Daily Archives: November 7, 2020

Pablo Lpez

Statue of Liberty

Elections are really complex accounting practices. Its not just a final vote count that is fraught and difficult. Citizens going to the polls must consciously make multiple personal calculations: Will taxes rise? How much should individuals pay for healthcare? Must we spend heavily on defense?

In Americas democracy, we also reckon often unconsciously what we are willing to pay for our fundamental liberties. What is the price of freedom? It seems like a straightforward question. The answer, however, is anything but simple.

The desire for freedom has deep historical roots. Philosophers have forever talked about free will and the nature of liberty. In the modern era, American colonists fought a revolution to be free from oppressive taxation without representation levied by the British crown.

Throughout the 20th century, freedom has been the battle cry of democracies and would-be democracies around the globe. In his first campaign for the White House, Woodrow Wilson successfully ran on a New Freedom platform. During his State of the Union address on Jan. 6, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously advocated for four freedoms: freedom of speech; freedom of worship; freedom from want; freedom from fear.

But what is freedoms price tag?

The cost is borne by individuals, institutions, and society. People sacrifice blood and treasure to achieve independence, as well as to maintain and defend it. For some, the cost may be perceived as too high. Sadly, some freedoms are lost, frittered away or taken.

Although we pay lip service and are bound by international treaty to respect universal human rights, freedoms details differ from one country or culture to another. In the United States, we hold freedom of speech, assembly and belief as fundamental to our national identity. They are enshrined in the documents that established America as independent and sovereign. They are constitutionally codified and traditionally cherished.

Those fundamental freedoms have been hard won in the Anglophone world. They are also unavailable or, at best, exclusively limited privileges to the majority of the planets population.

During the last few years in these pages, Ive argued and advocated for universal freedoms. My columns have echoed the fundamental belief that every person on Earth should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At the moment, this is not a universal view. In fact, it is not even a consistently held aspiration in countries enjoying or seeking to achieve those rights.

Many in the United States believe that America should promote democratic rights and liberal freedoms everywhere. Others argue that the costs of doing so are too high.

Even guaranteeing freedom domestically, for example to ensure universal suffrage, comes with a cost that is politically high and often highly partisan. We witness frequent efforts to manage, marginalize or entirely disenfranchise large swaths of the public. Meanwhile, the price of promoting democracy in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq has been enormous with marked consequences at the ballot box back home.

Those wars, initially fought in unilateral retribution and with imperial hubris, have humbled Americas greater global ambitions. The failed policy, lost war and squandered allocation of precious national resources created discord at home. They have also given the space and time necessary for Americas most menacing competitor, the Peoples Republic of China, to act more assertively on the world stage.

Weve seen the costs of liberty up close:

Freedom of speech cost dissident Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi his life. His October 2018 murder and dismemberment shocked the world and underscored the difference in values between the United States and its close Saudi ally.

Freedom of religion cost French schoolteacher Samuel Paty his life. He was beheaded last month. President Emmanuel Macron reacted to the gruesome homicide by saying it contradicts everything that the French Revolution fought to achieve libert, egalit, fraternit as well as the freedom to believe and the freedom not to believe.

Freedom of assembly and to protest has had a very high cost in Ukraine, Belarus, Hong Kong and Venezuela. For decades, these places erupted in unprecedented democratic uprisings followed by brutal, dictatorial suppression.

Freedom of life. There might be none greater than the right to live and thrive as a fully actuated human being, in dignity, without fear and to achieve ones God-given potential. That basic freedom of breath and a heartbeat too often is wantonly taken by dictators and authoritarians.

Good health is increasingly threatened by the global pandemic. Some governments have managed better responses than others. COVID-19 has given illiberal states fresh cause to challenge free democratic systems and their failure to contain the virus. Authoritarian China argues it is better able to protect its citizens.

As America waits out the presidential elections final tally, it is also doing an accounting of what it values most: freedom. The costs are always high, and the accounting always difficult.

In the end, however, Americans always figure the price is worth paying.

Originally posted here:

The Cost of Freedom - Washington Monthly

As girls are given the opportunity and support to engage with sport, and as accessibility to boards and beaches increases, we will make up for lost decades in getting back to surfings legacy of inclusivity. As we work to catch up not to mens surfing, but to what our own minds, hearts and bodies are capable of and long for in the water we are witnessing the depth and diversity of a truly global womens surf culture.

In 2019, surfing became one of the first sports to provide equal pay for women and men at the elite competitive level. While athletes such as Stephanie Gilmore and Caroline Marks are globally visible womanifestations of the potential for womens sport in cultures of economic privilege, radical change is also bubbling up from the fields and streets of emerging surf cultures around the globe: India, Sri Lanka, Iran, Morocco, Brazil, Gaza, and more. Women in these countries are not only shaping their local communities and cultures, they are rewriting the rules of femininity and womanhood, a by-product of pursuing their passion for slip-sliding across a watery wave face. Looking forward, regionally adapted surfing cultures, guided by fresh perspectives those of women, indigenous people and people of colour might reshape the impact of surfing on beaches and communities.

A rare story of optimism, business has hardly ever been better for surfboard builders than in 2020. While so many of us have been crushed by job loss, financial hardship, illness and worse, the surfers and surf-curious among us have also relished in the unexpected, unsolicited gift of rediscovering the freedom that the waves have to offer in a year full of restrictions. For some of us, 2020 has also allowed us to rediscover what it means to have leisure time once again, time out from the inhuman pace of life, to connect again with the elements, our families and our communities on surfboards.

It is only a matter of time before those freshly glossed and polished boards become objects of wanderlust once again, calling us forth toward new waves and new ways.

Hawaii

Oahu has always been a gathering place. The island, comprising two overlapping volcanoes, is home to more than three quarters of the population of the Hawaiian Islands and usually sees more than 4.5 million visitors annually. Its not a coincidence that the Hawaiian Islands are the birthplace of surfing culture. Oahu, in particular, is a surfing smorgasbord, with something to suit every palate. From the water mountains of Waimea Bay, to the ankle slappers of Waikiki, Oahu seems to have been precisely crafted as a surfing paradise.

Italy

The Tuscan coastline is considered the heartland of Italian surfing, as well as organic farming. And though its beaches are known for being high-density, coldmistral winds that bring bigger surfalso send beachgoers packing.

Australia

The working-class town of Byron Bay, formerly known for whaling and sand mining, started to mutate as long-haired hippies and surfer types migrated to the region as a result of the Aquarius Festival of 1973 (Australias Woodstock) and the discovery of perfect, uncrowded surf. Today, Byron Bay is many things to many people, but it is undeniably abusy place. Perhaps to its own demise, it is recognised as one of the worlds best surf towns.

Tahiti

View original post here:

Life on the ocean wave: How joy and freedom can be found in surfing - Telegraph.co.uk

The story so far: The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) was enacted to facilitate the marriage of couples professing different faiths and preferring a civil wedding. However, some practical problems arise in registering such marriages. The laws features on prior public notice being given and objections being called from any quarter place a question mark on the safety and privacy of those intending to marry across religions. Many settle for marriage under the personal law of one of them, with the other opting for religious conversion. Even this option is now under threat, as recent remarks by the Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana and a Karnataka Minister indicate. All of them want to ban conversion for the sole purpose of marriage.

The marriage of any two persons may be solemnised under the SMA, subject to the man having completed 21 years of age and the woman 18. Neither should have a spouse living; both should be capable of giving valid consent, should not suffer from any mental disorder of a kind that renders them unfit for marriage and procreation. They should not be within the degrees of prohibited relationship that is, they should not be related in such a way that their religion does not permit such marriages. Parties to an intended marriage should give notice to the marriage officer of the district in which one of them had resided for at least 30 days. The notice will have to be entered in a Marriage Notice Book and a copy of it displayed at a conspicuous place in the office. The Notice Book is open for inspection at all reasonable times without a fee. Further, if either of the parties is not a permanent resident of the district, the marriage officer has to send a copy to his counterpart in the district where the party has permanent residence. The notice shall be displayed in that district office too. The marriage has to be solemnised within three months of the notice, and if it is not, a fresh notice will be needed.

Comment | A marriage story for everyone

The law also provides for objections to the marriage. Any person can object to the marriage within 30 days of the publication of the notice on the ground that it contravenes one of the conditions for a valid marriage. The marriage officer has to inquire into the objection and give a decision within 30 days. If he refuses permission for the marriage, an appeal can be made to the district court. The courts decision will be final.

Also, the Act says that when a member of an undivided family who professes Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religions, gets married under SMA, it results in his or her severance from the family.

The provisions relating to notice, publication and objection have rendered it difficult for many people intending to solemnise inter-faith marriages. Publicity in the local registration office may mean that family members objecting to the union may seek to stop it by coercion. In many cases, there may be a threat to the lives of the applicants. There have been reports of right-wing groups opposed to inter-faith marriages keeping a watch on the notice boards of marriage offices and taking down the details of the parties so that they can be dissuaded or coerced into abandoning the idea.

Editorial | Uncivil proposal: On laws to curb 'love jihad'

In July, the Kerala Registration department decided to discontinue the practice of uploading marriage notices on its websites following complaints that these were being misused for communal propaganda. However, the notices will be displayed on the notice boards of the offices concerned.

These provisions have been challenged in the Supreme Court recently on the grounds that they violate the privacy of the couples, their dignity and right to marry. In the case of Hindu and Muslim marriage laws, there is no requirement of prior notice and, therefore, such a requirement in the SMA, say experts, violates the right to equality of those opting for marriage under it.

Also read | Love jihad not defined under law, says Centre

Many opt for inter-faith marriages through the relevant law of the faith of one of the parties. This will involve one of them converting to the religion professed by the other. While conversion to Islam and Christianity has formal means, there is no prescribed ceremony for conversion to Hinduism. The Hindu Marriage Act is also applicable to any person who is a convert or re-convert to the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh religion. In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court declined to grant police protection to a couple, of whom the bride was a Muslim who converted to Hinduism, citing past precedents that said conversion should be based on change of heart and conviction and should not be solely for the purpose of marriage.

Also read | Interfaith pair seek removal of objection provision in Special Marriage Act

Based on a Kerala High Court recommendation, the Law Commission of India had recommended in 2010 that every person who has converted may be allowed to send a declaration within a month to the officer who registers marriages in the area, and it may be confirmed in person after 21 days. However, this recommendation was not made applicable to States that have a Freedom of Religion Act (which are essentially anti-conversion laws).

Even though Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) and Karnataka have spoken about a separate enactment, at least two States have legal provisions to the effect. The Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019, and the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, both prohibit conversion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, inducement, allurement and by marriage. There is a separate section in both laws under which, not conversion for the purpose of marriage, but marriage done solely for the purpose of conversion, may be declared null and void by a family court based on a suit by either party.

Also read | Tanishq withdraws advertisement on inter-faith marriage following social media criticism

The U.P. State Law Commission has recommended a similar Freedom of Religion law in the State and favours a provision under which marriages solemnised solely for conversion of one of the parties may be nullified by a family court.

Excerpt from:

The Hindu Explains | Why are States opting for legislation on 'freedom of religion'? - The Hindu

Senator Mitt Romney arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on 23 September 2020. (REUTERS)

Republican senator Mitt Romney on Friday said the presidents repeated, false claims that the election is rigged damages the cause of freedom and inflames destructive and dangerous passions.

He joins a growing group of current and former Republican officials who have criticized the presidents assertions he wouldve already won the election but for massive voter fraud.

The Utah senator urged calm as remaining voters were counted.

Read more: Follow The Independents live US election updates

Mr Romney and the president have a long, somewhat tortured relationship.

When Mr Trump was running for president in 2016, Mr Romney said he didnt think he would win, and said the presidents past comments were childish and that Mr Trump was a phony, and a fraud.

Mr Trump responded harshly on Twitter.

Later, once the president won, the two dined together as Mr Romney was reportedly being considered for a spot as secretary of state, and a photo of the incident went viral, with Mr Romney looking somewhat dejected.

The president elected not to nominate Mr Romney, and since then hes emerged as one of Mr Trumps only elected Republican critics. In 2019, he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office, and in 2020 he became the first ever senator to vote to impeach a member of his own party.

Read more: Who is winning the US election now?

More:

Romney says Trump 'damages the cause of freedom' with election conspiracies - West Haven Observer

WASHINGTON Utah Sen. Mitt Romney once again lit into President Donald Trump, saying the nation's leader is "damaging the cause of freedom" and inflaming "destructive and dangerous passions" by claiming, without foundation, that the election was rigged and stolen from him.

The Republican offered his assessment Friday on Twitter, saying that Trump is well within his rights to challenge the results through the legal remedies available to him. But Romney says Trump is "wrong to say that the election was rigged, corrupt, and stolen from him _ doing so damages the cause of freedom here and around the world."

Romney lost to President Barack Obama in 2012 but was gracious in defeat. He continues to use Twitter and be Trump's most vocal critic within the Republican Party and voted to convict him in Trump's impeachment trial early this year.

Before the election, Romney wrote a blistering post on social media in which he said Trump had crossed several lines of decency during his campaign, including calling Sen. Kamala Harris a "monster," attacking Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on the day the FBI foiled a plot to kidnap her and attempting to persuade the Justice Department to jail former President Barack Obama.

Excerpt from:

Romney condemns Trump, says president is 'damaging the cause of freedom' - fox13now.com

Financial Freedom

By Joel Salatin

Originally posted November 3, 2020 on Manward Press

Do I have a right to hurt myself?

Recent events with my 89-year-old father-in-law have precipitated interesting discussions around this question.

Let me set the stage.

A couple of months ago, he fell off a kitchen stool and injured his tailbone.

He couldnt stand up afterward. After a day in the emergency room and even hospital admission, doctors couldnt seem to find anything definitively wrong, so they sent him home.

He still couldnt walk. The fall also affected his urinary function, creating borderline incontinence.

He went back to the hospital for further tests, but they still couldnt find anything.

This time, though, they sent him to a short-term convalescent center, kind of a temporary nursing home. Of course, with COVID-19, nobody, including his wife and children, can visit him in there.

The first night, he fell out of bed and got some bruises.

When we asked why they didnt put up the bedside rails, this was the response: Federal law prohibits us from restraining patients.

Im not an attorney or an expert on these matters, but I know the hospital can and does indeed use the rails.

A few days later, he fell out of bed again and required bandages on his elbow.

Realize that none of his loved ones can enter the facility, advocate for him, assess his care anything. All communication is via phone with the nurses and staff.

By now hes confused, thinks his family has abandoned him and in moments of lucidity asks us (on the phone) if his children are still alive and if his wife is still around.

Its a tragic, abusive set of affairs. But Im wandering.[mw-adbox]

In our discussions about the bed rails (which he likes in order to grab something to help him roll over), the staff is adamant that they cannot restrain him in any way.

At the end of one exasperating conversation, the nurse said, Patients have the right to hurt themselves.

These rail regulations went into effect when someone in a nursing home poked his head through his bed rail and hanged himself.

Rather than being called protective, the rails are now called restraints.

My, what ramifications occur with a simple change in designation.

I find this incredible freedom patients have to hurt themselves profoundly curious in a day of constant intervention on behalf of safety.

In the name of protection, we require motorcycle helmets, seat belts, food inspections, drug wars

The list could go on forever. In fact, the list is so long that an outsider would assume that as a culture, Americans have no right to hurt themselves.

This is yet another example of why bureaucratic rules inherently create hypocrisies and inconsistencies, which inevitably lead to distrust and consternation.

Those of us who tend libertarian see our whole country awash in what I call freedom in name only.

And yet, in the most preposterous circumstances such as a nursing home patient constantly falling out of bed rules invoke freedom in a macabre way. The rules actually preclude the staff from intervening on the most basic protective level.

Have we actually become this unreasonable?

This whole episode makes me wonder what would happen if this freedom to hurt yourself were applied throughout the nation.

What if we truly embraced it?

It would mean I could buy food from my neighbor without a bureaucratic stamp of approval on the package.

Goodness, it might even let me buy food thats not labeled or even in a package.

Fancy that.

An ongoing lobby effort in the livestock sector is trying to get the USDA to invoke antitrust action against the control of the three or four players at the top of the meat and poultry supply. Federal action against outfits like Tyson requires showing collusion and bullying, which is hard to prove.

Why not simply invoke the right for us to harm ourselves and let folks buy food from whomever they choose?

That freedom would break the back of the large food conglomerates overnight. It wouldnt require any court action, taxpayer money or anything.

You fight monopolies with market freedom.

What a novel idea.

If it works in nursing homes, it ought to work for a glass of raw milk or homemade ice cream.

If the right to hurt ourselves were universally applied, it would certainly mean we could take any drug of our choice prescription, illicit or otherwise.

It would mean we could buy and sell the food of our choice from the source of our choice.

It would mean we could build a house on our property the way we want to build it without bureaucratic licenses.

We could even buy snake oil if we wanted to. We could use alternative cancer therapies.

Wow, it would mean a lot of things.

Wouldnt it be nice if we had the right to hurt ourselves?

Pity that we wont until we get into a nursing home.

Would you embrace a right to hurt yourself in order to have more freedom? Share your thoughts at mailbag@manwardpress.com.

Joel Salatin calls himself a Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic farmer. With a room full of debate trophies from high school and college days, 12 published books, and a thriving multigenerational family farm, he draws on a lifetime of food, farming and fantasy to entertain and inspire audiences around the world. Hes as comfortable moving cows in a pasture as he is addressing Fortune 500 CEOs at a Wall Street business conference. A fierce defender of personal freedom and choice, he brings an unorthodox viewpoint that readers of Manward Digest cant get enough of.

Read the original:

What Freedom in the U.S. Really Means - Investment U

Afriend remembered the situation clearly. He was on his way home from Vietnam, flying on a military transport back to a base in Dover, Delaware. His superior officer on the flight, speaking to a group of soldiers on the plane, advised the troops to change from their uniforms into civilian clothes before going back into society.

At the height of the Vietnam War (Conflict), protests around the United States were going full bore and all too often simply the mere sight of something or someone representing the Armed Forces could provoke a confrontation. As many Vietnam-era servicemen recall, their conflicts were not confined to the Far East.

Those soldiers, now becoming some of the elder statesmen of the military, were among the finest personnel to serve. They did their jobs as best they could under demanding conditions thousands of miles from their homes against a fierce foe, all the while recognizing that a dis-united nation did not fully support their efforts.

Less than half a decade after the end of World War II, the Korean Conflict was another far-away fight which foretold the gathering storm which began with a few advisors in the late 1950s, expanded at the dawn of the 60s before exploding into a bloodbath soon after. In either case, there were significant differences in public perception.

During World War II, a near-unanimous support of the nation helped push the nation and its allies to victory. Even then, it took the disaster at Pearl Harbor to convince America to join the fight. The plan to prepare for military action, using hindsight, had (in)famously passed earlier by a single vote in Congress. Still, the war was won, and Americans, perhaps weary after fighting in another world war just 20 years after the first one.

Korean soldiers also performed their duties with distinction but in hindsight, many of them, along with a host of historians, regretfully believe that Korea is often the forgotten war sandwiched between the great World War II and Vietnam, which dominated nightly television, newspapers and magazines for years. In the years since, the view of soldiers has come full circle and now we as Americans take great pride in honoring ourwomen and men who have served.

Veterans Day does not come affixed with an apostrophe, signaling no individual but an honor for all with an eye for military personnel yet to serve. All five branches including the Coast Guard, Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy and Army are recognized for the great parts they have played in protecting the interests of the nations citizens. Not only that but the highly regarded efforts of National Guard units in times of national disasters during fire, storm and flood times have become integral in assisting communities to adjust and survive to terrifyingly destructive disasters.

In towns like Welch in McDowell County, where for decades the military have been celebrated with pomp and pageantry, the willingness of young people to serve their country, does not go unnoticed. West Virginia has always been one of those states at or near the top of providing volunteers ready to go to war if need be. Nearby Tennessee is another shining example, actually known as the Volunteer State for its contributions to military efforts.

In 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic raging, a contentious election in progress, civil unrest in cities from coast to coast, business and education either put on hold at times or halted completely at others, it might be easy to forget or overlook Veterans Day.

We must not and will not do that. Over in Welch, a determined and innovative decision to continue the great parade with a drive-by social distancing format is a great way to give the Armed Forces the respect they have earned while providing the public with a unique way to show it. It sounds a lot like a creative military maneuver which has found a way to success overcoming obstacles along the way.

Perhaps never before have the American Armed Forces faced such wide-ranging challenges. Terrorism both foreign and domestic is world wide using techniques unheard of and often not even thought of just a few years ago. We still shudder at the thought of what might have happened had a full scale invasion of Japan had been necessary in 1945 and now our soldiers are always on guard with enemies of freedom who are ready to sacrifice their lives at a moments notice. We have only to recall the horror of September 11, 2001 to know just how determined our enemies can be. In these trying times, we very correctly recognize our front line workers from grocery stores to hospitals to police and fire departments, teachers and security guards and others.

At the forefront of essential front line workers, as they have been for more than two centuries, are the marvelous men and women of the United States Armed Forces. On this coming Wednesday and every day we owe our thanks and our freedom to them.

Thanks to their willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, we can once again say with pride, God Bless our American military on another Veterans Day.

Larry Hypes, a teacher at Bluefield High School, is a Daily Telegraph columnist. Contact him at larryhypes52@gmail.com

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See original here:

Freedom is never free and Veterans Day salutes those who pay the price - Bluefield Daily Telegraph

Global academics have rallied around Anne-Marie Brady, a professor at the University of Canterbury, in New Zealand, who has been under review by her institution since August and has been told not to speak publicly about her case, according to her lawyer.

Her research, Holding a pen in one hand, gripping a gun in the other, co-authored by Jichang Lulu and Sam Pheloung, investigated alleged links between New Zealand universities and the Chinese military. The paper was submitted to Parliament in July and also published by the Wilson Center, a U.S. think tank.

In the paper, Brady outlines the high stakes for China-New Zealand relations. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, the PRC [Peoples Republic of China] was also New Zealands largest market for foreign students, largest tourism market, and sixth largest foreign scientific research partner.

Complainants claim that Bradys work cited manifest errors of fact and misleading inferences, Canterburys deputy vice chancellor (research), Ian Wright, said to the media.

However, nearly 200 international academics have signed an open letter saying that Bradys ground-breaking research has had a profound impact internationally, based as it is on meticulous research and her analytical insights over 20 years of scholarship in this area.

They urged the university to apologize, and for complainants to practice the normal way of disagreeing with a paper -- publishing their criticism.

Stephen Franks, Bradys lawyer, told Times Higher Education that Canterbury has ordered her not to communicate about their review and the complaint.

The universitys failure to direct the complainants to normal academic remedies -- publish their criticisms if they had confidence in them -- is generating significant disquiet and internal protest from staff at her university, and elsewhere in New Zealand, he said, adding that the university would be a laughingstock if the chilling effect was not so obvious.

A Canterbury spokesperson confirmed that it was responding to four formal complaints from academic staff at Canterbury and other universities. The review, which is being held as reputations of academics are in question, was initially planned for September but has been postponed due to a request by Brady, the spokesperson said.

Canterbury responded in a statement about the case that it supported the freedom of academic staff and students.

Times Higher Education understands that Bradys paper is being reviewed to determine whether it complies with the universitys academic freedom policy, which upholds academics right to express their views freely on all topics without fear of discrimination or disadvantage.

A Canterbury colleague, who asked not to be named, said that administrators would only be able to take action under the policy if they could prove that Brady had not acted in good faith -- which they wont be able to do.

The colleague said the universitys action meant Brady was now gagged and unable to defend herself after raising valid questions about Chinese defense spending.

However, a Canterbury spokesperson said that the university has not gagged Professor Brady and any suggestion that it has is incorrect.

Catherine Churchman, an Asian studies lecturer at the Victoria University of Wellington and an acquaintance of Bradys, wrote that government actions showed that Bradys broader concerns have been taken seriously.

She said that the complaint should have been addressed through more transparent channels.

If there really were defamation issues, then the university could have taken up a court case against her, but this would have caused them severe reputational damage, she said. The proper way to deal with it would have been through a point-by-point academic rebuttal, but this would mean examining the paper and the larger issue in great detail and drawing more attention to the issue. The point of the 'review' seems to have been to shut Professor Brady up with the minimum of fuss and outside scrutiny.

More here:

Paper on Chinese influence tests academic freedom in New Zealand - Inside Higher Ed

Live webcast: Wednesday, November 18 12:30 p.m. (Pacific)

Add to Calendar

The year 2019 represented the 400th anniversary of the forced arrival of enslaved Africans in the English colonies at Point Comfort, Virginia in 1619. In the history of the African-American experience throughout this period there have been many gains in the liberation of the formerly enslaved. However, with the continuation of the conditions of structural impoverishment and systemic and violent racism, the ultimate liberation for African-Americans remains to be realized. In the event, The Future of Freedom: Reparations after 400, a distinguished panel of scholars will consider what the question of reparations means for this freedoms fulfillment and what kind of future could follow for African-Americans beyond 400.

Speakers: Katherine Franke, James L. Dohr Professor of Law, Columbia University;Jovan Scott Lewis, Assistant Professor of African American Studies & Geography, UC Berkeley;Michael Ralph, Associate Professor in the Department of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University

Moderator:Bertrall Ross, Chancellors Professor of Law, UC Berkeley

This event is sponsored by Othering & Belonging Institute.

Making requests for event accommodationsIf you require an accommodation for effective communication (ASL interpreting/CART captioning, alternative media formats, etc.) or information about campus mobility access features in order to fully participate in this event, please contact Marc Abizeid marcabizeid@berkeley.edu, 510-643-9724 with as much advance notice as possible and at least 7-10 days in advance of the event.

Original post:

The Future of Freedom: Reparations after 400 Years - UC Berkeley