Tumgik
#(Is parliament the appropriate plural
hasufin · 6 months
Text
An appropriate rent
I was just reminded that we're coming up on the Ceremony of Quit Rents, in which the City of London (well, cities, plural, but that's a separate matter) pays a nonsensical rent to the Crown for two plots of land, the location of which no one remembers, and then that rent is returned to the city in order to be paid to the crown again next year.
A while back, I inquired what would happen if the UK officially abolished the monarchy. Unfortunately, the only responses I got were deeply unserious in that British fashion of "I don't have any real comprehension of what you said, and I'm going to be an asshole about it."
But I do think it's a worthwhile question.
No, let me bring up a fundamental point:
All governments operate on the virtue of two forces: faith and force.
By faith, I don't mean "god". Rather, I mean the faith of the people governed in the existence and authority of the government. The belief that they should in fact follow the laws and conform to the model of the government because it is appropriate to do so. There are many ways this is expressed: divine providence, consent of the people, &c. But it all comes down to people choosing to accept the government as an entity. And it's quite remarkable how quickly a government - and a country - dissolves when that faith is lost.
Where faith fails, you have force. The threat of violence in response to refusal to follow the laws and forms of government. In fact, I've seen a government described - by people who know - as an entity which is able to enforce a monopoly on violence within their borders. That is, while there's the occasional non-state violence with a country, so long as the state (usually in the form of police) is able to respond to and stop that violence, and is otherwise uncontested in their own practice of violence, it's a government.
Now, there's a lot to be said about force in the execution of government, but for this I want to talk about faith. Thinking specifically about the UK, many of the functions of government are descended from rather elastic interpretations of precedent: e.g. the "Prime Minister" is actually two positions, merged into one, by the consent of a monarch who very possibly had no idea to what he was agreeing. One entire house of parliament is - I think - given authority by their ostensible connection to the monarch. The city of London pays rent to the Crown. Passports - and innumerable other functional documents - are "by the consent of the King/Queen".
From a utilitarian standpoint, the Monarchy is ceremonial. But it's intertwined very deeply in the authority - faith - of the British government.
And that's an important thing to consider when looking at any important changes to an institution. We often think of the surface detail, but seldom consider the foundations. It shouldn't make a difference if police are allowed to enact violence because they are given license to do so by the governor vs. by a charter passed by referendum. And yet, it does matter. These things, intangible though they seem, do make a difference.
1 note · View note
missdivalicious · 7 months
Video
youtube
Matopo Ndebele Poet | Imbongi | Isitemo/Totems - Ancestral Praise Names
Matopo Ndebele Poet | Imbongi | Isitemo/Totems - Ancestral Praise Names An imbongi (plural imbongi), is a member of the community who performs ceremonial activities at important events. An #imbongi is traditionally a male who recites emotive poetry, sings, explains family relationships, re-tells historical events, and comments on current affairs. 
The imbongi's performance style is generally aggressive and intimidating, and may include brandishing spears or fighting sticks and occasionally hurling them into the ground to agitate the ancestors. The imbongi draws poetic inspiration from his #ancestors when appropriate. When praising a chief, his poetry includes references to the praise names of the chief and the chief's ancestors. In this way the imbongi seeks to garner favor from royal ancestors for the prosperity of his nation.During the mining era in South Africa, a now discarded type of imbongi emerged. 
Unlike 'home' iimbongi, the mine imbongi had no special social standing because their activities were largely informal and unofficial. They helped to reinforce mine rules, and generally discouraged violence, crime, and excessive materialism. Iimbongi help to maintain social harmony by reinforcing accepted norms and Zulu cultural traditions. The South African government incorporated the imbongi into official national events. In 2015, 74-year-old Kgato Masemola became the first female praise singer to be given the honor of heralding the arrival of a President to Parliament. She also serves as Kgoshigadi (queen) Mogoshadi Marishane's official praise poet. An imbongi is often a member of the welcoming party on royal visits, and as such, is referred to as "the poet who walks before any great chief".
 An imbongi claims to be able to summon the presence of departed ancestors and facilitate communication between them and the living. It is believed that they imbue their poetry with power by invoking the names of departed ancestors. Ceremonial praises of an imbongi are used to ensure the beneficent attention of royal ancestors to the king and to his kingdom. The Xhosa imbongi is not an entertainer, nor is he limited to just performing poetry for the royal family. The imbongi is permitted to criticize communities, use suggestive language, and make outrageous statements that are normally regarded as unacceptable for the average Xhosa man. It is considered shameful to kill an imbongi in battle, even if he actively aggravates soldiers.
1 note · View note
Text
She leaves her lipstick smeared on your white sheets, an accusation in the morning after.
But you can’t let her stay, not longer than the stutter in her breathing. Not longer than the scratches down your arm she’s made.
She knows that you can’t give her more than this, the stubbed out cigarette, the sunlight slanting too bright through the blinds, the promise that you break to call her later. This in itself feels like too much, the ceiling shadowed when you watch her sleeping.
Maybe she won’t come back, and how she slammed the door still echoes when you finally pour your coffee. You’re not sure that you care. It’s better for her sake if she stays gone.
4 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Post by cielesne on instagram, summarizing what is happening in Poland right now (06.11.2021)
You can donate to Aborcyjny Dream Team here:
https://zrzutka.pl/55g5gx (site in Polish)
https://zrzutka.pl/en/55g5gx (site in English)
Here’s the text from slides (all 10 pics are slides from instagram, with light background and black text on them): 1. What's happening in Poland and why it's worse than you think 2. Access to abortion It has been one year since Poland's Constitutional Tribunal ruled that pregnancies can be terminated only in cases of rape or incest, or if the life of the woman is endangered. The ruling excludes fetal defects – which account for the vest majority of terminations in the country. The death of the 30-year-old Izabela, who died of septic shock after doctors waited for her unborn baby’s heart to stop beating, is the first publicly known person to die as a direct result of the ruling. Protests are being held al around Poland and abroad (source: Politico, Reuters) 3. Migration and asylum The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Poland had unlawfully refused entry to asylum seekers at the Poland-Belarus border. In March 2020, Poland closed it’s border with Belarus, effectively making it impossible for people to access Polish territory to seek asylum. Since then many people, including children, have camped out on a stretch od land located between the Polish and Belarusian border control. They cannot return to Belarus nor can they enter Poland. As of Nov. 2, an Iraqi man is the tenth refugee to have died on the Belarus-Polish boarder since the summer (source: Human Rights Watch, Info Migrants, Gazeta Wyborcza) 4. Sexual orientation and gender identity The government ramped up its attacks on women’s and LGBT rights, part of the government’s increasing hostile rhetoric against what it refers to as “gender ideology”. During his election campaign, President Duda frequently made homophobic statements. He stated that LGBT rights were an “ideology” more dangerous than communism and signed a “Family Charter” pledging to “defend children from LGBT ideology”. Authorities in one-third of Poland’s cities have identified their localities as “LGBT Ideology Free Zones” (source: Human Rights Watch) 5. Freedom of media, pluralism The populist, governing “Law and Justice” party effectively took over TVP (public TV broadcaster) and public radio shortly after winning the 2015 parliamentary and presidential elections. Polish government and ruling party continue to use “public” media as a tool for spreading their own propaganda, anti-LGBT agenda, and using it as a tool to win elections. Over the last year the government strengthened control over the press and continued its smear attacks on media outlets and journalists critical of the government and ruling party (source: Human Rights Watch). 6. Women’s and children’s rights In July, the Minister of Justice declared that Poland would withdraw from the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, claiming the Convention is “harmful”, as it requires educators to teach children about gender. Earlier in the year, service providers reported that calls from domestic violence victims increased dramatically during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown but that the government did not take measures to support prevention or ensure availability of services and appropriate police response (source: Human Rights Watch). 7. Sex education Sex education in Polish schools is almost nonexistent. Equivalent classes are often led by catechist or biology teachers. Lessons and topics are often outdated and extremely conservative. A controversial bill, “Stop Pedophilia”, which would criminalize activities, educators and organizations providing sexuality education to children or information on sexual and reproductive health and rights was debated in parliament in April 2020 and subsequently sent to a committee for “further work”. The legislation aims to send sex educators to prison for up to five years (source: Human Rights Watch). 8. Independence of the judiciary The Polish constitutional crisis began in 2015, just after Poland’s governing party PiS won the elections. They cancelled the earlier appointment of five Constitutional Tribunal judges and packed
the Tribunal with new judges (affiliated with a ruling party). In 2017 there was a political takeover of the National Council of the Judiciary, a constitutional body responsible for protecting the independence judges. The government continues its attacks on members of the judiciary. Judges and prosecutors are subject to arbitrary disciplinary proceedings for standing up for the rule of law and speaking up against problematic judicial reforms – an interference with their judicial independence (source: Human Rights Watch, Marcin Matczak, The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society Foreign Policy, dw.com, NPR). 9. Birth control Poland has been ranked the lowest European country in terms of access to contraception and other family planning resources in a report by the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF). Only two types of birth control pills are funded by public health care system. Doctors can even refuse to prescribe one if it goes “against” their personal beliefs (source: Tygodnik Polityka, The European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights). 10. How can you help - collect signatures for legalna.aborcja (legal abortion) project. Everyone can collect signatures, but only people with Polish citizenship can sign it.
- PROTEST! There will be protests happening all around Poland and abroad on Saturday, Nov 6 and Sunday, Nov 7 – check out what’s happening near you
- support these organizations and initiatives: Aborcyjny Dream Team, Aborcja Bez Granic, Women Help Women, Human Rights Watch
- donate to Aborcyjny Dream Team: https://zrzutka.pl/55g5gx (site in Polish) or https://zrzutka.pl/en/55g5gx (site in English)
5K notes · View notes
forthegothicheroine · 2 years
Note
Okay, I have to ask. Who is Gef the Talking Mongoose? I mean, I gather from his name that he is a mongoose who talks, but like, what's his story?
My friends, we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty. Let us reward the innocent. My friend, can your heart stand the shocking facts about Gef the Talking Mongoose?
Tumblr media
Our story begins in the Isle of Man in 1931. A small farm family began complaining of hauntings by some sort of small animal, making crying, scratching, and eventually talking sounds. They seem to have taken this in stride. Though they set traps for the creature, it evaded each and every one. Not only that, but gibbering sounds soon became actual speech, which then became grandiose monologues! The being revealed itself as a small furry creature resembling a mongoose, save for its humanoid hands with long fingers. (Mongooses had previously been brought to the Isle of Man- make of that what you will. It's also worth noting that, while nobody in this story ever refers to the creature as a fairy, there certainly was local folklore he would have been reminiscent of.)
Gef, as he called himself (mongooses can't spell) seemed just as confused about what he was as everyone else. He claimed to be a ghost in the form of a mongoose. He claimed to be an earthbound spirit. He also claimed to be "just an extra clever little mongoose." He claimed to be able to split the atom, sometimes invoked powers of hell, and even referred to himself as the Eight Wonder of the World (apparently after seeing a poster advertising the movie King Kong.) He also claimed to speak Hindi, which he did not.
Unable to get him to leave, the family eventually made peace with Gef, and in return for free reign of the house he performed little favors such as turning off the stove when they forgot to, warning them of any strange dogs approaching the farm, and stealing chickens from other people and delivering them, having been strangled with his creepy people hands.
Other people in the village reported seeing and hearing Gef, and in the vein of most cryptids there are a few blurry photographs that look eerie but could be anything. Eventually the family moved away, and the next man to own the farm shot a polecat which he claimed to have been Gef. The village hounded him with hatred, but the original family said that polecat didn't look like Gef. All involved maintained to their dying day that Gef was real.
There was significant press attention about Gef, even causing a fight in parliament about what the appropriate plural of "mongoose" was. ("Mongooses.") Scholars keep trying to connect Gef to the Lovecraft familiar spirit Brown Jenkin, but there's no known account of him knowing about Gef.
So, to the point- what the hell was Gef? The most obvious answer is that he was a hoax, possibly caused by the daughter figuring out ventriloquism, but if so it was a pretty pointless hoax since they never made a dime off it. It could have been a hoax perpetuated by the whole village on credulous big-city reporters, as rural locals have been known to play on horror filmmakers. It also could have been some kind of mass hallucination event; such things are complex phenomena, but they do happen. Think of the dancing plague, where a legend that saints would make sinners dance to atone for their sins spread across a country with fatal results. Might something more harmless have happened with sightings of an odd, feylike creature?
I have answers for a lot of cryptids. I think Bigfoot is a bear. I think Mothman is an owl. I think the Black Eyed Kids were invented as an early copypasta based on an X-Files Episode. But Gef? I have no idea what the hell Gef was.
I like to think Gef was real and continues to exist eternally. Why not?
329 notes · View notes
questionsonislam · 3 years
Note
What is the place of democracy in the religion of Islam? What is democracy? How does Islam view democracy?
It is observed that the topic of Islam and democracy has become a prominent one amongst today’s matters of debate at various platforms. To put it clearly, it is quite difficult to say that the comparison of Islam and democracy is made accurately.
It is necessary to emphasize, at the very beginning of such a subject, that Islam is a divine religion which aims at the happiness of humankind both in this world and in the hereafter, and that democracy is a regime that people invented based on their own intellect, will and knowledge.
The main reason of this emphasis is to state that it is incorrect to present these two notions as if they are opposite to each other or they are alternative to each other or as two notions that entirely square with each other.
Therefore, it is essential to evaluate Islam as a religion within its own category and democracy as a regime in its own category. It is an obligation to compare the contents of these notions through an objective point of view, without dwelling merely on the notions.
At this point, the most important issue agreed upon by the majority of Islamic theologians is this: There is not a regime that is clearly named and that people are ordered to follow in the Quran. However, there are universal principles that teach responsibilities of those who govern and those who are governed, in both the Quran and the Prophet’s applications.
It is possible to develop a model of regime in accordance with needs of the time, cultural structure of people, political conditions, possibilities and hardships brought by time and geographical features in any part of the world.
An indispensable and determining element of democracy is the fact that people participate in governing and elect their governors with their own free will. When examined carefully, it is seen that the Prophet – with the title of best executive of Islam – employed the institution of “BAY’AH” (allegiance) which literally means “to accept, to assent to”. Bay’ah can be defined as “people’s voting in order to state their commitment to the governor”, which is the equivalent of voting in elections today. Bay’ah is also defined as “the contract that men and women sign in order to accept their duty and responsibility for their administrator.”
The application of Bay’ah that was started by the Prophet continued by undergoing some structural differences until the era of the Ottomans.
When taken from this point of view, it is understood that Islamic teachings are a lot parallel with today’s democratic election system in the issue of determining administrators. This similarity also exists in the issue of every individual’s voting with their own free will.
It is because bay’ah taken with any kind of force is invalid. Hazrat Umar said: “If anyone attempts to be the president or to make anyone else the president without conferring with Muslims, kill him unless he gives up.”
Eliminating any kind of attempts which aim at disturbing social peace and which originate from tyranny and injustice is just one of the responsibilities that Islam assigns to everyone.
The most important virtues that Islam deems necessary for administrators to have are providing equality, justice and individual legal privacy for everyone. If democracy is not a system that manipulates people but a regime that guarantees people’s basic rights and freedoms and promises to meet people’s demands, it is meaningless to mention any problem between Islam and democracy in this sense.
It is because there is not a disagreement between the two in terms of protecting these rights. Furthermore, while ordering that individual rights be protected on the one hand, Islam refers to social sensitivity and wants social spirit to be kept alive on the other hand. Therefore, each responsibility assigned to individuals has an aspect which is related to social life.
Parliament that is elected by people and works as a decision-making mechanism which decides in the name of people is one of the most important facilities which should be emphasised. The very equivalent of this institution in Islamic literature is the institution of “SHURA” which can be translated as advisory committee.
The Quran explains that things planned to be done must be determined at the end of negotiations in these two different verses:
“...so pass over (Their faults), and ask for (God's) forgiveness for them; and consult them in affairs (of moment).”
“Those ... who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance.”
The principle of pluralism, which is mentioned among the qualities of democracy has been formulated with these verses in the Quran, because negotiation between individuals is one of the most important indications of pluralism. The phrase “consult them in affairs” has been understood as not a suggestion but a command that has to be followed by Islamic scholars.
Governing structure adopted by Islam, as it is based on consultation-negotiation, differs from “autocracy”, which is based on the dictatorship of one person, from “theocracy”, which is based on the governing of a person who claims to have a divine attribute, from “oligarchy”, which is based on domination of a superior minority, and from “demagogy” in which persons govern according to their own wills.
Islamic consultation-negotiation system necessitates that everyone’s opinion be asked – regardless of their being minority or majority – ; however, it also requires that the opinion which is worth adopting be chosen not as a result of how many people side with it, but as a result of deep and objective intellectual analysis.
Especially the Prophet and the caliphs who governed after him deemed consultation very important, and were the prominent executives of the Quranic command “consult them with their affairs.” Therefore, Ibn Taymiyya says: “Administrators cannot be exempt from consultation, because Allah commanded His Prophet to do it.”
One conspicious feature of the Prophet’s consultation with his Companions is that he was asked if his decision was a Quranic command or his own opinion when a decision was made. If it was a Quranic command, it would be followed, for it is bounding – and if it was the Prophet’s own opinion, the Companions would tell the Prophet about their own ideas. The most attention-grabbing examples of the Prophet’s idea of consultation are issues such as on what conditions captives of the Battle of Badr would be freed, how the call to the prayer (adhan) would be practiced and how Madina should be defended during the Battle of the Trench (Handaq).
The most important point that should be taken into consideration while consulting is with whom to consult. What Abbasi governor Ma’mun advised his son about consultation and negotiation sheds light on this issue. He says: “Regarding affairs about which you have got doubts, consult the experienced, sedulous and merciful old men’s opinions; because they have experienced a lot and witnessed all ups and downs and lucky and unlucky events of time. Even though their words might be bitter, accept and tolerate them. Do not include cowardly, greedy, supercilious, dishonest and stubborn people in the consultation committee.”
It is obvious that Islamic world failed to agree on many institutions that were developed based on the West. And democracy is one of them. While some claim that democracy and Islam totally disagree without basing their ideas on any scientific and intellectual reason, others try to explain that there is a total agreement between the two.
The most reasonable thing for everyone who wishes to and aims at contributing to the happiness of the individuals and communities is seeking ways of benefiting from Islam’s universal values as a religion and democracy’s basic rights and freedoms as a governing mechanism, without being influenced by concepts.
Whatever they might be called, Islam has no objection to the efforts for people’s peace and happiness.
“Adopting democracy can be considered not as “legalizing” the West, but as a real re-discovery. Although Western democracy and Islam have some differences in practice, they can benefit from each other taking the similarities in their aims into consideration. Of course, this benefit is possible, as Hassan Turabi puts it, “if Westerners (can) allow democracy to give birth to a Muslim child”, because the notion of “Islamic democracy” is still a cursed one for many people in the West.”
In conclusion, it cannot be claimed that Islamic principles entirely agree with democracy’s principles. However, if we think independently from the religion, democracy is still the one, amongst other regimes, which can be adapted to Islam’s general rules most easily.
By the way, it is true that Islamic scholars are in search of a solution to this issue. Actually, democracy is a system that Muslims are inevitably in and are influenced by. Muslims, who have to question their lives’ appropriateness to Islam all the time, have felt the obligation to search for a solution about democracy by which they are inevitably influenced.
Debates carried out in accordance with the Quran’s information are seen not as an objection to democracy but an advocacy of democracy which is redefined.
There are many different definitions and practices of democracy in the world. At this point, Islamic world has to understand and interpret Islam correctly on the one hand and has to define democracy within this interpretation on the other hand. This can contribute to forming a mid-point where Islam and democracy meet.
2 notes · View notes
Separating Church and Sovereign: Just How Religious Should the Next Coronation Be?
Tumblr media
Source: https://www.google.com
Imagine that the next Royal Coronation was the first of a new nation and aimed to represent all religious and non-religious populations. It makes no sense to champion one belief among various present. Should the faith element be removed or altered to fit in with modern British society? 
Why is it considered reasonable to overtly include the Church of England (CoE) in the next Coronation? This is partly due to the religious dimensions of the last Coronation, which resembled the Anglican population of the time. This no longer the case. 
The undisguised inclusion and direction of the Coronation by the CoE was appropriately representative of the British population at the time. The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II (1953) was a day that affirmed the ties between the CoE and the Monarchy. The Queen swore to ‘maintain ... the Protestant Reformed religion ... as by law.’ Inclusion of the crown, sceptre, orb and robe are reminiscent of Christian iconography of saints and Jesus. This establishes the Sovereign as an integral element of the Church. 
According to the Constitution Website, the next Coronation will be an Anglican service, in Westminster Abbey involving other faith groups, although primarily Christian. This is comparable to the Diamond Jubilee service or Prince Harry’s Royal Wedding which found places for ‘other Christian Denominations and religions’ (Kapusta: 2020). This suggests minor positive changes that do not go far enough and fail in representing the modern, pluralistic British public.
An appropriate approach would include all religious and non-religious beliefs to a certain degree. A publication by the Woolf Institute, Cambridge (P28: 2015) concluded that the next Coronation ‘should ensure that the pluralist character of modern society is reflected’ in order to acknowledge British diversity.
Findings from a recent 2016 survey (graph 1) shows that non-religious association in British adults overtook that of the CoE in the early 90s. A 2011 census found that around a quarter of the British population reported having no religion at all. To be representative of its majority population, like the last Coronation, statistics suggest that the next Coronation ought to be secular or religiously and non-religiously plural in nature.
Tumblr media
Graph: 1
A secular Coronation might include officiating roles for state representatives such as the PM and members of Parliament. Religious symbology can be replaced by symbols of the state and nation. An oath to ‘protect the faith’ can be replaced by an oath to ‘protect the nation and all of its inhabitants.’ This approach, although progressive is unlikely and perhaps non-desirable to the public regardless of its representativeness of the majority population. This could be due to the prominent ties between the CoE and the state and British culture, which many would not want to see dissolve. A medium approach between secular and sacred inclusion should be employed.
A ‘middle ground’ Coronation might include multi-faith elements from Britain’s most populous religious groups, established in the 2011 Census, as well as members of the state, who represent the non-religious demographic. This fits with a proposal from Prince Charles who asserted favour in being dubbed defender of ‘faith’, not ‘the faith.’ This positively ensures the Monarch’s recognition of non-religious groups as well as religious denominations beyond the CoE. The effects of this could go as far as maintaining the relevance of the Monarchy and promoting social cohesion and assimilation among a largely pluralised British population, who would feel represented and recognised in a diverse ceremony.
3 notes · View notes
wafkarachi · 4 years
Text
PUBLIC STATEMENT BY CITIZENS AND STAKEHOLDERS
On government attempts to curtail freedom of expression, right to information and digital rights; and appropriation of internet and cyberspace.
Islamabad – January 23, 2020
We the public, citizens of Pakistan, the media sector and its practitioners, digital rights advocates, human rights groups, legal fraternity and the broader civil society in general, are alarmed and angry at recent government attempts clearly aimed at curtailing our fundamental rights to free speech and access to information through blatant attempts to restrict our digital rights and hijacking of internet and cyberspace to curb open discourse and online socio-economic freedoms and pluralisms, as well as distorting and limiting the media market.
In particular, the following initiatives, proposals and measures at the start of 2020, and preceding it, taken by the government and the state, among other things, as made public by government authorities, reported by the media and/or unofficial information through reliable sources, are alarming:
·   A draft proposal uploaded on its website by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) in January titled “Consultation on Regulating the Web TV & Over The Top TV (OTT) Content Services”
·   Parallel/alternative draft, regulations not made public but reportedly possessed and distributed to selected authorities by PEMRA and presented before the federal cabinet that reportedly include even more stringent provisions than the ‘public’ version of the draft.
·   A draft proposal by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) not formally circulated among the public but shared with parliamentary committees, aiming to establish so-called guidelines to “prevent harm to persons” on the internet but apparently aimed at restricting online freedom of expression and right to information.
A public consultation co-organized by BoloBhi, Digital Rights Foundation (DRF), Freedom Network (FN), Institute for Research, Advocacy and Development (IRADA) and Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ)  – all independent civil society Pakistani organizations championing the rights of journalists, civil liberties and digital rights of all citizens – and attended by dozens of journalists and media practitioners, digital rights activists, IT industry representatives, internet service providers, human rights groups, women’s rights advocates, lawyers, social media practitioners, and media rights groups, considered in detail all the recent announced and unannounced government measures and official and unofficial drafts.
All the above proposed measures, policies, drafts and proposals were rejected outright with consensus by the participants of the open consultation. The stakeholders and participants agreed that there is no need for the proposed drafts and proposals at all and, therefore, no need to respond to the individual clauses of both the declared and undeclared drafts from PEMRA, PTA and other sources, as they are redundant. Proposing amendments to these drafts would amount to  lending legitimacy to their unfair and non-representative, and often malicious, intent and content.
The stakeholders rejected the drafts in their totality as attempts at expanding the PEMRA footprint slyly by usurping and self-according to itself the mandate to regulate the internet with the thinly disguised aim to regulate online content. PEMRA’s legal mandate is to regulate the broadcast industry, not even regulate broadcast content, let alone online content,  while any attempts to self-expand its mandate to regulate the internet are dangerous by implication, and downright illegal, which will end up undermining Pakistan’s digital future.
REJECTION RATIONALE
The participants agreed and declared the following:
1.     The environment for free speech for the citizens and the media is already heavily curtailed in Pakistan as part of an ongoing process of suppressing civil liberties and engendering a climate of censorship. These newly proposed regulations and measures, through publicized and unpublicized versions of drafts, can and will be used to censor online content and curb freedom of expression and right to information of media practitioners and citizens.
2.     These anti-freedom of expression, anti-right to information measures and drafts cannot and should not be instituted through ‘regulations’ by bypassing legislative processes or without direct public-parliament consultations, or in violation of Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution. Furthermore, the  proposed regulations are beyond the statutory mandate of PEMRA  and therefore must not be adopted through regulations or notifications alone. This is obvious in the much higher license fee for news and current affairs Web TV channels as compared to other entertainment Web TV platforms in the proposed regulation. The drafts will also disproportionately impact independent content creators due to the proposed onerous licensing requirements.
3.     The official and unofficial drafts, including those from PEMRA, are thinly disguised as draconian attempts to discourage new media journalism, including YouTube / website channels being run by Pakistani journalists who have been forced out from mainstream media over the past two years by the authorities to curtail their professional and/or entrepreneurial work, or dozens of entrepreneurial and non-legacy current affairs news and current affairs websites that are filling the gaps in information from legacy media and providing useful local community information. No one should be charged a fee for operating information services online through independent websites.
4.     The proposals and the official and unofficial drafts seem to be attempts to indirectly materialize the otherwise rejected idea of Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA) – the widely rejected proposal floated by the PTI government in 2019 to serve as a single controlling authority for print, broadcast and online media. This will also amount to overstretching of PEMRA’s jurisdiction beyond its statutory mandate and encroach on the mandate of other regulators.This will also amount to overstretching of PEMRA’s jurisdiction beyond its statutory mandate and encroach on the mandate of other regulators.
5.     Through these regulations, PEMRA seems to be proposing to assume/acquire Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA)-type powers for itself, which have already proved controversial (and which themselves require amendments for overreaching mandate in violation of constitutional articles) and a thinly disguised framework to hinder freedom of expression online, as the cases under it against several journalists and citizens prove, and other digital rights.
DIRE CONSEQUENCES FOR PAKISTAN
The participants warned the citizens, the netizens, media, information practitioners, the government, the opposition, legislatures, political parties, civil society, rights groups, media regulators of the following consequences if the proposed new measures, proposals and drafts are approved:
Regression of a digital economic future for Pakistan: Net neutrality and easier and cheaper access to the internet is central for a robust digital future of Pakistan. The newly proposed declared and undeclared measures will become a barrier for a broad range of players in not just the information, telecom and internet access business domains but for digital entrepreneurship and start-up ecosystems as well as contribute to a widening gap between the digital and non-digital natives.
Decreased freedom of expression, increased censorship and diminished digital rights: Pakistan is already poorly ranked on all key annual global indexes of freedom of expression and digital rights, including those of Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF), Committee to Protect Journalist (CPJ), Freedom House (FH) and International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). The newly proposed declared and undeclared measures will curb online free speech and digital rights further and bring levels of online censorship on a par with offline censorship and damage democracy.  
Circumscribed access to information and weakened pluralisms: Social media access and usage by the citizens of Pakistan is growing as a means of access to information that is now routinely curtailed on mainstream offline media. The newly proposed declared and undeclared measures will not only diminish access to information but also curtail online social discourse and pluralism of information sources that are necessary for Pakistan’s pluralist polity and strengthening human rights and democracy.
The death of creativity, initiative and productivity: Free expression, the arts and visual and performance disciplines are key to a creative twenty-first century digital society. The newly proposed declared and undeclared measures will stifle the arts, strangulate the media, disrupt local community information services, undermine online education and health campaigns, sabotage state-to-citizen digital engagement and outreach, and simply push Pakistan back to the twentieth century.
APPEAL to the PARLIAMENT, the GOVERNMENT and the PRIME MINISTER
The participants and stakeholders made a vociferous appeal to the Parliament, the political parties, the federal and provincial governments and the Prime Minister to prevent any and all attempts from all quarters to sneak into policymaking all such measures as the proposed official and unofficial drafts mentioned above that will hinder Pakistan’s march into a digital future in a globally connected world. They urged an immediate official rejection of the measures and drafts in line with the interests of the citizens of Pakistan.
ENDORSED BY ORGANISATIONS AND MOVEMENTS
AGHS Legal Aid Cell
ASR Resource Centre
Aurat March Karachi
Bolo Bhi
DRF – Digital Rights Foundation
FN – Freedom Network
HRCP – Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan
IRADA – Institute for Research, Advocacy and Development
Mangobaaz
Network of Women Journalists for Digital Rights (140 members)
People’s Commission for Minorities Rights
PFUJ – Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists
SAP Pakistan
Women Action Forum – Hyderabad
Women Action Forum – Islamabad
Women Action Forum – Karachi
Women Action Forum – Lahore
Women Democratic Front
ENDORSED BY INDIVIDUALS
Adnan Rehmat – journalist, analyst and media rights activist
Ailia Zehra – NayaDaur
Alveena Sajid –  Express News
Ammar Masood – Columnist – AAP Communication
Aneela Ashraf
Anis Haroon – Feminist
Annam Lodhi
Asma Sherazi – Journalist
Badar Alam – journalist, former editor Herald
Gharidah Farooqi – Journalist AAP News
Haroon Rashid – Independent Urdu
Jalila Haider – activist, lawyer
Laiba Zainab – NayaDaur
Maleeha Mengal
Moneeza Jahangir – Journalist
Nadia Malik – Geo News
Najia Ashar – CEO Global Neighbourhood for Media Innovation
Nasir Zaidi
Nasreen Shah – Member WAF
Neelam Hussain – Member WAF
Nighat Saeed Khan – Feminist
Peter Jacob
Qurrat ul Ain Shirazi, Hum News
Ramsha Jahangir – Journalist Dawn Newspaper
Rubina Saigal – Member WAF
Sabahat Khan – Journalist
Saqib Jillani – Lawyer
Sana Ejaz – Journalist
Shabana Arif
Shehzada Zulfiqar – President PFUJ
Sumaira Ashraf Rajput – Public News
Tahira Abdullah – human rights activist
Umaima Ahmed – TNS
Wahaj Siraj – CEO Nayatel
Zeenat Khan
Zoya Anwer – Freelance Multimedia Journalist
0 notes
bharatiyamedia-blog · 5 years
Text
Simultaneous polls for Lok Sabha, state Assemblies untenable; chance of one-party dominance could not do effectively for democracy
http://tinyurl.com/y5wuwbvs The Bharatiya Janata Celebration (BJP) has been pushing for simultaneous elections to Parliament and all Legislative Assemblies for over a 12 months. In April 2018, the get together and the NITI Aayog each backed the concept in separate studies. In August that 12 months, the Regulation Fee examined the proposal and located it had benefit. Later that 12 months, there have been rumours that some Legislative Meeting polls can be postponed and a few introduced ahead to allow simultaneous elections for 11 states alongside the not too long ago concluded Lok Sabha elections. File picture of Parliament. Reuters In July 2018, it was reported that 4 events favoured the concept whereas 9 opposed it. And in 2019, the BJP manifesto plumped once more for simultaneous elections. It’s value inspecting the concept, regardless of it being backed by the NITI Aayog and an august constitutional physique such because the Regulation Fee. Two angles should be examined to reach at any type of conclusion: the historic, which additionally subsumes the sensible; and the one based mostly on democratic precept. Let’s take a look at the electoral historical past of post-Independence India, to start with. The primary elections held in India beneath the aegis of the Structure and on the premise of the common grownup franchise have been accomplished in 1952. The elections have been simultaneous. Thereafter, simultaneous elections have been held in 1957, 1962 and 1967. The one exception was Kerala, the place the communist authorities headed by EMS Namboodiripad was dismissed, President’s Rule imposed and ‘mid-term’ elections held the identical 12 months. For the document, a United Entrance authorities headed by the Congress gained these elections. The query is what made it doable to carry simultaneous elections for 4 successive phrases. To anybody who is aware of the rudiments of India’s post-Independence political historical past, the reply is straightforward: it was the truth that the Congress was overwhelmingly preponderant within the political and electoral spheres and had untroubled majorities in Parliament and all Legislative Assemblies. It was a polity characterised by political scientists as one-party dominant and famously designated the ‘Congress system’ by Rajni Kothari, certainly one of India’s most outstanding political scientists. However the Congress system broke down in 1967 when the dominant get together discovered its majority within the Lok Sabha dangerously whittled down and it misplaced energy in a swathe of states throughout the nation. Non-Congress coalition governments of varied hues got here to energy in Haryana and Punjab; Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh; Orissa and West Bengal; Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the place a single get together, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) routed the Congress. Many of those patchwork coalition governments didn’t survive, nonetheless. The non-Congress authorities in Haryana was the primary to fall, in 1968. Contemporary elections have been held and the Congress returned to energy beneath the infamous (or redoubtable) Bansi Lal. The Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal governments adopted swimsuit. Contemporary elections have been held in 1969. The brand new non-Congress governments fashioned subsequently all fell in fast time. The imposition of President’s Rule turned routine. In time, the Odisha and Kerala authorities fell, necessitating recent elections. In Madhya Pradesh, the federal government fashioned by a bunch of Congress defectors led by Govind Narain Singh allied to opposition events fell when Singh and his adherents re-defected to the Congress. No elections have been necessitated. Larger instability was injected into the political system when the Congress cut up down the center in December 1969. Most Lok Sabha members of the Congress remained with the get together fashioned by Indira Gandhi and her adherents. Gandhi, subsequently, remained prime minister, however on the head of a minority authorities, surviving with the help of the Communist Celebration of India and the DMK. In early 1971, Gandhi disarticulated the Lok Sabha elections with state elections by holding snap elections. Within the well-known, garibi hatao versus ‘Indira hatao’ elections, Gandhi used a spectacularly profitable plebiscitary fashion of campaigning (now emulated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi) and wiped the ground with the ‘Grand Alliance’, consisting of the Congress (O, for Organisation), the Jana Sangh, the Sangathana Socialist Celebration (usually erroneously known as the Samyukta Socialist Celebration), the Swatantra Celebration and the Praja Socialist Celebration. Simultaneous elections have been in impact lifeless within the water. Quite a lot of state elections have been held in 1972, within the aftermath of the Bangladesh Conflict, and the Congress swept to energy in all of them. For some time, it appeared that the period of Congress dominance can be revived, beneath the aegis of Gandhi’s Congress, the Congress (R), however the Allahabad Excessive Court docket judgment unseating the prime minister, the imposition of the Emergency and the following ascension to energy of the delicate Janata Celebration intervened. Instability returned to the Indian political house and the concept of simultaneity was as soon as once more blown out of the water. Since 1977, Central governments have fallen after dropping their Lok Sabha necessitating recent elections in 1980, 1991 and 1999. Any variety of state governments have failed to finish their time period. On the time of writing, a variety of state governments are perched precariously: in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and West Bengal. This although within the lattermost state, the ruling Trinamool Congress has a brute majority. Governments within the North East are additionally chronically unstable. Whereas it’s true that many states now have very steady governments, particularly with the BJP rising as a dominant pressure countrywide, there are not any ensures that state governments is not going to fall. So, how will simultaneous elections work on this context? The straightforward reply is that they gained’t. Mid-term elections will at all times stay a chance. One answer advised within the present context by BJP chief Vinay Sahasrabuddhe, and examined earlier by the Structure Evaluate Committee arrange by the Nationwide Democratic Alliance authorities headed by the late Atal Behari Vajpayee, is that no-confidence motions must be accompanied by confidence motions, enabling a brand new authorities to be fashioned when one falls. This provision does exist in some locations, as in Germany, which has an electoral system based mostly on proportional illustration, however it might be virtually unimaginable to make it work in India. First, it might require a constitutional modification, round which consensus can be troublesome, if not unimaginable, to drum up. Second, it may imply extended tenures for minority governments, which might, once more, be an unsustainable proposition. In different phrases, the concept isn’t workable. Allow us to take the second angle. Two arguments are made, in the primary, in favour of simultaneous elections, amongst others by the NITI Aayog. First, disaggregated elections price the nation cash. Simultaneous elections would, in different phrases, save the exchequer and, subsequently, the individuals important expense. Second, periodic elections in several states are disruptive to the event course of. The primary argument is appropriate. No clinching proof has been produced for the latter. Even when each the arguments are taken to be appropriate, they might not trump the elemental rules of representational democracy. One in all these is {that a} authorities can stay in energy solely so long as it instructions a majority amongst the elected representatives of the related Home – be it the Lok Sabha or the state Legislative Assemblies. Democracy can’t be press-ganged within the service of comfort or monetary concerns. The purpose is that because the days of Congress dominance, the Indian political system has change into extra plural and, subsequently, extra inclusive. The try to introduce simultaneous elections by diktat is a stealthy transfer in direction of reviving a polity dominated by one get together. It should be resisted. Your information to the most recent cricket World Cup tales, evaluation, studies, opinions, stay updates and scores on https://www.firstpost.com/firstcricket/series/icc-cricket-world-cup-2019.html. Comply with us on Twitter and Instagram or like our Facebook web page for updates all through the continuing occasion in England and Wales. !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ; if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '259288058299626'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/all.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.9&appId=1117108234997285"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); window.fbAsyncInit = function () { FB.init({appId: '1117108234997285', version: 2.4, xfbml: true}); // *** here is my code *** if (typeof facebookInit == 'function') { facebookInit(); } }; (function () { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js'; e.async = true; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }()); function facebookInit() { console.log('Found FB: Loading comments.'); FB.XFBML.parse(); } Source link
0 notes
jackson38toh · 5 years
Text
What’s for dessert?
Q: Would you please discuss “desert” in its various forms, not forgetting “dessert” and the many pastry shops named “Just Desserts.”
A: We’ll take a look at the origins of these words later, but meanwhile here’s a memory aid. The word for the sweet treat that ends a meal, “dessert,” is the only one of the bunch that has a double “s” (pretend the extra “s” is for sugar).
And this is how Pat summarizes the difference between the sound-alike words “deserts” and “desserts” in the new fourth edition of her grammar and usage book Woe Is I:
People who get what they deserve are getting their deserts—accent the second syllable. John Wilkes Booth got his just deserts. People who get goodies smothered in whipped cream and chocolate sauce at the end of a meal are getting desserts (same pronunciation)—which they may or may not deserve. “For dessert I’ll have one of those layered puff-pastry things with cream filling and icing on top,” said Napoleon. (As for the arid wasteland, use one s and stress the first syllable. In the desert, August is the cruelest month.)
Those are just the nouns! There’s also a verb spelled “desert” (to abandon), accented on the second syllable. So in the sentence “Don’t desert me in the desert,” the verb and the noun are spelled alike but pronounced differently.
All these words came from Latin by way of French, and some are related, as we’ll explain. Let’s examine them one at a time, beginning with the oldest, which may date from the 12th century.
• “desert,” the noun for a barren land (stress the first syllable, DEH-zert).
Etymologically, a “desert” is a deserted or abandoned place. The word was adopted from Old French (desert), which was descended from the Latin verb dēserĕre (to leave, forsake, abandon).
From the beginning, it generally meant “a wilderness” or “an uninhabited and uncultivated tract of country,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary. But more specifically it meant  “a desolate, barren region, waterless and treeless, and with but scanty growth of herbage.”
That’s how it’s used in the OED’s earliest example, from a guide for monastic women called the Ancrene Riwle, which may have been composed before 1200: “In þe deseart … he lette ham þolien wa inoch” (“In the wilderness … he let them suffer hardships aplenty”).
The word is pronounced the same way when it’s an adjective, as in “desert climate,” “desert boots,” or “desert island.”
The phrase “desert island,” by the way, was first recorded in 1607, the OED says, but it didn’t mean a hot, dry, sandy island. It meant one that was remote and seemingly uninhabited (that is, deserted). Which brings us to …
• “desert,” the verb meaning to abandon (stress the last syllable).
This word comes from the same sources as the noun—the French desert and the Latin dēserĕre—but it appeared much later, in the 16th century.
In the OED’s earliest examples, the verb was a legal term with several meanings: to relinquish, to put off for the time, to cease to have the force of law, or to be inoperative.
The dictionary’s first use was recorded in 1539 in Scottish Acts of James V: “That this present parliament proceide & stande our [over] without ony continuacioun … quhill [while] it pleiss the kingis grace that the samin [same] be desert.” (We’ve expanded the OED’s citation to provide more context.)
In the early 17th century, the verb “desert” acquired the meanings it has today: to abandon, forsake, run away, quit without permission, and so on. The earliest known example is this 1603 quotation:
“He … was resoluit [resolved] to obey God calling him thairto, and to leave and desert the said school.” (Cited in James Grant’s History of the Burgh and Parish Schools of Scotland, 1876.)
• “deserts,” the noun for what one deserves (stress the last syllable).
This word isn’t related to the others. It comes from the same source as “deserve,” the Old French verb deservir (to deserve), from Latin dēservīre. The Latin verb originally meant to serve zealously or with merit, but in late popular Latin, the OED says, it meant “to merit by service.”
Originally, in the late 1200s, the English noun was used in the singular (“desert”) and had a rather abstract meaning—a person’s deserving, or worthiness, of being rewarded or punished. Before long, a “desert” also meant an act, a quality, or conduct deserving of reward or punishment.
But in the late 1300s it came to mean the rewards or punishments themselves—as the OED says, “that which is deserved.”
The dictionary’s earliest example of the word used in this sense is from William Langland’s poem Piers Plowman (1393). Note that it’s still singular here: “Mede and mercede … boþe men demen / A desert for som doynge” (“Reward and payment … both men deem a desert for some doing”).
In modern English, the word is nearly always plural, and most often occurs in the phrase “just deserts.” The OED defines the phrase as meaning “what a person or thing really deserves, esp. an appropriate punishment.”
The expression, according to OED citations, was first recorded in the singular in 1548 (“iust deserte”) and in the plural in 1582 (“iust desertes”). As we’ve written on the blog, the letter “i” was used in those days because “j” didn’t exist in English.
• “dessert,” the noun for the last course of a meal (stress the last syllable).
It’s only right that we should save this one for last. It was borrowed into English in 1600 from a recently coined French noun (dessert) that meant “removal of the dishes” or “dessert,” the OED says. The French noun was derived from a verb, desservir, which the OED defines as “to remove what has been served, to clear (the table).”
(The OED dates the French noun dessert from 1539. The first two uses appeared in the fourth book of Rabelais’s Gargantua and Pantagruel, according to Émile Littré’s Dictionnaire de la Langue Française. We mention this only because the Rabelaisian origin somehow seems appropriate.)
The word’s earliest appearance in English was disapproving. The OED citation is from William Vaughan’s Naturall and Artificiall Directions for Health (1600): “Such eating, which the French call desert [sic], is unnaturall.”
Unnatural or not, the dessert course immediately caught on and became indispensable. Here’s a succinct headline the OED quotes from a 1966 issue of the magazine Woman’s Day: “A starter. A main dish. A dessert.”
Help support the Grammarphobia Blog with your donation. And check out our books about the English language.
Subscribe to the Blog by email
Enter your email address to subscribe to the Blog by email. If you are an old subscriber and not getting posts, please subscribe again.
Email Address
Subscribe
from Blog – Grammarphobia https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2019/03/desert-dessert.html
0 notes
benrleeusa · 5 years
Text
[Eugene Volokh] Council of Europe: "The Institution of Sharia Law and a Theocratic Regime [Are] Incompatible with ... a Democratic Society”
The Council of Europe's new resolution about Sharia at home and abroad.
From Resolution 2253 (Jan. 22, 2019), "Sharia, the Cairo Declaration and the European Convention on Human Rights":
[4.] The Assembly considers that the various Islamic declarations on human rights adopted since the 1980s, while being more religious than legal, fail to reconcile Islam with universal human rights, especially insofar as they maintain the Sharia law as their unique source of reference. This includes the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which, whilst not legally binding, has symbolic value and political significance in terms of human rights policy under Islam. It is therefore of great concern that three Council of Europe member States—Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey (with the limitation "so far as it is compatible with its laws and its commitments under international conventions")—have endorsed, explicitly or implicitly, the 1990 Cairo Declaration, as have Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco and Palestine, whose parliaments enjoy partner for democracy status with the Assembly.
[5.] The Assembly is also greatly concerned about the fact that Sharia law—including provisions which are in clear contradiction with the Convention—is applied, either officially or unofficially, in several Council of Europe member States, or parts thereof.
[6.] The Assembly recalls that the European Court of Human Rights has already stated in Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey that "the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society". The Assembly fully agrees that Sharia law rules on, for example, divorce and inheritance proceedings are clearly incompatible with the Convention, in particular its Article 14, which prohibits discrimination on grounds such as sex or religion, and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (ETS No. 117), which establishes equality between marital partners. Sharia law is also in contradiction with other provisions of the Convention and its additional protocols, including Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 9 (freedom of religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 12 (right to marry), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (ETS No. 9) (protection of property) and Protocols Nos. 6 (ETS No. 114) and 13 (ETS No. 187) prohibiting the death penalty.
[7.] In this context, the Assembly regrets that despite the recommendation it made in its Resolution 1704 (2010) on freedom of religion and other human rights for non-Muslim minorities in Turkey and for the Muslim minority in Thrace (eastern Greece), asking the Greek authorities to abolish the application of Sharia law in Thrace, this is still not the case. Muftis continue to act in a judicial capacity without proper procedural safeguards. The Assembly denounces in particular the fact that in divorce and inheritance proceedings—two key areas over which muftis have jurisdiction—women are at a distinct disadvantage.
[8.] The Assembly is also concerned about the "judicial" activities of "Sharia councils" in the United Kingdom. Although they are not considered part of the British legal system, Sharia councils attempt to provide a form of alternative dispute resolution, whereby members of the Muslim community, sometimes voluntarily, often under considerable social pressure, accept their religious jurisdiction mainly in marital and Islamic divorce issues, but also in matters relating to inheritance and Islamic commercial contracts. The Assembly is concerned that the rulings of the Sharia councils clearly discriminate against women in divorce and inheritance cases. The Assembly is aware that informal Islamic Courts may exist in other Council of Europe member States too.
[9.] The Assembly calls on the member States of the Council of Europe to protect human rights regardless of religious or cultural practices or traditions on the principle that where human rights are concerned, there is no room for religious or cultural exceptions....
[11.] The Assembly calls on Council of Europe member States and those whose parliaments enjoy partner for democracy status with the Assembly to:
[11.1] bolster pluralism, tolerance and a spirit of openness by proactive measures, taken by governments, civil society and religious communities, whilst respecting common values as reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights;
[11.2] design and implement educational and vocational programmes aimed at rooting human rights and fundamental freedom as enshrined in the Convention, and in particular the principles of gender equality and of non-discrimination based on religious beliefs, in the cultural and legal tradition of their countries;
[11.3] promote, within the multilateral organisations of which they are members or observers, the universal values of human rights without any discrimination based inter alia on sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religious faith or the lack of it;
[11.4] engage in the process of revision of the Cairo Declaration launched by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) so as to ensure that the future OIC Declaration on Human Rights is compatible with universal human rights standards and the European Convention on Human Rights which is binding on all Council of Europe member States and a source of inspiration for those whose parliaments enjoy partner for democracy status.
[12] The Assembly calls on Albania, Azerbaijan and Turkey, to consider distancing themselves from the 1990 Cairo Declaration by:
[12.1] considering withdrawing from the Cairo declaration;
[12.2] making use of all available means to make declarations, so as to ensure that the 1990 Cairo Declaration has no effect on their domestic legal orders that may be inconsistent with their obligations as Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights; or
[12.3] considering performing some formal act which clearly establishes the Convention as a superior source of obligatory binding norms.
[13] The Assembly, while noting the legislative change in Greece which made the practice of Islamic sharia law in civil and inheritance matters optional for the Muslim minority, calls on the Greek authorities to:
[13.1] rapidly and fully implement the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Molla Sali v. Greece and in particular, to monitor whether the above-mentioned legislative change will be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Convention;
[13.2] allow the Muslim minority to choose freely its muftis as purely religious leaders (that is, without judicial powers), through election, thereby abolishing the application of Sharia law, as already recommended in Resolution 1704 (2010).
[14] The Assembly, while welcoming the recommendations put forward in the conclusions of the Home Office Independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales, as a major step towards a solution, calls on the authorities of the United Kingdom to:
[14.1] ensure that Sharia councils operate within the law, especially as it relates to the prohibition of discrimination against women, and respect all procedural rights;
[14.2] review the Marriage Act to make it a legal requirement for Muslim couples to civilly register their marriage before or at the same time as their Islamic ceremony, as is already stipulated by law for Christian and Jewish marriages;
[14.3] take appropriate enforcement measures to oblige the celebrant of any marriage, including Islamic marriages, to ensure that the marriage is also civilly registered before or at the same time as celebrating the religious marriage;
[14.4] remove the barriers to Muslim women's access to justice and step up measures to provide protection and assistance to those who are in a situation of vulnerability;
[14.5] put in place awareness campaigns to promote knowledge of their rights amongst Muslim women, especially in the areas of marriage, divorce, custody of children and inheritance, and work with Muslim communities, women organisations and other non-governmental organisations to promote gender equality and women's empowerment;
[14.6] conduct further research on "judicial" practice of Sharia councils and on the extent to which such councils are used voluntarily, particularly by women, many of whom would be subject to intense community pressure in this respect....
Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.
0 notes
coin-river-blog · 5 years
Link
December 6, 2018 10:33 PM
The new law, which critics say was rushed through Parliament, gives the government broad powers to request user data from tech companies.
The privacy of your communications – whether via email or message – is only as good as the encryption of the technology you're using. But in Australia, even that may not be enough. On Thursday, the government passed a law to gain access to encrypted communications.
The benignly named Assistance and Access Bill of 2018 amends various existing legislation to "establish frameworks for voluntary and mandatory industry assistance [italics own] to law enforcement and intelligence agencies in relation to encryption technologies…" In other words, the government can compel a private tech company to spill the contents of private citizens' messages.
The law was first proposed in 2017 by then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of the center-right Liberal Party of Australia, but was only introduced in the House of Representatives on September 20 of this year. The House, it should be noted, is controlled by a coalition government of 58 Liberals and 15 National Party members, though the opposition Labor Party has a plurality with 69 members.
On the same day it passed in the House of Representatives, the bill was introduced and passed in the Senate as it came to the end of this year's session. The Senate is also controlled by a Liberal-National coalition despite the Labor Party having a plurality. Critics of the bill – and there are many, among them human rights groups, law groups, and cryptographers – say that it was rushed through Parliament despite vague language that leaves citizens vulnerable to having their data abused.
The case made by the Prime Minister's government boiled down to one thing: terrorism. Attorney General Christian Porter declared after the vote:
"This ensures that our national security and law enforcement agencies have the modern tools they need, with appropriate authority and oversight, to access the encrypted conversations of those who seek to do us harm."
But the passage of the bill through Parliament was far from preordained. The Labor Party, which had made noise about being uncomfortable with the bill in its current form, at the last moment decided to support it, even though it appeared in a position to cobble together enough votes in the Senate to stall legislation. Labor leader Bill Shorten, in a press conference before the vote, said, "We offer to let it go forward, without the amendments which are needed … provided the government agrees on the very first sitting day [in February], to pass the amendments we say are needed."
But there's no guarantee such amendments will be made now that the bill is already law. (It's considered best practice to negotiate before passing a bill.) According to Porter: "To ensure the passage of the bill through the Senate tonight, the government has agreed to consider Labor's proposed amendments in the new year if any genuinely reflect the recommendations of the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security."
Australia's ABC News notes that, before this, the Australian government already had the power to "obtain remote access to computer networks and their data" and "in some circumstances, law enforcement can also compel people under threat of jail time to disclose their computer or smartphone passwords."
But whereas the existing laws have allowed the government to request access, the new law gives it the power to compel companies to decrypt certain communications or pay a financial penalty. Companies may even be required to build backdoors into existing products to allow police access.
As Morry Bailes, the president of the Law Council of Australia, stated:
"We now have a situation where unprecedented powers to access encrypted communications are now law, even though parliament knows serious problems exist."
Importantly, this has repercussions beyond Australia, as other countries are looking for similar ways to thwart terror networks drawn to encrypted communication tools like WhatsApp and Signal.
We know this because they've said as much. A June 2017 Joint Communiqué released by the attorneys general of the so-called "Five Eyes" – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US – stated:
"Ministers and Attorneys General also noted that encryption can severely undermine public safety efforts by impeding lawful access to the content of communications during investigations into serious crimes, including terrorism. To address these issues, we committed to develop our engagement with communications and technology companies to explore shared solutions while upholding cybersecurity and individual rights and freedoms."
While balancing anti-terrorism considerations with individual rights is a difficult proposition, forcing companies to give up individuals' data seems to cut against the concept of exploring "shared solutions."
And because the Five Eyes share intelligence, the law potentially provides US, Canadian, British, and New Zealand authorities with a trove of data on any communications accessed by Australia – all while maintaining their respect for "individual rights and freedoms."
Jeff Benson is Managing Editor of ETHNews. He's worked as a writer and editor everywhere from Sudan to Reno. He holds a bachelor's in politics from Willamette University and a master's in nationalism studies from University of Edinburgh. When he's not in the newsroom, he trots the globe and writes about it. He holds a bit of value in ETH.
ETHNews is committed to its Editorial Policy
Like what you read? Follow us on Twitter @ETHNews_ to receive the latest privacy, Australia or other Ethereum law and legislation news.
window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '1761887554082917', xfbml : true, version : 'v2.7' }); }; (function(d, s, id){ var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
0 notes
Text
Secularism is “safe” in India because it is in the DNA of its people, Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu said today and stressed on telling the new generation about Indian culture of living in harmony. He also said the duty of the majority community is to win over minorities and the duty of the minority community is to think in terms of nation first. Delivering the 10th annual lecture of the National Commission for Minorities, he said India has no history of attacking any country, while there were countries which attacked and looted it. Noting that Indian civilisation has survived despite such attacks and invasions because it always believed in harmony, he said the new generation should be reminded about the Indian culture and heritage. The theme of the lecture was ‘Minorities in Nation Building’. “Let me make it very clear and share my thoughts. Secularism is safe in India not simply because of the Constitition… Secularism is safe in India because secularism is in the DNA of Indian people,” Naidu said. He said when he was in politics, he had always said that one should keep the interest of the the nation first, party next and self last. Naidu, however, said unfortunately for some people the last has become the first. The vice president said there should be “no feeling of minority and majority”. “We are all one… duty of majority community is to win over minority and the duty of the minority community also is to think in terms of nation first,” he said. Stressing that “development with dignity” of all the people must be the agenda of the nation, he said bringing a bill in the Parliament won’t change much unless there is political will and administrative skill. The vice president said          the notion of pluralism, inclusion and peaceful co-existence have to be the cornerstones of Indian governance. He said the minority commission is mandated to suggest and devise appropriate measures for their socio-economic development of minorities.  The Rediff.com : 19th. Dec,17
VICE PRESIDENT M VENKAIAH NAIDU SAID SECULARISM IS SAFE IN INDIA AS IT IS IN PEOPLE’s DNA : Secularism is "safe" in India because it is in the DNA of its people, Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu said today and stressed on telling the new generation about Indian culture of living in harmony.
0 notes
its-veso · 6 years
Text
Carney doesn’t seem too enthusiastic on raising rates – GBP/USD slides
Is the November hike going to be a “one and done”? There are higher chances of that happening. The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, did not offer any hawkish signs.
Appearing before parliament, Carney repeated that a rate hike in the coming months “may be appropriate”. Using the singular for the number of hikes and the plural for the number of months sounds like it lacks enthusiasm.
So it’s one hike, and “the coming months” does not even explicitly say it is happening in November. We can still expect a move in November, as it is when the BOE releases its Quarterly Inflation Report (QIR). Bigger decisions are taken on these “Super Thursdays” which occur in February, May, August, and November.
GBP/USD is sliding down within the range, trading under at a low of 1.3230. Support awaits at 1.3220. Further support is at 1.3130.
Get the 5 most predictable currency pairs[1]
References
^ Get the 5 most predictable currency pairs (www.forexcrunch.com)
from Forex Crunch http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ForexCrunch/~3/W2tGmAd9qLc/
0 notes
josempelaez · 7 years
Text
Frequently asked questions (FAQ) about 1-O
Enric Hernàndez
The announced referendum does not meet, within a week's time, any of the democratic and logistic standards of legal electoral processes
Source: El Periodico Saturday, 23/09/2017 at 20:39 CEST
Tumblr media
At an exact week of 1-O, many unknowns are hanging over the validity of the announced independence referendum. Serve as a guide this decalogue of frequently asked questions (FAQ).
Is there a census card? No, unlike conventional elections, voters have not received it at our address.
How will the tables be formed? Its members have not been officially called; their places would be occupied, where appropriate, by volunteers of the 'yes'.
Where to vote? To find out, we must enter our data in a web located in a tax haven, apparently guarded by cyberpirates.
Will it be where usual? Many polling stations vary with respect to a legal election, and even more will do when those responsible for them receive judicial requirements. The 27-S elections had 2,702 polling stations and 8,117 ballot boxes. The 1-O numbers are ignored.
What neutral authority will control the process? The Electoral Syndicate, chosen with the sole support of independence parties in the Parliament, has been self-dissolved to save its members the fine imposed by the Constitutional Court.
Will public media be plural? This time they lack a coverage plan to ensure their pluralism. Beyond the approach of their content (information, social gatherings, humor programs…), public television broadcasts live numerous independence meetings.
How do you allocate free electoral spaces? Here there is guaranteed plurality: the PDECat and ERC have their own spots separately, despite having concurred together in the 2015 elections as 'Junts pel Yes'; the CUP also has its own; and the sovereign propaganda of the ANC and Òmnium completes this varied melting pot of voices.
Will there be ballots? They were seized by millions, but each one can print his own.
Will the count be reliable? The precise technology for the referendum and the scrutiny has been blocked by the Civil Guard*.
Does the [Regional] Government keep the appointment? Yes: it affirms that it will enjoy full democratic guarantees and will be binding.
These are the facts. And next Sunday, let each one act according to his conscience.
* [Note by translator] Following a judicial requirement from investigations started months behind.
0 notes