Category Archives: Freedom

The world is passing through a cataclysmic phase. Fear, anxiety and uncertainty have gripped the nations. The ways of life that were taken for granted have suddenly become tenuous. Covid-19 has put governments under stress in charting out their responses: some appear to have succeeded in containing the contagion, at least for the time beingothers, including in some of the most powerful states in the world, are still struggling to "flatten the curve".

The national authorities have adopted different kinds of strategies to combat the pandemic. Some have been quick and upfront and have been largely successful in limiting the spread of the virus. Farsightedness, efficiency, transparency, accountability, and engagement of the citizenry have been the cornerstone of their success. Others have seen massive spread with a sharp spike in the proverbial "curve" that refuses to even out. The people of these states pay the price as their leaders remain complacent, inefficient, non-transparent and unaccountable, and refuse to recognise the value of people's participation.

Along with international solidarity, the situation calls for firm national unity. There is an urgent need for reinforcement of the social contract between the state and the people. This necessitates an acknowledgement by those in state power that the pandemic can only be confronted through an effective participation of the citizens and harnessing their collective strength. A precondition for forging such unity is upholding the rights of citizens including that of freedom of expression. Unfortunately, during this crisis, the right to freedom of expression has suffered a major setback in several countries.

It has been alleged that the Chinese government initially withheld basic information about the disease from the public, underreported the cases of infection downplaying its severity, and dismissed the likelihood of transmission between humans. On charges of "rumour-mongering", the authorities detained those who reported in social media. It also intimidated the doctor who warned about the deadly nature of the virus. In Hungary, its far-right nationalist prime minister has assumed near-dictatorial powers that allow him to substantially curtail freedom of expression.

The Thai government came down heavily on the whistleblowers in the public health sector as well as online journalists by bringing about retaliatory lawsuits and intimidation. In Niger, Cambodia and Venezuela, journalists have faced arrest, detention threats and assault after reporting on the pandemic.

Instead of upholding the right to freedom of expression, authorities in these countries and others have taken action against journalists, healthcare workers and whistleblowers. In short, the Covid-19 pandemic has been accompanied by a propensity "to unleash formidable executive power".

It appears that the ruling elite in Bangladesh have also taken an approach of suppressing opinions and narratives that reflect lived experiences of ordinary citizens affected by the pandemic. Those include non-availability and restricted supply of personal protective equipment (PPE), corruption in procurement of medical supplies, misappropriation of humanitarian assistance and the like. Lack of coordination and inefficiency, coupled with non-transparency in the official response to the crisis, has made people nervous. Citizens feel insulted by the insensitive and preposterous claims by some of those in positions of authority.

The following examples of threat, intimidation and detention provide an idea about the highhanded nature of state response to the active citizens who are merely exercising their constitutional right to freedom of expression. They are doing so by disseminating their thoughts or sharing experiences in social platforms.

Shahin Mondol, a garments worker of Ashulia, posted a video in Facebook criticising laying off of workers in many garment factories in this critical time. He also made comments about the role of the BGMEA leadership and the labour minister. The video was shared instantly by many. Mondol was subsequently arrested by RAB 11 on April 18 on charges of "fomenting instability and threatening public order".

On April 18, Dr Abu Taher of Noakhali Hospital was served with a show cause notice following his post in Facebook in which he criticised the health secretary's statement on the availability of PPE. The doctor was accused of "generating and inciting to generate dissatisfaction, misunderstanding and malice" amounting to misconduct, a punishable offence. Rejecting the charges, the doctor stood by his word that neither he nor any of his colleagues in the department received a single N95 mask.

In a notification on April 15, the nursing and midwifery directorate reminded its employees that they should refrain from sharing their views in public or with the media without authorisation from the higher authorities.

Media workers have been particularly hard hit. From March 1 to April 10, at least six journalists were prosecuted under the Digital Security Act including editors of daily Manab Zamin and news portals bdnews24.com and jagonews24.com. Actions against them were taken following the lodging of complaints by ruling party stalwarts including a member of parliament. Journalists have also been subjected to beating and torture for reporting cases of irregularities in distribution of humanitarian assistance including misappropriation by locally influential individuals mostly belonging to the ruling party. In other instances, journalists were implicated in false cases.

On March 24, the ministry of information issued a circular assigning officials to "monitor" 30 private television channels to see if those were putting out "rumours and misinformation on Covid-19 outbreak" with the purported aim of "shutting those down" if need be. A revised circular was issued subsequently, informing about the setting up of a cell at the ministry to monitor all media including social media platforms to check whether "rumours and misinformation" about Covid-19 are circulated.

On March 31, the Media and Public Relations department of Bangladesh Police, through a text message, noted that "on the ground of spreading rumours on coronavirus, police have asked Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission to shut down fifty social media accounts." On April 10, the BBC reported that targeting social media platforms, 50 persons were arrested by the police and RAB. Human Rights Watch noted that it is the dissenters who became the major target. The law minister binned such assertions and explained that some of those detained "were engaged in sabotage and were trying to take advantage of the situation."

The threat of intimidation has also taken a toll on academic and intellectual freedom in which self-censorship is becoming the order of the day. Three lecturers of different government colleges have been suspended for writing about Covid-19 on social media. A lecturer of BRAC University is under investigation for engaging in epidemiological research on Covid-19 in Bangladesh.

Human health does not depend only on the availability of healthcare facilities. It also entails access to accurate information about the nature of threats and the means to protect oneself. The right to freedom of expression "includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, through any media" and it "applies to everyone, everywhere, and may only be subject to narrow restrictions."

It is, therefore, incumbent on the government to provide reliable information in accessible formats for all including access to the internet. In an emergency condition, access to information is of prime importance. Therefore, any form of broad restriction on the use of internet, such as slowing down of speed or blockage, cannot be justified on the grounds of public order or national security.

The media serves a crucial function in times of public health emergency by informing the public and monitoring government actions. It is incumbent on any government committed to people's wellbeing to make "exceptional efforts to protect the work of journalists".

No one can underestimate the harm that fake information can mete out in such trying times. In order to address disinformation, the government should set up a credible and accountable public messaging system. The innovative proposal of Shorbojonkatha, a civil society platform, for the government to set up an open website in which citizens will be able to report their concerns about health and safety issues, distribution of humanitarian assistance, quality of services of government and civil society actors and the like, merits serious consideration. Such a platform will allow the state authorities to check the veracity of the complaints/reports and take remedial action. It will also bring the state closer to the people.

The oft-resorted measures of taking down contents and imposing censorship may limit access to important information. Attempts to criminalise information relating to the pandemic may "create distrust in institutional information, delay access to reliable information and have a chilling effect on freedom of expression."

In facing the Covid-19 scourge, Bangladesh like the rest of the world faces an uncharted route. Time has come for those at the helm of the state to acknowledge the importance of people's engagement in facing the challenge. An effective participation demands strengthening of the social contract, and that entails unreserved respect for the right to freedom of expression of the citizenry.

C R Abrar is an academic with interest in human rights. He acknowledges the support of Rezaur Rahman Lenin.

Continued here:

Freedom of expression is vital during Covid-19 - The Daily Star

Gov. Tate Reeves is in a most unenviable position.

His first four months in office have been eventful, to say the least, but theyre not the kind of events a politician dreams about while running for office.

The year started with unrest in the states prison system, particularly at Parchman, which brought nationwide attention to the conditions for both inmates and employees at the facility.

There have been multiple severe weather outbreaks, dating back to January, which have led to emergency declarations all over the state, including Sunflower County.

And then theres COVID-19.

Reeves April 1 shelter-in-place order shuttered hundreds of businesses deemed non-essential throughout the state, and as Reeves delivered his daily briefing late last week to announce an extension of that declaration, it was apparent that he was torn.

Other governors, mainly Georgia and Florida, see no reason to extend their shelter-in-place orders, at least as of press time they dont.

Reeves, a pro-business Republican who genuinely believes that Mississippis small and existing businesses are the backbone of our economy, extended the states most extreme COVID-19 measure another week.

Even while he was doing this, he was lifting restrictions against boating and fishing and a burn ban he had put into place a week earlier. You could tell he believed he was giving the citizens of Mississippi every inch he could, but his advisors in the health care field were telling him he needed to extend the order at least one more week, maybe longer.

There are thousands of people, business owners and out-of-work individuals who are suffering from this lockdown. Even the essential businesses like restaurants have seen a steep decline in revenue as that industry has lost their dine-in base.

Health care facilities, including hospitals, clinics, dentists, eye doctors and others have had to cancel elective procedures, cutting into revenues in that arena.

Americans simply were not wired for this type of economic shutdown, and over the past week, thousands across the country have participated in group protests calling for the economy to be restarted in several states.

There are those who have a healthy skepticism about the way the government, from the White House to local mayors, has handled this situation.

People should be allowed to question these things, criticize government officials and express their right to freedom of speech, even when they are wrong.

There is also an unhealthy cynicism that takes hold of some during times like these.

Folks who propagate that COVID-19 is a total hoax have a right to do so, but they dont have the right to endanger others while they are spreading disinformation.

People who believe the government could have handled this situation without shutting the U.S. economy down are struggling to get their voices heard in a society that cancels anyone who questions any part of the going narrative. Naturally, when they believe they cant get their governors, mayors, congressmen or even their doctors to sympathize with their economic plight, they will always find an ear with the this is all a hoax crowd.

This is not a crowd most reasonable people hang out with, but some inevitably get swept up into underground movements, message boards filled with disinformation and even protests that counteract their own belief that the virus is real, contagious and dangerous.

And this is simply because many times these are the only people who will listen to their cries.

Society has grown accustomed to canceling anyone who has an opinion that differs from the mainstream, and that can drive normally reasonable people toward the extreme.

People will go where there is an ear and empathy, and extremists are always willing to feign both to grow their numbers.

And when those numbers grow, so do the protests and the chances for spreading COVID-19 to more people, needlessly.

Show respect for your neighbor. If you feel inclined to correct someone, do it politely.

At the end of the day, you want that person venting to you, a person of reason, instead of doing it with an angry mob on the capitol steps.

Read the original here:

Exercise your freedom to disagree and to be respectful - Enterprise-Tocsin

He served in the US Army during World War II. One of the first black photographers in the White House, he took photos of US Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, as well as Queen Elizabeth II.

But he was perhaps best known for an assignment he undertook for Jet Magazine in 1961: documenting the Freedom Riders as they journeyed to the Deep South to challenge racial segregation.

"We kept saying that he survived World War II, survived the struggle of civil rights, he survived a heart attack," his wife Maria Santos-Gaffney said. "We were praying that he would survive this too, but his body could not handle the severity of the virus infection."

He showed the world the Freedom Rides

"I didn't want anybody to know I was a photographer either," Gaffney said in the interview. "That was more dangerous than being a Rider because they don't want documentation of things that happened, whether you're a black or white photographer."

He was afraid that the further South he traveled, he said, if people found out he had a camera, he might not come back -- and his fears were nearly realized.

From Atlanta, the riders split off into two groups as they boarded buses for Anniston, Alabama. Some riders got on a Greyhound, while the others, Gaffney among them, hopped on a Trailways bus that left an hour later.

The violence in Anniston and Birmingham made headlines. The Freedom Riders tried to continue their journey the next day, but found that no bus driver would agree to transport them. Eventually, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy arranged for the group to fly from Birmingham to New Orleans -- which came as a relief for Gaffney.

"I'd never flown before, but it felt good when that plane got off that runway," he said in the documentary. "I'd rather take a chance on getting killed in a plane crash than to get beat to death by hoodlums with iron pipes."

His work was informed by his ancestry

Though Gaffney said in the PBS interview that he didn't consider himself to be an activist, his cousin Patricia Johnson said his career was largely informed by his family history.

His great-grandparents had been enslaved on a plantation in South Carolina, and his grandparents were sharecroppers in the town of Gaffney, Johnson told CNN. In the 1920s, Gaffney's parents migrated from South Carolina to Washington D.C. for better opportunities. Gaffney was born in 1927.

In 1945, Gaffney enlisted in the Army. Johnson said he would tell his cousins stories about the segregation he experienced during his service. He was also close to his uncle, Johnson's father, who she said had once faced a lynch mob in Montgomery, Alabama.

Those experiences were part of why he felt compelled to document the civil rights struggle of the 1960s, according to Johnson.

Gaffney was a "legendary figure" in the family, Johnson said. Despite his achievements though, his family members said he was always learning, and encouraging others to do the same.

Johnson recalled that as a young girl, Gaffney took her along to state dinners when he was on assignment at the White House, introducing her to world leaders and dignitaries.

"He wanted to make sure we were afforded every opportunity we could get," she said.

When he wasn't taking snapshots at the White House, on Capitol Hill or across the Deep South, Gaffney's career sometimes landed him in more far-flung places. In the 1980s, a research project on the African diaspora took him to Brazil, where he met the woman he would marry, Santos-Gaffney.

Gaffney is survived by her and their two sons, Theodore and Walter.

Originally posted here:

Theodore Gaffney, who photographed the Freedom Riders as they protested segregation, dies of Covid-19 complications - CNN

Growing up, I loved reading.

One of my favourite books is 1984, George Orwells masterpiece. In it, the inhabitants of the fictional state of Oceania are constantly under the watchful eye of a totalitarian ruler known as Big Brother.

The inhabitants are kept safe from harm in the surveillance state as long as they obey Big Brother. They have near absolute safety, but no freedom.

Im afraid our obeisance to government in the current age of Covid-19 could be an ominous indicator of an impending world not unlike Orwells oppressive Oceania.

This is because governments the world over have learned a lesson they wont ever forget: At the first sign of danger, people will gladly give up their freedom in exchange for safety, or the perception of safety.

Many democracies, including Malaysia, have instituted nationwide autocratic lockdowns in the belief that itll stem the spread of Covid-19. Although some are unhappy about this, almost everyone agrees it is for our own good.

These governments, including our own, are acting like our all-knowing Big Brother protecting us and ensuring we dont misbehave for our own wellbeing. And Malaysians are showering the government with praise, now that it looks like we have mostly contained the virus.

We attribute our low death rate to swift government action shutting almost everything down and forcing us to stay indoors. But correlation does not mean causation. Obviously our valiant frontliners, rapidly ramped up testing and our good medical facilities have been huge factors in keeping the lid on the virus.

But I have my doubts about the necessity for a national lockdown, given that its impact will be felt for years, and wonder if other means, including specifically targeted lockdowns, would have worked as well, if not better.

The most cited success story is Wuhan, where the Chinese government initiated a lockdown on a scale the world had never seen isolating millions from the world and each other. The method, deployed in conjunction with many others, seems to have worked.

China and the World Health Organization (WHO) peddled its efficacy and in the process set the containment narrative for the world. This spurred many democracies, including Malaysia, to disregard civil liberties and follow Chinas lead.

However, we need to keep in mind that a lockdown is a heavy-handed method, one which would be expected as the method of choice in freedom-starved China rather than in democracies such as the US, Malaysia and much of the world.

One only needs to look towards South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong for a model that has worked tremendously well without having to resort to blunt and undemocratic lockdowns.

Lockdowns, which are the result of an escalation of government powers, have predictably led to many opportunistic governments using the Covid-19 crisis as a tool to strengthen their hold on power and their citizens.

Hungary just passed a Coronavirus Bill which gives their Prime Minister Viktor Orban the power to govern unchallenged for as long as he sees fit. It also allows the government to jail for five years those whom it perceives as spreading fake news about the outbreak.

Closer to home, the Philippines has granted President Rodrigo Duterte temporary emergency powers to fight off Covid-19. Theyll be in place for three months but can be extended by Congress. This has set off alarms in the activist and journalist communities there which fear these emergency powers will not be rolled back once the pandemic is over.

Similarly, many countries, including Turkey, Russia, Brazil, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Honduras, are using the Covid-19 panic to muzzle the press and control the spread of information.

Meanwhile in Kenya, more people have died due to the polices brutal enforcement of a nationwide lockdown, (12 deaths) than of Covid-19 (11 deaths) in the first two-weeks of its implementation.

Another alarming development is that the public has welcomed the adoption of movement tracking apps for the purposes of keeping tabs on those with infections and for identifying viral hotspots. Theres another name for this: a mass surveillance tool.

Countries such as China, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan are already using contact tracing apps that track the movement of their citizens. The US, which has historically been sensitive to privacy concerns, is on the bandwagon as well, with tech giants Google and Apple working on bluetooth-enabled contact tracing capability for Android and iOS.

At home, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has released a Covid-19 contact tracing app of its own, GerakMalaysia. According to them, Since Covid-19 can be easily transmitted by being close to infected individuals, this movement app will be a valuable tool for the ministry of health to protect you and your loved ones.

According to a Malaysian daily, the app requires personal details, including the users full name, MyKad or passport number, residential address and email. Users also have to give permission to track their location at all times via the phones GPS.

Edward Snowden, the erudite NSA whistleblower says: as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest this slide into a less liberal and less free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, the second wave, the sixteenth wave of the coronavirus is a long forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept, that these datasets will not be kept?

He adds: these kinds of emergency powers that are born out of crises have a perfect history of abuse. I mean down the board, when you look at these things, the funniest part about it in a dark way is, the emergency never ends it becomes normalised.

Hes right on the money. Malaysia is no stranger to this. The infamous and rightly maligned Internal Security Act (ISA) was the descendent of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948 which was enacted to fight the Malayan Communist Partys insurgency. Introduced in 1960, it continued till 2012 when it was repealed, after years of activism by human rights groups.

The rights groups had argued that the government was using it as a tool to squelch dissent, long after the communists were a non-concern. It was used to imprison and silence government critics including opposition leaders, activists and academicians all without having to legally prosecute them.

So, the million dollar question is: What will the Covid-19 lockdown and the increased surveillance of population movements evolve into in Malaysia? Moving forward, will movement tracking apps become mandatory for the good of all? Will the government revive the Fake News Act, which was repealed by the previous Pakatan Harapan government?

The infringements on our privacy and freedom should raise alarms and stir up heated debates but they havent. Could it be that we are too afraid or too concerned about our safety to care much about our freedom? Or could it be that we feel this is not the right time to debate the freedom issue, as the disease is still a threat?

Will safety against the coronavirus provided by the lockdown make us more susceptible to, and accepting of, the government broadening its powers and its hold on us?

I fear there may be a tendency for our government, and governments of other nations, to adopt some of Chinas strong-arm ways of doing things, especially as we have seen how todays model of democracy the US is faring in the fight to contain Covid-19.

This is why I have a suspicion that, over time, Chinas biggest export in these troubled times will not be Covid-19 but rather a global shift towards suppression of freedom.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

CLICK HERE FOR OUR LIVE UPDATE OF THE COVID-19 SITUATION IN MALAYSIA

Fake or not? Check our quick fake news buster here.

Read more:

Freedom, the first casualty in Covid-19 war | Free Malaysia Today - Free Malaysia Today

In March 2019, Ms. Bui Thi Kim Phuong, a Hoa Hao Buddhist from Vietnam, prepared to board a flight to the United States for a series of meetings on the deteriorating human rights and religious freedom conditions in Vietnam. Ms. Phuong was stopped by Vietnamese security authorities at Tan Son Nhat airport and forced to return home. Her offense: she is married to Nguyen Bac Truyen, a prominent prisoner of conscience and religious freedom advocate.

Nguyen Bac Truyen founded the Vietnamese Political & Religious Prisoners Friendship Association, an organization dedicated to assisting prisoners of conscience and their families. For many years, he served as a lawyer and advocate, primarily for his fellow Hoa Hao Buddhists. But in July 2017, he was kidnapped by Vietnamese authorities. Nine months later, he was tried for activities attempting to overthrow the State. The trial took less than a day. Truyen was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Through the Defending Freedoms Project of the congressional Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission and the Religious Prisoners of Conscience Project of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), we are advocating for Truyens release.

Truyens sentence marks a troubling time for religious freedom in Vietnam. The number of prisoners of conscience in Vietnam has surged in recent years. Authorities are reportedly retaliating against Hmong and Montagnard Christians who refuse to renounce their religion. Independent Hoa Hao Buddhists, Cao Dai adherents, and Khmer Krom Buddhists have been intimidated, harassed, and physically assaulted for attending religious ceremonies. The 2016 Law on Belief and Religion has imposed significant bureaucratic obstacles to establishing new houses of worship and requires, among other things, all religious groups to register with the government; many refuse to do so out of concern for their independence.

We acknowledge that the Vietnamese government has made some progress over the past year. Registered religious organizations have been allowed to hold large festivals in public. Attacks by government-affiliated groups against Catholic communities seem to have decreased from previous years. The national government has investigated abuses by local officials against religious communities.

Yet, Mr. Truyens continued detention with his health deteriorating and with severe, draconian restrictions on visits and on receiving food and medical supplies stands counter to the fundamental human right of all persons to worship as they choose. His immediate and unconditional release is necessary to demonstrate the Vietnamese governments stated commitment to religious freedom.

If the Vietnamese government does not release Mr. Truyen and take action to stop ongoing religious freedom violations, we strongly recommend that the U.S. State Department designate Vietnam a Country of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. In addition, the State Department and USAID should provide funding for programs in Vietnam that educate local officials about the importance of religious freedom. Finally, we urge all U.S. government officials, including members of Congress, to consistently raise religious freedom concerns during meetings with Vietnamese officials.

The ties between the United States and Vietnam have deepened over the past 25 years since diplomatic ties between our countries have been restored. The ongoing violations of religious freedom and detention of Nguyen Bac Truyen prevent an even closer bond. Mr. Truyens release is an important goalpost for a different path forward.

Anurima Bhargava is a commissioner on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Harley RoudaHarley Edwin RoudaDemocrat Harley Rouda advances in California House primary Let engineers make engineering decisions on local infrastructure projects EPA pushes back on Oversight review of ethics program MORE represents the 48th District of California.

Originally posted here:

The rising cost of religious freedom in Vietnam | TheHill - The Hill

At a string of small reopen America protests across the country this week, mask-less citizens proudly flouted social distancing guidance while openly carrying semiautomatic rifles and waving American flags and signs with ironic swastikas. They organized chants to lock up female Democrat governors and to fire the countrys top infectious disease experts. At one point during protests at the Michigan Capitol, the groups orchestrated gridlock blocked an ambulance en route to a nearby hospital.

For those whove chosen to put their trust in science during the pandemic its hard to fathom the decision to gather to protest while a deadly viral pathogen transmitted easily by close contact and spread by symptomatic and asymptomatic people alike ravages the country. But it shouldnt come as a surprise. This weeks public displays of defiance a march for the freedom to be infected are the logical conclusion of the modern far-rights donor-funded, shock jock-led liberty movement. It was always headed here.

Few demonstrate this movement better than Alex Jones of Infowars one of the key figures of Saturdays You Cant Close America rally on the steps of the Capitol building in Austin, Tex. For decades, Mr. Jones has built a thriving media empire harnessing (real and understandable) fear, paranoia and rage, which in turn drive sales of vitamin supplements and prepper gear in his personal store. The Infowars strategy is simple: Instill a deep distrust in all authority, while promoting a seductive, conspiratorial alternate reality in which Mr. Jones, via his outlandish conspiracies, has all the answers. Hes earned the trust of a non-trivial number of Americans, and used it to stoke his ego and his bank account. And he never lets reality get in the way (case in point, holding a stay-at-home order protest in Texas the day after the state announced it would begin efforts to carefully reopen in coming weeks).

Former employees have described Mr. Jones to me as master of manipulating the truth into a convenient worldview in which Infowars and its listeners are constantly victimized by powerful institutional forces. We kept saying Were the underdogs that was our mantra, one former employee told me in 2017. To make this work, Mr. Jones molds the days news into conspiratorial fables.

A novel virus about which so much is unknown and where expert opinion is constantly shifting is a near perfect subject for Infowars to fit the news to its paranoid narrative. Uncertainty over the viruss origins in China is a springboard to float unproven theories about bioweapons. Discussions about a vaccine to end the epidemic become conspiracies about billionaire tech leaders pushing population control. Changing epidemiological models that show fewer projected Covid-19 deaths (because social distancing has worked to slow infections) provide an opening for Mr. Jones to rant about stay-at-home lockdowns. Genuine fears about deeply unfair job losses and economic recession become reckless theories about Democrat-led plans to punish American citizens by driving them into poverty.

Jones opportunistic rantings fit neatly into a larger right-wing strategy, which has grown alongside Infowars. Just as Infowars rallies are tied to the media outlets financial interest in antigovernment paranoia, a few of this weeks rallies have been underwritten by political organizations with ties to the Republican Party and the Trump administration. Regardless of whos behind them, the intent is to sow division and attempt to reshape public opinion. As Voxs Jane Coaston wrote, theyre designed to pit Republican-voting areas of states against their Democratic-voting neighbors, even rural Republicans against urban Republicans.

Its important to note that the reopen protests have been generally small (at most, hundreds of people in states of millions of citizens responsibly staying at home) and dont even reflect the polled opinions of many conservatives. But they fit neatly into a larger campaign playbook and take on outsize importance. They take place frequently in swing states or states with Democratic governors and are plastered across social media, reported in mainstream organizations, openly cheered on by Fox News and right-wing media, and ultimately end up amplified (tacitly or explicitly) by the president. The strategy has worked well in recent years, consolidating support among the Trump base.

As a political movement, the Make America Great Again crowd relishes turning criticism from ideological opponents into a badge of honor. Confrontation of any kind is currency and people taking offense to their actions is a surefire sign that theyre correct. The MAGA mind-set prioritizes freedom above all especially the freedom from introspection, apologizing or ever admitting defeat. But the movement, which has been building since the Tea Party protests, has created a reflexive response among both Joness audience and far-right Trump supporters.

This response is disguised as an expression of liberty, but its a twisted, paranoid and racialized version. Slate editor Tom Scocca defined it recently as a political ideology where supporters are conditioned to believe that thinking about other peoples needs or interests in any way is tyranny by definition. This wholesale rejection of collective thinking is, as Vices Anna Merlan notes, the cornerstone of the anti-vaccine and health freedom movements, which reject public health because they dont think their choices affect other people.

Unmentioned by the protesters are the workers actually keeping America open, many of them afraid for their health, with no choice and in communities devastated by the virus. The result, as my Times colleagues described Saturday, is images of nearly all-white protesters demanding the governor relax restrictions while hoisting Trump signs and Confederate battle flags, as the virus disproportionately impacts Michigans black residents.

This coronavirus protest movement is merely the confluence of this perverted liberty ideology honed and pushed by Mr. Jones, right-wing interest groups and pro-Trump media and the dynamics of an online information ecosystem that prioritizes conflict to generate attention. When Infowars-style tactics meet online platforms the result is a flattening of all nuanced arguments of science and politics into a simplified struggle between patriots and tyrants. Small protests incorrectly blossom into a false national narrative.

And so here we are in 2020, protesting statewide lockdowns intended to save lives while thousands of Americans across the country grow sick and die each day. That a virus that demands a united front where our public health is only as strong as our least vigilant citizens should come at a moment of extreme polarization is a tragedy. But this moment is what weve been headed toward for years. And so the reopen America protests feel unconscionable and yet completely predictable. The playbook isnt new. The only thing thats changed are the stakes, which get higher every day.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email:letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read more here:

Protesting for the Freedom to Catch the Coronavirus - The New York Times

Judges of Galveston, Brazoria and Montgomery counties said although Harris County is requiring face coverings in public, they will not issue such a mandate.

HOUSTON While Harris County is set to implement a 30-day order requiring face coverings in public starting Monday, other county judges are making it clear they will not mandate residents cover their faces.

The Harris County order requires residents ages 10 and older to cover their nose and mouth when in public. It is set to begin Monday, April 27 and will last for 30 days. Residents who dont follow the order could face a $1,000 fine.

Galveston County Judge Mark Henry tweeted while covering ones face in public is recommended by national and local authorities, he will not mandate face coverings, as he believes it is unconstitutional to do so.

Just as critical as getting our economy back up and running, it is important that elected officials uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution and ensure individual freedoms remain intact during and after this pandemic, he said in a statement.

Montgomery County Judge Mark Keough also said he will not mandate face coverings in public.

I do not find a statutory or legal basis that would allow me or anyone else in government to issue an order requiring citizens to wear a mask In public, especially under the fear of making it a criminal offense if they dont, he said in a video statement.

I will not be issuing an order mandating the wearing of mask In public places. This is my statement on the issue.

Judge Keough encouraged residents to respect each other whether they choose to wear a mask and continue practicing social distancing.

Brazoria County Judge Matt Sebesta also said he will not mandate residents to wear masks in public unless the county health authority strongly recommends it. However, Judge Sebesta highly encourages everyone to wear a mask when out in public.

Fort Bend County Judge KP George said he is not issuing a mandate but still "strong recommends" residents wear masks in public.

Officials in Chambers, Waller and Liberty counties also said they have no such required face covering orders in place.

Coronavirus symptoms

The symptoms of coronavirus can be similar to the flu or a bad cold. Symptoms include a fever, cough and shortness of breath, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Some patients also have nausea, body aches, headaches and stomach issues. Losing your sense of taste and/or smell can also be an early warning sign.

Most healthy people will have mild symptoms. A study of more than 72,000 patients by the Centers for Disease Control in China showed 80 percent of the cases there were mild.

But infections can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure and even death, according to the World Health Organization. Older people with underlying health conditions are most at risk for becoming seriously ill. However, U.S. experts are seeing a significant number of younger people being hospitalized, including some in ICU.

The CDC believes symptoms may appear anywhere from two to 14 days after being exposed.

Human coronaviruses are usually spread through...

Help stop the spread of coronavirus

Lower your risk

Get complete coverage of the coronavirus by texting 'FACTS' to 713-526-1111.

Follow this link:

'Liberty and freedom' | Other counties say they will not require masks like Harris County, Houston - KHOU.com

There is one indelible scene in Unorthodox that will stick in your memory long after youve finished watching the four-part miniseries.

Esty, a 19-year-old Hasidic Jew, has escaped from the constrictions of married life and her ultra-conservative community in Williamsburg and fled to Berlin. There she befriends some music students. This being modern, hip Berlin, the students are worldly, diverse and nonchalantly progressive.

They invite her on a trip to a lake in Wannsee. Once there, they strip off unselfconsciously and jump into the water.

Esty, though, stands tentatively on the shore before taking off a jumper and stepping out of flesh-coloured stockings. She walks, still almost fully clothed, into the lake and then she takes off her wig, revealing her shaved head. The wig is a sheitel, worn by Orthodox Jewish women after marriage. She chucks the wig into the water and floats on her back. Its a scene reminiscent of a Christian baptism, but instead of joining a flock she is leaving one. A liberation of sorts has taken place.

This Netflix miniseries is adapted from Deborah Feldmans 2012 memoir Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots. Feldman was raised in the Satmar sect of Williamsburg and escaped an arranged marriage at the age of 19 while pregnant with her first child, eventually resettling in Germany.

For Esty, as presumably for Feldman, Berlin represents a chance at a new life and freedom. Esty is resourceful enough to flee there with papers from her grandparents, to find shelter, make friends, and ultimately secure an audition at a prestigious music school. All of this is remarkable when juxtaposed against her backstory, told through flashbacks.

But as in the case of any good drama, the stakes are raised when her husband, Yanky (Amit Rahav), and his thuggish cousin arrive with the plan to bring her back to New York and the community. Complicating matters is the discovery by Yanky that Esty might be pregnant with his child.

The story of rebellion and freedom then takes on the pace and aspect of a thriller as the men close in on the runaway. But its focus thanks to a mesmerising lead performance by 24-year-old Israeli actress Shira Haas is Estys own coming of age story. Who is she outside her community? How will she survive? Haas is outstanding. Physically tiny, like a child, the viewer is immediately protective of her. But as the episodes unfold she is shown to have a spine of steel.

For those of us fascinated by closed religious communities, the insights into the Satmar community is fascinating. The scenes of Unorthodox that take place in Williamsburg are mostly performed in Yiddish. Estys life in Berlin is an interesting contrast to the rigid parameters of her life in Williamsburg. The series presents Berlin and Williamsburg as a sort of binary: freedom versus restriction, hedonism versus conservatism, transience versus permanence. In Berlin, Esty frequents coffee shops and nightclubs, revels in the spaciousness and freedom of the citys large parks and public spaces, but there are reminders everywhere, too, of the citys Nazi past.

What Unorthodox doesnt really explore is the positive side to clan, community, tradition and belonging that occur in closed religious communities. Although massively restrictive, surely many Hasidic Jews must get strength and a sense of belonging from their faith and their community? Instead the story like Esty seems to privilege individualism, freedom and free will over the submersion of individuality into a larger, and possibly more cohesive, communal and spiritual life.

But this is also partly what makes the series so compelling. Explaining to her new friends in Berlin why she fled, Esty says: God expected too much of me. Now I need to find my own path.

The tension and the joy in this excellent series is watching her do it.

Unorthodox is now streaming on Netflix in Australia

Continue reading here:

Unorthodox: a thrilling story of rebellion and freedom from New York to Berlin - The Guardian

Editor:

A friend of mine and I have been discussing the recent anti-quarantine protests going on is states such as Ohio, and the question that arises is to what extent is the state or the nation, or the city justified in compelling observance of restrictions imposed or steps taken to counter threats or dangers?

Neither of us is comfortable with compulsion, and both of us believe in the sanctity of individual freedom. We also believe that freedom has to be exercised in balance with responsibility. And therein lies one of the rubs: sometimes a degree of freedom has to be sacrificed, to a greater or lesser extent, to the well-being of the community. We are not free to drive as fast as we might like, or to fire guns in the middle of the city, or even to have a rock concert on our lawns in the middle of the night. Sacrifices have to be made for society to function safely and for the general benefit. You might say that restraint is the price we pay for freedom.

So what do we do to encourage people to act with responsibility and a necessary degree of self-restraint? Education helps, surely, to seeing something bigger than self. Travel often has the same effect. But what do we do with those who refuse to sacrifice any perceived freedom, for the greater good and to the consensus of what that greater good entails? Most of us recognize that sneezing in someones face is not a way to demonstrate freedom, so where do we, can we, draw the line, especially in the face of a pandemic?

Laws are one way we try to encourage, or where necessary to compel, socially responsible behavior and self-restraint. Sanctions warnings, fines, confinement are ways we compel compliance where personal responsibility falls short. But where, and to what extent can we, or should we, go that far?

What, for example, can we make of the anti-quarantine demonstrations? Medical and elected officials have determined that quarantining is necessary to slow the spread of the virus. Dissent is part of the American way but what if the form of dissent potentially creates the risk of spreading the disease to those who dont participate or dont agree? At a recent demonstration in Ohio, one woman brought along her 10-year-old son. To what degree is that responsible?

What to make of those who see their rights being taken away when the city temporarily pedestrianizes Sunset Avenue? The people we elected to worry about such things agreed that a) given the crowds of walkers and the narrowness of the street when cars are parked all along it, automobile traffic was dangerous; and b) that pedestrianizing the street would allow room for responsible social distancing, impossible given the numbers and the narrow sidewalks when cars are parked all along the street. Decisions were made for the safety and well-being of the walkers, surely a greater number than those who perceive themselves as discriminated against by loss of parking spots on Sunset. (I do not speak of the disabled who genuinely cannot walk a block or two from available parking. We should have handicap spots for these!)

I dont know the solution. I doubt if there is One Answer, short of police intervention, which in the case of Sunset would be unthinkable. There never is One Great Solution. But there are many small ones: a degree of willing self-sacrifice in times of need; some self-discipline about distancing; an idea of common mutual responsibility, i.e.: community; a measure of compassion for those in real need or in fear; an agreement that caution is preferable to risk; restraint when tempted to put me ahead of us. These could all help, nationally and in our small Edmonds community. And I believe that in Edmonds, at any rate, the more severe forms of constraint are not needed if we commit to acting as a community, rather than as a number of mes.

Nathaniel BrownEdmonds

More:

Letter to the editor: Personal freedom vs. the greater good - My Edmonds News

Taking suo motu cognisance of the alleged attack on TV anchor Arnab Goswami, the Press Council of India (PCI) on Thursday asked the Maharashtra government, through the chief secretary and the Mumbai police commissioner, to submit a report on the facts related to the case at the earliest.

The council condemns this attack and expects from the state government that it will apprehend the perpetrators of crime and bring them to justice immediately, stated the press statement released by the council. Violence is not the answer even against bad journalism, it added. The PCI also noted, Every citizen in the country, including a journalist, has the right to express their opinion which may not be palatable to many but this does not give anybody the authority to strangulate such a voice.

According to the FIR filed by Goswami, soon after he was attacked, the two bike-borne men were overpowered by his security team he has Y Category police protection who were following him in a separate vehicle, and later arrested for the alleged assault. He also claimed that the men told his security guards that they belonged to the Youth Congress and that the attack was being done on the orders of the higher ups.

On the face of it, there is nothing out of place when the PCI expresses concern about the rights of a journalist or asking the state government to submit a report. After all, the PCI was established for the purpose of preserving the freedom of the Press and of maintaining and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India. However, what is important to underline here is that, as far as the mandate of the council is concerned, as per the Press Council Act, 1978, it is only bound to perform its duties in connection with newspapers and news agencies.

Also Read: SC Allows Hate Speech Probe Against Arnab Goswami to Proceed, Stays Multiple FIRs

Hence, the obvious question is, if the PCI is not the body to intervene in this matter, why did it choose to do so? This question assumes importance because generally, the council does not act in matters like these, especially if it has something to do with TV (electronic) media. In recent months and years, several journalists have been attacked, intimidated and targeted by the state as well as non-state actors. But one hardly recalls the council intervening in these matters as swiftly as in the case of Goswami. In fact, the PCI has rarely acted in matters like these.

It can be noted that only recently, the PCI clarified, Electronic media, TV news channels, social media i.e. Whatsapp/ twitter/Facebook do not come under the jurisdiction of the Press Council of India. It can be underlined that the clarification was issued by the council just a day after a bench of the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim order on the plea of a Muslim organisation seeking to restrain a section of media from allegedly spreading bigotry and communal hatred by linking the spread of the coronavirus to the Tablighi Jamaat meeting. Observing, We will not gag the press, the apex court asked the petitioner to approach the PCI in this matter, stating, Implead them and thereafter we will hear this.

Representative image. Credit: Karnika Kohli/The Wire

The council was well within its rights to issue the clarification and there was nothing technically wrong in it. However, its latest intervention smacks of double standard and indicates that in practice, the council is less concerned about its jurisdiction and procedures stated in the Press Council Act, and maybe more driven by its personal preferences.

Remarkably, the last we heard of the council taking suo moto cognizance of a matter was against English daily The Telegraph, a newspaper which is known for its anti-establishment stance. Last month, the council issueda notice to the newspaper for its front-page headline which read Kovind, not Covid, did it, about former CJI Ranjan Gogoi being nominated to the Rajya Sabha. According to the council, such headlines violated norms of journalistic conduct.

In the case of several other newspapers which have violated norms of journalistic conduct by spreading fake news or misinformation, the council has hardly bothered to intervene. In the past few weeks, there has been a spike in fake news, misinformation and propaganda against the Tablighi Jamaat event and Muslims in general in relation with COVID-19. This misinformation has not just been on TV channels and social media but also in newspapers. For example, on April 5, Amar Ujala, a widely circulated Hindi daily, on its front page published a story claiming in Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh) members of the Tablighi Jamaat demanded non-vegetarian food and defecated in the open inside a quarantine facility. The local police refuted this claim. Similarly, in Meerut, a communally-charged advertisement was publishedinDainik Jagran. In other languages too, the contentpublished by newspapers violated norms of journalistic conduct regularly. It is interesting to note that the PCI would not bother to take cognizance of those issues.

Also Read: Coimbatore: Founder of News Portal Arrested for Reporting on Governments Handling of COVID-19

The PCI has also remained silent over the issue of police filing FIRs against three journalists in Kashmir and invoking charges under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). One of the journalists is a reporter for The Hindu, which falls under the direct jurisdiction of the council.

This even though, as per the councils admission, section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978, empowers it to warn, admonish or censure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist concerned or disapprove the conduct of the editor or the journalist if it finds that a newspaper or a news agency has offended against the standards of journalistic ethics or public taste or that an editor or a working journalist has committed any professional misconduct, on the receipt of complaint or otherwise.

In this context, it appears that the council is being selective in upholding rights of the journalists and ensuring that the norms of journalistic conduct are not flouted, which is not just unfair but akin to defeating the very purpose for which PCI was established. The council needs to act as swiftly as it did in the matter of Goswami, at least to set the record straight. After all, as an old legal maxim goes, not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.

Read this article:

Is the Press Council Being Selective in Upholding Media Freedom? - The Wire