Category Archives: Freedom

For a second consecutive year, Texas posted the highest annual population growth among U.S. states, according to Census figures, and many of its new residentscite the state'slaissez-faire governance aspart of the draw.

But if youre searching for greater personal freedoms, a new study suggests you'd best look elsewhere.That analysis, published by self-described libertarian think tank the CATO Institute, found that the Lone Star State a place where you can open-carry without a mask on ranks 49th among U.S. states when it comes to personal freedoms.

CATO gave Texas high scores when it comes to economic and fiscal freedom it ranks No. 10 and No. 12 on those, respectively and the study ranked the state No. 21 overall when it comes to a variety of freedoms.

But that's not to say Texas is a beacon in the personal freedom category. The state's "generally aggressive" criminal justice record helps explainits finish near the bottom.

More Texas citizens are imprisoned per capita than those of any other democracy on the planet, for example. And although only 12% of the state is African American, that demographic makes up a majority of the states inmates. Drug-related arrests are around the national average, but possession of fewer than two ounces of weed under the state's "harsh" cannabis laws can land violators a 180-day sentence in the county jail.

The study also cited the Texas' tough stance on gambling as a drag on its personal freedom ranking. Even sports betting remains illegal here, even though the practice is permitted in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

What may be most surprising to some about the CATO analysis is where the Lone Star State is positioned when it comes to the rights of gun owners. Texas ranked No. 31, while Kansas topped the nation with the leniency of its gun laws.

Texas may be a cheaper place to live, its people friendlier and its climate balmier than most of the country. But if youre looking for more freedom, you may want to consider Nevada, the freest state in the country, according to the CATO report.

Go here to read the rest:

Moving to Texas for more freedom? Not so fast. Study ranks the state 49th in personal liberties - San Antonio Current

This holiday season has given me time to reflect on my return to Boston as a Celtics player and my longer journey to reclaim my freedom as an American citizen. In the past few months, Ive changed my last name to Freedom, become a US citizen, and continued my political activism, having most recently launched a campaign in which I wear custom shoes dedicated to human rights crises around the world. Ive doubled down on my advocacy, using every opportunity to keep world attention on human rights, whether on the court, as a regular guest in the media, or in meetings with politicians.

The journey to get here wasnt easy. The last time I spoke with my parents was in 2015. Any contact with me could get them arrested. Turkish authorities forced my family to publicly disown me, imprisoned my father on charges that he was a member of a terrorist organization (he has since been acquitted), revoked my passport, and issued 10 arrest warrants against me in four years. Fortunately, my teammates have been there every step of the way to get me where I am today, becoming family after mine was broken up.

When I was targeted by Turkey for speaking out against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, my teammates consistently checked in on me and offered to help in any way they could. When Celtics games were pulled from Chinas Tencent streaming service this season in retaliation for my wearing shoes that called for greater freedom in Tibet, my teammates were the first to express their unconditional support.

They encourage me to stand up for whats right, give voice to innocent people, and always remind me they have my back no matter what. Theyre my No. 1 source of motivation and hope.

My activism has also brought the team closer together. Our locker room has become a forum for deeper discussions about how to effectively seek justice in the world. My shoes spark running conversations about the messages behind them. And my citizenship process gave us a chance to discuss American history, government, the Constitution, and even the current situation facing marginalized communities. America is far from a perfect union with its own set of appalling human rights abuses.

Most shockingly, the United States leads the world in jailing its own people, mostly due to crimes related to poverty, mental illness, or addiction social and health issues that need to be addressed. As a country that accounts for nearly 5 percent of the global population, the United States has 20 percent of the worlds prison population, with people of color suffering disproportionately. The consequences dont end with incarceration, as former inmates can go on to face a lifetime of barriers to finding work and re-entering society. Even a progressive state like Massachusetts locks up people at higher rates than many countries. According to a 2020 Harvard Law report on racial disparities in Massachusetts criminal system, Black and Latinx people receive longer prison sentences than similarly situated white people for similar offenses. The devastating impact of mass incarceration on our communities is a stark reminder of the work that needs to be done at home.

In the lead-up to my citizenship test, my teammates printed out the questions to ensure I was ready. Theyd test me over and over again, in the locker room, on the plane, and during our health treatments. When I finally passed, they were ecstatic and offered to throw me a party. But I said all I want are some American-themed cupcakes. To my surprise, the next day I found the perfect red and blue cupcakes in our dining hall, made by my Celtic brothers themselves.

Wherever I find myself, Boston sport fans similarly show gratitude and love for what I stand for. I get standing ovations whenever I check into games. I feel at home here in Massachusetts. And its because we all know this is bigger than basketball.

Enes Kanter Freedom is a center for the Boston Celtics.

Go here to read the rest:

The Boston Celtics, my political activism, and a call for greater freedom - The Boston Globe

Anyone notice the Portland restaurants calling for vaccine passports are all upscale establishments downtown? Id wager theyre not having quite the time making payroll as many of their hundred-plus counterparts all across the city.

This has been one of the hallmarks of the pandemic: people in positions of comfort speaking broadly for everyone. As was pointed out early on, we arent all in the same lifeboat. The failure to honestly acknowledge this has been a mighty example of the systemic inequality that this crowd loves to complain about. And yes, Im talking about the left.

What happened to the Democrats who thought the Patriot Act was a grotesque overreach of constitutional rights? How can they chant my body, my choice and then take away a childs right to an education if they dont submit to an experimental vaccine?

These same Democrats have stood back and watched (from home) while the largest transfer of wealth in history has migrated from the middle class to the 1 percent. Theyve happily hitched their wagons to Big Pharma and Big Tech and in doing so have become the same defenders of the ultra wealthy who they despised when George W. Bush was in office.

Freedom and privacy arent antiquated talking points of the alt-right. Theyre fundamentals of human decency and a civilized society. These restaurants are more than welcome to insulate themselves in a homogenous nest of zero-risk-takers if theyre that worried. Thats a right they actually do have.

William HiltonPortland

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Excerpt from:

Letter to the editor: Portland vaccine passport backers targeting others' freedom - pressherald.com

The bill to prevent incitement on social media is supposed to address a real problem that ought to be addressed. But despite its good intentions, the bills provisions are excessive and completely disconnected from the requirements of proportionality. It is extremely dangerous to freedom of expression, in both the short term and the long, and will also be of dubious effectiveness. Moreover, its far from clear that alternatives were properly considered.

The bill would turn district court judges into censors at the request of prosecutors. Granted, judges wouldnt be able to prevent publication a priori, but they could order content removed from a website. It fails to draw the vital distinction between social media and local or foreign news sites, which obey the rules of journalistic ethics and editorial responsibility. Its provisions would apply to both alike.

LISTEN: Why Israels decision to shut out Diaspora Jews will rankle for years

Two conditions are listed for issuing a content removal order. First, the contents publication must be a criminal offense. Second, theres a real chance that letting it remain online would undermine personal safety, public safety or national security.

The first condition is extremely broad, which in and of itself makes the bill disproportionate. Were the criminal offenses that restrict free speech here only the ones suited to a democratic country, like incitement to violence, that would be one thing. But they arent.

We inherited outdated offenses that contradict democracy from the British Mandate, which wasnt a democratic regime. These include insulting a public servant, contempt of court, offending religious sensibilities and, worst of all, incitement to sedition. This alone would be enough to spark contempt for the government and public dissatisfaction. But Israels legislature also added poorly worded criminal provisions on issues like revealing official secrets and slander.

Despite repeated urging by courts and academics that the definitions of these crimes be adapted to a democratic system of government, nothing has been done. And now, the government seeks to turn them into a platform for serious harm to freedom of expression. It would be no exaggeration to say that massive use of these offenses could even endanger freedom of expression.

Granted, the prosecution generally exercises restraint in their use, but thats in criminal proceedings against individuals. Its not clear similar restraint would be exercised about content removal. Moreover, theres no guarantee that current prosecution practices wont change tomorrow.

Nor is the second condition reassuring. While harm to personal safety is clear and defined, national security and public safety are extremely vague terms that can be infinitely expanded.

Court rulings allow publication to be barred only to avoid grave harm to an important public interest, and only when such harm is a near certainty. But the bill turns its back on these essential limitations, thereby showing contempt for freedom of expression.

Sometimes, the harm that publishing something does to a significant public interest is offset by the very public value of publishing it, such as its contribution to freedom of political, religious or artistic expression. But the bill makes no mention of this idea.

Moreover, in the event of a criminal conviction, the court will be authorized to order content removed even if the second condition isnt met. But if removing content is a preventive measure, what justifies doing so if the conditions justifying prevention havent been met?

This broad willingness to undermine freedom of expression ought to worry us. Israelis seem to be greatly concerned about their own freedom of expression and that of people who think like them, but they waive this concern with regard to conflicting opinions. The understanding that our commitment to freedom of expression is actually judged by our treatment of offensive, outrageous, stomach-churning statements hasnt taken root. Without full freedom of expression, democracy cant exist even in the thin, procedural sense of the term. Without full freedom of expression, self-actualization, cultural flourishing and progress are all impossible. A bill like this contributes to eroding the principle of freedom of expression.

If district court judges are authorized to serve as a kind of censor, the day is not far off when proposals will be made to expand their powers by letting them prevent publication a priori, even in the classic, non-internet media. The day is also not far off when proposals will be made to turn the content removal order into a basis for conviction of the very crime that the order deemed the content to commit.

The bill also reflects the Knessets fondness for legal proceedings that rely on classified information that the party injured by the order isnt allowed to see, even if this material is inadmissible as evidence. Nor does the bill insist that the party liable to be harmed by the order be present during the proceedings. In other words, these proceedings will be far from due process.

In addition, the bill reflects contempt for the criminal process, since a judicial ruling that a law was violated will essentially replace a criminal conviction obtained with all the procedural safeguards that criminal trials are supposed to include. If its possible to determine that a crime was committed through such an abbreviated process, why even hold criminal trials, with all their complications?

One also has to ask whether this system which is based on the states employment of force via the judicial branch will even be effective in achieving its goals. After all, quite a lot of time will pass before the prosecution decides to go to court and the court holds a hearing and rules.

But the nature of the internet is that offensive, juicy content spreads like wildfire in all directions, to other online platforms and the mainstream media. Thus, the question is whether this isnt a vain pursuit, because it will respond too late.

Its highly unlikely that the government thoroughly explored alternatives that would empower the individual who was harmed and assign liability to the social media companies. These companies cant be trusted to keep their platforms from being turned into a no mans land where justified, proportionate prohibitions on truly dangerous speech are violated. But they could be made to do so through professional intermediaries free of economic or political interests.

More here:

The bill on social media incitement is a danger to freedom of expression - Haaretz

ISLAMABAD: The Association of Electronic Media Editors and News Directors (AEMEND) on Sunday expressed its concern over the recent order by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) which charged three media persons, namely, Editor-in-Chief of the Jang Group Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, Editor Aamir Ghauri and Editor Investigations Ansar Abbasi, in a contempt of the court case.

In a statement, the AEMEND said it believed that the contempt charge levelled by the court was worrying since the journalists merely reported an affidavit which exists and had been verified.

The order would have repercussions on Press Freedom and the Freedom of Expression of journalists in Pakistan, which already has a bad repute in this regard according to the RSF Global Press Freedom Index Report of 2021.

Such reporting by the journalists is justified and legitimate, since they had no ill intentions behind reporting such proven news. For the sake of the welfare of Freedom of Speech and Peoples Right to Know, the journalists are on the right for reporting such valid and genuine stories, the media body said.

We strongly and fairly believe that indicting the respective media persons for merely practising their journalistic and rightful duties towards the people of Pakistan is unjustified and we appeal to the respected judges of the Islamabad High Court to drop all charges of contempt against the media persons, the AEMEND said.

More:

Framing journalists: IHC order to have repercussions on press freedom, says AEMEND - The News International

by Stephen P. Halbrook - Sunday, January 2, 2022

The highly anticipated oral argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen took place before the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2021. While predicting the outcome of a Supreme Court decision is hazardous, what was said in this hearing didnt please gun-control advocates.

Paul Clement, former solicitor general of the United States, argued on behalf of the challengers. Barbara Underwood, solicitor general of New York, defended the law in question, as did Brian Fletcher, the principal deputy solicitor general of the United States. Other than the lawyers, the justices and select media, the courtroom was empty due to COVID restrictions, but anyone could listen to the very lively argument on the Courts website. The following offers a blow-by-blow account of the arguments before the Court.

Everyone seemed to assume that the people have a right to bear arms outside the home, but it depended on whose definition of the people was used. To the challengers, the populace at large is included, while New York would confine the term to atypical people approved by the government. (Gone are the days, disposed into the dust bin of legal history by District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), when the people was argued to mean members of a militia on active duty.)

So, almost from the beginning, the argument focused not on who could carry, but on where people could carry, as in which sensitive places should be off limits to gun possession. Heller had suggested that bans in government buildings and schools were presumptively valid. Justice Clarence Thomas broached the subject by asking Clement for any historical analogies that might justify modern regulations. Chief Justice John Roberts followed, more specifically, about places where alcohol is servedthe response was that maybe they should condition that license holders not consume alcohol. Justice Elena Kagan asked about a ballpark filled with 50,000 people; the response was you need a ticket and a private entity may restrict access.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about Times Square on New Years Eve. Maybe, instead of being a sensitive place, Clement responded, it could be regulated under a time, place and manner restriction, a concept borrowed from First Amendment law. While the issue of sensitive places is not before the Court, it could provide guidance on the subject.

As I learned from the cases Ive argued in the Court, justices often argue a point in the questions they ask. Part of Justice Samuel Alitos query stated that the core purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is self-defense, and thus a sensitive place should be a place where the state has safeguards for those who enter, such as metal detectors and security officials. While his brief argued that very point, Clement did worry that the state may declare the whole part of a city to be a sensitive place because many police are present there and, thus, we have your back.

True to form, Justice Stephen Breyer, a former professor, used up a good bit of Clements time ruminating about crime statistics, how professors of history showed Heller to be wrongly decided and how carrying for self-defense makes you go shooting it around and somebody gets killed. He worried about people of good moral character who start drinking a lot and who may be there for a football game who then might get pretty angry at each other.

To that, Clement pointed to the 43 or so shall-issue states, which include large cities like Phoenix and Houston. He said that those places allow their citizens to have the same rights and they have not had worse problems than the handful of states with discretionary issuance.

In response to a question from Justice Neil Gorsuch, Clement addressed the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which Sir John Knights Case (1686) held to apply only to carrying arms with malo animo (evil intent) in a manner to terrify others, and the English Bill of Rights (1689), which protected the right to have arms. Clement said that there just are no reported cases on this side of the Atlantic ... that show anybody being prosecuted for a violation of the Northampton crime simply by carrying common firearms for self-defense.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked questions about how constitutional rights are interpreted, beginning with the statement that we [dont] allow basic blanket discretion to grant or deny [them]. Moreover, he said, we should focus on American law and the text of the Constitution ... which you say grants a right to carry, and then historical practice can justify certain kinds of regulations, but the baseline is always the right established in the text. While some lower courts have used strict or intermediate scrutiny, those are balancing tests under which courts could make policy judgments. As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh issued a dissent in Heller II v. D.C. that the correct test is text, history and tradition.

The fun really began with the argument of New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. She reduced the right of the people to bear arms to the whims of government officials. Despite it being an obvious outlier, she asserted that New York is not an outlier in the extent to which the state restricts the ability to carry firearms in public, and its not an outlier in asking a licensed applicant to show good cause for a carry license.

Underwoods argument that carry permits might be more appropriate in rural areas, but not populous ones, ran into a brick wall from Chief Justice Roberts, who said its unlikely in the woods to run into someone whos going to rob you on the street. On the other hand, there are places ... in a densely populated city where its more likely that thats where youre going to need a gun for self-defense and ... however many policemen are assigned ... there are high-crime areas.

When Underwood irrelevantly retorted that, under the English monarchies it was an insult to the king for people to take things into their own hands, Roberts said, Well, how many muggings take place in the forest? (There was some laughter then.) Underwood correctly replied that rapes and robberies do occur on deserted bike paths, but this only worsened her case.

Yeah, thats what Im talking about... . Theyre walking around the streets, but the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they cant be armed? Justice Samuel Alito

And thats where Justice Alito lowered the boom, arguing that ordinary people who work late at night in Manhattan it might be somebody who cleans offices; it might be a doorman at an apartment; it might be a nurse or an orderly; it might be somebody who washes dishes. They get off work around midnight, commute home by subway or bus and walk through a high-crime area. And they apply for a license, and they say: Look, nobody has ... said Im going to mug you next Thursday; however, there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death.

Underwood confirmed that, if theres nothing particular to them, they dont get a carry license. So, Alito continued, Does it mean that there is the right to self-defense for celebrities and state judges and retired police officers but pretty much not for the kind of ordinary people who have a real, felt need to carry a gun to protect themselves? The follow-up exchange was telling:

Justice Alito: There are ... a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now, arent there?

Underwood: There are people with illegal guns if thats what youre

Justice Alito: Yeah, thats what Im talking about... . Theyre walking around the streets, but the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they cant be armed?

Next it was Justice Kavanaughs turn. He asked that the real concern, isnt it, with any constitutional right, if its the discretion of an individual officer, that seems inconsistent with an objective constitutional right... . I mean, what if youre a runner and you say I run a lot, and, as you correctly pointed out earlier, there are a lot of serious violent crimes on running paths?

Underwood then let the cat out of the bag: The problem with the shall-issue regimes is that they multiply the number of firearms that are being carried in very densely populated places... .

So the constitutional right is being exercised by too many people?

That led Justice Kagan to request her to respond to Clements argument that we would never really dream of doing that for the First Amendment or other constitutional rights... .

Justice Sonia Sotomayor called her out on giving an evasive answer and repeated that, the issue is [in] no other constitutional right do we condition on permitting different jurisdictions to pass different regulations... . No decent answer was forthcoming.

Justice Alito asked whether you got a little bit overly enthusiastic in your summary of some of the historical sources, as he noted that New Yorks brief used a quote from an 1814 North Carolina legal manual telling local officials to arrest all such persons as in your sight shall ride or go armed. Trouble is, the original source actually said ride or go armed offensively. Going armed peaceably was lawful. Instead of apologizing for what looked like manipulation of the source, Underwood argued that, what the heck, it didnt matter, going armed was the same as going armed offensively.

Next to argue was Brian Fletcher on behalf of the United States (read: the Biden administration). His version of a long tradition of carry bans was little more than an 1821 Tennessee law and an 1871 Texas law.

Chief Justice Roberts stated that the first thing I would look to in answering this question is not the Statute of Northampton, its Heller ... and its recognition that the Second Amendment ... is to be interpreted the same way youd interpret other provisions of the Constitution. Case in point, the Sixth Amendment: If youre asserting a claim to confront the witnesses against you under the Constitution, you dont have to say Ive got a special reason. So why should someone have to convince an official that youre entitled to exercise Second Amendment rights? Instead of a serious answer, crickets.

Counsel next denied Justice Alitos follow-up statement that a major reason for the enactment of the [N.Y.] Sullivan Law was the belief that certain disfavored groups, members of labor unions, blacks and Italians were carrying guns and they were dangerous people and they wanted them disarmed. But the brief of Italo-American jurists and attorneys, authored by Sarah Gervase, demonstrated exactly that, as did the brief I filed on behalf of the National African American Gun Association.

Earlier, Justice Sotomayor referred to the slave and black codes under which to carry the arms, that you had to be subject to the approval of the local sheriff or the local mayor, et cetera. And during the Civil War, that was used to deny black people the right to arms. We now have the Fourteenth Amendment to protect that, said Sotomayor. Nevertheless, that protection is pretty slim in New York, as shown by the brief of the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid.

On behalf of the petitioners, Paul Clement got the last word in rebuttal: In a country with the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, simply having more firearms cannot be a problem and cant be a government interest just to put a cap on the number of firearms.

Keep your fingers crossed and expect a decision no later than June 2022.

Stephen P. Halbrook is a senior fellow with the Independent Institute and the author of 10 books, including The Right to Bear Arms: A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?

Follow this link:

What Will the US Supreme Court Decide? - America's 1st Freedom

The Federation of Nepali Journalists. (File photo)

KATHMANDU: Incidents of violation of press freedom have been increasing of late. The Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) said that such incidents have gone up this year compared to last year.

The FNJ records show that 52 incidents of infringement on press freedom had occurred in 2020 whereas 62 such incidents have taken place from January 1 to 11 am of December 31, 2021.

One hundred ninety journalists and four media houses have been affected due to these incidents, according to Roshan Puri, the FNJ general secretary.

The FNJ study shows that 32 incidents of intimidation on journalists and 10 incidents of professional insecurity took place this year. Likewise, 10 incidents of capture and obstruction, five incidents of attacks on journalists, four incidents of detention of journalists, and one incident of policy-level restriction have been reported this year.

Nepal Press Union (NPU) president Badri Sigdel said that the incidents of violation of press freedom could be minimized through the full implementation of the provision of full press freedom enshrined in the constitution.

Overall, this year too journalists and media have become the victims of threats, attacks, and mistreatment by various sides taking over news content or in course of collecting news. Journalists and media have been facing such incidents when writing and disseminating news on corruption, irregularities, and anomalies.

Similarly, journalists have sustained injuries when police have resorted to baton charging while gathering news on protest demonstrations organized by various groups.

Acts of barring the journalists from collecting news about public programs continued this year also. Journalists are prohibited and prevented from reporting the meetings of the parliament, the parliamentary committees, swearing-in ceremonies for ministers, or the general conventions of the political parties.

Press Centre Nepal president Bishnu Sapkota stressed the need of amending or revising the Acts and Regulations related to mass communication media that are in the process of formulation based on the suggestions from the bodies concerned.

Various laws that aim to restrict press freedom have been made and registered in parliament at a federal, provincial, and local level. As a result, the concept of full press freedom ensured by the constitution has faced challenges, said the FNJ. Journalists have been affected by COVID-19 this year too. So far since the infection took place, 26 media persons have lost their lives to this deadly virus with 21 in 2021 alone, said Puri.

The number of incidents against press freedom has declined in 2021 as compared to 2020. The year 2021 witnessed 59 cases against press freedom as opposed to 96 in 2021, according to an annual media report prepared by the Freedom Forum, an NGO working in the field of democracy, press freedom, and the right to information in Nepal.

Three hundred fifty journalists have faced hardship in one year during the infection.

They were denied salaries or made to stay on unpaid leave or kicked out of their job at the hand of media owners in the name of the virus. Of them, problems of 300 have been resolved and the FNJ is taking initiatives to sort out that of 50, it has been said.

Visit link:

Incidents of violation of press freedom increasing - Khabarhub

There is nothing more joyous than looking at wild animals being released in their natural habitat. Indian forest service officer Parveen Kaswan has recently shared a video that evoked similar feelings.

In the video, one can see a group of forest officials in the middle of a clearing in a jungle. Soon, a herd of deer can be seen leaping out. The deer take long jumps and leap into the wild enthusiastically.

The herd was released as part of the forest departments prey base augmentation programme.

According to Parveen Kaswan, the video was shot by him last year at 5 am at a location that he described as somewhere in the core of a protected area.

So far, the video has amassed more than 40,000 views on social media.

Earlier this month, Kaswan shared a heartwarming video of a Himalayan black bear hurriedly escaping into the wild after being released from a truck. In a world where the news of wild animals getting into residential areas is making news, such videos assert the importance of maintaining and conserving the natural habitat of animals.

Go here to see the original:

Watch: Deer leaping to freedom after being released in the wild will give you a joyous boost - The Indian Express

15th July 2021FOI 21/630Dear

Thank you for your email dated 15 June 2021 where you requested the following:

all internal emails in regards to a syndrome known as Post Finasteride Syndrome caused by the drug Finasteride on behalf of the freedom of information act (FOAI) from the dates of 2001 to May 2021.

We have searched our records and attached all relevant emails. Redactions have been made under Section 40 of the FOI Act, the names of employees below the grade of Senior Civil Servant (SCS) have been withheld. This is because they are normally not responsible for high profile work and would not reasonably expect their personal details to be in the public domain. As a result, the releasing of their names would not, in our view, be fair or reasonable. We have also made redactions under Section 35 - formulation of government policy and Section 41 information provided in confidence, in this case by patients or families of patients. Information provided to us in confidence, with the expectation that it will not be released, is exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act.

Please note some emails were picked up when our records were searched for correspondence containing the term post finasteride syndrome however the sections containing the term have since been redacted in line with the above explanation. Nevertheless, we have still included these emails in this response.

Finasteride 5 mg (marketed as Proscar) has been available since 1992 for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and for the prevention of urologic events to reduce the risk of acute urinary retention as well as to reduce the risk of surgery including transurethral resection of the prostate and prostatectomy. Finasteride 1 mg (marketed as Propecia) has been available since 1997 for the treatment of male pattern hair loss. In line with other regulators worldwide the MHRA considers that based on the currently available data on quality, safety, and efficacy the balance of benefits and risks of finasteride is positive. However, all effective medicines can cause side effects in some people, and these are described in product information for healthcare professionals (the summary of product characteristics) and patients (patient information leaflet, provided in each pack). Unfortunately it is not usually possible to predict which patients will experience such side-effects. Therefore, the risk of possible side effects of every medicine must be weighed against its potential benefits in each individual.

I hope the information provided is helpful, but if you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of this response; and can be addressed to this email address.

Yours sincerely, FOI Team, Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines Division

Read more:

Freedom of Information request on all internal emails in regards to a syndrome known as Post Finasteride Syndrome from 2001 to May 2021 ( FOI 21-630)...

Six months ago, Tasha Robitaille and Cory Belcourt left their Ontario home, bought 40 acres of heavily forested land on New Brunswick's Kingston Peninsula and turned their lives upside-down.

And somehow, Robitaille says, nothing has ever felt more right.

For some time, Robitaille and Belcourt had been feeling the pull of nature. They both had steady jobs, Belcourt as a plant manager and Robitaille as a business owner and doula, but they longed to spendmore time outdoors.

The births of their two daughters deepened that longing.

Then the pandemic hit, with its lockdowns and isolating restrictions,and suddenly, Robitaille said, they just knew it was time.

"Things were just getting really difficult, I was home with both girls ... and Cory was working a lot of hours. The pandemic definitely got to us so we needed to make a big change, to feel like our family was healthier and closer together."

They had a specific lifestyle in mind. They wanted to live simply, sustainably, on a sprawling plot of land and in aclose-knit community.

"New Brunswick just kept popping up as an answer to all of these things," Robitaille said.

They found a 40-acre plot of forested land on the Kingston Peninsula, near Kingston Corner and backing onto Mount Misery, and immediately knew they'd found what they were looking for.

"We made some big decisions really fast," Robitaille said. "We sold and bought a house within a span of a week, and arrived just in time to plant our garden."

They bought chickens and ducks, they hiked the trails that snaked through their property, they picked apples, they had bonfiresand barbecues and spent their days outdoors with their daughters, two-year-old Nova and four-year-old Rockie.

It was like a dream, Robitaille said.

But the dream was just beginning.

For years, Robitaille and Belcourt had talked about buildinga sustainable guest house on their property.

"It's always been a passion of mine to have somethingoff-grid, or a tiny home, a low-footprint cabin," Robitaille said.

Now, with 40 sprawling acres of land, much of it with spectacular views of the peninsula or Mount Misery, they realized they could expand their"tiny" plan.

They discussed building a handful of cabins to rent out to people who wanted to experience homesteading and a completely off-gridlifestyle in the woods.

At that point, Robitaille said, they committed to going all in.

Their trail hikes took on a new purpose: scouting out the perfect tiny-cabin sites.

"We followed our instincts," Robitaille said.

"We did a lot of walking and we just tried to instinctively find a ... really safe, cozy and beautiful spot in the forest. And then we went to work and created off-trails to those five cabins that areall private from each other."

Belcourt began clearing the sites, and they ordered five European pine cabin kits, each cabin measuring 108 square feet with a seven-foot loft bedroom.

In October, construction began. By late December, all fivecabins were completed and the project was christened: La Belle Cabane, a reflection of the fact that the couple are francophones.Three of the cabins are now available for rent at labellecabane.com.

The cabins are heated withwoodstoves,the lights are solar-powered, the cooking is done on a fire grill. The bathroom is an outhouse, and a community herb and vegetable garden and free-range chickens provide a daily supply of fresh produce and eggs.

To Robitaille, it felt right in her bones.

Robitaille said she and Belcourt, both of whom are Mtis from Ontario, grew up listening to the stories of their fur-trading forebears, people who lived off-grid before there was a word for it.

"We've heard a lot of stories of our ancestors that lived in these little cabins," she said.

"Everyone would be close-knit, sharing each other's hobbies and cooking together and all of that good stuff."

The cabins seemed like they'd have been right at home in those adventures, Robitaille said.

The couple's Mtis roots have been woven into many layers of the La Belle Cabane project.

"That's really important to us," Robitaille said.

"So we provide medicines in the cabins, the cabins are named very intentionally in line with our medicine wheel."

As well, each of the cabins the Eagle, the Coyote, the Bear, the Elk and the Turtle featurelocal Indigenous art and decor.

The goal is to blend the interior, the exterior, the setting, and above all, the experience, in a way that opens visitors' eyes to the possibilities Robitaille and Belcourt found in their new home.

"We wanted to find freedom in the forest," Robitaille said.

"That's one of the main reasons we moved to New Brunswick, was to have more freedom with our family and our lives and our kids. And that's what we hope other people will find here as well."

Read more:

Tiny homes, big dreams: How an Ontario family found freedom in the forests of N.B. - CBC.ca