Category Archives: Freedom

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill on March 23, 2017.(Photo: Mark Wilson, Getty Images)

HENDERSONVILLE, N.C. Rep. Mark Meadows intends to deliver an Obamacare repeal and replacement plan to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., on Tuesday that would leave in place the existing law's mandates for insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

What Im getting to him is based on conversations that Ive had with (Tuesday Group co-chairman) Tom MacArthur and leadership, but I wouldnt say that its approved at this point, Meadows, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told USA TODAY. What were trying to do is work through issues that are important to all of us but make sure that pre-existing conditions are taken care of."

Last month, an earlier version of Republican repeal legislation was pulled from the floor when it became clear that there would not be enough Republicans to support it.Meadows and the three dozen hardline conservatives he leads didnt feel the bill went far enough. As the legislation was tugged further to the right to try to get the Freedom Caucus on board, a handful of moderates announced they could not support it.

Meadows has been in frequent conversation with Ryan, Vice President Penceand Rep. MacArthur over the past few days to come up with a consensus plan that can get enough Republican lawmakers to support the bill. He said the group is in final negotiations. Tuesday morning the vice president called Meadows numeroustimes but the congressman missed him because he was speaking to a high school civics class the two were finally able to connect later in the afternoon.

Speaker Paul Ryan addresses reporters on Capitol Hill on April 6, 2017.(Photo: Jim Lo Scalzo, European Pressphoto Agency)

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday "we are getting closer and closer every day" to a deal on healthcare, and Meadows' ideas "are very helpful." But he said the issue in the end will be "figuring out whether or not those attract additional votes gain additional support and don'tdetract" by scaring off some Republican moderates. "We feel very buoyed by the direction that this is going," Spicer said.

Just before the House broke for recess last week, Republicans came together on the one thing they could agree on a risk-sharing amendment designed to help states reduce premiums by reimbursing health insurance issuers for high-cost individuals.

While Republicans touted that deal as a bright spot in the negotiating process, it wasnt enough to bring the legislationback to the floor. Meadows said his new proposal would be in additionto the risk-sharing pools.

Meadows said that if theres consensus around this legislation which hes optimistic about the House may cut short its recess and go back to Washington tovote.

"Member discussions continue but I have no schedule update to report," Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong told USA TODAY.

Meadows said that he talked to the members of the Freedom Caucus on Monday night and the general consensus was that they could support something that protects pre-existing conditions and allows for the waiver. The group has not given an official endorsement of the plan.

Read more:

Republicans avoid town halls after health care votes

What is the House Freedom Caucus and why is Trump attacking its members?

Mike Pence and House Republicans scramble to resurrect Obamacare repeal

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2oone6A

Read the original here:

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows pursues health care deal with Speaker Ryan - USA TODAY

In many countries around the world, it remains difficult for people of all religions to practice their faith freely. And in others, its getting harder.

A Pew Research Center report released Tuesday shows that the number of countries with high levels of religious restrictions either from the government or from hostile individuals or groups grew overall from 34 percent in 2014 to 40 percent in 2015, the latest year for which data is available.

The uptick in 2015 followed two years of declines in the percentage of countries with high levels of religious restrictions. This is the eighth time the Pew Research Center has measured global religious restrictions.

The survey analyzed 198 countries using reports from various United Nations and European bodies, nongovernmental organizations, and U.S. government agencies.

The researchers looked for two types of restrictions those that came from the government and those that came from society. They defined government restrictions as laws, policies, and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices.

The analysts searched for a variety of indicators, such as whether the constitution specifically provides for freedom of religion, whether any level of government restricts religious groups from proselytizing, and whether the government limits peoples freedom to convert from one religion to another. Incidents of government harassment measured in the study were not always physical. They also included derogatory statements made by public officials, such as when Hungarys prime minister Viktor Orban wrote that it was important to secure his country from Muslim migrants to keep Europe Christian.

Marko Djurica / Reuters

Social hostilities were defined asacts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society. In these cases, the researchers would search for whether the country experienced violence motivated by religious hatred, whether religious groups tried to prevent other religious groups from being able to operate, and other factors.

The findings showed that the number of countries with high or very high levels of government restrictions increased slightly from 24 percent in 2014 to 25 percent in 2015. The percentage of countries with high or very high levels of social hostilities increased from 23 percent to 27 percent over that same period.

This rise in government restrictions was linked to two indicators in particular government harassment and use of force against religious groups.The researchers found that widespread government harassment of religious groups occurred in 105 countries in 2015 (53 percent), compared to 85(43 percent) in 2014 and 96 (48 percent) in 2013.

Consistent with previous years, the Middle East-North Africa region had the largest percentage of governments that harassed and used force against religious groups (95 percent). European countries came in second, at 89 percent.Europe also experienced the largest increase in government harassment (rising from 17 countries in 2014 to 27 countries in 2015) and use of force against religious groups (going from 15 countries in 2014 to 24 countries in 2015). In particular, Pew pointed to France for cases where individuals were punished for wearing face coverings in public spaces and Russia for prosecuting groups for publicly exercising their religion.

Pacific Press via Getty Images

Katayoun Kishi, the primary researcher on the study, suggested that some of the harassment in Europecan be linked to how European countries are reacting to migrants arriving on their shores. A record 1.3 million migrants applied for asylum in the European Union, Norway and Switzerland in 2015.

Sub-Saharan Africa experienced the biggest rise in both government restrictions and social hostilities. The uptick resulted from a combination of the actions of extremist groups, like Boko Haram, and governments reaction to terror attacks. Officials in countries like Cameroon, Niger, Chad and the Republic of Congo imposed began banning or punishing women wearing Islamic veils and burqas.

Kishi told The Huffington Post that the primary sources used to compile this annual report are usually available in the fall of the year following the reference year. It takes her team about 12 weeks to comb through about 18 sources for each of the 198 countries.

Even though the stats in Tuesdays reports are from 2015, she said those who reading these figures may recognize some policies or relationships that still carry weight in 2017.

While major world events can certainly contribute to country score changes from year to year, a portion of a countrys annual score is also comprised of laws or regulations that typically do not drastically change annually, or long-standing tensions between governments or social groups and certain religious groups that persist from year to year, Kishi told The Huffington Post in an email. So, a countrys score in 2015 may reflect some of the major world events that occurred that year, but it is also shaped by factors that are not as volatile on an annual basis.

That being said, readers should not assume that religious restrictions in these countries in 2017 are necessarily the same as they were in 2015, she added.

Read more:

This Map Of The State Of Religious Freedom Around The World Is Chilling - Huffington Post

|

Posted: Apr 12, 2017 12:01 AM

The title plays off of Trump's message when he was seeking black support during the presidential campaign -- "What do you have to lose?"

Trump's point was that after a half-century of government programs that have failed blacks, doesn't it make sense to try something new?

Suppose I said that physical laws, such as the law of gravity, are different for whites and blacks. You would laugh at me.

How about economic laws? Are they different for whites and blacks? Of course not. They are laws that apply to human behavior.

It is clear to me that freedom and capitalism are the principles that made America a rich and powerful nation. And it is not unique to America. Plenty of studies show that for all the nations of the world, those that are free, that allow capitalism to operate in their economies, are the most prosperous.

So when I say, as I have been saying for the last 20-plus years, that lack of freedom and capitalism is what is holding back black Americans, you would think black leaders would want to listen. But they have no interest.

Black politicians want us to believe that the economic laws that work for whites don't apply to blacks. They want us to believe that politics and government will make black lives better instead.

Some $22 trillion dollars have been spent on anti-poverty programs without making a dent in the black poverty rate, and with gaps between black and white median household income and wealth continuing to increase.

Just since 1987, the gap in median household income between blacks and whites increased by more than $10,000.

According to the Pew Research Center, black household net worth, adjusted for inflation, was lower in 2011 ($6,446) than in 1984 ($7,150).

When Donald Trump asked blacks, "What do you have to lose?" he was channeling Albert Einstein who defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

After 50 years of black lives dominated by government programs that have not achieved their objectives, isn't it time to try something new? Maybe freedom and capitalism. What do you have to lose? This was Trump's point.

However with more freedom and capitalism, black politiciansdohave something to lose. Power. So despite the benefits that more freedom and capitalism will bring to black Americans, black politicians don't want to hear about it.

The CBC report's introduction totally misses Trump's point that, after years of failure, it's logical to try a new way. Rather, the CBC twists Trump's words to mean, "African Americans are so destitute that we have no reason to fear a Trump administration."

The report then ticks off for some 100-plus pages all the same failed ideas of the last half-century -- government, spending, welfare. Everything that has failed so dismally and helped destroy the most important institution in black life -- the black family.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is hard at work, as he promised, to develop new approaches, helping black Americans with more opportunity of what works for everyone -- more freedom and more capitalism.

My organization, CURE, is involved in providing input on this with ideas such as more freedom in education through parental choice, lower taxes and regulation to encourage more black entrepreneurship and business investment in urban areas, expanded opportunities for personal savings, and, of course, policies to strengthen black families and churches.

It's time to bring freedom and capitalism to black America. The only ones who have something to lose are power-loving black politicians.

GOP Dashes Dems' Upset Hopes in Kansas, Conservative Holds Congressional Seat

Read more:

More Freedom -- Good for Blacks, Bad for Black Politicians - Star ... - Townhall

Since 2013, the student group Sexual Empowerment and Awareness at Tennessee has hosted Sex Week at the University of Tennessee as a venue for students to discuss sexuality and relationships. Wochit

A student asks a question at the symposium on intellectual freedom Monday, April 10, 2017, at the University of Tennessee. The symposium comes in the midst of lawmakers proposing an "intellectual diversity" office at the university.(Photo: J. Miles Cary for the USA Today Network --Tennessee)

A panel of University of Tennessee faculty members tackled the issue of intellectual freedom on campus Monday night, including how it has come up in recent debates about freedom of speech on campus and how lawmakers have reacted.

"The purpose of tonight was to try and understand and put into a historical perspective the pressures that are put on intellectual freedom," said Ernest Freeberg, head of the department of history at UT and co-organizer of Monday's discussion at the UT College of Law. "We've seen a lot of that over the last couple of years but if you go back you will find it's a long standing issue between the university, the legislature and even sometimes the larger community."

The discussion featuring six faculty members from UT comes on the heels of the de-funding of UT's Office for Diversity and Inclusion by the state legislature and repeated backlash over the organization of Sex Week on campus. It also comes as lawmakers have proposed a bill preserving free speech on campus and the creation of an intellectual diversity office on campus.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The conflict that such proposals can create between lawmakers and campus communities happens nationally, but it's also "important for us to understand our own history and put today's controversies into perspective," Freeberg said.

In 1952, for example, backlash erupted over the planned screening of four Charlie Chaplin films on the Knoxville campus because of the actor's role in a film satirizing Adolf Hitler.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon's presence at Neyland Stadium lead to a large anti-war protest and and dozens of arrests, including that of UT Professor Charles Reynolds, who ended up appealing his arrest to the U.S. Supreme Courtclaiming violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.

"What we've seen from history is this is a cyclical thing and at times different issues have arisen," Freebergsaid.

More recently, the organization of UT's Sex Week, offering sexual education and wellness programming often in a non-traditional way, has prompted backlash from the legislature leading to a change in the way student programming fees are used and playing a role in the de-funding of the Office for Diversity and Inclusion.

One of the greatest threats to intellectual freedom on campus is having tenured full-professors who are afraid to speak up because of fear of administrative censorship and that has resulted in UT acquiescence to the Tennessee legislature, said Mary McAlpin, a professor of modern languages and literature and one of Monday's speakers, who encouraged faculty members to be advocates for the issues they believe in.

"Tenure is a privilege and like all privileges it comes with related responsibility," McAlpin said. "It allows us to participate in shared governance with our administrators and to hold them accountable."

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2oSpN22

Read the original:

UT panel weighs in on intellectual freedom - Knoxville News Sentinel - Knoxville News Sentinel

Hes been gone almost 13 years, yet he vividly comes to mind on a morning such as this with Passover starting at sundown and Easter just around the corner.

His name was Eric and he was 87 the day we met, a consummate gentleman whose soft-spoken demeanor offered no hint of the horrors hed known, except when he cried.

He could never forget the sound of that knock on his door when the Nazis, on their mission to rid Austria of its Jews, told him he had to go with them for questioning.

His Ph.D. from the University of Vienna meant nothing.

He was shoved onto a freight car, bound for the savagery of concentration camps at Dachau and Buchenwald.

A deeply religious Jew, Eric refused to eat on Yom Kippur even though he was starving, and he would later weep whenever he recalled the day he sailed into New York harbor, bound for Ellis Island and a life of glorious freedom.

You dont know what it means to someone like me to tell my story to someone like you, he said, because now I know that when Im gone therell be one more person who heard it from an eyewitness.

Heres what our friendship was like: Every year an Easter card arrived here from him, followed by a Christmas card every December, and he would receive cards from here on Passover and Hanukkah.

We both knew nothing more had to be said.

He comes to mind this morning because Passover was his favorite holiday, commemorating the Israelites exodus from Egyptian bondage under Pharaoh.

For Eric, nothing was more precious than freedom, and nothing dismayed him more than a sense that younger people no longer cared to hear the heart-wrenching stories told to them at Passover Seders by his generation.

Impatiently, irreverently, some would even quip: They tried to kill us. We survived. Lets eat!

Eric had a response.

Some of you may consider it strange that we spend a whole evening discussing events that happened 3,000 years ago, eating uncommon food, identifying with people of a foreign country who lived in a civilization utterly unrelated to ours.

You may wonder why I talk about these matters?

I do it first because I have a deep sense of loyalty to victims of the Holocaust; I dont want them to be forgotten. I am one of the relatively few living witnesses who can testify to what happened to innocent human beings only because they were born as Jews.

The second reason is to once again recall the blessings of freedom we enjoy in this wonderful country. Do you realize what it means to be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law, presumed guilty because of your religion?

Feeling secure and confident, you cant imagine such a transformation could ever happen in this country. Please dont think Im a killjoy, but when I was 50 years younger in Europe we, too, could not imagine an overnight obliteration of human rights was possible.

After reaching the saving shores of this country I have felt blessed at every awakening by the precious gift of freedom.

Lets remind ourselves that, for all our social discord, we remain the longest-enduring society of free people, governing ourselves without kings or dictators, the marvel and mystery of the world.

This freedom we celebrate tonight never came cheap or easy. But for my generation, the price will never be too high.

Eric was 97 when he died, leaving a note instructing his family to ask my friend at the Herald to deliver his eulogy at Temple Shalom in Newton.

It remains a sacred trust.

So please understand these are not the words of a columnist.

These are the words of an eyewitness, shared this morning in his honor and his memory.

Though he be dead, yet shall he speak.

Happy Passover.

Visit link:

Fitzgerald: Eyewitness to Holocaust horrors loved freedom - Boston Herald

The House Freedom caucus demanded reduced premiums and reduced coverage. The result of these demands if accepted by the Republican caucus would be to deliver to Americans freedom from healthcare.

The Freedom Caucus has successfully tied up the repeal and what may be described as the replacement of Obamacare. The Koch empire has pledged to support them in the next election even as Mr. Trump threatens to campaign against them. I see some irony here. 249/314 The Freedom caucus has loudly trumpeted repeal since 2010 as well as consistently clamoring for debt and deficit reductions, yet now with repeal so near, they demanded more.

So where does their leverage come from? It is embodied in the numbers, but it is not the numbers alone. 302 Their members take away the majority which may seem obvious and simplistic at first (glance). What gives them power and makes them impressive is their ability to withstand the pressure of their larger caucus and even the White House while continuing to be united in opposition. They offer 10 proposals which are actually 10 deletions that need to be included in any legislation they support which essentially guts the main tenets of Obamacare.

The Freedom Caucus cares little about the CBO score since if their deletions were included and the vote went forward on Thursday, a new score would not be available. It is likely that their demands would lower premiums and possibly lower the federal governments expenditures for health care. A double bonus for their long sought goals.

Mr. Ryan is promising to come back with a revised proposal, if the Freedom Caucuss positions are included Americans will have freedom from healthcare as those over 55, see lower premiums with less coverage. Lower premiums translate not to higher deductibles and co-pays, but to no coverage for many aspects of health care. 204 This will make Americans pay out of pocket, which for many is simply not possible. The result for these folks will be less healthcare, sicker patients for society and hospital closures.

222 All of that said, its time to repair the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which will mean both sides will have to accept provisions they dont like. It also requires accepting information (data) and advice from experts; not relying on slogans filled with misinformation.

Mr. Owens is a former member of Congress representing the New York 21st and a Senior Advisor to Dentons.

The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.

Here is the original post:

Bill Owens: Freedom From Healthcare - WAMC

Ephraim Mirvis,Chief Rabbi,says: "At Pesach we are encouraged to grapple with one of the most profound questions to confront human civilisation: What is freedom?

"In the biblical account of the Exodus, the Israelites celebrated their freedom while still slaves to their Egyptian overlords. How can one explain this?

"The answer is both powerful and life affirming. On April 19 1943, the residents of the Warsaw Ghetto held a makeshift Passover meal, celebrating their freedom. The Ghetto, however, was anything but free and Nazi soldiers were in the process of liquidating it.

"Freedom is not just the absence of oppression, but the presence of a meaningful route to self-fulfilment. The Israelites and the residents of the Warsaw Ghetto found spiritual freedom even in the midst of the most extreme hardship.

"In Jewish tradition we differentiate between yiud, which means fate and goral, which means destiny. My fate is the hand of cards that I am dealt. My destiny is how I choose to play them.

"Regardless of the hand we are dealt, every one of us is free to shape our own destiny even in the most challenging of times."

This is an abridged version of a talk given by the Chief Rabbi on Radio 4s Thought for the Day

Laura Janner-Klausner, Senior Rabbi to Reform Judaism, says: "The Seder is not just a celebration of Jewish emancipation. When we tell our story of freedom from slavery, and the exodus from Egypt, we are reminding ourselves not just of the past, but the present too.

"Its a global disgrace that today, there may be as many as 46 million people living in modern slavery. Freedom is not just a concept. Pesach is not just a metaphorical moment. With the number of modern slaves increasing year on year for example, through the recruitment of child soldiers, sex trafficking, forced labour, domestic servitude a lack of freedom is a stain of shame on our modern world.

"The Passover Seder is the most universal of Jewish moments, and by no coincidence the most observed Jewish custom in Britain. We should be driven to observe the Seder not just because of our desire to celebrate our freedom, but through our determination that others should share in it.

"As Jews, we accept our responsibility to bring freedom where there is oppression, and our share of culpability when we dont speak up against it. For me, the Seder is an opportunity to start to rectify some of the most pressing concerns in our world."

Jonathan Wittenberg, Senior Rabbi, Masorti Judaism, says: "The Haggadah, the Passover story, is the foundation of Judaism. Our people is born, not amidst battles and victories, but in slavery. Through experiencing injustice, cruelty and the loss of freedom, we learn the importance of justice, truth, compassion and liberty. These values form the basis of our faith, our ethics and the society we strive to create.

"We have carried this vision through every country of our dispersion and our return home to our land. Our repeated history of marginalisation, persecution and exile has merely sharpened the awareness that we, and everyone, are safe only in a world of justice, truth and freedom.

"God heard our cry in Egypt; God always heeds the tears of the oppressed. But God is not obviously revealed in our day in supernatural signs and wonders; God doesnt reach down and intervene in history.

"Instead, God seeks us as partners. A fragment of the divine resides in us all, commanding us to work for the sacred vision of a redeemed world, free from slavery, trafficking, hunger, homelessness and cruelty.

"Tyranny is growing across the globe. Nothing is more urgent than the ancient Jewish task of pursuing justice, truth, freedom and the dignity of all."

Danny Rich, Senior Rabbi ofLiberal Judaism, says: "What might Pesach zeman cherutaynu: the season of our freedom mean when the Haggadah demands: 'In every generation every person must see themselves as if they themselves were personally freed from Egyptian bondage'?

"There have been times and places in Jewish history where Jews felt the fear of physical oppression but today Jews enjoy greater freedom than they have ever experienced.

"After the Brexit vote last June I toured many of the 40 Liberal Judaism constituent communities in Denmark, Ireland, Scotland and England and I found many of my congregants deflated, shocked and even depressed about the future of the UK and Europe.

"The freeing of the Hebrew slaves from bondage was only the beginning and the Torah reminds us that the Israelites remained an 'am kshay oref' 'a stiff-necked people'(Exodus 32:9 ) as they wandered the desert. The Children of Israel had escaped physical bondage but not the trauma it had caused.

"At our post-Brexit Sedarim this year may we seek to free ourselves from the burdens of cynicism and hopelessness such that as the Exodus story reminds us in partnership with God, the Promised Land lies ahead not behind us."

Joseph Dweck, Senior Rabbi of theS&P Sephardi Community, says:"There are moments in life that bring us a deep sense of value. It could be the birth of a child, a wedding day, or a moment of great accomplishment. When we experience such moments it is as if the world reveals itself to us in perfection. We perceive these moments to be filled with grace, and we might feel that our lives were worth even one such experience.

"This is what lies behind the portion of the Haggadah we call Dayenu ('Enough for Us'). Dayenu lists the gracious acts of God that brought us out of Egypt. After mentioning each one, we exclaim Dayenu! 'It would have been enough for us!'not because we wouldnt have needed more, but because the experience, even once, of the Creators kindness would have been enough for us to say that it was all worth it.

"Dayenu is part of the Seder because our freedom is fundamentally based upon the idea that the world is meaningful, and thus, so are our choices. We yearn to be free in order to choose and achieve meaningful lives.

"When we are fortunate enough to experience a 'Dayenu moment', we are reminded, deep in our hearts, that our lives matter, our choices matter, and that even if it is but once in a lifetime, seeing it is knowing that it is indeed enough."

More here:

What Passover has to tell us about freedom - Jewish Chronicle

Suit: Yale Tramples Freedom and Basic Rights Wall Street Journal (subscription) Regarding Peter Berkowitz's A Lawsuit Accuses Yale of Censoring Even Inoffensive Ideas (op-ed, April 3): George Orwell's 1949 novel 1984 depicts a future England where a dictatorial state controls all aspects of the lives of its citizens, even ...

Link:

Suit: Yale Tramples Freedom and Basic Rights - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

DW: In responseto the November 2015 Paris terror attacks, tightened security controls are to be implemented as of now at the Schengen zone's external borders - for EU citizens as well. Is everyone under general suspicion?

Elmar Brok: No, but I think that controlling our exterior borders is the right thing to do in light of the threat posed by terrorists. Controls must be put in place. And that is the plan: Control the external borders to ensure interior freedom - that must be our guiding principle.

Do you believe that Schengen states can implement these new rules? The entire procedure is rather complicated.

I think they can. That is also why some states, such as Bulgaria and Romania, are not yet Schengen states - they have been unable to fulfill certain criteria. They still have work to do. We all have to be prepared to better protect the borders of the European Union if we want to keep interior borders open while we are engaged in the fight against terrorism.

Brok: "Nothing can guarantee total safety"

Critics are convinced that such controls represent the loss of one of the European Union's most important achievements.

No, the EU's achievement is an open interior. I still have freedom of movement within the European Union. But the exterior borders must be protected. You can't tell who is an EU citizen just by looking at them.

But controls along interior borders are also constantly being talked about. So there are those who object to the current move, saying it is a stepping stone to tighter interior controls.

I would be strongly opposed to such controls. That would be a contradiction. Exterior protection guarantees interior freedom. In individual cases, interior controls can also be carried out if there is evidence of an imminent threat. That has always been the case - for example when controls were set up to keep British hooligans out during the 2006 Wold Cup. That must be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Controls can be carried out within the EU as well, regardless of borders. For instance, German police can enter the Netherlands in order to pursue suspects. That is all part of the Schengen agreement. That may mean that there are many more controls, but it also means that everyday citizens have much more freedom.

Let's look at how the new rules are to be put into action: EU citizens' identities will be checked against current wanted lists. In the past, there have often been flaws in communication between authorities in individual member states? What is the state of cooperation right now?

I think the current Schengen communication system can fulfill the technical requirements. But in the recent past we have seen that problems even exist between the computer networks in individual German states. For instance, when an immigrant was registered in Bavaria, authorities in Schleswig-Holstein had no idea. Thus, people like Anis Amri (the Berlin Christmas market attacker) could use several identities to travel around the country, because communication between different municipal authorities and German states didn't work. I believe that there has been a lot more pressure to fix that problem in the European Union over the last few months and years. That lets us protect against criminals, while at the same time guaranteeing the freedom of EU citizens who act asthey are supposed to.

Amri was sought in a huge manhunt

Is this type of intensification the right reaction to the type of terrorism that we are now confronted with? Authorities repeatedly warn about attacks by so-called "lone wolves."

Nothing can guarantee total safety. Such measures may limit the scope of terrorists, but they do not rid us of the threat altogether. Border patrols and coast guards must be strengthened, and we have to improve cooperation among domestic intelligence services in order to apprehend such "lone wolves." We will never be totally protected against violent criminals that are operating as suicide attackers. But it is the responsibility of the European Union to limit them as much as possible. The enhancement of controls on the Schengen area's exterior borders will help to achieve that.

Elmar Brok (CDU) is a member of the European Parliament. With some interruptions, he was also chairman of itsCommittee on Foreign Affairs, of which he is still a member, for almost 13 years until January 2017.

This interview was conducted by Friedel Taube.

See the original post here:

'Exterior control means more interior freedom': German MEP - Deutsche Welle

Author:Fahd al-Otaibi Posted April 9, 2017

Saudi state-owned Aramco on March 27 appointed Samba Capital to be the adviseron an initial public offering (IPO) that could generate $100 billion, which would be the largest IPO in history. Saudi Minister of Energy, Industrial and Mineral ResourcesKhalid al-Falihsaid Aug.28that the Aramco IPO is scheduled for early 2018. Thisshowsthat the Saudi government turned a blind eye to citizens who expressed their opposition toand concerns about the IPO.

The chairman of the Council of Economic and Development Affairs, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, announced Jan. 7the Saudi governments decision to list 5% of Aramcos shares. The announcement has raised wide criticism with Saudi economic experts, most prominently among them Barjas al-Barjas, the former analysis consultant at Aramcos Strategic Planning Department. In a Jan. 17 article, he said the move by the Council of Economic and Development Affairs, chaired by Prince Mohammed, is designedto attract funds as soon as possible. He said that it is unsafe for the future of the Saudi economy and would bringgreater risks.

The experts criticism shed light on the freedom ofexpressionconcerning sovereign decisions in Saudi Arabia, and resulted in a large social segment announcing Feb. 11 on Twitter with the Arabic hashtag that translates to #Thepeople_Oppose_Aramco_Sale that was used in more than 30,000 tweets thatthey oppose the IPO.

Following the criticism, Saudi Commerce and Investment Minister Majed al-Qusaibijustified the decision. On Feb. 12, he said the IPO offering does not represent "selling the company,"and made reassurances that the state will continue to own an overwhelming majority of shares, guaranteeing its control over Aramco.

Saudi human rights activist Abdullah al-Nasseri told Al-Monitor over the phone that freedom of expression exists in Saudi Arabia when it comes to the debate over economy-related issues, and that this freedom has reached a record level. He explained that this freedom is an undeniable fact, given that the issue was boldly addressed and raised objective criticism. Nasseri, however, said that freedom of expression has declined to unprecedented levels in human rights and political issues, but did not provide examples.

Mohammed al-Muadi, a spokesman for the Saudi Human Rights Commission, toldAl-Monitorthat Saudi regulations, based on Sharia, safeguard legitimate means of expression and guarantee communication between citizens and their officials at all levelsto achieve the greater good in accordance with Article 43 of the 1992 Basic Law of Government. It stipulates, The king's court and that of the crown prince shall be open to all citizens and to anyone who has a complaint or a plea against an injustice. Every individual shall have a right to address the public authority in all matters affecting him.

Muadi said that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression as long as this freedom does not prejudice public order, the community and social constants. He added that although it is a form of restriction, this restriction does not contradict the laws and regulations, as Article 39 of the Basic Law of Government states that all media outlets shall employ courteous language and abide by the state's regulations to contribute to the countrys education and foster its unity.

He said Saudi Arabia prohibits any opinions that would stir strife and division, or would prejudice the countrys security and foreign relations, or are deemed offensive to human dignity and rights. Muadi said that these restrictions are in harmony with Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others.

Muadi believes that all Saudi citizens are granted full civil and political rights, guaranteeing the right of every person to embrace his opinions without any harassment.

A state of despair continues to prevailover Saudi civil servantsas decreased oil revenues have caused monthly salaries to declinefollowing a government decisiononSept. 26. This is added to the delayed Citizens Account Program, which was approved Dec. 22by the Saudi Cabinet to enhance citizens living conditions following the raising prices of basic services such as fuel, electricity and water.

In terms offreedom of expression, the Saudis are more likely toarticulate their opinions on Twitter than in local newspapers. Mohammed al-Bishr, the head of the Center for Global Thought on Saudi Arabia, told Al-Monitor that citizens are not interested in newspapers whose editors-in-chief oppose freedom of expression.

Bishr said that for many years the editors-in-chief of local newspapers have opted for writerswho have placed their personal interests and orientations over the countrys and citizens genuine interests, with readers' comments not including the opinions of ordinary citizens. He said that this has resulted in many readers refraining from reading newspapers and instead resorting to Twitter, where they feel less restrictedin expressing their opinions. According to Bishr, Saudi newspapers are subject to both government censorship and control of thesenewspapers officials, which have prevented them from reporting things as they are in reality.

On Aug. 31, the Communications and Information Technology Commission reported thatthere are more than 22 million internet users in Saudi Arabia. Also, a recent study announced at the Gulf Youth Media Forum in Riyadh said that 11 million Saudis have Twitter accounts and account for 33% of the tweets in the Middle East.

The editor-in-chief of Al Riyadh newspaper, Suleiman al-Osaimi, saidOct. 3that public responsiveness to Twitter has widely affected Saudi newspapers, whose profits decreased in 2016, causing salary delays and layoffs. In addition, economic conditions have led to declining ads and subscriptions, which are a major source of revenue, while electronic journalism has been on the rise.

Read More: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/04/saudi-decision-aramco-ipo-spark-debate-freedom-of-expression.html

Follow this link:

Is freedom of expression on the rise in Saudi Arabia? - Al-Monitor