Category Archives: Freedom

Plans to repurpose the St. Brigid's church property up for sale in Ottawa's Lowertown neighbourhood have been unveiled, and the group behind the project denies ties to the "Freedom Convoy", instead saying its all about peace and love.

The United People of Canada (TUPOC) are calling the new property, located at the corner of St. Patrick Street and Cumberland Street, their "Embassy."

"Just looking to create a unique and inclusive space where people of all different backgrounds and beliefs are welcome to participate in dialogue, participate in co-working, access a community cafe, venue space and we're hosting a number of community conversations," said William Komer, Director of TUPOC.

The organization says it is in the process of buying the property, which is listed for nearly $6 million.

Their largest financial backer is a London, Ont. financial adviser.

"The whole thing is to create a lot of love from our good example, hoping that these people will pass it along to their little world and eventually we hope to have locations around the world," said Tony Cuzzocrea, the President of Planmar Financial Corp.

Cuzzocrea wouldnt specify how much money he has contributed, but admitted he is the projects largest financial backer.

The TUPOC group has come under fire from some members of the community over support for the "Freedom Convoy."

"You look at their website and it's just platitudes. You know I can say peace and love, peace and love, but what really are you doing?" said Sylvie Bigras, President of the Lowertown Community Association.

One of the group's directors has admitted to being an adviser to Dwayne Lich, the partner of "Freedom Convoy" organizer Tamara Lich, but the group denies connections to the occupation.

"Someone is going around alleging that 3.2 million of 'Freedom Convoy' funds went to purchasing St. Brigid's church, that's completely false," said Komer.

"We are no way connected with them at all. We're good people with great intentions, only wanting to help mankind," added Cuzzocrea.

There are no plans to make major changes to the former St. Brigids Church, just to revitalize and repurpose it, the group said.

Go here to see the original:

Group behind St. Brigid's church purchase denies ties to 'Freedom Convoy', says it's about peace and love - CTV News Ottawa

Conservative leadership hopeful Pierre Poilievre takes part in a debate at the Canada Strong and Free Networking Conference in Ottawa on May 5.BLAIR GABLE/Reuters

Stephen Harpers public endorsement of Pierre Poilievre as the next leader of the Conservative Party means very little, but also a lot.

Very little, because Mr. Poilievre probably had the leadership sewn up even without the former prime ministers imprimatur.

A lot, because Mr. Harper is clearly hoping to preserve party unity and win over uncommitted voters in support of a candidate he believes has a clear shot at becoming prime minister.

But for that to happen, Mr. Poilievre must square a circle. He opposes mandatory vaccinations, a policy that during the pandemic saved many thousands of lives, perhaps including yours.

Harper didnt address batty Poilievre policies in endorsement: former cabinet ministers

Stephen Harpers endorsement a boost for Pierre Poilievres leadership bid, Conservative Senate leader says

Mr. Poilievre is going to have to offer a convincing explanation for that opposition, if he wants to become prime minister. Simply saying its all about freedom wont cut it.

One reason Mr. Harper publicly endorsed Mr. Poilievre was to make absolutely certain that Jean Charest never leads the party. The former Quebec premier is ideologically too much of a wet, as the late Margaret Thatcher used to say, for Mr. Harpers liking.

He may also want to reassure anyone who supported him, but who is wondering whether Mr. Poilievre is too ideologically extreme, that he believes the Carleton MP can be trusted to lead the country.

In truth, most of Mr. Poilievres policies arent that extreme. He would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. If your salary is flatlined, even as the price of everything skyrockets, you might want Tiff Macklem fired, too.

Coyne: Winner of one majority in five tries says Poilievre has what it takes

As for his vow to defund the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, there will be too much opposition for that to happen. And who cares about his conspiratorial mutterings about the World Economic Forum?

His opposition to the carbon tax is, sadly, no longer politically damaging. That tax is a useful tool in reducing carbon emissions, but economic issues trump environmental issues, these days.

Only in his opposition to vaccine mandates is Mr. Poilievre dangerously extreme. It is an incredibly irresponsible stand to take.

When Mr. Poilievre declared his support for the protesters who occupied Ottawa last winter, he was expressing solidarity with people who opposed the policies of the federal, provincial and municipal governments, along with most employers, who said anyone who refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 could lose their job.

That policy was essential to contain the pandemic. And it worked.

Canada has lost just over 45,500 people, or 1,120 people per million of population, to COVID, one of the lowest rates in the developed world. The United States, which had much less rigorous vaccine enforcement and a substantially lower level of vaccination, lost 3,050 people per million of population.

There are other factors in play as well, but it is reasonable to assert that mandatory vaccination saved tens of thousands of Canadian lives that would have been lost had we adopted the more laissez-faire American approach.

In June, Mr. Poilievre introduced Bill C-278, legislation that would prohibit the federal government from imposing vaccine mandates on its employees or on travellers.

And lest you think the legislation would apply only to the current situation, he explicitly declared on Twitter that he would scrap all vaccine mandates & ban any and all future vaccine mandates.

Mr. Charest missed the point when he said that Mr. Poilievre disqualified himself from becoming leader because he supported an illegal protest. Politicians on the left support illegal protests all the time.

But opposing vaccine mandates is, or should be, disqualifying.

If COVID-19 came roaring back, or a new pandemic arrived, when Mr. Poilievre was prime minister, would he keep vaccinations entirely voluntary? Would he be willing to sacrifice thousands of lives in defence of what he calls freedom but most of us would call reckless and dangerous behaviour?

And if his judgment is so unsound on this all-important issue, how can we trust him on other issues?

This may not matter at election time. The pandemic may be well and truly in the rear-view mirror by then, with economic issues front and centre.

But there is the ebb and flow of politics, and then there is right and wrong. Mr. Poilievres stand on vaccines is so wrong that it undermines the case for his becoming prime minister. Mr. Harpers endorsement doesnt change that in the least.

For subscribers: Get exclusive political news and analysis by signing up for the Politics Briefing.

Read the original:

Poilievre will need more than promises of freedom - The Globe and Mail

I have been in a decade-long debate with a German friend and historian at Cambridge University, and it remains visceral and all too timely. It concerns the grim theme of violence and its experience in our respective societies and histories. Germany seems to haunt certain Indian political fantasies. Only the other day, Haryana Chief Minister M.L. Khattar prophesised that like Germany, today, India too could be reunited with Pakistan and Bangladesh!

Unification or not, my German historian-friend remains staggered that a million Indians killed each other in a single year during Partition with basic and household weaponry and without State apparatus. Our debate is not simply about which violence is more inhuman the one carried out with kitchen knives by erstwhile neighbours or the other that was done in industrialised gas chambers, matched by brutal bureaucratic machinery of mass death. Though we also often argue about that.

As contemporaries, I am as far removed from the civil war that accompanied our Independence as my German friend is from the Holocaust, which remains the exceptional horror of human history. Our debate has no real winners given the topic is how two different societies manufactured and operationalised deadly hatred. What remains moot is the role of the State in managing antagonism and protecting the vulnerable against violence. I will come to that in a minute, as this is indeed critical to the state of peace in India today.

My friend and I only agree that our societies dealt with the aftermath of mass violence entirely differently with lasting consequences. He grew up being schooled in collective guilt and responsibility for the crimes of his forefathers with the aim to learn that hatred towards the other is not only inhuman but, above all, cannot and should not be repeated.

By contrast, in my Indian education, Partition violence came first into view for my generation via State television and the Doordarshan series Tamas. In this series and countless other accounts, Partition violence is still understood widely as emotional but collective suffering in which everyone was a victim of a moment of violent madness. Neither the State nor any people have taken responsibility for those mass killings. The lesson is that since there has been no responsibility or culpability for it, Indians, arguably, have been condemned to repeat a bad history.

Also read: Rawalpindi reunionPakistan is celebrating 90-year-old Pune womans homecoming after Partition

Recent Indian headlines only affirm the power of repetition that gives any traumatic history, and especially that of violence, its force.

Youd be forgiven if newspaper headlines seem to teleport you back into the 1920s. The themes are eerily similar. Confrontations over blasphemy: Check. Mob policing of inter-faith intimate relations between men and women: Check. Heated polemics over religious conversions: Check. Fear based on fiction or downright lies on demographic takeover by a religious minority: Check. Obsession with who is praying where in public: Check. Demolitions of homes or small shrines to create religiously segregated neighbourhoods: Check.

A century apart and the repeated pattern bears the same controversies. The violence that accompanies each of these controversies remains tightly bound to the social fabric of communities in India even today. To take one instance, in the 1924 case of Rangila Rasool, votaries and protagonists of that infamous blasphemy controversy and consequent violence appealed to the courts and the State to determine the truth of one religion and also to dispense justice between two hostile groups. But unlike then, when foreign masters tightly held the reins of the State, todays political institutions are entirely Indian but deploy a law designed by the British.

The violent hatred that has propelled recent religious controversies in India, however, is misidentified as debates about freedom of expression. Whether or not you are a free speech absolutist, a proper contextualisation of this clutch of laws is essential. British imperial imperatives deliberately miscast this relationship as one of freedom and with deadly consequences to date.

Also read: How Nehru added conditions apply to Article 19(1)(a) & India lost way to gates of freedom

Simply put and to cut a very complex and long history short, after the Rebellions of 1857, the British empire made a U-turn on its prevailing social policies and decided against any activism in Indian religious affairs. Consider the fact that prior to the rebellions/mutiny, intervention in religion the abolition of Sati (1829), followed by the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act of 1856 had formed the centrepieces of British imperial rule and law.

With the activating of the Indian Penal Code in 1861, the imperial State took a so-called neutral stance of intervening in religion only to maintain public peace. This had three major and enduring consequences. First, the domain of religion, as opposed to the political arena, afforded relative freedom to colonised Indians. Religion was thus easy to mobilise, especially by conservative politicians given to exclusivism such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak. By contrast, newspapers and pamphlets were heavily censored for political writings and especially any criticism of government policies. The Sedition Law (IPC 124A), further policed and ensured this. It was not that the State was entirely removed from religion or distant from it. But rather, it strongly defined its intervention in terms of maintaining peace between communities.

Second, and in so occupying the role of a neutral mediator, the colonial State set up Hindus and Muslims as legally competitive and antagonistic entities.

Finally, the law increasingly judged theological issues of religion but displaced and named them after freedom of expression. The colonial State went on to not only arrogate the power to judge the life of a prophet or doctrine but also significantly legalised religious competition and antagonism.

To say that this has been toxic would be an understatement. The postcolonial State and the much-celebrated Indian Constitution, while being radical in endowing individual rights, has failed to dismantle this colonial relationship of law and religion that has effectively set up a hostile competition between groups.

Also read: Pakistan-Bangladesh merger with India possible, like Germany unification, Khattar says

It is striking that Indias most spiritually inclined political leader, M. K. Gandhi, identified the law as the key obstacle to religious harmony. Even before he returned to India, in his manifesto Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi chastised both Hindus and Muslims for failing to see the law as a gladiatorial set-up that could only lead to vengeful hatred. As was his want and despite it being his own profession, Gandhi pointed out the moral bankruptcy of expecting justice through any commercial transactions between lawyers.

Above all, and unlike Tilak, Gandhi called out British legal neutrality as a (covert) call to violence. Gandhi would repeat and make the same arguments 40 years later. At the height of mass violence in 1947, Gandhi was the only leader who did not appeal for the imposition of martial law or any British intervention as Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had all demanded of the outgoing masters.

The Third Reich under Adolf Hitler had created a deathly State machinery of genocide. In India, though, 50-plus years of legal confrontations between religious communities created the critical context and led to the deadly civil war of 1947 as the colonial State feigned neutrality till its last standing day.

Gandhis answer to hatred was to seek and demand a politics of individual restraint and responsibility based neither on cowardice nor competition. Restraint was only possible by channelling and committing to the highest precept common to all religions non-violence. Each individual, thus, had to be true to only their own religion without seeking to convince the other. The laws capacity to then referee any hatred generated by the competition it had set up was sought to be depleted.The exit from State-ordained or legalised hostility was, in effect, an exit from hatred.

Indians may no longer be able to listen to, let alone be persuaded by, Gandhi. Indians, however, can and must learn to take collective responsibility for the violence of Partition and close this violent chapter. If nothing else, it will ensure that the history of hatred had a dnouement or endpoint in 1947. Rather than being its victims, Partition violence points to the history of violence as intimate. Crucially, it must be treated as finished, or else, it will continue to extract a price in the present. The lesson from Germany contra CM Khattar is not unification but a reparation for a collective history of violent hatred.

Without this closure on Partition and as a reckoning, no law or court will be able to guarantee the peace essential to Indias hard-won freedoms.

Shruti Kapila is Professor of Indian history and global political thought at the University of Cambridge. She tweets @shrutikapila. Views are personal.

(Edited by Humra Laeeq)

Continue reading here:

British gave India freedom to hate. We are staring at Partition violence again - ThePrint

In 2019, Stuff first published the Redacted series exploring the problems with the Official Information Act (OIA). Three years on, were revisiting the OIA to see whats changed.

OPINION: Journalists' complaints about abuse of freedom of information laws are generally met with public apathy.

But imagine there was a legion of officials who make it their business to thwart your work and waste your time. Those officials ultimately mean that the public is less well-informed on important issues.

Two recent episodes demonstrate just how frustrating it can be for media to try to extract information from the public service, where a culture of secrecy pervades.

This is information the public is legally entitled to. The guiding principle of the Official Information Act is that it should be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.

And over the years requests have revealed dodgy spending on the taxpayer dime, and the news that American billionaire Peter Thiel had been granted Kiwi citizenship after spending just 12 days in the country.

For journalists, it is both a vital tool, and a thorn in our side.

The subjects I had requested information on two politically contentious issues: freshwater and political fundraising. Both cases resulted in complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman, Parliaments OIA watchdog.

They are an illustration of a regime that is marked by delays, obstruction and a presumption against releasing documents for fear it trips up ministers or discredits their departments.

Sungmi Kim/Stuff

The Governments promise to review the 40-year-old freedom of information regime has stalled.

The government is reforming the rules for political donations. This year three parties have become embroiled in court cases centred on donations and critics have long argued the law must be tightened to prevent abuses.

As part of the overhaul, the Ministry of Justice asked for public feedback on some options for new rules. In June, I asked the ministry to release the submissions to me. The No Right Turn blog made the same request, at roughly the same time.

This is a work-a-day request. Government departments regularly publish submissions as part of the business of decision-making. Parliaments website uploads all written submissions to select committees on its website. Journalists often ask to see submissions it informs our writing about peoples views on new policy and laws.

But the request was declined. The Ministry refused using a provision of the Act which allows it to withhold documents that it plans to soon release publicly. (In fact, they went up on the Ministrys website the following day).

On the surface, this is fair enough. Waiting a day for the information was no hardship.

However, the ministry had also struck a deal with three political parties to keep their submissions secret. This is very unusual and especially troubling because it was a policymaking exercise designed to enhance scrutiny, and these parties were seeking to influence the rules under which they are allowed to raise funds.

If the submissions contained confidential information (like membership figures or financial information) this could have been easily redacted.

A further request to the ministry media team, to ask which parties were granted secrecy, was ignored. That required me to separately ask parties for their submissions almost all agreed. It remains a mystery which parties demanded anonymity. As a result, I have been forced to ask the Office of the Ombudsman to intervene a process which will take many months and soak up the time of at least one investigator.

What I also didnt know was that Victoria Universitys Bryce Edwards had made a request for the information back in early April. After wrangling with the agency for weeks they (erroneously) didnt start on his request until late May because his correspondence didnt include the words Official Information Act.

On July 1, the ministry released all the information to him barring the three secret submissions. Unlike No Right Turn and I, they didnt ask him to wait until publication on their website.

This might not seem like a big deal. But it is important for two reasons. Firstly, the agency responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice, appears to have breached the Act.

It is required to release the information as soon as reasonably practicable. So, all three requesters should have received it at the same time. The law also doesnt allow the agency to release it one person, but withhold it from others.

Secondly, the release to Edwards came in the same week the Government announced its planned changed to the donations regime. The proposals are opposed by National and ACT, and the Greens would like them to go further.

The release of the submissions would have added another layer to media reporting, and better inform commentary on the political announcement.

Last week the ministry apologised for dropping the ball. A spokesman said: In hindsight, we should have got this information to you sooner. This seems to have been a process issue at our end, and we are sorry about that.

ALEX LIU/STUFF

Senior reporter Andrea Vance demonstrates how to seek information using the Official Information Act.

This one on a political hot potato dragged on for almost a year.

The Government has promised to tackle the sensitive issue of water allocation, a burning issue because of differing views on proprietary rights over water. That work is (slowly) ongoing and some issues are tied up with the reform of the resource management regime.

On August 4, 2021, I requested a briefing note to the minister titled: Next steps for the discussion document regarding iwi, hap and Mori landowners' rights and interests in freshwater bodies. (I even helpfully cited the reference number allocated to the document).

I also asked for a discussion document and other written material prepared on the subject. After 13 working days, MfE wrote to say it needed more time, and extended the request by 20 days.

Nine days late on their extended deadline, it finally responded. It had waited 42 days to deny my request to release the briefing, citing a clause which allows MfE to keep secret confidential advice to government. The discussion document was also withheld and other documents, including meeting minutes, were only summarised.

ROBERT KITCHIN/Stuff

The Ministry for the Environment wanted to keep secret advice and letters to Minister David Parker on freshwater rights.

Letters from Khui Wai Mori, a freshwater forum, to Environment Minister David Parker were also kept back using the same confidential-advice-to-government clause.

I contacted the Ombudsman, asking the office to review the content of the documents, and refusal to release these documents.

In my complaint, I noted that KWM is not a government agency, but an expert group. And that its advice related to decision-making processes within another body may not be protected under the clause quoted by MfE.

I also argued that the allocation of water rights had been the subject of intense national debate, and public interest in the matter transcended the need to keep the advice confidential.

Submitting a complaint, finding and attaching documents, and making relevant arguments to the Ombudsman all takes time. Even, as a semi-regular moaner (I have the complaints page bookmarked in my favourites), these are work hours when I could be doing something more productive.

Iain McGregor/Stuff

The allocation of freshwater has long been a contentious issue.

It also sucked up time in the Ombudsmans office. The complaint took eight months to work its way through the watchdogs processes.

During that time, the ministry had renamed the discussion document, and quietly published it on its website in February. I was not notified and only learned this in June when MfE received a prod from investigators.

In a letter, director Keita Kohere apologised for the delay in publishing the document and for the lack of communication around its release.

The letters were released to me, plus another briefing. But she argued the original briefing document I requested was never formally conveyed to Parker and have continued to withhold it.

These are just of many examples of resistance and avoidance. Some agencies rub up against the spirit of openness, while others downright contravene the law.

In 2019, Stuff first published the Redacted series exploring the problems with the Official Information Act (OIA). Three years on, were revisiting the OIA to see whats changed.

Original post:

Andrea Vance: How flawed freedom of information system keep the public in the dark - Stuff

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

See the original post:

WILL THAULT: Freedom Month Part 4: Freedom from fear | Local | albanyherald.com - The Albany Herald

Published: July 23, 2022 Author: Staff reports

To ensure compliance with the Ohio Higher Education Reform Bill, Senate Bill 135, Ohio University President Hugh Sherman and Executive Vice President and Provost Elizabeth Sayrs have signed into effect an interim Campus Freedom of Expression Policy, Policy 01.041.

As required by law, starting immediately the interim policy reaffirms Ohio Universitys commitment to maintaining our campus as a marketplace of ideas for all students and faculty and establishes a formal complaint process for students, student groups, or faculty to submit alleged free speech violations against university employees.

This interim policy is a temporary step while the University gathers feedback from students, faculty, and staff, following the policy review process as described in Preparation of Policies (Policy 01.001).

The interim policy supplements but does not replace the Universitys established Freedom of Expression policies, which were developed in 2018 through shared governance with input from our students, faculty, and staff.

For more information about Ohio Universitys commitment to freedom of expression, visit https://www.ohio.edu/student-affairs/expression.

Originally posted here:

Ohio University interim freedom of expression policy adopted to comply with new state law - Ohio University

Freedom is a word you hear a lot these days, but, more and more, it means different things to different people.

The Mississippi Humanities Council, in conjunction with the Columbus Arts Council, is hosting a public forum Tuesday night to explore the different shades of freedom as a concept.

MHC Program and Outreach Officer John Spann said now is a great time to talk about freedom in America and what it means.

We just celebrated Juneteenth and the Fourth of July, and we thought we should do something about freedom, he said. We are of the mindset that freedom is unique to all of us, there is no one definition of what it means to us as Americans.

Tuesdays forum, What Does Freedom Mean to You?, is set for 5:30 p.m. at the Columbus Arts Council on Main Street.Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science teacher Chuck Yarborough will moderate a panel composed of Mississippi University for Women assistant professor of political science Chaley Rainey, District 39 State Rep. Dana McLean (R-Columbus) and District 41 State Rep. Kabir Karriem (D-Columbus), who will answer questions about what freedom means to them.

The audience will also be given an opportunity to ask questions and make comments, Spann said.

This is one of three forums were having as part of our Ideas on Tap series, Spann said. (Ideas on Tap) is a community conversation program that is styled after happy hour. We want to attract young people, and we typically do it somewhere where there is a bar or that is open to having adult beverages and snacks and stuff.

Spann said he hopes the program will help people connect with others who view the world differently.

The Dispatch delivers the most in-depth, responsible journalism straight to your inbox. Sign up here.

A lot of us live in silos and bubbles, he said. Hopefully this will open people up to a different way of thinking or a different perspective. Were not trying to change minds, but just let people know that their perspective isnt the only perspective.

Yarborough agreed.Chuck Yarborough

I think communities across the country suffer from not enough participation, he said. This event offers people the opportunity to think. And, as Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, when people start to think the first steps of progress are taken.

McLean said she is looking forward to hearing others views.Dana McLean

I hope people come away with a varied perspective on what freedom means to others, she said. I want to hear from others because, as an elected official, the best way for us to lead is to know what our constituents want and how they see things. So I see it as a learning experience, as well as a chance to present my views.

Now, in the midst of serious times, the conversation is necessary, Karriem said.Kabir Karriem

One of the questions that needs to be asked is not just what freedom means to us, but what freedoms are being taken away from us and how we can stop that, he said. The overturning of (Roe v. Wade) sets a precedent, and what ripple effect will that have on society? Its going to be interesting to see how everything unfolds at this time in America.

The event is free and open to the public. Spann said if the Wi-Fi infrastructure is there, the event will also be streamed. To watch online, go to the Mississippi Humanities Councils Facebook page.

Brian Jones is the local government reporter for Columbus and Lowndes County.

Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.

More:

Upcoming forum to explore meaning of 'freedom' - The Dispatch - The Commercial Dispatch

CM Punk and Jade Cargill are big fans of the level of creative freedom they have in AEW and spoke about the situation in a new interview. Cargill and Punk spoke with Gareth Von Kallenbach at San Diego Comic-Con about being in AEW because of the level of freedom they have with their characters. Cargill noted that she signed with AEW because of that reason, and Punk of course was out of the wrestling industry for years because of his frustrations with creative direction and more in WWE. You can check out the highlights below, per Fightful:

Cargill on creative freedom in AEW: Thats one of the reasons why I chose All Elite Wrestling. We have control of our character, we can represent ourselves, our real authentic self. We can work outside the company and you know everything that were doing is from our hearts. Were showing you exactly who we are and who we want to be. This is what we approved you know, its just refreshing. I never worked for another company, but I wrestled sheer emotions. I play basketball so everything is just who I am. What you see is just an extension of who I am, and I appreciate that.

Punk on having creative freedom in the company: Its super interesting, right, to me its fascinating listening to somebody [where] she said she hasnt worked for another company. Its important for her to be able to work in a place where she can fully express herself. I think thats kind of what, to me, killed wrestling for so long. Everything was muted, and toned down, and based on one persons perspective. When you cant pick your own name, pick your own entrance music, its very limited, and very creatively stifling.

I look at the old territory days and if you try and imply the way the other company runs things compared to the territories. You wouldnt have The Road Warriors, you wouldnt have Macho Man Randy Savage, you wouldnt have these other things. As individuals, we are the ones that created the characters. Jade is Jade. Were not trying to say no, your name is Veronica Pepperstone. Some stupid ass name.

Originally posted here:

CM Punk & Jade Cargill Weigh In On Their Creative Freedom in AEW - 411mania.com

Jack Burgess| Correspondent

We Americans have always traced our history back to the Pilgrims, who left England to escape religious persecution.Actually, they first moved to Holland, where they had religious freedom, but couldnt make a living, so they came to America to make a better living and, they hoped, convert the Indians to their church.Religious persecution in Europe had many extremes, including, in 1431, burning at the stake 19-year-oldJoan of Arc whod led French armies to drive the English out of France--for the crime of wearing mens clothes!

The Roman Catholic Church, which dominated most of Europe and parts of Africa, South and Central America, had an Inquisition to root out non-believers, especially Jews and followers of Islam. Thousands were executed. Catholicism came here first with Spanish settlement in Florida and Louisiana. Then came Protestant New Englands witch trials, persecution, and torture even to death of people who didnt agree with the newly established religion.Rhode Island was settled by Roger Williams fleeing those religious extremes and advocating a wall of separation between church and state. .

So it was a big deal when Americas founding liberals, Madison, Jefferson, and others, in 1790 insisted on a Bill of Rights for US citizens, which included religious freedombefore they would ratify the new Constitution.The very first words of the very first Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

But isnt that what weve done when we tell women they must, under penalty of law, carry every pregnancy to term? Even if theyre just a child themselves? Or raped? Theres no medical reason for it.In fact, far more women die in childbirth than by legal abortionunlike abortions done in various, sometimes horrible, ways when legal care is not allowed.

And religious folks who claim they oppose abortion for a right to life, often dont oppose wars, where millions of innocent people die.Nor do they oppose capital punishment, though its clear ones race, income, or home area are predictors of whether theyll be killed by the state.

The Judeo-Christian Bible says God commanded that we be fruitful and multiply, but that was thousands of years ago. We certainly dont have a shortage of people in the US or the world the population of the earth and of the US have doubled in just my lifetime. The Bible also says the first woman was created out of the mans rib. Do members of our Supreme Court believe that? Are we going to be forced to teach that in school?

I guess the problem is that some folks believe the soul, starts at conception, so that would make the tiny resulting zygote a complete human, soul-wise. But millions of Americans dont believe that idea, and it cant be tested or proven. So clearly were establishing a church when we tell a woman and her doctor theyll go to jail if they terminate the zygote.

Nothing is more important to our culture, our success as a nation, than our freedom of and from religion. Thats why it became the very first amendment. The founders knew well about the wars, persecutions, etc. and they wanted to avoid all that and build a UNITED states.Letting religious views dominate our laws and our courts is a sure way to dis-unite us. Isnt it time we went back to respecting our religious differences?

Religious freedom is who we are.Or at least what we aspire to and have to achieve if we want a UNITED States in America.

Jack Burgess is a retired teacher of American & Global Studies, and a practitioner of religious freedom, having attended services with various Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, Universalist, Humanist, & American Indiangroups.

Read the rest here:

Burgess: Religious freedom is who we are - Chillicothe Gazette

Many of his proposals could do a lot of good. Congress should, as he suggests, require tech companies to be more transparent about their inner workings. Audits of their algorithms and procedures, like inspections of industrial plants, would allow regulators and users to understand how tech products operate and assess what harm they may be doing.

Another promising idea is establishing a system of premarket certification for digital products. In the same way the Food and Drug Administration clears drugs for the market, a regulatory body could review and evaluate software and other digital products before they are released to ensure they comply with the law, and perhaps evaluate how they comport with community values.

Some proposals, however, seem more suited to the ivory tower than the real world. Susskind calls for a vast system of deliberative mini-publics, groups of ordinary citizens that would develop policies in areas like taxation of data processing. Its an idea that no doubt has great appeal in the seminar room, but Ive taken to looking at my fellow subway passengers and wondering how they would do hammering out data-processing taxation policy. Im skeptical.

Susskind also proposes a system for regulating the moderation of websites, including checklists of things moderators must do. He suggests disciplinary mechanisms by which moderators could be subject to fines or disqualification. As we saw this spring with the debacle of the Department of Homeland Securitys advisory board to combat disinformation, Americans, at least, have a deep resistance to the idea of government getting too involved in deciding what speech is acceptable. Even if Susskinds idea is a good one, its Orwellian overtones would doubtless make it, at least in the United States, a political nonstarter.

Susskind notes that he was too young for 1990s cyber-utopianism, but at times he seems to be engaging in a 2020s version, such as his vision of citizen panels churning out policy edicts to fix big techs problems. Still, in trying to make the world right, an excess of idealism is not the worst thing. As we take on the task of pushing back against the internets baleful influences which we must Susskinds intelligent book can serve as a valuable guide.

Adam Cohen, a former member of the New York Times editorial board, is the author of Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Courts Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America.

THE DIGITAL REPUBLIC: On Freedom and Democracy in the 21st Century, by Jamie Susskind | 304 pp. | Pegasus Books | $28.95

Continued here:

Review: The Digital Republic: On Freedom and Democracy in the 21st Century, Jamie Susskind - The New York Times