Archives for posts with tag: freedom of speech

Saudi Arabia some many human rights abuses and ruled by Saudi Royal family under extreme Sharia law and some terrorists have been from Saudi, but Saudi was not part of Donald Trump’s executive order. Does this mean President Donald Trump agrees with the rulings of law in Saudi , for such an outspoken person he appears to be quiet about this.

Or is he indicating it is Fake News or is it Alternative facts.

Josep Goded

For years, Saudi Arabia has had the honour to be one of the principal violators of human rights in the world. Regardless of its efforts to hide it from the international community, numerous local human rights organisations have regularly exposed the abuses perpetrated by the regime. In response, the Saudi government has banned all international human rights organisations from entering Saudi Arabia. As numerous organisations have suggested, the primary problem remains in the system and the interpretation of the Sharia (Islamic law).

Saudi Arabia uses Sharia (Islamic law) as its domestic legislation. There is no a formal penal code; the criminal justice court derives its interpretation from an extreme version of Sharia. In most of cases, detainees do not have a fair trial and are not allowed to meet with a lawyer during their interrogations. Further, the authorities do not usually inform them about their charges until…

View original post 1,000 more words


Attacking judges puts democracy in danger.

Source: Can the courts protect democracy? Yes, but they need these three supports. – The Washington Post


Josep Goded

Days after the UN (United Nations) condemned the expansion of the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced that Israel will not abide by the UN resolution because it is an attempt against Israeli’s security. Instead, Netanyahu announced mass punishments against the countries that voted for the resolution.

Netanyahu considers that the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories serves to protect Israel from terrorism. Nevertheless, the international community reflects that the existing dispute between Israel and Palestine will increase.

Netanyahu is leading a radical coalition, considered to be the most right-wing in Israeli history.Avigdor Lieberman, who heads Yisrael Beiteinu – the other major party in the ruling coalition – opposes to recognise Palestine as a state. He has also proposed to transfer the Arabic community (including Israeli Citizens) from Israel to Cisjordania to evade a forthcoming Arabic majority in Israel.

Lieberman…

View original post 364 more words


Freedom of Press needs protecting at all costs, otherwise any administration is free to do as they please, in other words a dictatorship will occur. and your human rights will disappear.

Josep Goded

Donald Trump will be soon sworn in as president of the United States of America. Before that happens, Trump is occupied choosing the future members of his cabinet while the international community is fretting over this because, apparently, it will include racists, climate change deniers, and human rights violators.

There are fears that Trump’s cabinet will try to reform the system to re-centralize power and restrict the freedom of the press. In such a context, the U.S. media and freelance journalists are preparing themselves to work under restrictive conditions to circumvent the upcoming censorship.

During the last campaign, the tandem Bannon/Trump launched an unprecedented mass attack on the U.S. media to convince people that critical journalists were criminals. (Clinton did something similar by ordering some media to hide her misconduct during her term as Secretary of State).

As far as we know, during Trump’s…

View original post 330 more words


Now re have it Trump and his supporters are not only against Mexicans, Blacks, Democrats, but also Republicans, in fact anyone who does not support Trump.

If Trump does become US President no one will be safe, except Trump and Freedom of Speech will be outlawed, just as in Russia by Trumps friend Putin.

Trump will kill off Democracy.

——————————————————————————————–

Exclusive: Self-declared Republican who sparked Nevada security scare says he was attacked for silently showing a sign he printed from the web

Source: Trump protester: I was beaten for holding a ‘Republicans against Trump’ sign | US news | The Guardian


Merkel should repel this stupid law with immediate effect and tell Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan where he can go.

Also do not allow Turkey to be in the EU.

Eyes on Europe & Middle East

RT reports that The German government has granted a Turkish request to allow the possible prosecution of a TV comedian who wrote a crude poem about Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, Chancellor Angela Merkel said.

Ankara has demanded to have comedian Jan Boehmermann prosecuted for insulting a foreign head of state.

Under a section of Germany’s criminal code, the government has to authorize prosecutors to pursue a case against the comedian.

The code, known as Paragraph 103, concerns insults against organs or representatives of foreign states. However, it is so rarely used that many German politicians and lawyers were previously unaware of its existence.

“Turkey has demanded prosecution of Jan Boehmermann. [The] German government, in accordance with established practice, studied the note; this process involved the Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of…

View original post 544 more words


Pearl roundabout protests and crackdown

Source: In Their Own Words: Nabeel Rajab | Amnesty International UK


Saudi ArabiaDeath Penalty 1K

Source: Saudi Arabia’s foreign affairs minister Adel al-Jubeir urges Britain to ‘respect’ the kingdom’s use of the death penalty | Middle East | News | The Independent


Original post from The Conversation

‘…………….By   Professor of Government at University of Essex

Watch what you say in there. 1000 Words / Shutterstock.com

Watch what you say in there. 1000 Words / Shutterstock.com

David Cameron has attacked British universities for failing to tackle extremism on their campuses. In a speech setting out a five-year plan to counter extreme views, the UK prime minister accused university leaders of “looking the other way” when Islamist extremists speak on campus. This, he said was “through a mixture of misguided liberalism and cultural sensitivity”.

For many people, this message is clear – Britain welcomes diverse opinions and viewpoints within certain “bounds of acceptability.” If you want to have a debate over the role of religion and civil society, that’s perfectly acceptable, but host a speaker with beliefs in line with what the government considers an unacceptable version of Islamic thought and you are out of bounds.

Arguments against free speech absolutism often rely on examples where public opinion clearly opposes a speaker or group (such as Nazis or those espousing extremist views in the name of Islam) and this is what makes the bounds-of-acceptability arguments fronted by Cameron so dangerous.

The right to free speech exists precisely to protect whatever speech the majority finds abhorrent and so is inclined to censor. Many of the ideas that led to substantial moral progress in history emerged out of viewpoints that swam against the currents of public opinion. And as John Stuart Mill famously noted, even odious ideas can lead to progress, as we sharpen our understanding of the truth by observing its “collision with error” in public debate.

Judge and jury?  PA/Paul Ellis

Judge and jury? PA/Paul Ellis

The crucial problem with bounds-of-acceptability restrictions on free speech is that different sub-groups draw the lines differently. The British public, writ large, may wish to curtail discussions of the more radical views espoused by a minority of those who identify as Muslim – but some students on university campuses have different expectations. They are more likely to demand the removal of credentialed ambassadors of the State of Israel, for example.

The disparity between what the British public wants and the demands made by students on university campuses (or any other sub-group for that matter) is not surprising because, in the absence of a constitutional backdrop giving firm legal standing to free speech – such as exists in the US – people will become highly situational in their preferences.

Where does the public draw the line?

In April 2015, my colleague Jason Reifler and I posed ten hypothetical speakers to a representative sample of the British public. We asked whether they should be allowed to speak on British university campuses, often held to be ideal “marketplaces of ideas”.

Results presented in the table show that the public is decidedly mixed on allowing speakers from groups such as the far-right English Defence League or those espousing sharia law on campus. They are more supportive of allowing a source of much controversy to students – a representative of Israel or a climate change denier – to speak.

Recently, British universities and student unions have been criticised for either allowing or attempting to ban certain individuals, groups and organisations from speaking in their venues. Should the following be allowed to speak on university campuses?

Who should have freedom of speech? Thomas Scotto, Author provided

Who should have freedom of speech? Thomas Scotto, Author provided

A closer analysis of results show that few (only 7.7%) want to ban all speakers, while a larger proportion – but still only a minority, 24.2% of the sample – appear to be free speech purists and want all views to be heard on campuses. The majority deem only some speakers to be appropriate. Some respondents want to ban most, but not all, speakers. A smaller group of about one in five of those in the sample is happy with allowing nearly all speakers – but they too have their limitations.

Upon detailed inspection of the data, a most interesting finding is that those who wish to ban some but not all speakers differ widely on which to ban. For example, some are perfectly fine with speakers who deny climate change or argue that homosexuality can be cured, and will listen to beliefs about sharia law from an Islamic cleric but, at the same time, want the EDL and the atheist group banned.

Others are comfortable allowing the EDL and 9/11 conspiracy theorists on campus but are ill at ease with the Islamic cleric. In other words, the public has varied and often contradictory conceptions about the bounds of acceptability for free speech on British university campuses.

Who decides?

These results suggest that calls to ban speakers, and to monitor allegedly hateful and extremist speech, will always be situational. The content of these demands will shift based on the preferences of those in power.

Cameron and the home secretary, Theresa May, are trying to define the boundaries of free speech in the UK. They are not the first to do so, but they are taking the country down a decidedly illiberal road. If bounds of acceptability can be moved so easily, different sub-groups will start making demands that free speech protections be narrowed. And as we have seen, different groups deem speakers and ideas of different stripes as unacceptable so the circle of permissible debate in the UK may close very rapidly.

As long as we permit majorities to curtail speech they dislike – be they majorities in Westminster, or student governments or management teams on university campuses – liberty will remain insecure. Only the legal entrenchment of a capacious right to free speech would avoid these shifting sands and guarantee genuine free speech for all.

You might also like

 

Black Leadership Analysis

This is an unofficial Spiral Dynamics blog. It is not endorsed by D. Beck PhD.

Invisible Illnesses

Awareness, Education, Research & Quips

Henny Kupferstein

Official Webpage

The Pensives

"The truth is like poetry, and most people hate poetry."

JONATHAN TURLEY

Res ipsa loquitur ("The thing itself speaks")

Al ritmo político

En sintonía con la realidad

Josep Goded

Seeking Truth

Stop MP lies & corruption

When MPs give a reason for wanting something - it's an excuse to suit their own endgame.

nalinidesignprofile

Graphic Designer

aussieconservativeblog

A paleoconservative Australian blogger

Eating Disorders

My journey through it all

Muslim Statistics

Muslim immigration and Muslim statistics

A Struthers Time Publication

Using a fathers knowledge to empower and help others.

Big Love Foundation

Our mission is to use the most ethical and positive business practices in order to EMPOWER, ENHANCE, and ENRICH the lives of individuals with disabilities, inspiring them to reach their full potential! Knowing that every day is better than the next, if you believe in yourself and your ability...not your disability!

BayArt

New Perspective on Life

Campaign4Change

Breaking down barriers to change

The Melodramatic Confessions of Carla Louise

Love, loss, friendship, fashion, teaching and pain.

The Writers Desk

The Italian Thing Blog

%d bloggers like this: