Category Archives: Freedom

INDEPENDENCE means having the freedom as a country to decide what to do, and to take responsibility for the benefits and costs of doing it.

Contemplating independence, it is natural to ask what ones country could do with its freedom. In Scotlands case, competing visions might include: re-joining the EU and being able to trade and travel more easily, participate in European affairs more fully and promote climate emergency responses more effectively; or else, being impoverished by the withdrawal of English funding, and becoming vulnerable to capital flight.

Many other scenarios are possible, but before a decision on independence is made they will all be speculative. For instance, neither the terms by which Scotland and England would part ways, nor the terms on which Scotland would re-enter the EU (or even whether it would apply to do so), can have been agreed bindingly before the vote. The most anyone can do is to promise to try to achieve certain outcomes if conditions allow, and if they remain desirable.

But circumstances constrain probabilities so, for example, Scotland is very unlikely to be able to rejoin the EU in the next decade or so without independence. As a Brexit migrant from England, one of my dreams is to obtain a Scottish EU passport before my British EU passport expires in 2026, and this affects how I think about independence. Considering the general catastrophe of Brexit, many Scots will have a similar ambition.

Such simple hopes may help to guide us through a turbulent campaign, in which narratives will proliferate as the vote approaches. Potential voters will seek as much clarity as they can get on what the various parties intend, and from whatever calculations of risk, opportunity and probability have been done by credible analysts. Here the problem, as with Brexit, is that a tsunami of contradictory promises, analyses and lies will overwhelm everyones ability to sort fact from fiction.

Then, on the day, people will vote according to their gut feelings, and these are only partly determined by reason and certainty. Even the 2014 independence campaign is a poor guide, since back then the choice was about whether or not to leave a stable EU member state, but now, depending crucially on how you look at it, the choice is whether or not to leave either a sinking ship or a reborn UK.

READ MORE:Here's my pitch to undecided indyref2 voters as a psychologist

This leaves us with the quest for independence itself, which here and now concerns only the desire for a degree of national freedom greater than that possessed by Scotland as a semi-autonomous region of the UK. This essay therefore targets desire, by highlighting some inherent benefits of achieving independence. These are based on my understanding of transformative events that result in greater collective freedom, and also the specific circumstances of Scotlands quest for independence.

Thus, one benefit would be that for the first time in our lives well be free to think about what we want to do. So a young black girl said to Herbert Marcuse (in An Essay On Liberation, Allen Lane, 1969), in answer to the question of what newly free people would actually do. Her reply implies that until you are free, and responsible, you cant think freely or choose your way, or even really know what being free means.

Responsibility for yourself and others is hard, but so is life and growth. We seek freedom even if were afraid, because we must. There are many ways to feel more or less free, but there is nothing like freedom itself. And it always involves other questions: free from what, free for what, and with what compromises? But freedom is not about an absence of compromises. Its about deciding what to do and what to accept.

In any case, there are at least three other inherent benefits to independence in current circumstances. The first is that break-up of the UK now seems necessary and inevitable. Union had advantages in the past, for many stakeholders and for a long time, but the mutual advantages have shrunk with the UKs global role. Moreover, the direction of travel of Englands dominant culture is diverging from Scotlands, and from those of the core nations of the EU.

Brexit changed everything, and England has a Brexiteer government that is promoting and weaponising myths of owner-class entitlement and national exceptionalism. It is encouraging and enabling the most selfish and least co-operative elements, thus polarising English society. And polarisation is what destroys democracies by eroding the shared visions and values upon which they depend. Thus, whatever the speculative risks of independence, there is the real risk of being tied to a country that is sliding towards breakdown and extremism.

THIS brings me to the second factor, that England could benefit from being hit on the nose with a two by four. The shock of Scottish independence might help the English to retreat from the brink of the dumb, femicidal, piratical and isolationist values of Henry Tudor and Donald Trump.

Most English have not yet fallen to the Dark Side, and they could still be energised by something that really drives home the enormity of the danger theyre in. We should remember that it was the shock of defeat in the Falklands/Malvinas campaign that broke the power of Argentinian fascism in the 1980s. Saving England by leaving the Union could be the only path that leads to sharing the whole archipelago with benign partner countries.

But timing is key. As Martin Luther King (below) wrote in his last book, Chaos Or Community? (Penguin, 1969): In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. And he stresses this again later: Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: Too late. For Scottish independence, this probably implies the sooner the better.

Timing is also and doubly relevant to the third factor, that the breakdown of global climate and ecology will kill us all in a few years without massive and sustained change. The human future is now bounded by catastrophic mid-century uncertainty. To survive means building a sustainable, inclusive, equitable economy with peace rather than war with nature at its heart, sustained by trade and communion with like-minded societies.

This requires people to understand ecology and to be responsible and accountable for their own decisions on land tenure and environmental management. It also requires systematic investment and public mobilisation in decarbonisation and new forms of social venture, business, technology and industry.

All of this will be very hard to do without a high degree of local autonomy, and impossible for a subject people against resistance by a conservative, unco-operative or hostile hegemon. Thus, from the point of view of helping to save the world, Scotland must be free in order to lead.

So there are freedom from and freedom for aspects to this, as there always are with freedom. But there are also more subtle positives. Imagine Scotland as a complex system. As I explain in my book Surviving Climate Chaos (Cambridge, 2021), all systems behave according to the nature of the entities within them and the relationships among those entities. In any country, these entities and relationships are shaped in deep time by geology and evolutionary biology, and in recent time by ecology, land use, language, myths and values.

All contribute to the froth of the immediate culture, which is stirred by currents from the depths and by breezes from near and far. Amongst the bubbles are determinants of hope and fear, desolation and purpose, colonies of energy and idea that shape everyones life experience. Sometimes a malign spore settles and grows, to infect part of the froth with a dark meme, ones like: you have NO purpose, so why not have a drink or shoot up? That one comes from the drug dealers. Or else: you HAVE a purpose, and its to grab and defend your own personal property in competition with everyone else, at any cost to them, and only if you fail will you be truly worthless! That ones from capitalism.

HEALTHY systems have immunity to these parasitic memes, which aim to create vulnerability by fomenting purposelessness, or by distorting values so that the individual can never be fulfilled. Unconstrained, their effect is like one of those Cordyceps fungi in Merlin Sheldrakes book Entangled Life (Bodley Head, 2020), that get into the brains of ants and make them climb high before dying to scatter spores on other ants below.

There are many places where peoples have died from the shock of contact with new cultures and dispiriting memes the Americas and Australia are full of them but we often forget the victims of the past in the dazzle of the present. More moving is to see a society that is withering under attack by squirming multitudes of parasites, the last old people bewildered and alone amidst new values and incomprehensible languages. Hundreds of cultures have died like this in my lifetime, and hundreds more, from the Highlands to the Amazon, are casualties in the annals of anthropology.

But here and there are societies that have survived. The Iban and Kelabit of Malaysian Borneo, the Balinese of Indonesia, and others, seem to manage by rooting themselves in themselves and the life-energy of their homelands, holding some core sense of identity close and having the confidence to use outsiders for their own purposes. And then there are those, like the Makushi of Guyana, the Zoque of Mexico and the Welsh, Basques and Catalans, who have managed to rebuild a sense of place and identity, where the infection has been halted, the language saved, solidarity and belonging re-established, and despair banished.

Part of it is blind luck, but luck without determination and cleverness is not enough. The Zoque, for example, started by bribing conquistadores with gold and were lucky enough to find one who left them alone in return. They kept on paying gold with the same purpose to successive governments, through independence from Spain and the Mexican revolution, until modern land surveyors mapped their Chimalapas homeland as a community territory, the largest in Mexico. They also welcomed Amerindian genocide survivors, who were given land, adopted as Zoque, and helped to defend the area.

This worked for several hundred years, showing the value of creativity in seeking whats really important: land tenure and a sense of identity, belonging, and a long-term purpose that means something. All of this is relevant to Scotland, which has striven to find its way back from a complex and damaging past as a vibrant, viable and renewed country. It is now easy to imagine Scotland as a green, healthy, creative and sociable nation with English and Gaelic as official languages, and maybe Doric and Scots too.

Which brings me to the last reason why I would vote for independence: that Scots are lucky enough to have the chance to be free. Many peoples never had this chance. Seizing the opportunity is important because people need hope and/or purpose or we get depressed and give up. We can do without one of them but not both: one or other will prevent feelings of desolation, and the degradation of self-harm.

Being responsible for a local, familiar ecosystem and local, familiar people is an excellent way to nurture feelings of purpose. The sense of security from being surrounded by healthy ecosystems and trusted acquaintances is an excellent way to nurture feelings of hope.

FREEDOM and responsibility are gateways to these sources of hope and purpose for everyone. Scotland needs freedom for Scots to be hopeful and purposeful. And the world needs hopeful, purposeful Scots if it is ever to be free of injustice and humanitys failed war with nature.

So, there are many useful things to do whatever the outcome of a vote on independence, and there are risks and opportunities in any course of action. But choosing independence would have the following inherent benefits:

Achieving freedom itself, and the responsibilities that come with it;

Reducing political risk, by leaving an England that is on a dangerous path;

Shocking England back to sanity, by leaving the Union after Brexit;

Helping to save the world, through wise social and environmental policies;

Building hope and purpose among the peoples of Scotland; and

Taking advantage of good fortune and the opportunity to be free.

Dr Julian Caldecott (above) is a worldrenowned ecologist and conservationist.

This essay was published as part of our Yessay series click here for more information. If you'd like to support The National in running more competitions like this,click here for information on how to support us with a digital subscription.

See the original post:

What should an independent Scotland do with its newfound freedom? - The National

The Senate will vote on the Freedom to Vote Act Democrats pared down version of their For the People Act next week, Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerSenate to vote next week on Freedom to Vote Act To Win 2022: Go big on reconciliation and invest in Latinx voters McConnell-aligned group targeting Kelly, Cortez Masto and Hassan with M ad campaign MORE (D-N.Y.) announced Thursday.

In a "Dear Colleague" letter to his caucus members, Schumer said he plans to call for a cloture vote on the bill Monday evening.

Democrats would need 10 Republicans to join them in overcoming the procedural hurdle, which requires 60 votes. That's highly unlikely to happen, though Schumer pointed to centrist Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinOn The Money Progressives play hard ball on Biden budget plan Schumer, McConnell headed for another collision over voting rights Overnight Energy & Environment Presented by ExxonMobil Climate divides conservative Democrats in reconciliation push MORE's (D-W.Va.) efforts to negotiate with GOP senators.

Senator Manchin has been engaged in conversations with our Republicans colleagues in hopes of advancing solutions on a bipartisan basis to ensure all Americans have their voice heard in our democracy, Schumer said in the correspondence.

I hope that our Republican colleagues will join us in good faith, and as I have said before, if they have ideas on how to improve the legislation, we are prepared to hear them, debate them, and if they are in line with the goals of the legislation, include them in the bill.

Manchin has earned the consternation of his fellow Democrats in recent months for balking at supporting multiple legislative priorities, including President BidenJoe BidenMcAuliffe holds slim lead over Youngkin in Fox News poll Biden signs bill to raise debt ceiling On The Money Progressives play hard ball on Biden budget plan MOREs $3.5 trillion social spending measure.

Additionally, while Manchin has voiced support for the passage of Democrats other voting rights bill, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, he was slow to support the For the People Act and has refused to back creating a filibuster exception for the issue.

Lack of consensus among their caucus led a group of Senate Democrats to draft new legislation that pulled many policy points from H.R. 1 while narrowing the scope of federal oversight.

Manchin was a part of this process, joining fellow Democratic Sens. Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharOn The Money Progressives play hard ball on Biden budget plan Schumer, McConnell headed for another collision over voting rights Hillicon Valley Presented by LookingGlass Congress makes technology policy moves MORE (Minn.), Jeff MerkleyJeff MerkleySenate to vote next week on Freedom to Vote Act Democrats call on White House to explore sharing Moderna technology abroad Lawmakers introduce bill to limit data collection at border crossings MORE (Ore.), Alex PadillaAlex PadillaPelosi on addressing climate through reconciliation package: 'This is our moment' Top Latino group endorses Padilla for full Senate term Senate to vote next week on Freedom to Vote Act MORE (Calif.), Raphael WarnockRaphael WarnockSenate to vote next week on Freedom to Vote Act Herschel Walker calls off fundraiser with woman who had swastika in Twitter profile Georgia reporter says state will 'continue to be a premier battleground' MORE (Ga.), Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineDefense & National Security Military starts giving guidance on COVID-19 vaccine refusals Blinken pressed to fill empty post overseeing 'Havana syndrome' Senate to vote next week on Freedom to Vote Act MORE (Va.) and Jon TesterJonathan (Jon) TesterSenate to vote next week on Freedom to Vote Act Democrats struggle to gain steam on Biden spending plan The Hill's 12:30 Report: Debt ceiling fight punted to December MORE (Mont.) and Independent Sen.Angus KingAngus KingSenate to vote next week on Freedom to Vote Act GOP tries to take filibuster pressure off Manchin, Sinema Hillicon Valley Presented by American Edge Project TSA to issue cybersecurity directives to secure rail, aviation sectors MORE (Maine), who conferences with Democrats.

The legislation would give all voters access to a minimum of 15 early voting days and same-day registration, while making Election Day a federal holiday.

Moreover, it would require states to have automatic voter registration and restore the right to vote to Americans with felony convictions upon completion of their prison sentence.

States would also be prohibited from the partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts.

Manchin has espoused confidence that a bipartisan solution to voting rights is possible, but there is little evidence to suggest that Republicans are willing to play ball with either bill.

I don't know how that's going. My sense is not well, King told reporters two weeks ago.

King added: I've talked to several Republicans myself, and I'm not getting very far. ... I don't think the Republicans here are interested in short-circuiting what their brothers and sisters are doing in statehouses across the country.

Hundreds of proposals aimed at making access to the ballot box more difficult have been introduced in GOP-controlled statehouses around the country since the beginning of the year.

Per the Brennan Center for Justice,33 such bills across19 states have become law this year.

Democrats have labeled the wave of legislation as fallout from last Novembers presidential election that was punctuated by former President TrumpDonald TrumpMcCabe wins back full FBI pension after being fired under Trump Biden's Supreme Court reform study panel notes 'considerable' risks to court expansion Bennie Thompson not ruling out subpoenaing Trump MOREs big lie the repeated baseless claim that widespread voter fraud, which is exceedingly rare in American elections, cost him the race.

Conversely, Republicans have defended the laws, insisting that greater election integrity is needed and that Democrats voting rights bills are blatant power grabs meant to federalize elections.

Excerpt from:

Senate to vote next week on Freedom to Vote Act | TheHill - The Hill

Representatives of ARTICLE 19, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, the European Federation of Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) have returned to Malta to press for the need for full criminal justice for Caruana Galizias assassination, as well as implementation of the recommendations of the landmark Public Inquiry report, and broader press freedom reforms to recognise journalism as the fourth pillar of democracy and establish in law and practice a safe and enabling environment for all journalists working in Malta.

In a meeting with our representatives today in Valletta, Prime Minister Robert Abela reaffirmed his commitment to ensuring the safety of journalists, both in terms of framework and implementation. We welcome his commitment to remaining in dialogue and consultation with civil society and journalists on the ongoing reforms, and continue to offer our expertise and technical assistance.

We again welcome the findings of the Public Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Caruana Galizias assassination, and will closely monitor implementation of the key recommendations of the report of the Board of Inquiry. We particularly emphasise the need for the full independence of the Commission of Experts, and to ensure that the terms of reference of the Commission meet international standards and the composition of the Commission reflects the expertise in role of press in a democracy needed to effectively undertake the full scope of responsibilities.

We note that this marks an important opportunity for Malta to begin to repair the damage to its press freedom climate and international image. We hope that the implementation of the Public Inquiry recommendations will represent a true turning point for the country, starting with the establishment of an independent Commission of Experts that reflects the full range of expertise needed. We stand ready to provide further assistance in that regard.

Signed:

ARTICLE 19

Committee to Protect Journalists

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom

European Federation of Journalists

Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

Read more here:

Statement of the joint press freedom mission to Malta | Reporters without borders - Reporters sans frontires

Gregg Leslie, executive director of the First Amendment Clinic at the Sandra Day OConnor College of Law and a faculty affiliate at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, has received the Freedom of Information Award from the Arizona Newspapers Association for his advocacy for First Amendment freedoms.

The Freedom of Information Award recognizes journalists, legislators and others who work to preserve free speech and government transparency. Leslie received the award in the non-media category.

Leslie trains students in First Amendment law and is a frequent collaborator with the Cronkite School, where the First Amendment Clinic works with investigative journalism students to file effective public records requests and conduct pre-publication legal reviews.

The work done by Leslie and his students have been instrumental to several stories published by the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at the Cronkite School, which have won some of the highest collegiate journalism awards, including from Investigative Reporters and Editors and the Society of Professional Journalists.

One of Leslies most notable cases involved Scott Warren, a humanitarian aid worker who faced felony charges and up to 20 years in prison for aiding immigrants in the southern Arizona community of Ajo.

Leslie and his students successfully argued that sealed court documents related to the case should be made public. It was a substantial victory for the clinic and its media clients, including The Arizona Republic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and The Associated Press.

The documents outlined the eight-month investigation that led to Warrens arrest and showed how far the U.S. Border Patrol went to build a case against humanitarian volunteers in southern Arizona.

Leslie previously worked as a staff attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington, D.C., which provides legal assistance to journalists, and served as the organizations legal defense director for 17 years.

He also serves on the governing committee of the Communications Law Forum of the American Bar Association, and was a member of the ABAs Fair Trial and Free Press Task Force in 2011. In addition, he served as chairman of the D.C. Bars Media Law Committee and Arts, Entertainment, Media & Sports Law Section, and taught media law in Georgetown Universitys Master of Professional Studies in Journalism program.

View post:

First Amendment Clinic Executive Director Gregg Leslie receives Freedom of Information Award - Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass...

Around five oclock every evening, the bells at Paris-Yates Chapel play a variety of songs. Listening to them play is a very peaceful experience, and they provide an excellent background for contemplation while walking through the quad. As they rang out God Bless America, I could not help but think about American freedom and how our ideas about it have changed over the past 245 years. Liberty was the cornerstone of Americas founding, yet an alarming amount of people today couldnt seem to care less.

There are many ways to define freedom, but I feel the most relevant definition to our nation reads liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another. That was why we fought the American Revolution, after all. The colonists wanted independence from a tyrannical ruler and to govern themselves according to their own beliefs. Lately, it seems many of our freedoms are being challenged or blatantly disregarded, yet many Americans seem inclined to do nothing. We have become comfortable and take our freedoms for granted.

Most recently, we have seen this as a result of the COVID-19 virus. What began as a temporary quarantine in March 2020 quickly devolved into a year-and-a-half of mask mandates, mandatory quarantines and losses of jobs and homes. At both the federal and state levels, these things have been enforced upon American citizens. Despite many citizens protesting these restrictions, many government officials have persisted, claiming it is for our safety. However, it is not the governments place to make these kinds of decisions on our behalf. This kind of overstepping inspired a revolution once before, but now too many citizens are asking for these restrictions, or at least tolerating them. Too few individuals are willing to risk their comfort by going against the mainstream, despite the danger this poses to their personal liberties.

Even at the University of Mississippi, we are currently operating under a mask mandate that was put in place on Aug. 5, 2021. Despite Oxford lifting their mandate, Ole Miss has persisted in continuing it, again with the claim of wanting to keep us safe. I state once more that that is a decision best made by the individual. It has gone so far that both the Associated Student Body and the University of Mississippi faculty senate both voted in favor of Institutions for Higher Learning instituting a vaccine mandate for students and staff. Thankfully, IHL declined, but the threat remains vivid in our minds.

The danger of these things is that too many individuals are fighting for these intrusions to take place. History tells us that people in power are not keen on giving it up once they have it. If we begin to allow these encroachments, even in seemingly small doses, we will eventually find that we do not have any freedoms left to give up. They will be taken from us by the few we gave them to, and I doubt we would get them back.

Ronald Reagan said it best: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. So lets let our generation be the one that fights for freedom, not the one that lets it slip away.

Hannah Newsom is a senior majoring in elementary education from Tupelo.

Read the original here:

We must fight to keep our freedom The Daily Mississippian - Daily Mississippian

A Cambridge University academic has called on the universities minister to defend her freedom of speech, after a claim that her invitation to speak to civil servants was cancelled because of a tweet criticising Priti Patel, the home secretary.

Prof Priyamvada Gopal, a fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, and a respected author on British colonial history, had been invited to speak this week to Home Office officials on the links between the departments policies and recent colonial history, including the Windrush nationality scandal.

But Gopal said the invitation was withdrawn at the weekend. The rightwing politics blog Guido Fawkes claimed credit for the cancellation after highlighting the tweet, originally posted in February.

The February tweet said: Priti Patel is also a reminder that many Asians in British Africa had ferociously anti-black attitudes and were used by colonial administrations to keep black populations in their place. An attitude she brings to government.

The cancellation message from the Home Offices adviser made no mention of the tweet. Gopal said she was entitled to be defended by the Department for Education and ministers, based on their high-profile campaigns and statements supporting academic freedom and deploring no-platforming.

Gopal said she had appealed to Michelle Donelan, the universities minister, to look into the reasons behind the cancellation. I said, Ive been cancelled because of pressure by a partisan group, I understand that you are invested in freedom of speech, please help me, Gopal said. I would like her to defend academic freedom consistently.

Donelan this week wrote a commentary for the Times defending Kathleen Stock, the Sussex university professor who has been the target of protests for her views on gender identity. Without free speech, and the right to offend, how much longer may we have had to wait for enfranchisement for all, religious freedom, or equality before the law?, Donelan wrote.

Gopal said she was sad to have lost the opportunity to speak about her work to the Home Office. I dont think the Home Office is a monolith, and there are people who work there who have genuine interests as human beings and as workers. I think its a shame, and I just hope that whoever did the invite, and was persistent in getting me to come, isnt in trouble, she said.

A government spokesperson said: Due diligence checks are always taken on any speakers and it is important to note speakers who come to these events are not always representative of the view of the government.

Earlier this year Gopal was involved in a research group and seminar series evaluating the historical legacy of Winston Churchill, which drew criticism for its examination of Churchills support for colonialism and his views on race.

See more here:

Academic calls on universities minister to defend her freedom of speech - The Guardian

By Ambassador Anthony F. Godfrey published in Kurir daily news paper on the occasion of the 140 years of Serbian-American Relations.

When a young man from the Banat village of Idvor stepped off the boat in New York City in 1874, his stomach was empty, he did not speak English, and had only five cents in his pocket. He was fleeing the military frontier of the Austrian Empire in search of a better future. The young Mihajlo Pupin decided to spend his remaining money on a piece of plum pie. As Pupin recounted on the first page of his Pulitzer Prize-winning autobiography, the plum pie contained nothing but pits of prunes. [translators note: pit = the stone/seed of the plum/ prune is a dried plum]

Just seven years later, Mihajlo was studying at one of the most prestigious universities in New York, while the United States and a newly independent Serbia had signed a treaty establishing diplomatic relations. Perhaps surprisingly, a hunger for tasty and true plums played a large role not just for Pupin but for relations between our two countries as well. According to a diplomatic telegram from that era sent by Americas first diplomatic representative to Serbia, Eugene Schuyler, The plums in Serbia are of excellent quality and if orders could be sent directly to Belgrade, not only could a better class of prunes be obtained, but they could be put upon the market in New York more cheaply than at present.

We know that young Nikola Tesla landed in New York just a few years after the ink dried on the treaties that established our relations in 1881. Although Tesla faced his share of struggles as a new immigrant, I am not aware of bogus New York street plums being one of them!

The United States did not just have a hunger for quality plums, we also wanted to support an impoverished and freedom-loving people that had suffered under centuries of foreign domination. Serbia had gained independence from Turkey only in 1878, yet was still under the heavy economic control of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Today, Serbia stands at the door of the worlds most successful trading bloc and political alliance, the European Union. Now, just as 140 years ago, the United States is ready to help Serbia succeed. Practically all of our development assistance is intended to help Serbia achieve its stated goal of joining the EU.

I truly hope that the story of the first days of our friendship will inspire us today to remember that the beating heart of the Serbian-American relationship is our shared desire for our peoples to enjoy the key values of liberty and equality born out of the European Renaissance, which are just as important today.

Our diplomatic relations were developed in an era when both of our nations were plagued with extreme instability, including political assassinations and wars. Just four years after President Lincoln was murdered, near the end of our bloody Civil War, Prince Obrenovic was shot and killed while traveling through Kosutnjak park. Schuyler, who was then the U.S. Consul in Bucharest, wrote that the assassination of Obrenovic will excite the most profound sympathy from Americans, given the death of our beloved President Lincoln.

Schuyler, along with another American, John Kasson, played a vital role in convincing Washington of the need to support Serbia. Kasson, who was based in Vienna at the time, urged Washington to establish a trade relationship to help Serbia escape Austro-Hungarian commercial domination. Serbia is struggling to establish its independence with the civilization of western Europe, under many difficulties arriving from powerful intervening neighbors, Kasson wrote to Washington.

The treaties drafted by Schuyler, Kasson, and their Serbian counterparts were sent to Washington for review in late June, 1881. Days later, President Garfield was wounded by an assassin. He died weeks later, on September 19, about the same time as the Department of State sent a telegram approving the text of the treaties. Schuyler quickly traveled from his post in Bucharest for Belgrade, signing the consular and commercial treaties on October 14 with Serbias Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cedomilj Mijatovic.

It would be one more year before the U.S. Senate fully approved the treaty, at which point Schuyler presented his diplomatic credentials to King Milan alongside the sincere wishes of the American people for the peace and welfare of the Serbian nation, whose longing for independence, after centuries of struggle, have at last been realized.

Although Serbias fruit and berry exports continue to be hugely important, the plums of 2021 are brainpower, and our struggle is our nations constant efforts to live up to our democratic ideals.

We saw earlier this month the potential for even stronger commercial relations with the opening of NCRs amazing new campus in Belgrade, where more than 5,000 Serbian citizens are expected to be employed. From Hollywood films to the NBA, our cultural and sports ties also continue to expand. Our paratroopers jump from airplanes together, our police fight cross-border crime, our doctors and scientists are working together to stop COVID, professors from Ohio State are researching and teaching with Belgrade University. When Serbians and Americans work, create, invent, and play together, amazing things happen.

Dr. Pupin arrived in New York several years too early to benefit from quality plums arriving from his birth nation to his adopted home, thanks to the new commercial and consular treaties. Still, he wrote about his bogus plum incident as an example of overcoming hardships through persistence and stamina. In the same way Dr. Pupin achieved true greatness, Serbia and the United States are proving the importance of sticking together through bad and good. From a humble plum, we have built a friendship that matters now more than ever. Dear Serbia, Congratulations on 140 years!

By U.S. Embassy in Belgrade | 14 October, 2021 | Topics: Ambassador, News, U.S. & Serbia

Read the original:

From a Humble Plum Grew a Wish for Freedom: 140 years of Serbian-American Relations - US Embassy in Serbia

Two months ago, as senators prepared to depart Capitol Hill for their August break, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made a commitment on voting rights legislation. As we've discussed, the For the People Act couldn't muster enough support, but the New York Democrat said a group of senators was negotiating the terms of a new, narrowly focused compromise measure, which the chamber would consider upon senators' return.

Two months later, as NBC News reported this morning, Schumer is effectively calling the question.

The Senate will hold a procedural vote next week on voting legislation, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has announced. In a letter to his caucus Thursday, the New York Democrat said that he plans to set up the procedural vote on the Freedom to Vote Act for next Wednesday.

In his written letter, the majority leader emphasized that the legislation has the backing of every member of the Senate Democratic conference, before adding that West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin "has been engaged in conversations with our Republicans colleagues in hopes of advancing solutions on a bipartisan basis to ensure all Americans have their voice heard in our democracy."

Schumer added, "We cannot allow conservative-controlled states to double down on their regressive and subversive voting bills. The Freedom to Vote Act is the legislation that will right the ship of our democracy and establish common sense national standards to give fair access to our democracy to all Americans."

In terms of the merits, the legislation has a lot going for it. Circling back to our earlier coverage, the Freedom to Vote Act has three parts. The first focuses on voter access and election administration, and it includes provisions that would create automatic voter registration at a national level, make Election Day a national holiday, and establish floors states could not fall below on early voting, same-day registration, mail voting and drop boxes. This section also sets a national standard for voter-ID laws, intended to address Republican demands.

The second part focuses on election integrity, and it includes provisions to insulate election officials from partisan interference, establishes cybersecurity standards, and with the 2016 race in mind, "creates a reporting requirement for federal campaigns to disclose certain foreign contacts."

The final part focuses on civic participation and, among other things, aims to end partisan gerrymandering.

But as is often the case on Capitol Hill, the question isn't whether the bill is good, it's whether the bill can pass.

Republican leaders have already rejected the compromise offer, but Manchin has spent weeks trying to get GOP support for the measure anyway. Asked last month what his plan is to get the bill passed, the conservative Democrat replied, "It's to get 10 Republicans."

Or put another way, the future of our democracy may very well hinge on whether Manchin voluntarily gives Republican opponents of voting rights veto power over voting rights legislation. What could possibly go wrong?

Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, who's been directly involved with the legislative talks, told Talking Points Memo yesterday that a handful of GOP senators have been willing to engage in discussions about the bill. Warnock added that he considers the Republicans' ideas "inadequate," but he's prepared to have the policy discussion anyway.

Democratic Sen. Jon Tester added that there are "about five or six" Republicans who've expressed at least some interest in being constructive on the issue, and the Montanan wants to bring some of their proposals to the floor in the hopes of moving the process forward.

But the math remains stubborn: Even if five or six GOP senators considered the possibility of backing a compromise bill a far-fetched scenario, to be sure the legislation would still die at the hands of a Republican filibuster.

All of which brings us to a familiar point. The authors of the Freedom to Vote Act invested months of work into the bill, well aware of the legislative arithmetic. Would they spend all of this time and energy on an important bill that was doomed from the outset?

If or more realistically, when 60 votes fail to materialize, attention will turn to an obvious solution: Voting rights advocates, on Capitol Hill and off, want Senate Democrats to create an exception to the institution's filibuster rules, allowing members to rescue democracy by simply passing a worthwhile bill by majority rule.

In July, Virginia's Mark Warner, a moderate Senate Democrat, publicly endorsed just such a carve-out, saying Americans' voting rights are so fundamentally important to our system of government, this is "the only area" in which he'd support an exception to the chamber's existing filibuster rules.

Will Democratic senators such as Manchin and Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema agree? Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Norm Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, recently made the case in a Washington Post opinion piece that the stakes are so high that every Democratic senator will ultimately do the responsible thing.

Proponents of democracy have reason to hope they're right. We'll find out next week.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Read this article:

As Schumer readies vote, does the Freedom to Vote Act have a chance? - MSNBC

Although debates about freedom of speech are not new, the form they take now seems to be more vindictive than hitherto.

Two recent case cases illustrate the point.Earlier this month, it was announced that the sociology professor David Miller had beensacked bythe University ofBristol. Theofficialreason was that his lectures about Israel, Jews and Zionism did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff.

His disciplinary hearing included athird-partyinvestigation by an unnamed Queens Counselwho found that Millers commentsdid not constitute unlawful speech, but he was sacked anyway because of some unwritten rule about his duty of care to his students.

In the same week, students at the University of Sussex demanded the sacking of feminist professorof philosophy Kathleen Stock because her views about women are allegedly transphobic. The universitys vice-chancellor, Adam Tickell, supported her right to free speech over womens rights versus trans-rights or gender identity. However, the local University and College Union branch was subsequently more equivocal, insisting that it was against calls for any worker to be summarily sacked but also calling for an investigation into institutional transphobia prompting Stock to claim that it had effectively ended her career at Sussex.

It is important to set these events in context. The right to freedom of expression, and the concept of human rights in general, is under attack. Right-wing populists such as Jair Bolsonaro, Donald Trump, Narendra Modi and Victor Orbn have found common cause with religious conservatives to deride the notion of fundamental individual rights. Yet, rather than defend them, many critics on the Left also deride rights as Enlightenment-inspired, Eurocentric figleaves for racism, sexism and imperialist apologism.

No doubt both sides of the arguments in both the Miller and Stock cases would claim to be defending human rights. However, the issue at Bristol is that an extreme action the sacking of a prominent academic was taken in a context where the crime is unclear.

Hate speech is recognised (and outlawed) in English law, but the concept is also commonly used in a non-legal context to designate any speech that is degrading, insulting, defamatory, negatively stereotyping or liable to incite hatred or violence against any group of people by virtue of their race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation or disability, for example. Both Miller and Stock engaged in such speech, their opponents allege.

The expression hate speech was coined by a group of US legal scholars in the 1980s. They noted that different legal systems tackled harmful racial discrimination variously. When Mari Matsuda used the term in 1989, her central purpose was to highlight how the US legal system failed victims of harmful racist speech by providing them with inadequate means of seeking redress, civil or criminal. She cited several legal cases and examples not associated with actual legal proceedings and not easily actionable under the existing laws.

The concept of hate speech has been taken up by a range of people on the Left to condemn people they believe are misogynistic, racist or xenophobic and who, therefore, violate ideals of respect and tolerance. But it is also used by evangelicals to critique liberals who they regard as attacking their conservative beliefs.

Hence, the philosopher Caleb Young suggests that hate speech is too broad a term to be usefully analysed as a single category. It includes many kinds of speech acts, each of which involves very different free speech interests that may cause different kinds of harm. Young distinguishes four main categories of hate speech. Millers pronouncements seem to fall into his concept of organised political advocacy for exclusionary and/or eliminationist policies, while Stocks seems to fall into targeted vilification. But neither are illegal.

Sacking Miller for making legal pronouncements risks eroding the human right to free speech. It also risks disrupting the process that underpins that Rights rationale: allowing ideas to flourish and deriving truth, autonomy and justice to emerge from the healthy debate that ensues.

Regulating legal hate speech could also be regarded as damaging to democracy, especially if even universities shy away from such debate. According to free speech advocates, students ought to be encouraged instead to debate opinions with which they disagree. This is precisely what Stocks defenders have argued, and it is hard to disagree.

In Millers case, although we are not privy to the exact statements considered by Bristol, there seems at least to be some controversy over what was said. Miller has claimed that he made factual claims about pro-Israel groups in the UK, which were misinterpreted as conspiracy theories about Israel and Jews and therefore mislabelled as antisemitism.

While we disagree strongly with many statements made by Miller, and particularly object to what we understand to be his didacticism, we believe that sacking is too extreme a punishment given the ambiguities surrounding what he actually intended to say and surrounding what counts as hate speech.

We sympathise with the students concerns, especially with regard to being able to express their disagreement with him. But we believe that these could all have been dealt with by less stringent and irrevocable a measure.

If rights and democracy are to survive the attacks on them, we must only curtail freedom of speech when its hateful intentions are unequivocal and codified in law.

Alison Assiter is professor of feminist theory at UWE Bristol and author of A New Theory of Human Rights: New Materialism and Zoroastrianism (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021). Miriam David is professor emerita of sociology of education at the UCL Institute of Education.

Original post:

Freedom of speech should not be restricted lightly - Times Higher Education (THE)

While I appreciate Kenneth Imbriales response to my earlier commentary, I take great issue with his purported analysis.

Was there any attempt to research any of the points I made? It doesnt seem so.

Willful ignorance is generally defined as refusing to acknowledge or examine evidence contrary to ones desired world view.

To say that the Supreme Court does not have the power to determine the constitutionality of a law is to ignore existing fact, precedent, and reality. In Federalist Papers essay No 78, Alexander Hamilton provides the Founders guidance. In sum, Hamilton writes that not only is judicial review, including determining the constitutionality of a law, inherent in the judicial branchs remit, but an absolute requirement as a check on the other branches powers. Thats been underscored repeatedly since the issue first came up in 1803.

Truly horrifying would be the unchecked power of a legislature hijacked by conspiracy theorists, authoritarians, liars, and panderers acting as sycophants to an autocrat atop the executive branch. The Supreme Court was established specifically to stand between the people and the federal government, but sometimes, as in Jacobson, individual freedom takes a backseat to the greater good.

Mr. Imbriale attempts to obfuscate reality by introducing a political analysis of the current state of the pandemic. He claims that infection rates are rising in heavily vaccinated (ie, Democratic) areas but doesnt specify these areas and provides no actual evidence or source. Its this very type of lazy and evidence-less politicization of the pandemic that makes public health policy such a fraught endeavor.

CDC data indicates that infection rates have been declining in the U.S. since the beginning of September and vaccinated persons are five times less likely to be infected and 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die. HHS data shows COVID-related ICU bed utilization is highest in predominantly ruby red states with perilously low vaccination rates. Additional CDC data shows that hospitalizations and death rates have been declining precipitously since January 2021. When were vaccines first approved? December 2020. Coincidence? Really?

Natural immunity? Thirty-six percent of COVID infections generate NO protective antibody response and even if it does it only lasts maybe 90 days. Vaccinations? Reliably 6 months. Reinfection is 2.36 times lower with a combination of previous infection and vaccination compared to natural immunity alone. This is from real scientists published in prestigious journals and CDC-reported data. Not a pandering hypocrite on TV, Congress, or a mail-order PhD.

Nothing is perfect, but vaccines work. Full stop.

Under Mr. Imbriales definition, freedom means to be able to do what you want, when you want, and how you want. You owe nutin to nobody even if your actions endanger others. He ignores the fact that your personal freedoms are infringed upon every day in the form of smoking laws, laws against perjury, theft, or threatening, assaulting, or harassing people you disagree with.

Terrified of a politically driven Supreme Court? Remove the last three openly and gleefully political appointments.

(Dr. F. Michael Westhafer is a New Dorp resident.)

Read the original post:

Individual freedom must take a backseat to the greater good (letter to the editor) - silive.com