Category Archives: Transhuman News

The attempt by the government to control news, online content and social media intermediaries through theInformation Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021smacks ofcensorship. Several requirements under the Rules are unconstitutional as they undermine the freedom of expression and right to privacy. They have excessivelydelegated powersto the executive, even though the government is not legally empowered to do so. But the Supreme Court has often heldthat the right to freedom of expression cannot be restricted,writesMD TASNIMUL HASSAN

RECENTLY, the government notified theInformation Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021through whichit seeks to control rather than regulate publishers of news/current affairs content and online curated content (including over-the-top platforms). The Rules also provide for due diligence mechanisms for social media intermediaries, failing which they would be penalised. BothOTTs and digital news mediawill have to inform the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting about the details of their entity and publish periodic compliance reports every month.

Earlier, the government through anotification dated November 9, 2020, amended the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, and brought specific categories of internet content (films and audio-visual programmes/news and current affairs) within the control of the Ministry.

There have been a number of controversies where the creators either pre-emptively removed the entire episode or deleted a few scenes, based on political malice (The John Oliver Show,Patriot Act,Madam Secretary) or invited confrontations because of religious backfiring (Tanishq,A Suitable Boy).

TheInformation Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, provide for due diligence mechanisms for social media intermediaries, failing which they would be penalised. BothOTTs and digital news mediawill have to inform the I&B Ministry about the details of their entity and publish periodic compliance reports every month.

Supporters of the regulatory regimearguethat it would level the playing field between OTTs and theatrical productions, whereas criticsexpressed concernsover the regulations as they may lead to potential censorship. Several requirements under the Rules arearguablyunconstitutional as they undermine the freedom of expression as well as the right to privacy. The Rules have excessivelydelegated powersto the executive, even though the government is not legally empowered to do so. Moreover, there already are several provisions to that effect and these Rules essentially fulfil the governmentsaimto control the booming internet space, which was otherwise partially free.

Digital content available on the web is subjected to several provisions under theInformation Technology Act, 2000. The government owns theinternet kill switchto remove any content that is objectionable and/or harms Indias interests under Section 69A of the IT Act. Further, as per Rule 3(2)(b), (c) and (e) ofInformation Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, due diligence is to be observed by intermediaries in respect of the information being hosted or published on any computer resource; which may also be applied to OTTs as they qualify as intermediaries.

The censorship of films is undertaken by the Central Board of Film Certificationset up under theCinematograph Act, 1952,whichassigns various certificationsto films before their release.This Act along with theCinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983and the ministrysGuidelines dated December 6, 1991, form the censorship laws for films.

Further, theCable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995enables the government to take certain channels off the air, as was seen in the case ofNDTV India and others. Theprogramme codeprescribed under this Act prohibits the broadcast of news that violates decency or attacks community or religious sentiments, and any violation of the code is investigated by an inter-ministerial committee.Moreover,the government controls the countrys telecommunications via theIndian Telegraph Act, 1885, and theIndian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, which often causes internet shutdown.

Digital content available on the web is subjected to several provisions under theInformation Technology Act, 2000. The government owns theinternet kill switchto remove any content that is objectionable and/or harms Indias interests under Section 69A of the IT Act.

There is a lineardifferencebetween regulation and state-sponsored censorship, though regulation might often lead to censorship. Unlike censorship, where abuse, nudity or politically sensitive content is bleeped out by the platform either voluntarily or under some external pressure, OTTs are committed to ensuring there is no such content that disrespects the national emblem and flag or promotes and encourages disrespect to the sovereignty and integrity of India. IT Parliamentary Committee chairperson Shashi Tharoor in January 2019had arguedthat the CBFC should not have pre-censorship powers.

In February 2020, a group of OTTslaunchedthe Digital Curated Content Complaint Council, which required its members to censor content that promoted violence, contained child sexual abuse material or which was banned by a court, while providing for a consumer grievance redressal mechanism. In September 2020, OTTs, including Disney+Hotstar, Amazon Prime Video and Netflix, released a self-regulatory code titled,Universal Self-Regulation Code for Online Curated Content Providers,though it could not garner government support. The ministryhadmaintainedthat consensus on a self-regulatory model without the governments intervention is good enough for them to function.

The strong rights argument against censorship, which often comes in the guise of regulation, is that the content is on-demand, where viewers have the choice to pay and subsequently choose what they want to watch. Conversely, the arguments against self-regulation are that the platforms lack clarity when it comes to detailing all manners of regulation and that no one should be a judge in their own cause (there being a conflict of interest of OTTs with the complainants).

There is a lineardifferencebetween regulation and state-sponsored censorship. Unlike censorship, where abuse, nudity or politically sensitive content is bleeped out by the platform, OTTs arecommittedto ensuring there is no such content that disrespects the national emblem and flag or promotes and encourages disrespect to the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Nevertheless, there is no concrete argument that after censorship or possible certification or even regulation, there would not be opposition to it. For instance, films such asPadmaavatandUdta Punjabhad attracted considerable controversies even after they were certified by the CBFC.Tandav,a series aired over Amazon Prime Video, was another one which ran into controversy. The I&B ministrysummonedAmazon Prime officials and the makersthankedthe ministry for guidance and support while deleting the controversial scenes. Thisarguablyset a dangerous precedent for the OTT industry. Despitenot beinglegally bound to, OTTs have been self-censoring their content. Imagine what would unfold when they would be legally bound to so, with the government sitting in their backyard.

InShreya Singhalv.Union of India(2015), the Supreme Court ruled that online user-generated content cannot be censored until there is a direct incitement to violence, but delegated the question of on-demand content, like that provided by OTTs, to the IT Act.

Despitenot beinglegally bound to, OTTs have been self-censoring their content. Imagine what would unfold when they would be legally bound to so, with the government sitting in their backyard.

InLife Insurance Corporation of Indiav.Prof. Manubhai D. Shah(1992), as Doordarshan refused to broadcast Beyond Genocide, a documentary on the Bhopal gas tragedy, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Courts ruling that halting the documentary broadcast would curtail freedom of speech and expression.

Yet again, inBobby Art International & Ors.v. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors.(1996), the Supreme Court heldthat the producers right to freedom of expression could not be restricted.ReiteratingK.A. Abbasv.Union of India(1970), wherein M. Hidayatullah, C.J., held that, [t]he standards that we set for our censors must make a substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret life and society with some of its foibles along with what is good, the Supreme Court inBobby Artheld that films dealing with socially relevant themes must be subjected to the least censorship.

Indian courts, more often than not, have taken a stance in favour of free speech, which is the second greatest constitutional right after that to life and personal liberty. The Karnataka High Court inPadmanabh Shankarv. Union Of India(2019) rightly pointed out that content aired over OTT platforms are not public exhibitions and should not be censored on the reasoning as absurd as social interests matter over individual freedom (SeeK.A. Abbascase).

Thus, as noted by the Bombay High Court inPhantom Films Pvt. Ltd.v.The Central Board for Film Certification(2016), The ultimate censorious power over the censors belongs to the people and by indifference, laxity or abetment, pictures which pollute public morals are liberally certificated, the legislation, meant by Parliament to protect peoples good morals, may be sabotaged by statutory enemies within.

Indian courts, more often than not, have taken a stance in favour of free speech, which is the second greatest constitutional right after that to life and personal liberty. The Karnataka High Court inPadmanabh Shankar v. Union Of India(2019) rightly pointed out that content aired over OTT platforms are not public exhibitions and should not be censored.

The Rules seek to override the existing provisions and establish a stronger big brother State to watch if citizens are subscribing to content that goes against the governments vested interests.Thus, the regulations have the tendency to create a Stalinist pre-censorship regime by limiting narratives that impact political gains of the government, asit revives the censorship framework prescribed under the 1995 Cable Television Act, in the digital broadcasting domain.

Censorship in the guise of regulation, which is what the Rules are set to do, will discourage political opinions and creativity. This may lead to the production of one-track-mind content that we usually see on TV or in theatres. The regulation will also have a chilling effect on free speech as creators would now refrain from depicting scenes attracting controversies even in a parallel world.

The Rules establish a stronger big brother State to watch if citizens are subscribing to content that goes against the governments vested interests.Thus, the regulations have the tendency to create a Stalinist pre-censorship regime by limiting narratives that impact political gains of the government.

A self-regulatory body would do the greater good to a greater number as the audience will have the option to watch diverse forms of artistic presentation instead of being fed propaganda through conservative portrayals and narrow sceneries. Nonetheless, OTTs should provide appropriate disclaimers and age verification mechanisms for any particular content.

(Md Tasnimul Hassan is a law undergraduate at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi. He is a part of the first cohort of South Asia Students For LibertysFellowship For Freedom in India.The views expressed are personal.)

Continue reading here:
Digital Divide: Is Big Brother Trying to Control the Booming Internet Space? - TheLeaflet - The Leaflet

THEY SAY that Bollywood is where Indias dreams are made. But at the moment it is not romantic reveries, fantasies of vengeance or snappy dance moves that preoccupy its film-makers. It is instead a dystopian nightmare, as two simultaneous epidemics threaten a century-old industry that produces more movies than its closest rivals, in China and America, put together.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

One of these scourges is relatively new, and wreaking havoc in plain sight. For six months last year, covid-19 kept Indias 10,000 cinemas completely closed. The screens have since begun to open, but mostly at half-capacity andbecause spooked producers have postponed their hoped-for blockbustersshowing only second-run fare. As a result ICRA, a credit-rating agency, anticipates that box-office revenue during the year to April will tumble by a crushing 80-85%. By last September these direct losses were already reckoned at $1.2bn; then there is the ripple effect along an entertainment-industry food chain that employs perhaps 300,000 people, as hundreds of productions were delayed or cancelled.

The other scourge is older and more subtle, though it seems suddenly to have grown more virulent. This is the chronic disease of interference, as various outsiders seek to bend, shape and influence Bollywood to their liking. Such creeping pressures take many forms, from the blunt obstruction of state censorship, to financial squeezes, to legal challenges that can lead to labyrinths of litigation, to the threat of audience boycotts or even violence.

The blow from covid might seem to be the bigger peril. But although traditional feature production has indeed been hit, and cinemas themselves bruised, in a sense the challenge has accelerated a transition that was already under way. As in Hollywood, the ebb of money from big screens to smaller ones, specifically towards on-demand streaming video, known in India as OTT (over-the-top), has turned to a flood as millions of households enlivened their lockdowns with new subscriptions. Revenue from OTT in 2019 was less than half the $1.5bn earned from movie tickets, but by 2024 it could be twice as large, industry insiders believe. Small wonder that global firms such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney poured some $520m into streaming production in India last year. For the first time, dozens of Indian feature films chose to launch on OTT rather than in cinemas, a trend that will stick now that big-name stars have eschewed their doubts about small-screen roles.

Yet while the shift to OTT has helped keep Mumbais studios working, it has also invited scrutiny. Politicians long ago developed a habit of using Bollywood to score points. Such overweening concern has successfully tamed traditional cinema and television: producers are all too aware how many ways there are to wreck a production, or for them to go broke. Top actors have boosted careers by fawning over ministers, and been rewarded with sinecures as MPs, among other perks. Unregulated and largely foreign-financed, OTT has proved a refreshing exception. In a few years it gained a reputation for punchy realism and politically daring allegory. It was like the teacher is not in class, so go have some fun, explains Tanul Thakur, a film critic.

This is where the meddling plague has come into play. Powerful people were not amused by portrayals of police, politicians and religious figures as corrupt, brutal and hypocritical in OTT series such as Mirzapur and Sacred Games. More alarmingly for many in the industry, which historically has adopted the broadly secular, liberal leanings of cosmopolitan Mumbai, official displeasure has been backed by noisy and highly organised public campaigns, an often compliant press and approving judges. Compared with past episodes of bullying, such as in the 1990s when local parties in Mumbai rallied emotions by attacking specific films, this time something wider is at stake. The driver now is control of Bollywood, and it is indeed very vulnerable, says Shakuntala Banaji of the London School of Economics.

Pressure has been mounting since the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took power in 2014, thinks Mr Thakur, accelerating after the landslide re-election in 2019 of Narendra Modi, the prime minister. The heat reached OTT platforms last year. Following complaints, among them that a kissing scene in A Suitable Boy, a British serialisation of an Indian novel, encouraged intimacy between people of different faiths, in November the government decreed that OTT production would fall under the supervision of the Ministry of Broadcasting and Information.

This January the screws tightened, particularly following the release of Tandav, an edgy thriller produced by Amazon Prime that contrasts the viciousness of politics with the idealism of student activism. NewsLaundry, an investigative news website, revealed the workings of a social-media campaign to attack the series, spearheaded by a BJP politician. As soon as Tandav aired he ordered 20,000 followers to demand that it be banned for disrespecting the police and Hindu religious feelings. Half a dozen lawsuits assailed the show (which received mediocre reviews). Its director and producer quickly apologised, agreeing to cut an ostensibly offensive scene in which a student in a play acted the role of a Hindu god. They appealed to Indias Supreme Court to protect them from prosecution, but in a perturbing ruling a bench of judges refused, holding that even actors should be held accountable for any offence their roles might cause. Not surprisingly, several scheduled OTT releases were soon postponed or cancelled.

Had this been an isolated case, there would be less worry in the industry. But the particular interest in Tandav reflected another trend. Two of its main actors happen to be Muslim, as many of Indias leading stars have been since the birth of Bollywood. Only in the past decade, however, has religious affiliation become much of an issue. Now legions of social-media trolls see the three Khans, a trio of top-billing he-men, as fair game for attack as alleged Pakistani sympathisers, or promoters of love jihad. For instance, a Twitter account called Gems of Bollywood smears the industry as a tool of Muslim propaganda; Urduwood is the term used, a reference to the language predominantly spoken by South Asian Muslims. It recently accused Salman Khan, one of the celebrity trio, of having one missionto convince Hindus to be circumcised.

They are going after a few big names to teach them a lesson, says Ms Banaji. And also to install their own heroes instead. According to Mr Thakur, anyone who stands up against the pressure is liable to be cold-shouldered by their peers. But it is not just critics who are worried for Bollywoods future. In a blog post, Siddharth Roy Kapur, president of the Producers Guild of India, a lobbying group, urged Indias government to protect a vital industry by breaking its silence and denouncing witch-hunts. Producers should be overseeing films, not running helter-skelter between police stations and courts across our vast country. You cannot run a business, he added, which is subject to veto by every one of Indias 1.3bn people.

This article appeared in the Books & arts section of the print edition under the headline "The siege of Bollywood"

Read more from the original source:
Covid, cinema and censorship - The siege of Bollywood | Books & arts - The Economist

Originally published in Protocol, Feb 18, 2021.

This is the story of Li An, a pseudonymous former employee at ByteDance, as told to Protocols Shen Lu.

I wasnt proud of it, and neither were my coworkers. But thats life in todays China.

It was the night Dr. Li Wenliang struggled for his last breath in the emergency room of Wuhan Central Hospital. I, like many Chinese web users, had stayed awake to refresh my Weibo feed constantly for updates on his condition. Dr. Li was an ophthalmologist who sounded the alarm early in the COVID-19 outbreak. He soon faced government intimidation and then contracted the virus. When he passed away in the early hours of Friday, Feb. 7, 2020, I was among many Chinese netizens who expressed grief and outrage at the events on Weibo, only to have my account deleted.

I felt guilt more than anger. At the time, I was a tech worker at ByteDance, where I helped develop tools and platforms for content moderation. In other words, I had helped build the system that censored accounts like mine. I was helping to bury myself in Chinas ever-expanding cyber grave.

I hadnt received explicit directives about Li Wenliang, but Weibo was certainly not the only Chinese tech company relentlessly deleting posts and accounts that night. I knew ByteDances army of content moderators were using the tools and algorithms that I helped develop to delete content, change the narrative and alter memories of the suffering and trauma inflicted on Chinese people during the COVID-19 outbreak. I couldnt help but feel every day like I was a tiny cog in a vast, evil machine.

ByteDance is one of Chinas largest unicorns and creator of short video-sharing app TikTok, its original Chinese version Douyin and news aggregator Toutiao. Last year, when ByteDance was at the center of U.S. controversy over data-sharing with Beijing, itcutits domestic engineers access to products overseas, including TikTok. TikTok hasplansto launch two physical Transparency Centers in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., to showcase content moderation practices. But in China, content moderation is mostly kept in the shadows.

I was on a central technology team that supports the Trust and Safety team, which sits within ByteDances core data department. The data department is mainly devoted to developing technologies for short-video platforms. As of early 2020, the technologies we created supported the entire companys content moderation in and outside China, including Douyin at home and its international equivalent, TikTok. About 50 staff worked on the product team and between 100 to 150 software engineers worked on the technical team. Additionally, ByteDance employed about 20,000 content moderators to monitor content in China. They worked at what are known internally as bases () in Tianjin, Chengdu (in Sichuan), Jinan (in Shandong) and other cities. Some were ByteDance employees, others contractors.

To continue reading this article, click here.

Read more:
I Helped Build ByteDance's Censorship Machine Machine Learning Times - The Predictive Analytics Times

While president, Ronald Reagan once joked, Politics is the second oldest profession. And then added, I didnt realise how much it is like the first. Reagan, who began his career as a Hollywood actor, was a master at self-deprecating humour. Years earlier, Nixon had not been so gracious. During his re-election campaign, bathroom graffiti the Instagram of the time had noted, If you voted for Richard Nixon you cant s*it here, because your a**hole is in the White House. The joke was circulated publically, but did not sit well with Nixon, even though he was well aware of its place in a country that encouraged free expression.

Would issuing the slightest hurt to self-image even occur to Indian politicians, so blindly concerned about public perception? When anything and everything on politics, society or religion can spark the draconian edge of Indian intolerance, is it a surprise that a comedian should be arrested for a show where he didnt even appear, or when climate change activists can be picked up for sharing an innocuous document? This is hardly new in a country where some years earlier, Goddess Durga depictions were removed from an art show; or when goons suddenly appeared on stage at a literary festival calling for the arrest of an author. Even before it went on sale, Wendy Donigers book on Hinduism had to be taken off the shelves and was back in the warehouse.

More recent government orders are directed at entertainment programs: should Muslim-Hindu love scenes in Netflixs Suitable Boy be deleted? Should other un-Indian acts like violence, homosexuality and caste hostility be allowed on screen? Indian methods of censorship are themselves highly developed forms of satire.

The art world in India has such a shameful history of repression, that Indian artists have for some time begun to self-censor themselves by resorting to tame and acceptable themes. Charged so often with hurting religious or private sentiments Indian art, comedy and film now cautiously remain in neutral territory.

But elsewhere in our region, risky subjects abound. Art in Pakistan has created a valuable underground that practises a mean satirical view of the countrys sadistic and repressive political life. Beautiful enamel work displaying beheaded bodies at an oasis, a woman in traditional dress patterned with Kalashnikovs, carpets embroidered in a closeup of jail cells in paintings, miniatures, graphic novels and short cinema, daily violence appears in lurid technicolour, a gut wrenching portrait of lived reality. On Pakistani television, Banana News Network spoofs and mimics corrupt politicians. Iranian films similarly issue powerful rebuttals to prevailing political conditions, openly criticising authoritarianism. Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei too, continues to rile the government with his subversive art. Without mincing words or images his documentary on Hong Kong is an unapologetic portrayal of peoples rage.

Is Indian creative work mediocre and second-rate because it is stymied by fear of reprisal? Unlike Pakistan, Iran and other similarly repressive cultures like ours, a great deal of Indian art now relies on shock value for originality, rather than expressing sustained unique voices. Despite the fact that traditional Indian culture has had a long history of political outspokenness in street plays, mime, and painting, its modern counterpart in stand-up comedy, installation art and sculpture has become either docile and uncommunicative, or singularly outrageous. Sure, the All India Bakchod roast, or Goddess Kali as Marilyn Monroe have a shrill offensive edge, but offer no meaningful counterpoint to government views. The lack of effective insightful work is more disturbing than the tendency to clampdown.Free and expressive art must have cultural value to be worth saving from the censors. Arts most pervasive and deep influence can only be felt once there is some unity in the desperation, when like the Pakistani and Chinese work the artist feels a public obligation and finds difficult common subjects to tackle. It will take a longer period of continual repression by the government for a more coherent and cohesive Indian underground to emerge.

If you are a member of Congress, or if you are an idiot My apologies, I seem to be repeating myself. Instead of being jailed for sedition, Mark Twains quip was hailed by one and all as a delight of free expression. It encouraged many on American television later to hold that as a yardstick for political satire. Every year, the White House and its residing president hosts a televised dinner for the media in which a well-known comedian takes liberal swipes at the president seated nearby. During Trumps presidency, Indian American Hasan Minhaj ridiculed the fortunately absent president with, the only way to keep America functioning is to ensure that Trump spends more time on the golf course. It will still be some years till similar cracks can be made inside our Parliament.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

See the original post here:
As censors tighten grip, Indian art is becoming more mediocre - The Times of India Blog

Protesters demand annulment of the controversial Digital Security Act under which Mushtaq Ahmed was arrested last year.

About 300 students and activists have rallied in Bangladeshs capital to denounce the death in prison of a writer and commentator who was arrested last year on charges of violating a sweeping digital security law that critics say limits free speech.

Protesters on Monday marched through the Dhaka University campus and Dhakas streets demanding the release of seven student activists arrested during recent protests denouncing the death of writer Mushtaq Ahmed.

Ahmed, 53, was arrested in Dhaka in May last year for making comments on social media that criticised the governments handling of the coronavirus pandemic. He was denied bail at least six times.

Ahmeds death on Thursday night sparked protests on the streets and on social media, and prompted global human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, to urge Bangladeshs government to conduct a thorough investigation.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) demanded the government cancel the 2018 Digital Security Act.

The protesters marched towards the countrys home ministry on Monday, also demanding the annulment of the controversial Digital Security Act under which Ahmed was arrested last year.

They broke a barricade by removing barbed wire fences on the way to the ministry but were intercepted by a few hundred police officers outside the ministrys building in downtown Dhaka.

The state must take responsibility. He has been killed, it was not a natural death. How come he was held for nine months in jail without any justice? said one protester, Mahfuza Akhter.

We want justice, she said.

Students overturn security barricades outside the home ministry during the protest in Dhaka [Mahmud Hossain Opu/AP]At least 10 other people were charged with sedition under the digital security law in the same case Ahmed faced, includingpolitical cartoonist Kabir Kishore, who was arrested in the case last year.

Kishores lawyers said during previous court proceedings that he was mercilessly tortured in custody. The CPJ also demanded Kishores release from prison.

While a postmortem report said Ahmed died of natural causes, the protesters and his lawyers alleged he was tortured, despite being in poor health, and held in prison for nine months.

On Monday, the protesters used a loudspeaker to chant slogans that blamed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for Ahmeds death.

Police had charged Ahmed with attempting to tarnish the image of the nation and spread confusion.

The Digital Security Act includes a jail sentence of up to 14 years for any propaganda or campaign against the countrys independence war, its founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the national anthem or flag.

It also says a person can be jailed for up to 10 years for destroying communal harmony or creating unrest or disorder.

The broad characterisation of charges led Amnesty International to conclude that the law is plagued by a lack of clear definitions, explanations and exceptions, including repressive non-bailable penalties for at least 14 offences.

Hasina says the law is necessary to maintain order. But the opposition parties and editors have warned that the scope of the law can be misused against critics.

The CPJ said the law was being used repeatedly and unjustly against journalists.

Excerpt from:
Hundreds rally in Bangladesh over writers death in prison - Al Jazeera English

The universities minister has claimed courses are facing decolonisation by tutors who she complained were censoring history like the Soviet Union.

Michelle Donelan suggested books were being removed from reading lists in an effort to prevent students being forced to confront hate speech.

The Tory MP for Chippenham insisted that "a lot of the talk" surrounding the issue was about removing elements of history rather than adding alternative viewpoints.

However, the ministers comments were criticised by historians who suggested she had misunderstood attempts to place subjects such as the British empire in the context of questions of race and slavery.

Speaking to a Daily Telegraph podcast, Ms Donelan said: As a history student, Im a vehement protector and champion of safeguarding our history.

It otherwise becomes fiction, if you start editing it, taking bits out that we view as stains.

A fundamental part of our history is about learning from it, not repeating the mistakes, being able to analyse and challenge why those events happened, how those decisions were made so that we dont repeat those actions in the future.

Oxford Universitys student council passed a Student Union motion last year condemning the use of hateful material which is ableist, misogynistic, classist or transphobic in mandatory teaching.

The motion also mandated the Student Union to lobby for trigger warnings on readings lists and for lectures, tutorials, and examinations with content deemed prejudicial against groups such as trans, non-binary, disabled, working class, and women to be non-compulsory for students.

Ms Donelan said: If were going down this road of taking bits out, are we then going to end up putting bits in that we wish had happened?

Its a very dangerous and odd road to go down, and certainly it has no place in our universities, I would argue, and it has no place in academic study.

And it just doesnt work when governments try to remove elements of history. Look at the Soviet Union, look at China. There are multiple examples where its been tried. It doesn't work.

Ms Donelan said she was in favour of adding sources from less well-known sources and often overlooked individuals in history but claimed that most of the narrative that is coming out ... is about removing elements of history, about whitewashing it and pretending that it never happened, which I just think is naive and almost irresponsible.

But the ministers comments were met with exasperation among academics.

Charlotte Lydia Riley, a lecturer in 20th century British history at the University of Southampton, tweeted: This historian says Michelle Donelan is talking out of her arse... she doesnt understand decolonising the curriculum, she doesnt understand the purpose of history and she seems a bit hazy on the Soviet Union.

Laura OBrien, a historian of 19th and 20th century France, said there was absolutely no evidence key texts were being removed from reading lists as the minister claimed.

She added that Ms Donelan completely misunderstands and misrepresents deconolonisation, writing: Efforts to decolonise curricula do not seek to leave out the bits we see as stains. Hardly! If anything, they draw greater attention to questions of race, empire, slavery, colonisation, and to diversify not censor! the voices included in reading lists.

Ms Donelans intervention comes after schools minister Nick Gibb rejected compulsory lessons about the British empire and the slave trade and said they would risk lowering standards.

Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has also claimed that some campaigners wanted UK history to be taught in a way that [suggests] good people [are] black people and bad people [are] white people.

Originally posted here:
Universities minister compares decolonisation of history to Soviet Union-style censorship - The Independent