Category Archives: Transhuman News

Nicola Sturgeon has announced that she intends to trial censorship zones around abortion clinics in Scotland.

Speaking at a summit on abortion in Edinburgh, the First Minister backed MSP Gillian Mackays Bill seeking to create 150m buffer zones around hospitals and abortion centres.

In similar zones in other countries, people have been prevented from handing out pro-life literature, offering prayer, and speaking to women about abortion. Sturgeon acknowledged that such a law in Scotland could be subject to legal challenge.

The First Minister admitted she couldnt force councils to trial such measures, but the leader of Glasgow City Council has indicated she wishes to introduce them in the city with Government backing. Edinburgh has also expressed interest in being on of the test councils.

Sturgeon said we live in a democracy and people are free to have different views on abortion, but added that women should not be able to be informed of these views near abortion clinics.

She is opposed by one of her own MSPs, John Mason, who has said he is not convinced there is a problem. Mason pointed out that some women want to know they have a choice not to abort.

He told the BBC that people who say they are being coerced into abortions and are not being given the pros and cons need to be listened to.

Last September, Womens Health Minister Maree Todd told abortion activists that Scotland-wide buffer zones were not on the cards. But earlier this month, Nicola Sturgeon informed Holyrood she now backed legislating for censorship zones.

The summit came days after the US Supreme Court overturned its 1973 ruling on Roe v Wade, returning the law on abortion back to the elected representatives in each of the 50 states. The ruling sparked a furious reaction among pro-abortionists.

A Christian pregnancy centre in Colorado, Life Choices, was set on fire and painted with the words: If abortions arent safe, neither are you.And in Arizona, the police used tear gas on pro-abortion protesters vandalising the states Capitol building.

Breaking: Roe v Wade overturned

Abortions hit another record high in England and Wales

Sturgeon now backing zones to restrict pro-life help

More:
Abortion 'censorship zones' to be trialled in Scotland - The Christian Institute

Nadine Dorries will be able to censor theinternet unless new powers intendedto make techgiants more accountable are reformed, MPs have warned.

The Online Safety Bill must be overhauled so that the Culture Secretaryand her successors cannot order the industry regulator Ofcom to take downcontent before anassessment by Parliament, the MPs said.

In its current form the bill would allow Ms Dorries to directly intervene in Ofcom's decisions over what to block or permit online by making changes to its code of practice.

Julian Knight, the chairman of the digital, culture media and sport select committee, said: "A free media depends on ensuring the regulator is free from the threat of day-to-day interference from the executive.

"The government will still have an important role in setting the direction of travel, but Ofcom must not be constantly peering over its shoulder answering to the whims of a backseat-driving secretary of state.

The recommendations come as Ofcom is poised to inherit new powers to grapple with tech companies and social media apps by putting senior managers in jail or dishing out multi-billion pound fines worth up to 10pc of annual turnover if illegal or harmful content to children is found on their websites.

However, the bill has faced fierce scrutiny from news publishers over fears it could muzzle free speech without stronger exemptions for journalism.

Ms Dorries has already promised an accelerated appeals process for news providers whose stories are removed by tech companies, while exempting publishers from fines for false or harmful content.

Read the original here:
Nadine Dorries 'will have power to censor the internet' - The Telegraph

DW Akademie: Why do you see the coronavirus pandemic as a crisis in civil rights?

Gunjidmaa Gongor, director of the Media Council Mongolia: Mongolia closed its borders with China at the beginning of 2020 much earlier than most of the other countries did. Calling it a situation of "heightened preparedness", the government introduced legislation ensuring that it would monopolize communications during the crisis. This resulted in censorship-like effects where the media, for example, was only allowed to report using official sources. Still, the country wasn't experiencing an epidemic at the time, and the first coronavirus transmissions only happened in November 2020.

How did media workers cope?

They were basically out in the cold and being threatened with fines that could ruin their existence. The state and the media were openly hostile to each another, and at the daily press conferences, the national crisis staff rarely allowed any questions. The police also cited journalists for interrogation if they published the results of their own research, even if was correct. The reports from various government agencies often contradicted each other, so the media screamed "censorship" and the government screamed "defamation." It became impossible to agree on basic rules like the public's right to information from different sources, and coronavirus patients' right to not see their name in newspapers or on social media.

The first coronavirus carrier in Mongolia was apparently a truck driver. His photo and personal information about him, his family, work colleagues and neighbors was then shared on social networks and news channels

Has the Mongolian CCC project come at the right time for strengthening cooperation between state and non-state actors?

There was a turning point in the discussion back in January 2021, after a private television station circulated a video showing a young mother and her newborn baby being removed from a maternity clinic it was freezing in the middle of a night and being taken to a quarantine station for those who had contracted Covid-19. Protests then broke out in Ulaanbaatar and the entire government resigned. At the very latest, that was when everyone involved realized that something was fundamentally wrong with our country's crisis communications. We knew we had to work together to restore people's trust so that they could rely on "good" information, which was available, and that could help them in the pandemic.

'Be human!' Poster in Ulaanbaatar's Sukhbaatar Square, protesting the state's treatment of those who've contracted the coronavirus

How would you describe the Mongolian Crisis Communication Chapter (CCC) and how does it work?

We invited all those involved in the state crisis management, including the Ministry of Health, the National Center for Infectious Diseases and the National Crisis Staff.Our project has been working together with state actors, journalists and civil society on a pilot project with a community in a yurt district of the capital, Ulaanbaatar. Together with DW Akademie, it developed a journalism training program covering issues like fact-checking and storytelling for different channels. Another focus has been on how professional PR can support media professionals (and vice versa).

How does the CCC reach people?

It uses all media and dissemination channels available. Social platforms such as Facebook Live events are good for openly addressing virus-related questions right on the spot. The CCC has also developed flyers, information posters, and questionnaires, and our members on the ground also provide journalists and government officials with important information. This type of "two-way" communication is different from the way the government and the media usually work, where they can only look at a problem from the outside. Still, one thing is clear: this project can only succeed if people consider it to be useful. And that's what we're focusing on.

Where will the project go from here?

The national crisis management team seems interested in integrating a CCC structure in the state crisis management system. This would be a huge success because in future crises, decision-makers and experts would have a concept guaranteeing that crisis communication is not about competing for truths or interests, but is geared entirely towards the needs of the public.

This project is part of the global initiative "Transparency and media freedom Crisis resilience in the pandemic" of DW Akademie and is supported by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

See the rest here:
COVID-19 in Mongolia: "The media screamed 'censorship' and the government screamed 'slander'" - DW (English)

New Canadian Media spoke with Iranian theatre creatives on their experiences dealing with the strict censorship they face in Iran. The post Creative freedom censored in Iran appeared first on New Canadian Media .

Freedom; who has it, what are people free to do and who makes those determinations is a controversial subject in politics. Currently, in various geopolitical contexts, in the United States, Russia, and here in Canada, the idea of freedom is being challenged.

Freedom is also central to the story of Mohammad Yaghoubi and the play Heart of a Dog. The play is a comical adaptation by the award-winning Iranian director and playwright, based on a novel of the same name by Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov. The novel is seen as an allegory for the Communist revolution and a scathing critique of the Soviet Unions attempt to impose its ideologies to the world. Publication of Heart of a Dog was prohibited in the Soviet Union until 1987.

Yaghoubi also ran into issues with censorship when adapting the novel into a play. As Yaghoubi explained, Iran is an authoritarian country where many freedoms are significantly limited. Initially, Yaghoubi wanted the main character, the dog, to be played by a woman. However, this was impossible in Iran because womens bodies are politicized, they dont have autonomy, and the censorship bureau said no.

In the English premiere of Heart of a Dog, the lead is played by Iranian actor and director, Aida Keykhali. The two eventually got married and founded a theatre group in Iran called InRoozHa. They decided to move to Canada in 2015 to escape the harassment of the censorship bureaus and started Nowadays Theatre.

New Canadian Media spoke to them about the play and their experiences in both Canada and Iran.

The audio version of this conversation below focuses on freedom of expression, the play, and Yaghoubi and Keykhalis experiences in Iran.

The text version of this conversation below focuses on immigration and integration, and the differences between Canada and Iran. This conversation was edited and condensed for clarity.

Aida Keykhali: When youre living in a country like Iran with lots of censorship, your brain works differently. You dont have even in your private moments this idea in your head that you can do that. You are wired that youre not allowed.

How does that affect you as an actor, knowing that there are certain roles you cant do or certain things that your character isnt allowed to do?

Aida: Before I came to Canada, even in my mind, I couldnt think that I could do this kind of role. Because I grew up in Iran, from the first moment I remember I had a scarf on my head, with lots of censorship, with lots of limitations on lots of things because Im a woman.

When we immigrated here, Mohammed wanted to produce this and he told me, Aida, do you want to do the role of the dog? And I said, Mohammed, do you think I can do that? He said, Yeah, were living here, in a free country, you can do that. It was very shocking for me. And when I tried to do that [move], I said, Oh, my God, I have lots of abilities in my body, in my voice that I never had a chance to present.

When that board comes in to oversee something, if they dont approve, are you still able to publish it and then deal with the consequences or if they say no, it cant be published at all?

Mohammad Yaghoubi: This is the part of the theatre that I love, because you can disobey. But to disobey has results, thats why we are now, because we disobeyed too much and they punished us. Every time they asked us to cut something in theatre, we had two options: First, do whatever they told us or change it another way so I can say, okay, I changed it but I did it the other radical way I had in my pocket. Audiences love that disobedience. But the censorship office, whenever they saw that we tried to resist, they got revenge on us with our next production.

What are the benefits of pushing those boundaries and taking those risks if you get punished for it, if it ends with you having to leave the country?

Mohammad: For me, its celebrating theatre. Asserting Im a living person, not a robot. This is art and they can feel Im alive by showing rejection, showing resistance. I love this part of theatre. In Iran, theatre is a political movement inherently. Anywhere in the world [theatre is inherently political] because its a live art you can change anytime, because of its capability of change. I think it was the best way for us to connect with the audience.

Aida: Me as an artist, I think its our responsibility to act based on our beliefs. When I wanted to direct a play and there was a role and the girl was a prostitute. They said, No, you cannot do that. Could you change the job to a nurse? I said What are you talking about? She became a prostitute because of a lot of problems. These are the things that I want to show, its a social matter that I want to talk about. They said, we cannot show that because there is no prostitution in Iran. Theyre stupid. We cannot obey them because we dont want to be like them.

In the play, Polygraf Polygrafovich Sharikov grows more dissatisfied with their situation as they develop intellectually and you see the two doctors have less patience with Sharikov and are more dismissive. I thought it was an interesting way to think about power dynamics, could you speak to that Mohammad?

Mohammad: I think the authorities in Iran dont like Heart of a Dog because of the revolution in Iran. When I was under 30, I made my first draft of the Heart of a Dog adaptation. And I remember the Supreme Leader at that time, had a lecture about anti-revolutionary literature and he specifically mentioned Heart of a Dog as an anti-revolutionary novel in Russia. And I, as a young, inherently disobedient person, I thought, Oh, if I make this play, it can be a hidden struggle with my Supreme Leader. Thats why I did it. But I never told this to anyone, just Aida maybe. It was like a hidden fight.

Thats brave. Youre essentially saying that your approach to the play was going against the Supreme Leader because you were doing something you know is going to upset the Supreme Leader and thats not someone most people would want to get into a confrontation with.

Mohammad: I like that way of fighting. You can say, No, I didnt know. It was just a novel that I liked, thats it. The second time I staged this play, I changed my approach to directing and I asked the men, like women, to wear scarves. The propaganda, governmental papers and TV [stations] showed my picture [and said] this guy wants to mock the hijab.

In a totalitarian country, if everyone say, does an illegal move, even a small movement, based on their capability, we could change anything.

In a country like Iran, where speech isnt 100 per cent free, what impact do you think that has on the average person? For example, when you asked the cast members to wear scarves, how do you think the average person would react to that?

Mohammad: In Iran, if a man wears a hijab, its for cheap comedy but most actors liked my idea. One didnt like it but I could feel that its not his true answer. It was like he was shy and he couldnt do it because it was humiliating to wear a hijab. Some of the female actors said, now you can feel how difficult it is that we have to wear a hijab. You dont like to wear a hijab, even for theatre.

For our first night, all actors, male and female, had a hijab. After eight nights, governmental papers wrote against me.I remember the minister of the venue called me and said, Mohammad did you see the TV, what they wrote against you in the paper, what we should do now? And I told him if hijab is good, I want my male actors to have hijabs like women. He told me Mohammad, dont say that to me. You know what youre doing.

Aida: Me and Mohammad are not against the hijab, were against mandatory hijabs. Women in Iran, if you ask 100 women, 90 of them are against the hijab but they have to wear it. If you want to wear it, wear it but I dont like it, why should I wear it? They hate that people are different from them. This is the thing that Mohammed wanted to show in his production, that this kind of country wants to make people similar.

Mohammad: That was the connection between the Heart of a Dog and the Russian story and the Iranian story because after the revolution in Russia, the communist revolution, they forced people to be like each other. Its ridiculous because that country was against God and Iran is an Islamic country but they are the same in terms of policy with their citizenship. Thats why I thought this story is great to show how two different political countries can be the same like China, about their peoples; they force people to be like they want. This goes back to what you were talking about power dynamics. its about ownership and freedom.

Mohammad, you said in the directors note that Russias and Irans approaches to freedom of expression and opinion are ridiculous, why?

Mohammad: Because in Iran, you will be arrested if you dont believe in God, and in the Communist Party, they arrest people if you believe in God, which means they are contradictory. But in terms of the policy, their behavior towards their citizenship, they are similar. Even now, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Supreme Leader, they are close friends. We can see why they are similar, because its bullshit what they believe.

Aida: In Iran, if you change your religion, they can hang you. So they have no choice, its not that they believe, for example, in hijabs, really or they believe in God, really. Its the thing that they have power over, these are the things that can control people.

Mohammad: Thats why in China, there are Uyghur Muslims who are under the pressure of the authorities in China but Iranian authorities dont say anything against China. Even though Iranian authorities all the time talk about we are Muslim, we want to defend any Muslim in the world, but specifically about Chinas Muslims, they are silent.

Now that youre in Canada and theres more freedom, what does having that freedom mean to you both as a citizen but also as an artist?

Aida: When I was in Iran, I didnt know that I, as a human, have value. But now here I feel that I have value. Im a person with specific thoughts that only belong to me, and people and the government respect it. I recently became a full-time ACTRA member [union for actors in Canada] and they sent me things to read about my rights and I told Mohammed, I didnt know that I have these kinds of rights as a human, let alone as an actor. I didnt know that I have some rights as a person to live in my life.

You know, its very sad because when I think about my friends, my family, everyone in Iran, they dont know that they have these kinds of rights. As I told you, they brainwashed us, they did it at schools, everywhere, and we cannot think differently. But when we came here to a free country, and we understand that we have value, we can talk, we have a voice, its very different.

Mohammad: When we do theatre in Iran, all the time part of our job is to get around censorship. But when we want to do Heart of a Dog here, we can get rid of this part and focus on the artistic practice. To connect to the audience to engage them, not fighting to get around them [censorship bureau]. That takes too much energy.

One time I thought, Oh, if they want to tell me to cut this phrase, this word, what if I asked actors to say 25 instead of anything the censorship office wanted me not to say. The actors asked me, why 25? I didnt tell them the reason. I just asked them to say 25.

As you can imagine the censorship office asked me again before the public show, Mohammad, What is 25? I told them, Its just a number. If you want, I can change it to 19 or whatever you want. But I knew why it was 25, 25 refers to code 25 of the constitutions laws which says censorship is forbidden. There is a specific code in our constitution but they dont care. After two or three shows, I used 25 and this approach to get around censorship, then I demystified this code and after that, I was not allowed to use 25.

Do you think artists have a responsibility to reflect society and to challenge norms? And why is that personally important?

Mohammad: Yes. Its actually in our companys mandate, on my policy, my way of writing. In 2018, I started to write in plain English because I live in this country and it doesnt make sense not to write in English. My second play is about my reflection about society here in Canada.

Aida: Yeah, and especially as a woman, I have a lot of responsibility to do something as an artist. I directed a play about swimming for Persian women because women in Iran cannot swim. So, they make an imaginary pool in their apartment and try to swim. Ive heard a lot of my friends in Iran say that we are just artists, we are not political people, but they live in a country, and I lived in a country where whatever you do is political, even small things.

The post Creative freedom censored in Iran appeared first on New Canadian Media.

Read the original here:
Creative freedom censored in Iran - Midland News - MidlandToday

Facebook and Instagram, both owned by Meta, have begun mass-deleting posts that provide information about accessing abortion pills in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established America's constitutional right to abortion.

Such content removals, first reported by Vice and the Associated Press, occurred immediately after the ruling was handed down. Much of the material in question reportedly contained information about how to obtain abortion pills by mail without breaking state laws.

"DM me if you want to order abortion pills, but want them sent to my address instead of yours," one of the since-deleted posts read, according to the Associated Press.

"I will mail abortion pills to any one of you. Just message me," another user wrote, reports Vice.

Both posts were immediately taken down by the site.

RELATED: Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade with Dobbs decision

The Associated Press tested how long it would take for one of its own reporters' posts to be scrubbed. "If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills," they wrote in a post that was taken down within a minute. Further, the account which published the post was reportedly put on a "warning" status for violating the platform's guidelines related to "guns, animals and other regulated goods."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

When the reporter substituted the phrase "abortion pills" for "guns" and "weed," their post remained on the site, even though weed distribution is expressly prohibited by federal law and delivering the drug across state borders is likewise a federal crime. Abortion pills, meanwhile, can be legally distributed via mail by certified doctors, as the Associated Press noted.

Most abortion pills consist of two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. The first halts the production of a hormone, progesterone, that helps facilitate the early stages of pregnancy. The second drug induces the uterus to empty itself of pregnancy tissue.

Asked about their sudden abortion-related content removal, Meta told the Associated Press that it prohibits users from selling certain firearms, alcohol and pharmaceuticals.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone affirmed this policy over Twitter, adding that the company has "discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these."

RELATED: Facebook bans Trump for two years, as social media giant changes controversial moderation rules

Just after the mass-deletions were flagged, the Intercept reported that Meta had secretly designated Jane's Revenge, an abortion rights group, as a terrorist organization. The classification reportedly stems from an act of vandalism the group led against an anti-abortion group in May, which "consisted of a small fire and graffiti denouncing the group's anti-abortion stance." According to The Intercept, Jane's Revenge has been put on "Tier 1" status speech restrictions, on par with drug cartels and mass murderers.

"This designation is difficult to square with Meta's placement of the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters in Tier 3, which is subject to far fewer restrictions, despite their role organizing and participating in the January 6 Capitol attack," Mary Pat Dwyer, academic program director of Georgetown Law School's Institute for Technology Law and Policy, told the Intercept. "And while it's possible Meta has moved those groups into Tier 1 more recently, that only highlights the lack of transparency into when and how these decisions, which have a huge impact on people's abilities to discuss current events and important political issues, are made."

Historically, the vast majority of abortion-related violence has been carried out by anti-abortion groups against pro-choice doctors and clinics, as the Intercept noted. This trend, according to Axios, has continued into the present day, with "assaults directed at abortion clinic staff and patients" having "increased 128% last year over 2020." Despite this, only two names associated with anti-abortion violence reportedly appear on Meta's list of Dangerous Individuals and Organizations, which was obtained by the Intercept last October.

RELATED: Facebook is killing democracy with its personality profiling data

Despite Facebook's apparent effort to crack down on abortion access and abortion rights advocacy, Meta has told its staff that it would cover travel expenses for employees who have to go out of state for an abortion, according to CNBC.

Continued here:
Facebook swift to respond to Roe fallout with abortion censorship - Salon