism and anti-Judaism. The executive order provides legal backing to the Education Departments growing number of investigations of academic programs and campus free-speech policies triggered by complaints of discrimination or anti-Jewish bias. Palestinians and advocates of Palestinian rights fear that the measure aims to suppress advocacy and academic freedom. Prestigious Middle East Studies programs have already been scrutinized by the Education Department for anti-Christian bias. With the new executive order, it is now possible to threaten colleges and universities with withdrawal of federal funding if they are found to be critical of Israel.

A measure aimed to curtail freedom of speech on campus in the name of protecting the civil rights of a particular minority does not advance the protection of speech or the rights of all minorities to be free of harassment. It intimidates colleges and universities to the point of curtailing academic freedom and political rights of faculty and students who believe it is their right and responsibility to criticize the State of Israel. We need to fight anti-Semitism on and off campus, but we also need to protect freedom of inquiry and political speech on campus. This measure appears designed to do neither. Rather it seems designed to harass faculty and intimidate student activists by casting aspersions on contested political speech.

POV is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact John ORourke at orourkej@bu.edu. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.

Visit link:

POV: Trump's Executive Order Aimed at Protecting Jews Will Have a Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech at Colleges - BU Today

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif., Dec. 19, 2019 /PRNewswire/ --John Travolta, the "Official Ambassador of Aviation," will host the 17th annual "Living Legends of Aviation Awards" on Thursday, Jan. 16, 2020 at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in California. The event honors those who have made significant contributions to aviation/aerospace.

The event will culminate with the presentation of the "Jeff Bezos Freedom's Wings Award," the most prestigious award in the aerospace industry. It honors the advancement of the principles of freedom. Like the Pulitzer or Booker Awards, the "Bezos Award" will grow in recognition and importance with each annual presentation. Blue Origin space exploration company founder, Jeff Bezos, or his designee will present the "Jeff Bezos Freedoms Wings Award" January 16, 2020 at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles.

"The Legends are honored that Mr. Bezos joined our ranks last year, and we look forward to his recognizing this year's recipient," said Travolta.

The Legends will also induct seven new individuals into the ranks of the Living Legends of Aviation, highlighted by Capt. James Lovell, an astronaut with several historical firsts with his flights on Gemini 7, Gemini 12, Apollo 8 and Apollo 13. Other Legends to be inducted include Larry Flynn, Sergei Sikorsky, Maj. General Patrick Brady, Rod Lewis, Craig Hosking and Bill Garvey.

The Legends will honor Kenny Dichter, founder of "Wheels Up," with the "Eren Ozmen Entrepreneur of the Year Award." The "Kenn Ricci Lifetime Aviation Entrepreneur Award," will be presented to Dr. S. Harry Robertson, founder of Robertson Fuel Systems, inventor of the "Robbie Tanks" which has saved thousands of lives.

The Legends will highlight the accomplishments of Elling Halvorson, founder of Papillon Helicopters. The "Elling Halvorson Vertical Flight Hall of Fame Award" will be presented to Sergei Sikorsky. The "Wings of Help Award" will be presented to Thomas Schrade.

The "Living Legends of Aviation" was founded on December 17, 2003, exactly 100 years after Orville and Wilbur Wright took their first powered flight, with the purpose of celebrating aviation's second hundred years. The "Living Legends of Aviation" are remarkable people of extraordinary accomplishment in aviation and aerospace; they include entrepreneurs, innovators, industry leaders, astronauts, record breakers, pilots who have become celebrities and celebrities who have become pilots. The Legends include 100 accomplished men and women from across the world among their ranks.

The "Living Legends of Aviation Awards" are produced by the Kiddie Hawk Air Academy, a 501-c-3 non-profit organization. Kiddie Hawk's mission is to educate children and spark their interest in aviation/aerospace. Please visit LivingLegendsOfAviation.org for more information.

SOURCE Kiddie Hawk Air Academy

https://www.livinglegendsofaviation.org

More:

Jeff Bezos Freedom's Wings Award Highlights the Annual Living Legends of Aviation Awards - PRNewswire

Welcome to the Maple Leafs Prospect Report, an every-so-often look at the progress of Toronto draft picks and minor leaguers, with insight from coaches, staff and the players themselves.

Got a player or a coach youre interested in hearing more about? As always, let us know in the comments below.

Newfoundland Growlers head coach John Snowden has been more than impressed with rookie defenceman Mac Hollowell. The progression the 21-year-old has shown in his first full season has earned him both ice time and freedom to utilize all elements of his game.

After spending the majority of last season with the OHLs Soo Greyhounds before a playoff call-up to the Toronto Marlies, Hollowell is part of the Leafs plan to strengthen their MLB-style development system.

Hollowell, a fourth-round pick in the 2018 NHL draft, has played four games for the Marlies this season but has flourished with the ECHLs Growlers. The 5-foot-10, 170-pound defender...

Go here to see the original:

Maple Leafs Prospect Report: Growlers giving Hollowell more freedom, Agostino dominant in AHL and more - The Athletic

5G Ultra Wideband touches down in Des Moines.

Today, Verizon added another name to the growing list of 5G cities before the end of 2020: Des Moines, IA. With Verizon engineers working around the country on building 5G right, more cities, people, and places are getting access to 5G every day. On Friday, Verizon announced 5G in Los Angeles and at Lincoln Financial Field, home of the Philadelphia Eagles. With more city announcements on the way, stay tuned to find out where 5G is coming next.

Over 300 V Teamers at 18 different locations around the country volunteered for Wreaths Across America for military remembrance services this weekend. The largest wreath-building group was in Somerset Hills, NJ, where 80 V Teamers gathered together to volunteer. During the wreath-building events, over 800 V Teamers registered for Verizons new volunteer platform, which lets employees sign up for all different kinds of volunteer opportunities. This Saturday, wreaths were laid in a coordinated ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery and 1,600 additional locations in all 50 states as part of National Wreaths Across America Day.

See original here:

Giving back to those who gave us freedom. - Verizon Communications

ESSENCE cover girl Jodie Turner-Smith didnt always think she was fierce and flawless. In fact, Queen & Slim star recently opened up about her struggles with self-confidence.

In a poignant Instagram post, Turner-Smith shared throwback photos of herself, detailing how she felt at 17 years old.

Proof that the glow up has been really real. Im humbled when I look at this girl. Seventeen-year-old me. Not just because of how I look on the outside, but because I remember how I felt on the inside, she began in the lengthy caption.

I remember how badly I hated myself and hated the dark skin that made people call me ugly. How I turned my helplessness at being unable to change my outward appearance inward by constantly cleaving away any and all parts of myself that I was told made me unacceptable to others, Turner-Smith revealed.

View this post on Instagram

Proof That The Glow Up Has Been Really Real its been soooo long since ive seen these pictures, but because the internet is undefeated, i found them! a blast from the past! im humbled when i look at this girl. 17 year old me. not just because of how i look on the outside, but because i remember how i felt on the inside. i remember how badly i hated myself and hated the dark skin that made people call me ugly. how i turned my helplessness at being unable to change my outward appearance inward, by constantly cleaving away any and all parts of myself that i was told made me unacceptable to others. how i changed my voice, changed my hair, became captain of this and president of that, used my intelligence to build a wall around me, spent years in the practice of bending and shaping myself into the most acceptable form of Jodie for the people around me until there was nothing of me left but hate for a person i didnt recognise and fear that i had become someone it was impossible to come back from AND, MY GOD, IT WAS EXHAUSTING! but i say all that to say this i am grateful for the girl in these photos and for every part of this journey. because i couldnt be me, now, if i wasnt first her, then. when you know what it feels like to hate yourself, finally loving yourself is a freedom that cannot be matched by anyone elses approval also worth noting i was voted Most Likely To Succeed! but we all thought it would be in somebodys office

A post shared by Jodie Turner-Smith (@jodiesmith) on Dec 17, 2019 at 12:33pm PST

The actress admitting to changing her voice and hair to make herself more palatable. Turner-Smith wrote that she even became captain of this and president of that, used my intelligence to build a wall around me, spent years in the practice of bending and shaping myself into the most acceptable form of Jodie for the people around me until there was nothing of me left but hate for a person I didnt recognize and fear that I had become someone it was impossible to come back from.

The actress who was voted Most Likely to Succeed, called the entire experience exhausting. Turner-Smith added that shes appreciative for the journey and grateful for the girl in these photos because I couldnt be me, now, if I wasnt first her, then.

When you know what it feels like to hate yourself, she said, finally loving yourself is a freedom that cannot be matched by anyone elses approval.

Were glad that Turner-Smith fell in love with herself, so we could fall in love with her too.

Queen & Slim is in theaters now.

Read more here:

Jodie Turner-Smith Reflects On Finally Loving Herself: 'I Hated Myself And Hated The Dark Skin' - Essence

Two deaths. Hundreds injured. More than 10,000 rounds of tear gas and half as many rubber bullets fired. More than six months of unrest. People and businesses are leaving Hong Kong as anti-government protests disrupt a city long praised for efficiency, ease of doing business and its retention of basic freedoms including press freedom that are nonexistent across the border in mainland China.

Amplifying this citys deep-seated tensions is a surge of conspiracy theories and disinformation, which fuel the escalating violence. Public trust in the semiautonomous Chinese territorys leaders, police and public institutions has been ruptured possibly beyond repair as shown by the record-high turnout of voters in recent local elections supporting pro-democracy candidates. The vote was widely considered a referendum on the governments handling of the protests.

Journalists have often worked under enormous pressure and in difficult conditions to cover these rapidly unfolding events. Yet rather than being respected as impartial witnesses attempting to bring light to facts, reporters have found themselves under attack while covering the protests and the police response.

The media have become part of the story as Hong Kongs once-vaunted press freedom has been severely impaired.

The Foreign Correspondents Club of Hong Kong has sought to keep track of multiple incidents in recent months in which reporters were injured or obstructed by police while covering the unrest.

Veby Mega Indah, a reporter for an Indonesian-language newspaper, lost sight in one eye after police shot her in the face with a rubber bullet while she was covering a protest. Police forced May James, a prominent photojournalist, to remove a gas mask and jailed her overnight after she did not show her local ID to a policeman whose identity was obscured. A driver working for Hong Kongs largest pay-TV operator was hit by a police projectile, detained and left with a broken jaw after being beaten by police. A journalist with the online site Stand News has been diagnosed with a skin condition that has been linked to tear gas.

Tear gas is often fired close to or directly at journalists. Press access was restricted at a major university where protesters were in a standoff with police. And police have taken to deliberately shining flashlights and flashing strobe lights at journalists to obstruct them from taking pictures and video.

The attacks on the press have occurred even though journalists are clearly identified. They wear helmets and bright yellow vests emblazoned with PRESS and present press identification to police officers.

These events, many of them documented via video or livestreamed, have made it clear that journalists including student reporters are being targeted. There have been too many instances for them to be accidental or coincidence. It appears that a deliberate effort is being made to prevent independent reporting of events, and police in Hong Kong increasingly do not want their actions seen or recorded.

Amid the escalating violence, the Foreign Correspondents Club has been trying to help journalists in the city, including local reporters and foreign correspondents. My fellow club members and I held a series of practical workshops on things that most journalists in Hong Kong probably have not encountered how to use milk or a saline solution to douse their eyes after being exposed to tear gas or wash away the blue dye used to identify protesters, how to resist unlawful police demands and how to secure a digital footprint so sources wont be compromised. Videos of the workshop series have been made available online.

Board members of the correspondents club met with Hong Kong police officials to discuss how to improve press-police relations. Our recommendations included making sure police officers are easily identifiable and asking police to refrain from shining lights directly at news photographers and camera operators.

The protests present unprecedented challenges to the Hong Kong media, which have not faced this level of violence since communist-led protests against British colonial rule in the 1960s. The media are simply trying to do their job, which they have a right to do under Hong Kong law.

The United Nations provides a framework for maintaining good relations between the police and the press, which says the public has a right to observe and examine police actions. Journalists are the publics witnesses. The police have a duty to maintain public order, yet also to be subject to public scrutiny. They should expect the media to take photographs and video, and not interfere with reporting. Security forces have neither the authority nor the legitimacy to impose limits on freedom of the press, according to U.N. protocols.

As U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said this year in defense of the worlds press: Informing is not a crime.

Hong Kong press freedom has been additionally challenged in recent years since more outlets have been bought by media owners with ties to mainland China, where the press is heavily censored and controlled by the Chinese government. Still, most foreign and local media outlets maintain their independence. Historically, they have helped keep public authorities and business figures accountable without fear for their safety or interference by authorities.

If that spirit slips away in Hong Kong, it could embolden other authoritarian-minded governments and world leaders to discredit the crucial role the press plays in societies around the world. The increasing danger facing journalists here is a threat to press freedom everywhere.

Jodi Schneider is president of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Hong Kong.

View post:

Opinion: The danger facing journalists in Hong Kong is a threat to press freedom everywhere - Los Angeles Times

Because The Weinstein Company has declared bankruptcy, you might wonder how Weinstein is buying his freedom. This is not personal bankruptcy; it is his company. His companys insurance is covering everything, including the settlement. Even if he personally declares bankruptcy, it would still be Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He would have to liquidate some assets to pay off creditors, make a payment schedule for others, and some debts would likely be discharged or forgiven. Weinstein would simply move assets around a bit. Hes living quite comfortably at the moment, and hell never live hand to mouth. Even for surgery he goes to a luxury wing of the hospital complete with original artwork and a private chef, according to this misguided Page Six interview. He is trying to buy sympathy with headlines of bankruptcy and surgery. Just like he was doing with his walker. If this settlement goes through, as it looks like it will, Weinstein doesnt have to admit any wrongdoing. Hes not only buying his freedom, hes also buying his innocence in the civil suit.

See the article here:

Harvey Weinstein Is Trying To Buy His Freedom & Innocence. I See Right Through It. - Refinery29

On November 20, a pro-Israel group at York University hosted an event entitled "Reservists on Duty: Hear from former Israeli Defence Force soldiers." Various leftist campus groups vowed to shut the event down. They didn't, thanks to a heavy police presence, but they did disrupt the event while shouting anti-Israel and pro-terrorism slogans; a few lovely individuals chanted to the organizers, "Intifada, Intifada, go back to the ovens." Scuffles between protesters seeking to block entrance to the event and attendees often broke out; contemporary news sources almost universally attribute blame for the violence to the protesters.

Amnesty Canada has now weighed in with an extraordinary letter to York University's president. If you think Amnesty spoke up in favor of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and against violence and disruption by protesters, well, you haven't been paying attention to how groups that used to believe in human rights have evolved into far leftist activist groups with a particular obsession with hating Israel (my bolding):

Amnesty International is writing this Open Letter to request that you convene an independent review into all concerns associated with the "Reservists on Duty: Hear from former Israeli Defence Force soldiers" event, organized by the Herut Zionism Club at York University on November 20, 2019.

As you know, this controversial event was met with protests which descended into violent confrontations outside the venue. It was clearly foreseeable that there would be controversy and protest, given the history of human rights violations committed by Israeli Defence Force soldiers amidst the illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories. That was exacerbated by the fact that members of the Jewish Defense League, a far-right group classified as a terrorist organization in the U.S. and with a record of violence and assaults at protests, were allowed on campus.

Amnesty International has an active and dynamic student group at York University that works on a range of campaigns, including our serious concerns about widespread and longstanding human rights violations associated with Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories. The group brings a positive voice for human rights to York, in keeping with the university's encouragement of student agency and leadership. They actively defend and promote universal human rights protection for all people, including the freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and the obligation to condemn war crimes occurring anywhere in the world.

While Amnesty International at York had no official presence at the protest, a number of our members chose to participate in an individual capacity, as is clearly their right. We are very troubled to learn that some members were physically assaulted during the confrontations that occurred and have been receiving threatening messages on their cell phones. They are now fearful when they are on campus and have taken to limiting their movements, staying in groups, and ensuring that there are safe spaces to study in security.

It is evident that the considerable confusion, tension and fear associated with the November 20th event and its aftermath lingers. That is clear from the number and nature of statements and resolutions that have been issued by various student groups on campus. We have noted from your statement on November 21st that you have taken two steps in response, namely: (1) tasking the Vice President of Equity, People and Culture and your Division of Students to take the lead in developing a strategy for "fostering a more productive dialogue around these issues"; and (2) the launch of an upcoming Freedom of Speech Working Group to "make specific recommendations on how to create a more respectful climate on campus for the discussion of difficult topics."

Given conflicting views about what happened that evening, the worrying ongoing impact on students at York and the important human rights considerations that are at stake, Amnesty International urges York University to go further and convene an independent review of all circumstances associated with the Herut Zionism Club event and its aftermath, with a mandate that includes examination of:

considerations that were taken into account in approving the event, including the fact that the speakers were former members of a military with a clear record of responsibility for war crimes and other serious human rights violations;

decisions made with respect to the presence of members of the Jewish Defense League on campus;

Note: (1) Amnesty does not condemn the disruption and antisemitic remarks made at the event; (2) Amnesty is apparently taking the position that anyone who has ever served in the Israeli armed forces should be treated as a presumptive war criminal [as the spouse of an IDF veteran, you can stick it where the sun don't shine, Amnesty]; (3) Amnesty suggests that hosting a pro-Israel event is inviting violence and disruption, and the university should therefore consider whether it was appropriate to allow such an event to proceed; and (4) Amnesty suggests that a public university should be screening members of the public for their political affiliations before they should be allowed to

Follow this link:

Amnesty International Canada Questions Freedom of Speech and Assembly - Reason

No progress has been made in Azerbaijan regarding the protection of freedom of expression, since local journalists and social media activists, who express dissent or criticism of the authorities, are continuously deprived of their liberty on a variety of questionable charges, Dunja Mijatovi, the commissioner for human rights of the Council of Europe, the continents leading human rights organisation, has said.

In a report published after Mrs Mijatovis recent visit to the country, the CoE human rights commissioner called on the authorities to release all those detained because of the views they expressed and to fully implement several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights relating to arbitrary restrictions of freedom of expression.

Mrs Mijatovi expressed doubts regarding the lawfulness of travel bans imposed on dozens of journalists, lawyers, political activists and human rights defenders, stressing that authorities must refrain from imposing arbitrary or disproportionate travel bans. She also recommended decriminalising defamation and bringing legislation and practice affecting Azerbaijans internet freedom in line with European standards.

The commissioner said that there was an acute shortage of lawyers in Azerbaijan, in particular in regions outside the capital Baku, which prevents many people from having access to legal assistance and representation. However, she noted the several steps which have been taken by the authorities and the Bar Association, a local NGO, to increase the number of lawyers.

The authorities should adopt a law on legal aid in line with Council of Europe standards and ensure that all persons effectively enjoy the right to legal assistance, she said, adding that the use of disciplinary sanctions against lawyers remains a serious concern.

While the commissioner commended the Azerbaijani governments actions to help people displaced over the countrys unresolved conflict with Armenia in Nagorno Karabakh, she warned that many internationally displaced persons (IDPs) are not provided with proper living places, with many of them living dormitories and collective centres.

The authorities should further enhance IDPs access to all economic and social rights, in particular the right to adequate housing and the right to employment she pointed out, recommending the Azerbaijani government to allow IDPs participation in municipal elections.

Photo: Council of Europe

Read the original here:

CoE urges Azerbaijan to respect freedom of expression, support IDPs - Emerging Europe

Fight for Freedom, stand with Hong Kong. These seven words well phrase the voices of pro-democracy Hong Kong protesters and symbolize the current uprise in the United States. It all started on Oct. 4, when American sports executive and general manager of the Houston Rockets of the NBA Daryl Morey uploaded a tweet concerning his support for the pro-democracy Hong Kong protesters. This tweet led the NBA into an international feud with China, as Chinese businesses withdrew finance support from their joint ventures with the league and initiated a media boycott of the NBA.

The nightmare continued, this time affecting the opposite spectrum, when basketball player LeBron James criticized Daryl Moreys recent tweet, claiming that Morey was misinformed and that his tweet could have potentially harmed the NBA teams that were playing in China. LeBrons tweet brought upon another uproar, as pro-democracy Hong Kong protesters stomped on and burned James jerseys, indicating a disapproval on his beliefs. The issue has since simmered down, but the debate on athletes freedom of speech remains.

In the U.S., freedom of speech is a right that is ensured to every individual. Especially in the 21st century, a denial of freedom of speech would not only be absurd but also questionable in the context of the Constitution and the democratic stance of the U.S. On the other hand, its important to acknowledge that freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and at times inalienable consequences. I think in any situation, if you want to exercise that right and speak freely on issues that may or may not be controversial, then you should do so understanding the consequences, RMs Athletic Director Jon Freda said, I know theres a big thing that athletes should just shut up and play their sport; I dont agree with that.

There are situations and times where we should be aware of how our speech may affect the opponent and there is without a doubt a certain ethical line that should be kept despite of freedom of speech. However, whether it be athlete, teacher, student or child, we should not be suppressed in expressing our beliefs. We live in a democracy, and under the Constitution and the Amendments everyone has the freedom of speech. I dont think just because of a career choice you should be restricted. I think athletes especially should watch out about what they say, because of where they are and how many people are watching them literally all the time. I dont think they should not be able to comment about other things besides sports, senior Naimah Lewis said.

At such sensitive times, its important to acknowledge the pros and cons of sports becoming intertwined with international issues. Athletes have the unique advantage of having a platform where they are able to advocate for issues they are passionate about and send out messages much faster than the everyday citizen. I think sports is a great way to bring people together, especially over national borders, but I think people have to recognize that they are two separate things. Usually NBA players get pulled from high school or college, so while their life knowledge is of a 30 year old, they dont necessarily know what to say all the time because they didnt get that from school, when they should speak out and how to voice our their opinions, Lewis said.

Read the rest here:

Lebron and student athletes alike deserve freedom to speak - The Tide

A leading host on Fox News, a conservative network notorious for its loyalty to the White House, has lambasted Donald Trump for mounting the most direct attack on press freedom in American history.

Chris Wallace, widely admired for breaking ranks from Fox colleagues by putting tough questions to administration officials, delivered his most stinging critique yet of the US president at an event celebrating the first amendment.

I believe that President Trump is engaged in the most direct sustained assault on freedom of the press in our history, Wallace said to applause at the Newseum, a media museum in Washington, on Wednesday night.

He has done everything he can to undercut the media, to try and delegitimise us, and I think his purpose is clear: to raise doubts when we report critically about him and his administration that we can be trusted. Back in 2017, he tweeted something that said far more about him than it did about us: The fake news media is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American people.

Wallace recalled that retired admiral Bill McRaven, a navy Seal for 37 years, had described Trumps sentiment as maybe the greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime because, unlike even the Soviet Union or Islamic terrorism, it undermines the US constitution.

The veteran broadcaster added: Lets be honest, the presidents attacks have done some damage. A Freedom Forum Institute poll, associated here with the Newseum, this year found that 29% of Americans, almost a third of all of us, think the first amendment goes too far. And 77%, three quarters, say that fake news is a serious threat to our democracy.

Wallace is a rare dissenting voice at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News, where opinion hosts such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham are fiercely pro-Trump. Longtime anchor Shep Smith, who was also praised for his independence, stepped down in October and warned that intimidation and vilification of the press is now a global phenomenon. We dont have to look far for evidence of that.

Wallace, son of distinguished journalist Mike Wallace, conducts some of the sharpest grillings of any of Americas long running Sunday politics shows. When he recently took House minority whip Steve Scalise to task, Trump responded with a tweet that called Wallace nasty and obnoxious.

But at Wednesdays event, a farewell to the Newseum which is closing down after nearly 12 years at its current location, Wallace also warned the media against overreach. I think many of our colleagues see the presidents attacks, his constant bashing of the media as a rationale, as an excuse to cross the line themselves, to push back, and that is a big mistake, he said.

I see it all the time on the front page of major newspapers and the lead of the evening news: fact mixed with opinion, buzzwords like bombshell and scandal. The animus of the reporter and the editor as plain to see as the headline.

Original post:

Fox host lambasts Trump over 'most sustained assault on press freedom in US history' - The Guardian

The girls basketball season just tipped off this past weekend.

Bethlehem Catholics matchup with Freedom, however, had the atmosphere and nerves of a postseason game.

The Golden Hawks overcame a slow start to defeat the Patriots 61-48 at home on Tuesday night to improve to 2-0 this season.

Give (Freedom) credit, they came out and played great defense. I think the pregame jitters here made it rough early on, Bethlehem Catholic coach Jose Medina said. Credit to our girls, we brought the defense today, too, and thats what kept us in the game.

Good defense inside and the 3-point shooting of guard Kailey Turpening helped the Patriots, ranked No. 2 by lehighvalleylive, sprint out to a 13-6 lead in the first quarter. The sophomore connected on three shots from beyond the arc while Bethlehem Catholic, ranked No. 1, scored just twice from the field in the opening 8 minutes.

We came alive after the first quarter we just said, We need to lock up on defense. Thats our culture here; defense creates offense, senior Taliyah Medina said. During the course of the game, we switched up the defense a lot. We went 2-3; we went 3-2; we were just trying to keep Freedom on their toes.

While the commitment to the zone defense helped the Golden Hawks hold Freedom to just four points in the second quarter, Kourtney Wilsons perimeter shooting provided a much-needed spark to their offense.

The sophomore guard scored seven points to help Bethlehem Catholic go on a 9-2 run in the final 90 seconds of the first half.

We couldnt really play our game in the beginning, but I think that was because of how nervous we were, Wilson said. I felt like once one person could get a shot off, that pushes all of us to keep going and get more. I think it was a turning point because we were cold in the beginning. Once we got hot, thats when we kept going ... We just have this fire; once it sparks you cant put it out.

Freedom scored 10 of its 15 points in the third quarter at the foul line and trailed 40-32 headed into the final period, before Wilson once again ignited Bethlehem Catholics offense.

Wilson hit a 3-pointer just 12 seconds into the final quarter and scored nine points as the Golden Hawks opened the fourth on a 14-2 run that clinched the win.

Kourtney is a great kid. She puts in a lot of work, Jose Medina said. She was patient on offense and the shots came to her. When she found the opportunities, she did a good job knocking down open shots.

Wilson paced Bethlehem Catholic with 19 points and Taliyah Medina added 14, including nine in the third quarter.

Kourtney shot great tonight. I know my shot was off at the beginning, Taliyah Medina said. Were not selfish here. We know if someone is not on, then someone else is and were going to keep feeding them the ball.

Turpening led Freedom with 21 points, while going 8 of 9 from the foul line. Senior Jennifer Kokolus finished with 11 points.

Desmond Boyle may be reached at dboyle@lehighvalleylive.com. Follow him on Twitter @DesJBoyle. Find Lehigh Valley high school sports on Facebook.

More:

Bethlehem Catholic girls basketball shakes off early nerves in win over Freedom - lehighvalleylive.com

Refinery29 is proud to partner with Target to celebrate Gen Z women who are Future Seekers: inspiring activism, challenging the status quo, and unapologetically pursuing their ambitions with excellence. For 17-year-old musician Tayahna Walcott, that means making music that unabashedly articulates her unique point of view.

Remember the semi-punk, semi-pop music genre mostly characterized by sad, quiet frontmen that was emo in the early aughts? It may be over, but Gen Z has taken it upon itself to revive the moniker for a different type of music the moody, vibey, R&B-influenced kind; the kind that makes you feel all the feels; the kind that articulates emotions we cant even begin to express in regular conversation. This is what 17-year-old Tayahna Walcott has been making for a decade.

A self-taught singer-songwriter, rapper, producer, and DJ, the New York-born-and-raised Walcott has been performing since she was 6 years old, when her mom first entered her into talent shows (which shed always win for her singing). Since then, shes performed at iconic NYC venues like the Apollo Theater and B.B. Kings Blues Club, released an EP called In The Meantime along with a slew of singles, and racked up 26,000 Instagram followers who are always asking for more music.

But Walcott isnt chasing fame instead, what she cares about most is projecting her most authentic self (a growing pursuit for her generation, which is largely pivoting away from fabricated social media personas in favor of honest expressions of real life). For her, part of that means not glossing over her unique perspective for example, by deliberately using the pronoun she in love songs to reflect her lived reality as a queer artist.

Its my outlet. With that also comes difficulty, putting the music out, because its such a vulnerable part of me. With some of my songs, my mom is like, What happened?! Im also just hoping that people can relate to it. When you find a song that really captures your emotions, thats a really good feeling. So I hope I can do that for other people.

Walcotts influences vary widely: Her Guyanese father instilled a love of Caribbean R&B, while her British mother gave her an education in London house music. Theres also her environment (whatever it is at the time), the people she meets and interacts with, the artists dominating the streaming charts right now, as well as the musicians who were famous long before she was born.

Aside from [my parents] taste in music and their own cultures, just being surrounded by people who are open-minded and seasoned in that sense allowed me to have the space to explore different things and listen to different things and be exposed to different things. So thats really important to me my family, my culture, my heritage.

Walcotts music is both incredibly introspective and relatable. With how long do forevers last, lyrics muse on queer romance, whereas 4U recounts bitter fighting between two lovers; another, ill be down, is a more vibey track about living in the now, addressed to a girl whose relationships future is unclear. Theyre moody (emo as she says) and at times sad or, if shes in love, downright corny. Regardless of what emotion shes expressing, Walcotts tracks are a consistently unfiltered window into her mind.

I really take my time in writing meaningful lyrics and making meaningful songs, and I think thats the most important part of my music to me the authenticity, she says. Yes, there are times when Im like, Oh my gosh, I want to be rich and famous, you know, but then, especially doing things like this, I have to make sure that I dont lose myself and Im still authentic and expressive.

Walcott doesnt release a new single until she has perfected every detail of the production: lyrics, melody, beats, instrumentation, and finalizing the track. My production process is intertwined with my songwriting process; whether I start with a concept for a beat or for a song, Ill work on the beat for a little bit, hum a melody, add some more so its kind of like a puzzle. More recently Ive been playing more instruments on my tracks, rather than synthesizing sounds, so I take my time with it. I enjoy playing and figuring it out.

Beyond music, Walcotts creative self-expression also extends to another area of her life her clothing. After wearing a uniform all throughout middle school in a building that had less than 100 kids, she came face to face with almost 3,000 fellow students and no dress code at Manhattans LaGuardia High. A newfound freedom in her wardrobe coupled with a much larger group of peers meant Walcott started to really think about what personal style meant to her.

Dressing for high school is really just about asking myself, How do I want people to perceive me? Especially being queer, I felt like I needed to represent that and figure out how I could depict who I was through my clothes. But gradually it changed to more like, What makes me feel beautiful and what makes me feel comfortable? Thats been liberating and easier to pinpoint because Im not really dressing for other people. I just like what I like, and I put on what I wear. Its pretty simple.

You could say Walcott is the perfect embodiment of Gen Zs propensity for pursuing multiple skills and talents at once, but if it came down to it, shed rather simply represent herself.

I just keep things really real and really blunt with myself about my role in the world in the grand scheme of things. With everything that you do, you have to ask what is the purpose? What do I want to convey? What am I contributing back to the world that can touch people? Asking questions like that keeps me grounded and intentional, with everything that Im doing.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

See original here:

How This 17-Year-Old Rapper Found Freedom In Self-Expression - Yahoo Lifestyle

FILE PHOTO: Dunja Mijatovic, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, holds a news conference in Sarajevo, Bosnia, December 6, 2019. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/File Photo

BAKU (Reuters) - Azerbaijan needs to respect freedom of expression, improve access to lawyers and uphold the rights of internally displaced persons, the top European rights watchdog said on Wednesday.

Western nations have courted Azerbaijan because of its role as an alternative to Russia in supplying oil and gas to Europe. But various European bodies and rights groups have accused President Ilham Aliyev of muzzling dissent and jailing opponents. Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, denies this.

Dunja Mijatovi, human rights commissioner at the 47-nation Council of Europe, called on Azeri authorities to free journalists and social media activists who had been jailed on she said were a variety of charges that defied credibility.

She said that another problem was an acute shortage of lawyers, particularly in regions outside the capital Baku, which prevented many people from getting access to legal assistance.

The authorities should adopt a law on legal aid in line with Council of Europe standards and ensure that all persons effectively enjoy the right to legal assistance, said Mijatovic, who visited Azerbaijan in July.

Azeri authorities rejected the Councils criticism, saying it contained a number of inaccuracies that failed to reflect the genuine situation of human rights in Azerbaijan.

The Council of Europe, founded in 1949 and based in Strasbourg, France, is a separate body from the European Union and so only advise member states on policy but not pass laws.

Reporting by Margarita Antidze; Editing by Mark Heinrich; Editing by Mark Heinrich

Originally posted here:

European rights body urges Azerbaijan to respect freedom of expression - Reuters