Category Archives: Freedom

Last November, each of the presidential campaigns received a questionnaire about an issue seldom discussed on the campaign trail, but one crucial to our democracy freedom of the press. To date, only Michael BloombergMichael Rubens BloombergBloomberg meets with Democratic governors Bloomberg wins endorsement from Democrat who flipped Michigan seat Bill Maher to Steve Bannon: 'I wish we had someone on our side as evil as you' MORE has replied.

Where are the rest?

This is a trying time for journalism. Its a moment begging for new ideas to build trust, for a new tone to our discourse, for transparency over obscurity. A good place to start is with those who seek to occupy the White House.

Thats why we at the National Press Club Journalism Institute, together with the National Press Club, the Society for Professional Journalists and other industry partners,asked presidential candidatesfrom both parties to describe what a free press means to them, to define their obligations to the free flow of information, and to articulate their commitments to transparency. Bloomberg deserves credit for giving the questions serious consideration.

The Bloomberg campaign said the former three-term New York mayor wants the next president to be afirm and outspoken champion of the news media, has misgivings about the need for a federal media shield law and would restore regular press briefings to the White House.

Bloomberg, of course, is not a disinterested party. He is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, which includes Bloomberg News. Bloomberg Philanthropies is a donor to the National Press Club and the NPCJI. Widely respected, the news organization has nonetheless drawn flack for apolicy of not investigating Bloombergas a candidate and for applying that policy to the other Democratic presidential candidates.

The Institute submitted the same questionnaire to President Donald TrumpDonald John Trump Biden says Buttigieg is 'not a Barack Obama' on NH campaign trail Democrats make final pitch at rowdy NH political spectacle Pelosi: Vindman ouster is 'shameful' MOREs campaign as well, though his track record answers some of the questions, and his contempt for journalists and news organizations is a recurrent theme in his Twitter feed.

But over the course of the presidential campaign most other candidates have given only passing reference to issues of press freedoms.

At theDec. 19 Democratic presidential debate, former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPeter (Pete) Paul Buttigieg Biden says Buttigieg is 'not a Barack Obama' on NH campaign trail Iowa Democratic Party reviewing results from 95 precincts following caucuses Bloomberg meets with Democratic governors MORE took note of the presidents disdain. When the American president refers to unfavorable press coverage as the product of the enemy of the people, democracy around the world gets weaker, he said.

At the same debate, Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharDemocrats make final pitch at rowdy NH political spectacle Sunday shows preview: Top tier 2020 Democrats make their case before New Hampshire primary Pelosi's miscalculation and Trump hatred MORE (D-Minn.) noted that in separate Senate Judiciary Committee hearings she asked Trump attorneys general Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsBloomberg has thoughts on press freedom; the other candidates should give us theirs, too Doug Jones says he will vote to convict Trump Senate Democrats outraise Republicans, but GOP has cash edge MORE and William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrRepublican senators call on Twitter to suspend Iran's Khamenei, Zarif The Hill's Morning Report Trump basks in acquittal; Dems eye recanvass in Iowa Trump 'apoplectic' in phone call with UK's Johnson about Huawei decision: report MORE whether they would imprison journalists for doing their jobs and neither gave her an unequivocal answer. My dad was a newspaperman, Klobuchar said. So this is not just talking points to me.

Meanwhile, Andrew YangAndrew YangDemocrats make final pitch at rowdy NH political spectacle Yang hits candidates for acting like Trump is 'the cause of all our problems' Overnight Defense: Impeachment witness Vindman escorted from White House | Esper says Pentagon protects service members from retribution | Trump ousts EU envoy Sondland MORE hasproposed invigorating journalismand sowing news deserts with a $1 billion fund administered by the Federal Communications Commission to make grants to for-profit, non-profit, and local government entities to help support local news operations.

Good for them for addressing the issue.

It deserves more.

Its time to hear from the rest of the pack. Its time for voters to demand a commitment to press freedom. Its time to ask: Do you believe the president has a role in restoring faith in a free press and the checks it places on our institutions?

Record numbers of journalistsare being imprisoned abroad. Killings, miraculously down, still continue. In many cases, as in the coldblooded murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the responsible parties are state actors who make a mockery of justice.So we have asked the candidates how they would use diplomatic tools to promote a free press across the globe.

Wouldcandidates grant asylum to journalists such asEmilio Gutierrez Soto, who fled Mexico amid death threats from the military?Gutierrez' asylum claimshave twice been rejected by an immigration judge; deportation would mean returning tothe deadliest country for journalists.

At home, the last two administrationshave targeted journalistic sourcesas if they were spies. Forty-nine states have statutes or case law that protect reporters from revealing sources to government officials. Yet, the federal government offers no such protection.

Journalists working in the United States havebeen detained, their equipment confiscated, their homes searched. Federal agencies and the Supreme Court have limited information available to the public through the Freedom of Information Act. And journalists are routinelydenied access to government experts, no matter the subject.

Journalism is the key to an informed public. And in the end, only an informed public can govern itself. We need to know where the candidates stand. Its time.

Jim Kuhnhenn is a veteran Washington correspondent for the Associated Press and Knight Ridder who is now the Press Freedom Fellow for the National Press Club Journalism Institute. He is a former member of the congressional Standing Committee of Correspondents and a former president of the Washington Press Club Foundation. Follow him on Twitter @jkuhnhenn

Read more:

Bloomberg has thoughts on press freedom; the other candidates should give us theirs, too | TheHill - The Hill

Visitors to the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center were greeted today, by the sounds of jazz and treated to a day of art culture and history.Andre DuBois of Arts Wave said the Freedom Center was the perfect location to recognize the art of the Queen City.What better place than the Freedom Center during Black History Month to celebrate all the diverse arts that we have in our city. Dubois said.Docents guided tours, sharing lessons of the past and perhaps inspiring visions of a more perfect future.The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, Arts Wave's community partner, offered free admission to the public, including its brand-new exhibition, "Motel X," a multimedia interactive experienced designed by Cincinnati artist Christine Shrum.Katie Branell of The National Underground Freedom Center describes Arts Wave's kickoff as a perfect compliment to the Freedom Centers mission.We are able to talk about Black History Month and tell people why we are here, the underground railroad, and feature our special exhibit Motel X which is an interactive multimedia exhibit on human trafficking.Arts Waves partnered with the museum as part of Lifting as We Climb in commemoration of Black History Month. Watching the reaction of patrons, DuBois said he is encouraged by the agencys mission. In this particularly event, I just love the interaction we have with different African-American artists. I think it is so important, because art is always a reflection of life.For many in the tri-state and even around the world, this Freedom Center has served throughout its 15 years as a beacon to talk about the social crises of humanity. Organizers say with Arts Wave, the internationally renowned research center serves as a bridgeWe want to be the premier institution that talks about what we call inclusive freedom. So we want to teach people about this history and then encourage them to become active on fighting against injustices today.Branell said. Arts Wave raises more than $12 million annually to support the fine arts in the Cincinnati region.

Visitors to the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center were greeted today, by the sounds of jazz and treated to a day of art culture and history.

Andre DuBois of Arts Wave said the Freedom Center was the perfect location to recognize the art of the Queen City.

What better place than the Freedom Center during Black History Month to celebrate all the diverse arts that we have in our city. Dubois said.

Docents guided tours, sharing lessons of the past and perhaps inspiring visions of a more perfect future.

The National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, Arts Wave's community partner, offered free admission to the public, including its brand-new exhibition, "Motel X," a multimedia interactive experienced designed by Cincinnati artist Christine Shrum.

Katie Branell of The National Underground Freedom Center describes Arts Wave's kickoff as a perfect compliment to the Freedom Centers mission.

We are able to talk about Black History Month and tell people why we are here, the underground railroad, and feature our special exhibit Motel X which is an interactive multimedia exhibit on human trafficking.

Arts Waves partnered with the museum as part of Lifting as We Climb in commemoration of Black History Month. Watching the reaction of patrons, DuBois said he is encouraged by the agencys mission.

In this particularly event, I just love the interaction we have with different African-American artists. I think it is so important, because art is always a reflection of life.

For many in the tri-state and even around the world, this Freedom Center has served throughout its 15 years as a beacon to talk about the social crises of humanity. Organizers say with Arts Wave, the internationally renowned research center serves as a bridge

We want to be the premier institution that talks about what we call inclusive freedom. So we want to teach people about this history and then encourage them to become active on fighting against injustices today.Branell said.

Arts Wave raises more than $12 million annually to support the fine arts in the Cincinnati region.

Link:

Arts Wave partners with the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center to celebrate Black History Month. - WLWT Cincinnati

Theres only one political body that is more incompetent than the Iowa Democratic party. That body was delivering what could be its last State of the Union speech on Tuesday.

For the fourth year, Donald Trump pretended to address Congress like his presidential predecessors, with some kind of legislative agenda worthy of the chief executive of the most powerful country on the planet.

But our reality-TV president has shown a stubborn resistance to playing anything like the normal role of a commander-in-chief. This time last year, he threatened war if Congress continued to investigate his many varied scandals, crimes and impeachable abuses.

If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation, he said in a nonsense rhyme that sounded like the vaguely ominous threats of a childish bully armed with nuclear weapons. It just doesnt work that way!

Strangely enough, the investigations continued all the way to impeachment, and the Democrats still voted for his new North American free trade legislation. So his assessment of politics was as perfect as his call with the Ukraine president.

Trump is supposed to be a straight shooter but his State of the Union speeches are as unruly as his tweets. Two years ago he said his administration was working on a bipartisan approach to immigration reform. The next year he said that countless Americans are murdered by criminal illegal aliens.

This time around, he insisted he was building the worlds most prosperous and inclusive society. That was shortly before he recounted a gruesome spree of deadly violence by one immigrant.

As someone famously said, it just doesnt work that way.

In case you were wondering how Trump was going to demagogue his way through the next eight months of an election, you can now rest easy. He has identified the enemy, and it is something called free government healthcare for illegal aliens.

Like some Frankenstein amalgam of spare body parts, Trump is fabricating an entirely new Republican party by sewing together its most nightmarish fears. Its only a matter of time before he declares a war on Islamist atheists.

Sitting behind Trump was his chief tormentor. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, was dressed in white, along with several dozen Democrats marking the centenary of womens voting rights in the United States.

Trump showed his respect for the institution of Congress by refusing to shake Pelosis outstretched hand before he launched into his annual exercise in teleprompter reading. For most of Trumps speech, Pelosi adopted the posture of a schoolteacher reviewing the grade paper of one of her worst students.

Socialism destroys nations, said Trump after welcoming Venezuelas opposition leader, Juan Guaido. But always remember, freedom unifies the soul.

Pelosi shook her head as she mouthed the words to herself over again. Freedom unifies the soul. Can a soul be divided and shattered like a horcrux? How does freedom put a soul back together? And most importantly, did this speech get reviewed before it passed the presidents lips?

Trump's ideas about freedom are as strange as his devotion to Vladimir Putin

Trumps ideas about freedom are as strange as his devotion to Vladimir Putin. With a grand flourish, he awarded the nations highest civilian honor, the presidential medal of freedom, to the spectacularly racist hate-monger known as Rush Limbaugh. Trump said he was giving him the medal in recognition of all that you have done for our nation [and] the millions of people a day that you speak to and inspire. The fact that Limbaugh is now stricken with cancer does not erase a career of spewing the opposite of an inclusive society, especially through the Obama years.

At this point we should spare some thoughts and prayers for the people with the worst job in the White Houses west wing. Working as a speechwriter for Donald Trump is as thankless a job as trying to style his hair: theres not a lot to work with.

You start out with the doorstopper volumes of great presidential speeches, and you end up writing a line that sounds like youre driving a bulldozer. We are moving forward at a pace that was unimaginable just a short time ago, said Demolition Donald, and we are never ever going back!

This is the kind of rhetorical flourish a speechwriter crafts when the facts fail them. Trump constructed his big speech around some economic statistics his team had cherrypicked about the active workforce.

Somehow he failed to say that economic growth has slowed to 2.1% for the last two quarters. When economic growth under Obama was around this level, back in 2012, Trump himself thought this was less than great. The economy is in deep trouble, said the man with a tweet for all occasions.

The sick joke of the Trump presidency is that its becoming increasingly hard to tell the difference between funny strange and funny haha. After bragging about getting his NATO allies to help pay their fair share, Trump pointed to his greatest military innovation.

Just weeks ago, for the first time since President Truman established the Air Force more than 70 years earlier, he declared, we created a new branch of the United States Armed Forces, the Space Force.

At this point the cameras turned to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, who looked like he could barely stifle his giggles.

It has long been unclear how much of this presidents entourage is engaged in a daily stifled giggle.

On the eve of his impeachment acquittal, so many of the jurors listening to Trumps state of the union treat him like a man-child whose conduct cannot be judged by normal adult standards. I believe that the president has learned from this case, Senator Susan Collins of Maine told CBS News. The president has been impeached. Thats a pretty big lesson.

Yes, thatll teach him. Now he knows he can ignore congressional budgets, use military aid for his own personal gain, and coerce a foreign government to interfere with an American election.

This is a special place, Trumps America. Its the kind of country where senators can openly surrender their principles and power out of fear for their own reelection. Its the kind of country where half of Congress can cheer race-baiting radio stars and a president who demonizes immigrants.

And its the kind of country where a presidents speechwriters can just give up on the whole speechwriting thing to list a bunch of randomly famous American names to wind up one final Trumpian state of the union.

This is the home of Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Amelia Earhart, Harriet Tubman, the Wright Brothers, Neil Armstrong, and so many more, Trump said as his speechwriting staff threw in the towel. This is the country where children learn names like Wyatt Earp, Davy Crockett, and Annie Oakley.

One day they will learn the name of Donald Trump too. Hes the guy who put kids in cages, watched TV all day, and made a Space Force. He got caught lying and cheating but there were no referees, so he never stopped.

See original here:

Freedom unifies the soul: Trump's State of the Union speechwriters have thrown in the towel - The Guardian

North Carolina has become a freer state over the past decade. But if we want to make our license plate slogan First in Freedom more than just a lofty aspiration, there is still plenty of work left to be done.

I am using the term freedom here in its political context. To be free is to enjoy the right to make your own decisions, to transact business and associate with other free people at your discretion, and to live according to your own values. Americas founding creed captures it well, that we all enjoy equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

While government obviously poses a significant threat to our freedom, it can also help us defend and exercise it. Our rights are more secure when law enforcement and the courts offer protection and the fair adjudication of disputes. And to the extent government is involved in financing education or other public goods, it can either shove us around or maximize our freedom to choose service providers that best match our particular needs and values.

When I say North Carolina has become freer over the past decade, then, here are some examples of what I mean.

Taxes are necessary to fund basic government services. But excessive taxes, and taxes applied selectively in an attempt to engineer economic or social outcomes, have the effect of reducing our freedom.

Three nonpartisan think tanks the Tax Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Fraser Institute issue regular rankings of state tax codes. According to all three, North Carolina has improved its ranking since 2010. In the Tax Foundations State Business Tax Climate Index, for example, North Carolina was far below average at the start of the decade. Now, we rank 15th. On the Frasier Institutes tax measure, North Carolina improved from 39th in 2010 to 19th in the most recent year available (2017).

Another key indicator is educational freedom the extent to which states regulate homeschooling and private education and enable or constrain parental choice and competition among schools. According to the Cato Institutes reckoning, North Carolina now ranks 6th in educational freedom, up from 15th in 2010.

When it comes to freedom in the workplace, North Carolina gets mixed marks. We are a right-to-work state where employees cannot be compelled to join unions. Thats one reason the Frasier Institute ranks North Carolina 9th in labor-market freedom, up from 19th in 2010.

On the other hand, our state makes it harder than the average state does to choose your line of work. Thanks to strict licensing laws and other regulations, North Carolina ranks 37th in Catos occupational-freedom index, worse than our 33rd ranking in 2010. Other areas where we tend to fare poorly in national rankings include the freedom to make, sell and consume alcoholic beverages (35th) and restrictions on health insurance (30th).

While I recognize that other values matter in public policy, I place the highest priority on maximizing freedom. I do so for both foundational and practical reasons.

In the first case, North Carolinas constitution explicitly authorizes institutions of state and local government so that the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established. Among the inalienable rights of North Carolinians protected by the state constitution is the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor. In other words, limiting government to maximize freedom isnt just a possible policy direction. I believe it to be the responsibility of all constitutional officers of the state.

The practical argument for freedom is simply this: it works better. People usually make better choices for themselves than politicians and bureaucrats can make on their behalf. Freer economies grow more rapidly and produce higher living standards over time. Freer societies give people greater opportunity to opt into the communities and relationships that are most consistent with their deeply held beliefs and values.

Fair warning: I plan to keep pressing my case until North Carolina is truly First in Freedom.

John Hood is chairman of the John Locke Foundation. Follow him @JohnHoodNC.

See the rest here:

Making NC truly 'First in Freedom'? - personcountylife.com

Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia independently reviewed the records without redactions and found the Justice Department had overreached in its efforts to conceal information.

Boasberg wrote in an opinion, nowhere does the White House directly ask for legal advice in the email, nor is there any other statement that can even be fairly construed as a solicitation of legal counsel.

As the Courts review makes clear, the communications here reveal no deliberative process that could expose the agencys policy deliberations to unwarranted scrutiny. Absent more, the privilege cannot apply. A record is not protected merely by virtue of being a relevant predecisional communication, he found.

As previously mentioned, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, the most recent amendment of the law, included provisions specifically seeking to constrain overuse and abuse of Exemption 5. One requires agencies to apply a foreseeable harm standard when seeking to withhold records under the exemption. The standard would require agencies to sufficiently show that disclosure of the requested records would cause a specific harm.

An amicus brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in an ongoing FOIA appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit notes the purpose and intent of the foreseeable harm reform to curtail abuse of Exemption 5. (Amicus briefs are legal documents filed by parties not involved in the case but who have an interest in the subject and want to offer expertise or perspective on the issues under consideration by the court.) Congress enacted the foreseeable harm standard to reverse the growing trend toward excessive government secrecy; Congress was concerned, in particular, with overuse of the deliberative process privilege, the Reporters Committee argued in the brief.

The brief also emphasizes the importance of requiring agencies to identify a specific harm that FOIA exemptions were meant to prevent. An agency cannot prevail by speculating that harm might result from disclosure, or by reciting generic rationales that could be applicable to broad categories of agency records, the Reporters Committee wrote. If an agency fails to satisfy the foreseeable harm standard as to any particular record or portion thereof, the [FOIA Improvement] Act makes clear that it must be released.

Effectively reining in overuse of Exemption 5 might also require new FOIA reforms. One potential reform would be to further shrink the amount of time records can be withheld under that exemption, perhaps to 12 years, the same cap for shielding presidential records involving deliberative process.

Another promising reform would involve mandating a balancing test if an agencys redactions are challenged. CREWs Anne Weismann recently wrote in support of such a change that Congress should reform the [FOIA] statute to mirror how the deliberative process privilege is treated in the discovery context.

When a litigant challenges the governments invocation of the deliberative process privilege in discovery, a reviewing court balances the governments interest in secrecy against the litigants interest in disclosure. Exemption 5, by contrast, has no balancing test when considering an agency claim that material is protected by the deliberative process privilege, she wrote. Accordingly, Congress should amend Exemption 5 to require agencies and reviewing courts to weigh an agencys need to protect the quality of its decisions against the publics interest in disclosure.

As Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) said in support of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, a truly democratic system depends on an informed citizenry to hold their leaders accountable. Allowing agencies to use Exemption 5 as a get out of jail free card to avoid disclosing embarrassing or politically problematic records whenever they want runs directly contrary to that goal.POGO will continue working with our partners to pursue further reforms to improve FOIA and increase transparency and accountability in government.

Read the original:

The Most Abused Freedom of Information Act Exemption Still Needs to Be Reined In - Project On Government Oversight

Recently, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath said during a pro-CAA rally that anyone raising azaadi slogans will be booked for sedition. This stern warning by a chief minister whose administration has brutally cracked down on anti-CAA protesters is not a surprise. The important question is, who is afraid of the azaadi slogan?

In the last few months, this slogan has come under severe attack from the right-wing media ecosystem. Several fake videos have been broadcast on mainstream media platforms, aiming to delegitimise the detractors of the BJP government, who have raised slogans demanding azaadi.

The azaadi slogan went viral in 2016 in the aftermath of the infamous 9 February incident at JNU in Delhi. When then JNUSU president was released on bail, the university students had raised cries for freedom from poverty, from Brahmanism and from capitalism, feudalism, casteism, unemployment and hunger. Thereafter, the rhythmic chanting of azaadi slogans captured imaginations across the country.

The slogan was further popularised in 2019 when Zoya Akhtar featured it in her blockbuster movie, Gully Boy. Since then, several versions of the azaadi chant have been floating online. They have become so popular that a section of Pakistani students have also chanted it in their own country. In any case, in India the azaadi slogan has become a solid part of the protest repertoire.

For example: When women are not able to go out in the night without fearing molestation and harassment, what they are experiencing is a lack of azaadi.

The azaadi slogans began in Kashmir, but perhaps were first heard in mainland India in 2012-13, during the anti-rape movement after the Nirbhaya incident. Those protesters rejected the idea of protection as a deterrent for sexual crimes and advocated the opposite idea, that of freedom without fear. Several places in Delhi had then reverberated with azaadi slogans. Those protesters, who included men and women, demanded freedom from rape culture, freedom from patriarchy, freedom to move around at night, to love, and freedom to marry or not marry, and so on.

Curiously, even the right-wing groups such as the ABVP, which participated in the 2012-13 protests in Delhi, raised these slogans, probably because the anti-rape movement had also taken on a strong anti-Congress flavour. Azaadi slogans of that time were an attempt to break away from notions of victim-blaming, to which is related the idea of forcing on women the protection of patriarchy. They argued the converse; that the more women stepped outside the confines of their homes, the safer the streets would be for them. The movement therefore redefined the meaning of azaadi from political to social freedom.

One curious aspect of azaadi is that in order to have it you have to fight for it, reclaim it. During the colonial period, Indians fought for azaadi from the British. They wanted Indians to be the masters of their own fate. This is what azaadi actually meansthe capacity to decide your present and future. Naturally, when you try to break the shackles that are holding you back, you come up against them in all their power and fury: the British also unleashed brute force upon Indians countless times during colonial rule.

Freedom is never complete. Azaadi is an ongoing process that you have to assert and fight for at every turn. In India, where communities hold a large measure of control over individuals and their aspirations, where identities are controlled by caste or patriarchal structures and their moralistic orders, the fight for azaadi is even more important. The demand for freedom exists only in those conditions where an individual or group feels that their aspirations are being hindered by unfavourable political conditions or economic and social constraints. Thus the demand for azaadi is an expression of unequal power relations in the socio-economic and political spheres.

Naturally, those in the upper echelons of the power hierarchy, who believe they are the sole custodians of culture, will resist any movement that threatens to take away their power. That is why the chants of azaadi have been met with both outright physical violence and symbolic violence. Women demanding azaadi to take their own decisions are being vilified and slut-shamed. This conservative backlash is well-represented by Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattars utterances. He once remarked that if youmeaning womenwant freedom, then why dont you just roam around naked.

Those who believe in azaadi are routinely branded as tukdey-tukdey gang members. We also encounter slogans such as Afzal wali azaadi, Burhan wali azaadi, bandook se denge azaadi, Gauri Lankesh wali azaadi; and so on from right-wing organisations. Their slogans are directed against voices that are critical of the present regime. Yet, for all the reactions it has invoked, azaadi has continued to reverberate across India as a powerful slogan of protest.

Logically, those who are afraid of azaadi slogans are those who fear a political and economic change that would topple them from their position of power. Their fear also emanates from a psychological condition whose origins lie in a crisis of legitimacy. Over the last five years, many celebrities, intellectuals and media personalities have advocated for the present regime. Their future and interests are linked with the present government and so they have thrown their weight behind it. Any political change will create a deep legitimacy crisis for them. The situation is a kind of downward spiral: they have to continuously create a fear psychosis and narrative that favours the regime while delegitimising the protesters and their repertoire.

For example: When you are strolling in the park with your sweetheart and suddenly a bunch of people come and start thrashing you, you are experiencing a lack of azaadi.

Though the azaadi slogans are political, as the saying goes, the personal is also the political. So you find the younger generation seeking azaadi against curfew hours in hostels and opposing the strong societal and familial resistance against own-choice marriages, against moral policing and so on. Each of these are instances of lack of freedom experienced by the youth in one way or another.

The following slogan sums up this sentiment: When you want to pursue education, but are unable to or you are unable to avail quality medical services due to lack of money, you experience a lack of azaadi.

Arguably, the azaadi slogans also add a dimension to the fertile discourse over what constitutes development in India. The Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen has been arguing that development should also be measured through the lens of freedom, which means that it should entitle people to basic services such as education, healthcare, and employment. Development, in this context, also means building capacity, especially among the marginalised. Therefore, when the youth, women and marginalised groups hit the streets with slogans demanding azaadi, they are not just protesting against a law but breaking their shackles to become more confident and empowered.

For instance: When Dalits are not able to enter temples or fetch water from public sources, they are experiencing a lack of azaadi.

Azaadi cannot be boxed in. Its meaning is redefined by every generation based on their context. The contemporary popularity of azaadi slogans reflects the ambitions of the youth. To criminalise their hopes and aspirations is just the old resisting the birth of the new.

The author is a PhD scholar at JNU in Delhi. The views are personal.

Go here to see the original:

Azaadiphobia: Who is Afraid of Freedom and Why - NewsClick

Ottawa sociology professor Hassan Diab says his long fight against accusations of terrorism wiped out his savings and caused chronic stress, depression and severe insomnia, prompting his lawsuit for financial compensation from the federal government.

Diab appealed to the government Friday to resolve the case in a humane and fair manner as he, his wife and two young children filed a statement of claim in Ontario Superior Court seeking tens of millions of dollars over his extradition to France.

Throughout this time, my family was an ocean away. I missed the birth of my son. I missed birthdays, first steps, first words and so many other irreplaceable moments, Diab, 66, told a news conference.

For nearly a decade, my freedom and my life were stolen from me.

Born in Lebanon, Diab became a Canadian citizen in 1993, working in Ottawa as a university teacher.

The RCMP arrested him in November 2008 in response to a request by France. French authorities suspected he was involved in the 1980 bombing of a Paris synagogue that killed four people and injured dozens of others, an accusation he has always denied.

Following drawn-out proceedings that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, Diab was extradited to France where he spent three years behind bars, including time in solitary confinement.

In January 2018, French judges dismissed the allegations against him and ordered his immediate release.

Diab accuses the Canadian government of negligent investigation and malicious prosecution and says federal officials violated his constitutional guarantees of freedom of movement, liberty and security of the person.

The statement of claim contends the government withheld crucial fingerprint evidence prior to his extradition hearing.

Guy Pratte, Diabs lawyer, said Friday the evidence would have affected the outcome of the extradition proceedings.

The assertions, first outlined in an initial notice last month, have not been proven in court and the federal government has yet to file a defence.

Pratte said Diab and his family hope the government will want to right this terrible wrong without a prolonged court battle.

Upon his return to Canada, Diab said he did not want financial compensation from the Canadian government, just changes to the lousy extradition law.

An external review of Diabs extradition case for the Canadian government concluded that federal lawyers who worked on the file acted in a manner that was ethical and consistent with law and policy.

Diab has rejected the report as a whitewash exercise.

He lamented Friday the government had taken no meaningful action to reform the extradition law since his release.

The reality is that my ordeal could have been prevented, Diab said. And I am here today to ensure that no Canadian ever has to go through the same experience again.

Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association are among the many groups that have called for a public inquiry into the Diab case and a review of Canadas extradition system.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 7, 2020.

Follow @JimBronskill on Twitter

Read the rest here:

'My freedom and my life were stolen from me,' says Diab, suing over extradition - National Post

Fiveyoung peoplewith theSunflower CountyFreedom Project put on a play Saturday afternoon at the Meridian Arts+Entertainment Experience to highlight theperspectives of black, female activists.

A Song for Coretta, by Pearl Cleave, takes the audience to the outside of Atlantas Ebenezer Baptist Church, where people of different generations are waiting in line to pay their respects to Coretta Scott King.

The conversations that ensue, make up the play, with moments of serious discussion about past experiences, historical moments and generational differences, mixed with moments of light-hearted fun.

Each character was played by a young member of the Sunflower County Freedom Project.

The cast was comprised of Kennedye Rash, 13; Amyah Nash, 13; Phillystity Gray, 16; Braelyn Ingram, 14; and Jamiyah McCloud, 14.

After the play, the cast answered questions from the audience.

One person asked, Why this play?

InBlack History Month, people dont always talk about what the females did, and thats why I liked this play, because its about what she (Coretta) did, not what her husband (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) did, McCloud said.

The rest of the cast echoed that sentiment, as they believe that sometimes the classroom lessons dont always give credit where its due.

They also said the play was an effort to educate people.

The play is to inform people about black history and how much it changed from then to today, Rash said.

The group was led by Kandace Stevenson, director of programming for the Sunflower County Freedom Project.

I first wanted to find a play to reflect our history, and I noticed this was a group of young ladies auditioning, Stevenson said. This is my second year with this drama troupe. I noticed the growth and maturity, the raw emotion, dedication and trying to do better than last year.

Im super excited, I think it was fantastic. These five young ladies came to Meridian, out of their shell, totally unaware of what they would run into and they showed out, said Adrian Cross, executive director of the Meridian Freedom Project.

They were very open, especially during the question and answer segment, I think that was one of my favorite parts because they got a lot of feedback and they took their constructive criticism, but they were also able to express themselves even more.

The play was received with a standing ovation at its close.

Audience members took some thoughts back with them after viewing the performance.

I feel that we dont get the chance to hear from the female perspective on the civil rights movement, and I liked how they talked about the trauma during the Katrina hurricane, the young lady in the military, and it was all done from womens perspectives, Deborah Todd, of Meridian, said.

More information on the group can be foundwww.sunflowerfreedom.org. More information about The Meridian Freedom Project can be foundat TheMeridianFreedomProject.org.

Read the original here:

Freedom Project: Play highlights civil rights perspective of black women - Meridian Star

As I headed to LAX after a recent trip to Los Angeles, my Lyft driver insisted that we stop at In-N-Out Burger so that I could enjoy one last California experience. We ate the burgers outside, as planes flew above us. My driver, a professional photographer, works for Lyft to supplement his irregular income. His story is common. Most drivers that Ive encountered in California and elsewhere drive as a side job, while also, say, working in restaurants or selling real estate.

But if Californias state government has its way, driving for Lyft or Uber wont be easy in the future. The passage of Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) aims to make contract workers, like my Lyft driver, regular employees.AB5 is well-intentioned but doesnt account for how the labor market has changed. This will bring higher pay and benefits to retained workers, but it will also increase costs, which means higher prices for customers. And if employers ultimately incur the costs of adding more regular staff, odds are that they will start to mandate when and where employees work, reducing gig-work opportunities.

Under the new law, to be permitted to hire someone as a contractorand not as an employeebusinesses must pass whats known as the ABC test, which involves proving, in court, that the contractor is free from control and direction of the hiring entity, that the contractor supplies similar services to other vendors, and that the work performed falls outside the usual course of the hiring entitys business. My Lyft driver, and many others, would be unable to satisfy those conditions.

AB5 is well-intentioned. Contract work, with its unconventional hours and pay, is risky and unpredictable, with no benefits, and the prospect of instant termination. The law originated in a 2018 lawsuit, Dynamex Superior West v. Superior Court, involving delivery employees at Dynamex. Though the company considered them contractors, they were expected to wear uniforms and supply their own cars. They sued to be recognized as employees and won, and the suit created the ABC test. Within a year, AB5 became law.

But AB5 doesnt account for how the labor market has changed. In an industrial economy, dependence on a single employer made sense, and attaining skills relevant to a single firm proved valuable. Finding other work, after all, could be difficult. But in a knowledge-oriented economy, where technology makes work easier to find and on-the-job skills are more commonly transferable across companies than in the past, independence can suit both employers and employees. Gig works flexibility also makes it valuable as a fallback, offering extra money when people might need it most.Nontraditional work relationships include a host of different arrangements.

In fact, most gig workers in the U.S. dont work full-time in this capacity. Over the past 15 years, the number of full-time contractors has been stable. According to a Federal Reserve Board survey, only 18 percent of Americans perform gig work as their primary source of income. The plurality, or 38 percent, use it to supplement income from their primary job.

Overall, 30 percent of Americans do some form of gig work, and its common across education levels. Though contract work makes up less than ten percent of household income for three-quarters of survey respondents, 45 percent consider it an important part of their income.

The Fed concludes:

The greater subjective value placed on this income may be related to its ability to smooth out unexpected changes in earnings from main jobs even if the actual amount of money earned is relatively small.

Gig works flexibility also makes it valuable as a fallback, offering extra money when people might need it most. Workers of all income levels find it valuable. Its also a helpful option for stay-at-home parents who want to keep a toe in the labor market. Turning gig work into a regular job undermines this value because it removes its most important characteristic: flexibility.

No wonder, then, that workers and employers are pushing back. Freelance journalists are mounting a challenge to AB5 after many lost jobs. Developing technology calls for better regulation of gig work, not effectively eliminating it.Uber and Lyft say that theyll continue to hire drivers as contractors, but they could face legal challenges, as some trucking companies did. The truckers prevailed in court because their business takes them across state lines.

Its true that technology is transforming the labor market, and employee protections have been reduced. But this development calls for better regulation of gig work, not effectively eliminating it. The leading Democratic presidential candidatesJoe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Bernie Sandershave all endorsed a national version of AB5. They should remember that most workers use gig work as a form of insurance. By eliminating contractors, laws like AB5 will increase risk rather than reduce it.

This article is republished from City Journal.

Read the original post:

Taking the Freedom Out of Freelancing - Foundation for Economic Education - Foundation for Economic Education

by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) Last Tuesday night, just as Senate Republicans voted to blindfold the Senate from key witnesses and evidence during the Senates impeachment trial of President Trump, even more damaging bits and pieces of his illegal Ukraine aid freeze spilled into public view thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. These documents heavily and inappropriately redacted by the Trump administration shed light on just how much more information remains hidden about the alleged misconduct for which the President has been impeached. And it is Congresss constitutional obligation not as Republicans or Democrats, but as a coequal branch of government to fight systematic efforts to keep us and the American people in the dark.

Although a lot of news coverage has focused on the presidents alleged abuse of power by using his public office for personal gain, I believe his wholesale obstruction of a co-equal branchs constitutional oversight responsibilities merits equal attention, as it threatens a fundamental premise underlying our democracy.

No other president in our history has engaged in such a complete stonewalling of Congress. Throughout the impeachment inquiry and trial, the president directed Executive Branch officials not to cooperate at all, and through overly aggressive classification efforts and baseless executive privilege claims, not a single subpoenaed document was turned over. Numerous key witnesses defied Congress and followed the presidents instruction. President Trump isnt even working to hide this obstruction. As he boasted earlier this week, we have all the material. They dont have the material.

Despite this obstruction, some of the very documents President Trump kept hidden from Congress and the American people have recently been made public through FOIA. FOIA empowers the public to request and obtain information from the federal government. Using FOIA, organizations like American Oversight have obtained documents that despite the Trump administrations rampant abuse of FOIA exemptions and redactions show White House staff laying the groundwork for the unlawful aid delay the day before, and even during, President Trumps infamous July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president.

As the son of Vermont printers, Ive worked for decades to improve government transparency, in particular through FOIA. The American people have a right to know what their government is doing. This transparency is necessary to hold our government to account, to ensure it acts in the public interest and follows the law, and to understand what happened if the government falls short. That is especially true if, as the House has alleged, taxpayer money has been used, in violation of the law, to extract a personal favor for the president.

But even when FOIA works perfectly, it was never meant to replace Congresss oversight authority, which is deeply rooted in the Constitution. Republicans and Democrats alike have agreed: Congress, by virtue of its constitutional mandate and position of public responsibility, should receive more information than the FOIA statute requires, not less.

That the Trump administration provided documents to private FOIA litigants but refused to provide those very same documents to Congress should offend all members of Congress. Such obstruction is an affront to our Constitutions carefully calibrated system of checks and balances that have defined our fragile but, so far, durable democracy for more than two centuries.

The House of Representatives tried valiantly to obtain these documents from President Trump, but was stonewalled at every turn. Now the Senate has the chance to serve as the check and balance on the executive branch it is meant to be and compel the Trump administration to provide us with the basic transparency that we deserve as a coequal branch, and that we need to uncover the whole truth.

As Congressman Adam Schiff, who is the lead House Manager prosecuting President Trump, pointed out this week, this information is going to get out one way or another. Through FOIA, through good journalism, or through John Boltons forthcoming book, the American people will ultimately learn the full story. If Senate Republicans bury their heads in the sand now which will forever damage the Senate and do nothing to heal the country they do not even know the extent of what theyre covering up.

During the Senate trial, President Trump will have the opportunity to present evidence that he has thus far kept hidden. That includes key documents and critical witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the presidents actions, including John Bolton, the presidents former National Security Adviser. Bolton described the Trump administrations efforts in Ukraine as a drug deal and said this week he would testify before the Senate if asked. If any of the evidence that the President has thus far kept under wraps helps his case, I would think he would seize this opportunity. If he does not, the Senate consistent with its constitutional duties can and should compel cooperation from the President and relevant witnesses. We can do so with just 51 votes. And that means just four Republican senators.

FOIA continues to play a critical role in shining a light on government misconduct. And I will continue to work hard to improve compliance with the letter and spirit of that law. But FOIA is no substitute for the Senates constitutional duty to pursue the truth and to impartially weigh the impeachment charges presented to it. At stake is whether the president can be permitted to keep both the Senate and American people in the dark, to stand beyond the reach of accountability for his actions. In our democracy, no one not even a president is above the law.

The Senates actions in the days and weeks ahead will shape our system of checks and balances for decades to come. FOIA is doing its job, and slowly, steadily exposing pieces of the truth. Now senators must do theirs and demand all of it.

[Patrick Leahy (D) is Vermonts senior United States Senator, the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the dean of the Senate. He has long been Congresss leading champion of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and in 1996 was inducted into the FOIA Hall of Fame.]

More here:

Leahy: Impeachment, stonewalling Congress, and the Freedom of Information Act - Vermont Biz