Category Archives: Freedom

MADRID (Reuters) - Decked out in pearls, 106-year-old Felicisima de la Fuente is thrilled to be on her way to see a show at a Madrid theatre after nearly a year cooped up in a nursing home.

I look so beautiful, she laughed from the minibus whisking her and fellow residents to the performance at the EDP Gran Via theatre. This is a happy day because I havent talked to people for a long time.

More than 200 residents and workers from nursing homes across the region were treated to the stand-up show by comedian Santi Rodriguez on Wednesday, after receiving both shots of the coronavirus vaccine.

During the first wave of the pandemic, the virus tore through Spains care homes, killing about 43,000 people from March to May. Since then, residents have had to endure tough restrictions on movement and limited visiting rights.

Now, with almost all of the care home population fully vaccinated, Spains most vulnerable are eager to regain their freedom.

Contact with the outside is very necessary, said 93-year-old Inocencia Montanel.

It felt a little strange. I used to go to the theatre or the movies a lot but after so many months away, I looked at myself and thought hey, Im really here.

Reporting by Elena Rodriguez, Juan Antonio Dominguez and Sergio Perez; Writing by Nathan Allen, Editing by Andrei Khalip and Janet Lawrence

Go here to see the original:

Madrid's COVID vaccinated care home residents relish freedom on theatre trip - Reuters

Speaking to Germany's Bundestag parliament on Wednesday, Health Minister Jens Spahn pointed to the approval of home coronavirus tests, known as antigen tests, as an important step on the return to normalcy.

Though Spahn spoke of freedoms regained, he warned citizens not to let their guard down and called for patience about the availability of tests.

Three such self-administered rapid antigen tests have been given special approval for use by Germany's Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. Although he expressed confidence that more and more tests would be available in the days and weeks following approval, Spahn warned they would be in short supply initially.

"It's exhausting," said Spahn of the pandemic, noting that the availability of tests would allow people to begin living their lives again. Speaking of the government's approach, he said, "We think we we're on the right path but this virus isn't going to just give up."

Self-administered tests are flexible, offering quick results when needed for instance while traveling or attending public events. The only drawback is that they are not nearly as accurate as those administered by trained personnel.

The health ministerrefused to commit the government to bankrolling approved tests, saying that would depend on whether they cost 2 or 10.

Spahn made the case for a unified federal approach to loosening lockdown regimes. He said such an approach would be "very desirable" adding that, "at the very least, we should ideally all be operating within the same framework."

Asked if infection index numbers would determine government decisions on loosening lockdown restrictions, Spahn said, "You can't reduce this pandemic to a number."

Spahn announced that German residents will soon be able to use digital vaccination cards as a supplement to the yellow paper version most have at home. Spahn said rollout had initially been planned for 2022 but that it will be introduced prior to that.

Speaking with the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper, German Chancellor Angela Merkel echoed her health minister inemphasizing the importance of treating those who are and are notvaccinatedthe same: "The state should not treat the groups differently as long as vaccination rates are so low."

Merkel went on to say, however,"when the point arrives that far more people have been afforded the opportunity to get vaccinated yet some simply refuse, then we'll have to consider whether access to certain areas or services should be reserved solely for those who arevaccinated."

js/aw (dpa, epd, Reuters)

Read more from the original source:

Coronavirus: Home tests will give Germany 'more freedom' - DW (English)

With the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the United States faces a moment of enormous opportunity to advance peace at home and around the world. As the Biden administration reorients U.S. foreign and domestic policy, it can also begin rethinking many of the systems that support violent conflict and the exploitation of people around the world. In his inaugural address, President Joe Biden spoke a lot about unity. He appealed to our better angels and described an era where the United States would once again re-engage with the world. He reminded us that we can disagree and have vigorous debates, but that we must do so without resorting to violence.

Words matter. As such, it was heartening to hear the president project the best of us, and we are optimistic about this moment. However, for Bidens aspirations to become real, we have work to do at home and we have to repair the damage the United States has done abroad. The to-do list following the departure of the previous administration and amidst a global pandemic is daunting. But there are five clear steps the Biden-Harris administration can take to promote human dignity around the globe.

First, the United States must begin by addressing the longstanding injustices and systemic racism that have permeated U.S. institutions and laws for centuries. For too long, Black Americans have been marginalized and have been victimized by various institutionspolice forces, health systems, education systems, and more. They are also among the most systemically disenfranchised populations in the country. The new administration must work to undo the decades of Black oppression in order to gain legitimacy abroad. We cannot be a force for good overseas when we continue to allow white supremacy and racism to flourish at home. There are no shortage of necessary reforms but the administration can begin by addressing the disparity already evident in access to the COVID-19 vaccines as well as implementing meaningful initiatives to combat police brutality.

The new administration must also rethink how the United States addresses conflict in vulnerable countries. Luckily, peace advocates and policymakers have handed Biden a ready-to-implement roadmap: the Global Fragility Act (GFA). The GFA passed Congress with bipartisan support in 2019, and creates a whole-of-government approach to addressing the root causes of violence and fragility. The legislation establishes an interagency initiative to refocus U.S. foreign policy and assistance on preventing violent conflict by addressing the root causes of violence and fragility. The GFA requires that U.S. diplomatic, development, and defense agencies, working in partnership with civil society and local communities, collaborate to reduce violence in at least five countries or regions over a 10-year period. This initiative takes a long term, holistic approach that seeks to prevent conflict and fragility, rather than merely respond to those challenges. If done right, the GFA has the potential to demonstrate a new, more effective way of tackling violence and fragility.

Another key step in addressing and preventing violent conflict involves improving the work of the Atrocity Early Warning Task Force, another interagency initiative currently housed at the State Department. During the Obama-Biden administration, the United States considered atrocity prevention a key foreign policy priority. The Biden-Harris administration has an opportunity to reestablish U.S. leadership in addressing and preventing mass atrocities by improving the Atrocity Early Warning Task Force. In particular, the administration can begin to publicly release the list of at-risk countries and regions, require consultations with local actors, as well as proactively engage with local, regional, and international organizations to support transitional justice and accountability.

Theres also work to be done here at home, and one important step is ensuring that no goods made by forced labor are imported into the United States. During the Obama-Biden administration, Congress updated the Tariff Act of 1930 to fully ban goods made by forced labor from being imported into the United States, and progress was made during the Trump administration in terms of the amount and scope of enforcement actions. However, there is still much work left to be done, and the Biden-Harris administration should make certain Customs and Border Protection (CBP) aggressively enforces this law. The administration should also take steps to provide greater transparency about the standards and timelines associated with its decisions about enforcement actions, as well as ensure better coordination between CBP and other agencies across the federal government that also tackle forced labor, such as the International Labor Affairs Bureau.

Finally, the new administration must continue prioritizing the fight to prevent and address human trafficking around the globe. One way to do this is by swiftly filling the role of the State Departments Office of Trafficking in Persons (J/TIP) ambassador. The United States has been fortunate to have had a number of strong ambassadors over the years leading J/TIP, and the Biden-Harris administration has an opportunity to continue this legacy by nominating someone fully committed to all three of the Ps that guide efforts to combat trafficking prevention, protection, and prosecution. The administration also should re-commit to ensuring the integrity of the annual Trafficking in Persons Report, following years of growing concerns over politicization of the report and the perception that national interests influence the rankings. The TIP Report has long been an important tool to hold countries, including the United States, accountable for their actions (or lack of actions) to combat human trafficking, but this report is only as effective as it is credible. J/TIP should be empowered to ensure the narratives and country rankings within the TIP Report are based on an objective analysis and not swayed by outside political considerations such as trade.

These five steps are critical to realizing the vision Biden laid out at his inauguration. But there is one other principle we must hold firm: The new administration must speak clearly when democratic values are being trampled, whether here at home or overseasincluding when the culprits are U.S. allies or strategic partners. We cannot be hypocrites who speak in support of human rights principles only when the United States has nothing to lose.

Biden spoke of a new day in the United States. These words will mean more once the Biden-Harris administration begins to take actions that reestablish the United States as a leader aspiring to increase peace and freedom at home and in the world.

Read this article:

How the Biden-Harris Administration Can Advance Peace & Freedom At Home and Abroad - Just Security

This week is Freedom to Read Week, a time for Canadians to think about topics including censorship, freedom of expression and freedom of information.

The week, which runs Feb. 21 to 27, 2021, is organized by the Book and Periodical Council and is held each year in February.

The freedom to read is not an abstract concept. Over the years, there have been efforts to challenge a wide variety of books on the shelves.

The list of challenged works in quite lengthy and includes literary classics, nonfiction works and religious scriptures.

READ ALSO: COLUMN: Acknowledging the freedom to read

READ ALSO: QUIZ: How much do you know about literacy and the freedom to read?

In 1998, a case involving the 1990 childrens book, Ashas Mums, was taken to the British Columbia Supreme Court. In 1991, Mark Twains novel Huckleberry Finn and Harper Lees novel To Kill a Mockingbird were both targeted for removal from the recommended reading lists in New Brunswick. The reason was because of racist content. In 1994, a petition was circulating in Alberta to remove John Steinbecks 1937 novel, Of Mice And Men, from schools in that province. A similar effort occurred in Manitoba in 2000. Steinbecks novel has come under fire because of the language in its dialogue.

Other works to come under criticism have included Final Exit, by Derek Humphrey, a 1991 book about assisted suicide; The Satanic Verses, a 1988 novel by Salman Rushdie; and Madonnas 1991 coffee-table book, Sex.

And today, there are also efforts to discredit certain news media publications by labelling them as fake news.

While we have the freedom to read in Canada, and while book challenges have not been successful here, they show there are efforts to suppress certain works.

There is nothing new about efforts to ban, suppress, destroy or discredit books or other publications. Examples of censorship can be found throughout history.

In Canada, there is freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but there are some limits.

Child pornography, hate speech and libellous and slanderous content are prohibited. Outside of such limits, Canadians have the right to voice their opinions and to read or hear the opinions of others, even when such opinions are unpopular.

However, our present freedom of speech and freedom of expression should not be seen as unshakable. The book challenges that have occurred in the past should serve as reminders that there are some who would limit our freedom to read and our freedom of expression.

Black Press

To report a typo, email:news@summerlandreview.com.

news@summerlandreview.comLike us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Editorials

See original here:

EDITORIAL: The freedom to read The Golden Star - Golden Star

Two of the most prominent facets of our government and our very existence are the Bill of Rights and First Amendment. Bandied about as the fabric of being, the outward facing embodiment of our freedom as Americans. It is one of our most notable achievements as a nation. It is also one of the most grossly misunderstood concepts in our nation.

For those of you who slept through civics, something I may or may not be guilty of, here is the First Amendment of our constitution in its entirety, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thats it, three sentences define our most prolific belief. However, what once set us apart as a beacon for freedom in an undemocratic world has now given way to misunderstanding and intentional misinformation, in many ways making our country less free.

The media has become a common enemy for Republicans and Democrats alike, and for good reason. Cable news and more influential social media has become hyper partisan to the point of antagonism. Culture wars revolving around hyperbolic rhetoric are pervasive to say the least, and a common through line in this rhetoric is our first amendment rights. People love to shout about how freedom of speech in the media is dead, not realizing the irony in their statement which gets sent out to millions.

However, in actuality these culture wars have nothing to do with the first amendment and have everything to do with accountability. The most common misconception about the First Amendment is that it protects you from being held accountable for what you say. The government can not infringe on your right to say what you want, however, what you say can still be held against you in a court of law. We are also not exempt from being held accountable by private institutions. You are not able to simply say whatever you want in a private place or on a private platform.

A new enterprise has emerged, one of lambasting the institutions you readily use and railing against them all the way to the bank. Freedom of speech isnt dead, its greater than its ever been. The problem is that we are being exposed to so many contradictory points of views and even facts that its become difficult to perceive what is real and what is not. We are in fact seeing the limits of freedom of speech and how far it can go before it starts to actually infringe on peoples freedom.

The ultimate irony is that with the extreme democratization of news and the greatest access to information in the history of the world, we are seemingly less informed as a nation than we have been in a long time. When the truth is no longer agreed upon, we are no longer living in a free society.

See the original post:

OPINION: Do we have freedom of speech in media? - UNCW Seahawk

Doga Unlu 12:03 am, Feb 24, 2021

Guest Columnist

Its a new semester, and Im thinking about what I want out of it. Theres a lot that I miss about being on campus. The most substantial one might be the How you doin? exchanged with the person crossing paths with you on the street. I miss running into some random person every once in a while and catching up for two minutes before class, being reminded of their presence and them being reminded of mine. I miss the chance meetings.

We have lost that interaction space, and it hurts. The pandemic has limited our chance meetings and, thus, the complex and beautiful network of our interactions. Perhaps we hadnt recognized the fundamental place that this network holds in our lives, but I believe that it creates the space for a unique kind of freedom. So, I propose, we continue to grow this network and our space of freedom as much as we can, even just through simple action and speech that translate into activism and contribute to a cause.

There are different theories of freedom. I cherish the one that says freedom is the power to begin, to introduce novelty into the world by contributing to an infinitely complex network of actions. Hannah Arendt, perhaps the most influential political theorist of the 20th century, capitalized on natality, believing that an individual had the power to begin; each individual was a new beginning, capable of action. With each birth, something uniquely new comes into the world not just because each individual is unique in a romantic sense, but because each person changes the dynamic space of interactions by contributing to a web of actions that is infinitely branched.

But, how does freedom relate to action and speech? In acting and speaking, we make our appearance in the world. The power to begin is always contingent upon others since, as Arendt posits, The disclosure of unique identities through speech, and the setting of a new beginning through action, always falls into an already existing web where their immediate consequences can be felt. Action, and speech for that matter, is the actualization of the human condition of natality. They are the necessary ingredients for the power to begin, thus for freedom.

Yet, this power cannot be transformed into action until we have a space to enact our freedom. Our network of interactions is this space. This might sound idealistic it is easily dismissed by pragmatists who run the world. Yet, isnt this space where our freedom is actualized be it our house, our workplace or the entire world what we long for throughout our lives? It may well be that it is not self-interest, but rather a desire for freedom which motivates people to act.

Importantly, however, we need to emancipate freedom from a sole association with individualism. If not, everything collective seems to us the enemy of freedom. Attacks on labor unions are one example. We see collective action in violation with individuality, and in turn, with freedom. Yet, it is our interconnected actions which give us the agency and autonomy over our lives an autonomy that cannot exist with radical individualism. As Arendt puts it in The Human Condition, Action and speech are surrounded by and in constant contact with the web of the acts and the words of others. We depend on the freedom of others and the complex makings of a fragile world. Our freedom flourishes from collective action, from unpredictable interactions and chance meetings with people that are capable of introducing novelty into the world. If action is the way we exhibit our freedom, then it is through establishing human connection that we gain our agency. We need to start thinking that we belong to more collectives than life has brought us to live in.

Where does this all bring us? Why do we keep failing to attend to problems in faraway communities? Perhaps the impact of these crises are easily forgotten since they span long time periods. Think of the eternal yesterday: it feels as if there have always been children dying of hunger in Yemen or refugees shot at the Syrian border. You might have thought before, Those places have always been conflict zones. Another reason for our failure is our obsession with immediate success. While advertising for the Fast for Yemen campaign we organized as the Dwight Hall Peace Initiative, we were all aware that our campaign would not end hunger in Yemen. Yet, that was the reaction we got from many people who did not see the point in getting involved. Still, we considered it a success to share stories and provoke empathy. Indeed, our campaign raised $6,383 for urgent relief a substantial amount. But perhaps more importantly, it created an opportunity for a new network of actions by acknowledging others sufferings. It valued collective effort, allowing their struggle to affect our own experience and leading us to respond with action.

I hope during this particular moment in our lives, with the pandemic tearing us apart and reducing our chance meetings, we see that we are capable of helping each other through various material and immaterial ways. We can also redefine freedom and carry our new beginnings with us, finding ways to cope with curbed individual freedoms by creating a different kind of freedom. Because we can only be free with others.

DOGA UNLU is a sophomore in Davenport College. Contact her at doga.unlu@yale.edu.

See more here:

UNLU: On Freedom and activism - Yale Daily News

As winter storms rocked Texas and others across the South last week, Southern organizers waited for no one to do what they do best: stepping up to make it happen. Volunteers signed up to phonebank for wellness checks, and mutual aid networks continue to expand their capacity to intervene where policy has failed.

The government failures may continue to pile up while Southern communities are left to resolve multiple crises on their own, but people are building collective power across the Southpeople committed to making sure our communities not only survive, but thrive.

Mutual aidalong with regional action and local policy changeis just one of the tactics central to the People's First 100 Days, a regional organizing campaign to grow Southern movement power. It's the first step in a year-long action plan developed when members of the Southern Movement Assembly (SMA) gathered in 2019, knowing that regardless of the outcome of the 2020 election, our communities would still need to fight for equity and justice.

Launched in 2012, the SMA is a collective of organizations and individuals committed to shaping a multiracial, multi-issue alliance to uplift frontline communities. More than 100 organizations from across the region, including the Global South, have participated in SMA intensives. Anchor organizations based across the regionincluding Project South, National Council of Elders, SpiritHouse, Southern Rural Black Women's Initiative, Black Workers for Justice, and Crescent City Media Groupare connecting their wide range of local efforts to make lasting regional change.

Modeled after the first 100 days of the new presidential administration, the People's First 100 Days launched at the start of the new year, with input from hundreds of Southern freedom fighters.

Beyond response in moments of crisis, the resilience of historically affected communities has led to some of the most decisive victories in history. Organizing to thrive and providing opportunities for communities to lead for themselvesinstead of waiting for piecemeal policy approachesis critical for our advancement.

Providing both a space for collective visioning and action, Southern people-power is more than an electoral strategy. This coalition is tackling real-world issues like climate change, immigration, housing, and jobsand their momentum is not deterred by the barriers to access and opportunity built into the political system.

Hundreds gathered on January 9 for the first mass meeting of the People's First 100 days. Participants from Little Rock, Durham, Nashville, Birmingham, and Jackson, to rural communities in South Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky gather virtually to set a mutual agenda. Nina Morgan from the Greater-Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution and Nia Wilson from SpiritHouse were among session presenters.

Driving home the message that 'WE GONNA BE ALRIGHT', speakers framed the current movement moment and ongoing intersecting crises of white supremacy, COVID-19 pandemic, and economic strife as opportunities for organizing.

The meeting came just three days after the white supremacist attack on the Capitol. Southern movement elders challenged the group to consider three questions:

Reflecting on these questions together, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic the capitol riots exposed the many lies that sit at the heart of this country. Leaders challenged us to not simply channel our rage and grief into action, but to take the moment to breathe and heal. Safety and healing are critical to our existence in a hostile terrain.

This week marks the halfway point through the People's First 100 Days, and neither major political party has shown the will and determination to put people first. This isn't the resistance of champagne liberals. Driving people-powered action while nurturing and growing our ranks will force our issues to be at the forefront.

Here are the main takeaways from the Southern Movement Assembly's plan for The People's First 100 Days:

"We are on this call because we are a part of a diverse Southern-rooted multiracial, multicultural, multi-gendered, multi-abled, multi-generational movement," reflected Nia Wilson with Spirit House in North Carolina. "We are committed to using the truths that we know to create the world we deserve."

Our rage is real and valid, especially in the battle for narrative control over whiteness and white supremacy.

Wilson pointed to the need for intentional healing in order to stand fully in our power. "We must build collective intercommunal power that is rooted in the wisdom of our ancestors and our elders."

The innovation and collective reimagining of how to show up in moments of sustained trauma and crisis has elevated the work that is being done across the board. It has opened opportunities to address simultaneously long standing issues and fortify our institutions.

"Now's the time for us to dig in deep," proclaimed Shafeah M'Balia with Black Workers for Justice. "We have to build and strengthen our local organizations, communities, networks, neighborhoods, [and] coalitions. Our strength starts from there."

M'Balia emphasized the necessity of building more opportunities for collective organizing and planning. Building around the commonalities we share helps in group self-determination. Defining priorities and objectives on our own terms leads to demands that actually meet the needs and conditions of our communitiesnot just goals that sound good on paper.

This is the value of having an effort like the People's First 100 Days, and a space like the Southern Movement Assembly, where people can convene and co-vision. Reflecting on the regional formations represented on the call, Emery Wright highlighted the importance of political education.

"We need to really be using this moment like we have today to do deep political education with each other to share analysis and perspective," Wright said. "Since the beginning of Project South, we have been focused on the U.S. South, focused also in our neighborhood in South Atlanta, but [we're] also international in both our perspective and in our work."

Coupled with the narrative power to build stronger movements, Wright encouraged everyone to have a global perspective.

There are no saviors. No masked avenger will swoop in and make everything better.

But with the collective planning of Southern Movement Assembly member organizations and allies, we move beyond simply talking about our visions and learning how to heal from our traumas to actually taking action.

The People's First 100 Days builds on the experience and passion of movement assembly members. It is the first step to growing movement power, and developing self-determined governance and cooperative infrastructure to support our shared vision for the future.

This campaign provides space to center the needs and desires of people who are deciding for themselves what is enough and what they deserve. Each action moves us one step closer to liberation.

Stephanie Guilloud, who co-leads Project South, said that while we may be halfway through the People's First 100 Days, there are still plenty of opportunities to engage and commit to growing collective power across the region.

"The insurrection at the capitol and the state's alignment with white violence revealed more of what we already know to be true. It is time for our communities to build our own solutions," Guilloud said. "It's time to build mutual aid projects rooted in local communities but coordinated with one another for greater strength. It's time to sharpen our policy campaigns to divest from harm and invest in community control of resources."

Participants from over 50 groups, representing 13 states, are meeting weekly to work on these issues and more.

Join in the SMA #HearThePeople action the weekend of April 10, and commit to joining local policy fights for community control of resources, and connecting or initiating mutual-aid projects and centers. Guilloud encourages those interested to become an SMA member and join a work team.

This work takes all of us. But we gonna be alright.

View post:

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes - scalawagmagazine.org

MUMBAI Filmmaker Anurag Basu says filmmakers have always explored bold subjects irrespective of the medium it is presented on. However, the line that differentiates freedom of creativity and misusing that freedom needs to be kept in mind by filmmakers at all times.

Its a very thin line between using the freedom of creativity and misusing it. Filmmakers should look at using freedom of speech in the best possible way to tell unique stories, Basu said.

His new film Ludo,an anthology drama, dropped on streamingplatformsa few months back and will make its television premiere on Sony Max Feb. 28.

A lot of filmmakers have explored bigger and bolder subjects on the big screen as well. My film Ludo dealt with many bold subjects and was initially planned for the big screen, the filmmakeradded.

Basu, who made films such as Barfi!(2012), Life In A Metro(2007) and Gangster(2006), is confident now that theaters have reopened after lockdown, the audience will pour in like the good old days.

Cinema is a community watching experience. I am certain that audiences will come back to theaters when they will be back in action completely. We just need one film that will create enough buzz for the audience to rush back to theaters. This has already started in the South, with the release of the Vijay-starrer Master,and soon will be seen in Bollywood too. One big release and things will change, he said.

More here:

Filmmaker Anurag Basu Opens Up on Using Freedom of Creativity and Misusing It - India West

Advertisement

A recent attack on the criticism of J. Mark Ramseyers article, Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War, reveals troubling insensitivity and disregard of an atrocious human rights violation.

We, scholars based in the United States and South Korea, call for the cessation of attempts both to spread outrageous falsehoods about Japans abuse of comfort women, an atrocious crime against humanity, and to advocate such conduct directly or indirectly by attacking fair criticism of Ramseyers article under the false pretense of academic freedom. Academic freedom does not protect outrageous falsehoods and distortions.

Joseph Yi and Joe Phillips wrote an op-ed on the controversy in The Diplomat, claiming that [a]ttacking Ramseyers academic integrity because of personal connections to Japan is unproductive and sounds xenophobic.

Yi and Phillips mischaracterize the criticism of Ramseyers article, which attempts to justify the military sexual slavery enforced by Japan during World War II as a legitimate contractual arrangement. Such contracts did not exist, and Ramseyer has not been able to present any evidence of such contracts.

Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.

For this reason, a number of scholars from around the world, including Hannah Shepherd (University of Cambridge, U.K.), Sayaka Chatani (National University of Singapore, Singapore), David Ambaras (North Carolina State University, U.S.), and Chelsea Szendi Schieder (Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan), question Ramseyers academic integrity.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

They demand the retraction of Ramseyers paper, not because of his personal connections to Japan, but rather because of his complete disregard of relevant evidence. Two Harvard historians, Professors Carter Eckert and Andrew Gordon, acting on a request by the International Review of Law and Economics to review Ramseyers article, also reached the same conclusion. They recommended that the journal suspend the publication of Ramseyers article and retract it, pending the outcome of the journals own investigation.

As should be evident to readers, the widespread criticism is not an expression of nationalism or the Korean perspective, but of a grave concern about attempts to justify atrocious human rights violations. The controversy is not a political debate between Korea and Japan, as Yi and Phillips purport it to be, but a serious human rights question that concerns everyone.

Yi and Phillips also criticize South Korea for allegedly failing to accommodate vigorous public discussions on the question of comfort women. Their insensitivity and disregard of the painful memory of the victims and their supporters is appalling. The military sexual slavery enforced by Japan is traumatic history for most Koreans. Koreans would be naturally cautious about such discussions, as they are likely to trigger the memory of traumatic pain and suffering.

Yi and Phillips also cite Korean lawsuits regarding controversial books and speeches about the sexual slavery. While academic freedom should be protected, it must not be abused to justify outrageous falsehoods and distortions. In Germany, where many believe academic freedom is well preserved, public advocacy of the war crimes committed by the Nazi regime would lead to criminal prosecution and punishment, but such response is not an illegitimate intrusion upon academic freedom.

Yi and Phillips also attack the credibility of testimonies offered by Korean survivors. Decades before the Korean testimonies were made public in the 1990s, the Netherlands interviewed Dutch comfort women who served during the war and secured testimonies affirming the atrocities of the sexual slavery. Victims from other countries, such as the Philippines and Indonesia, not just from Korea, also offered testimonies that confirmed kidnapping, deceit, torture, and killing of so-called comfort women. Even the Japanese government, through the Kono Statement admitted the atrocities inflicted upon comfort women in 1994:

The then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women. The recruitment of the comfort women was conducted mainly by private recruiters who acted in response to the request of the military. The Government study has revealed that in many cases they were recruited against their own will, through coaxing, coercion, etc., and that, at times, administrative/military personnel directly took part in the recruitments. They lived in misery at comfort stations under a coercive atmosphere.

The military sexual slavery enforced by Japan, the system of so-called comfort women, is a war crime and atrocious human rights violation, as confirmed by major international and domestic institutions such as the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. State Department. Even the Yamaguchi District Court in Japan affirmed the illegality of the militarys use of sexual slavery in 1998.

Perhaps most perplexing is Yi and Phillips attempt to make connections between the atrocious sexual slavery of the 20th century and the tribute women who they argue were sent to China from Korea some 600 years ago. It would be absurd to draw any relational inference between the two events that took place several centuries apart from each other under completely different historical, political, and cultural contexts. They also refer to the women who they contend offered sexual services on American military bases in Korea after World War II, citing wild numbers without any verification. Again, such comparison is unwarranted: the Japanese militarys sexual slavery was a war crime that bears no comparison to pre- or post-war prostitution. (Ramseyer also tried, unconvincingly, to make connections between pre-war prostitution and the military sexual servitude.)

Yi and Phillips also compare and contrast between what they call a repressive environment in South Korea, which, as they describe, suppresses public discussions on comfort women, and a purportedly freer Japanese environment that tolerates diverse positions. They will also find the absence of vibrant discussions advocating the Nazi war crimes in Germany or supporting the slavery of African Americans in the United States. It is not because these societies suppress discussions in general, but rather because the extreme trauma and sensitivity of such issues raises public caution, particularly against irresponsible positions justifying such atrocities without clear evidence. For the same reason, Koreans are cautious about the similar positions on the so-called comfort women issues, and given the trauma, Koreans should not be blamed for this caution. Korean society does not generally suppress discussions. On the contrary, it is likes of Yi and Phillips who try to suppress fair criticism of what many consider to be the dissemination of plain falsehoods by critics of undermining academic freedom. We reiterate: Academic freedom does not protect outrageous falsehoods and distortions.

Yong-Shik Lee is director of the Law and Development Institute and visiting professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Chan Un Park is professor of law at Hanyang University School of Law.

More here:

On 'Comfort Women' and Academic Freedom: A Rebuttal - The Diplomat

On snowy terrain,equipment shapes where you can go, how fast you can move, your risks, your hopes,your sense of what youre doing there.Trade-offsabound.Snowshoescanget you through rugged terrain,at a walking pace; strapped onto your hiking boot, they distribute weight to keep you above the snow, while a jaggedmetalcrampon provides a solid grip.

By snowshoe I meanthemodern version,typically with an aluminum frame,a development of the past half-century. The traditional wooden snowshoe crisscrossed with rawhide lacings is another story; Im told its like walking on a tennis racket, though it has its aficionados. Ive snowshoed over the years. A few years ago, I took my son snowshoeing into the park next door to our house in northern New Jersey. The staffers told us this was prohibited by regulations, and soon revamped their No Skiing signage toincludeNo Snowshoeing.

In cross-country, or Nordic,skiing,there are lacedbootsthatclick onto the skiat the toe, leaving the heel free; you step but also glide, picking up speed and momentum.Nordic skis are narrower thantheskis for Alpine, or downhill, skiing. Snowshoes and cross-country skis bothgiveyoua sense of beinglightlyencumbered compared tothebulkybootsandtightbindingsofAlpine,althoughdownhill skisenable a world of speed, outpacing even their rival, the snowboard.

Lastweekend, we went to Mohonk Mountain House, a sprawling, century-and-a-half-old resort in the Shawangunk Mountains, or Gunks, of New YorkStatesHudson Valley. Its aspecialplace tomy wife and me, not least because we got married there;wed first scoped it out as a venue right afterId proposed in nearby Minnewaska State Park. Recent snows ensured thered be ample snowshoeing and cross-country skiing on the resorts property and in the surrounding 8000-acre Mohonk Preserve.

My wife, son and Isnowshoed and skiedcross-country, the formeractivityon a scenic path along a ridge, the latter onmodestly slopedtrails through the woods.On trailsshared by snowshoers and skiers, its good etiquette for snowshoers to stayoffgrooves carved byskis, to avoid messing up the smooth skiing passage these allow. The snowshoers, after all, can go just about anywhere. A number of rugged side pathsat Mohonk were marked as snowshoe trails.

Downhill skiing is a family tradition on my wifes side, as Irecently wrote.The skills of winter sports are transferable to a degree.My wife does cross-country with the balanced ease of a longtime downhiller, and our 11-year-old son got the hang of it quickly. Ive onlygotten intocross-countrythis year,though I trieditoncetwo decades ago.Cross-countryslearning curveat the outset is less steep thanthat ofdownhill skiing, butitstill leaves room to improve and try more difficult trails.We went ice skating a couple of times over the weekend, as well. My skills there are minimal, ironic as thats the only winter sport I learned as a kid. Long non-participation had brought me to square one, stepping gingerly across the ice, trying to glide.

There are numerous variations for moving across snow and ice, among them: Alpine touring, in which you switch between a free and a locked-in heel so as to travel uphill as well as downhill, without the use of a ski lift; backcountry skiing with an emphasis on ungroomed snow; ski mountaineering, which includes elements of climbing; telemarking, where a bent knee and a free heel are employed in downhill; skate skiing, a form of cross-country using shorter skis and a side-to-side motion like that of a skater. Its a world of choice and exploration.

Theres a freedom to winter sports, an attitude that they cultivate, that you want to be out there, not confined indoors, that you can see things and go places you wouldnt get to otherwise. Climate changeposes athreattothis, raising prospects that snowfall will be less plentifulandlessreliable; that people will spend more time indoors year-round, in air conditioning during theextendedsummerbeforesegueinginto a tedious, sedentary winter.

Libertarians, among whom I once counted myself,focus onnegative liberty,thefreedom from external coercion.As important as that is, its not the only type of freedom,Positive liberty is the ability to do things;being a centrist, as I am now, may involve a greater appreciation of this type of freedom, and winter sports can accentuate that viewpoint. On the snow, what you can and cant do dependsgreatlyon your abilities, the equipment and infrastructure you have access to, theenvironmentalconditions you face. You mightbe free from coercionon a deep-woods snowy trail, but thats far from all that matters.

In my youth, I ruminated glumly over the philosophical problem offree will. One day I walked home in a Queens snowstorm worried that every snowflake had a pre-fixed trajectory. Nobody knows whether thats true. Perhaps if Id been a skier or snowshoer back then, I wouldve looked at it differently: that the snow is a landscape for our freedom,somake the most of it.

Kenneth Silber is author ofIn DeWitts Footsteps: Seeing History on the Erie Canaland is on Twitter:@kennethsilber

View original post here:

The Freedom of Snowshoe and Ski - Splice Today