While talking about the right to show a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed, the Canadian Prime Minister&nbsp;Justin Trudeau while defending 'free speech' said it is important but it sure does come with limits.

His statement about free speech was related to the recent controversy surrounding the cartoon printed and re-printed by the&nbsp;Charlie Hebdo magazine in France and said Canada will always&nbsp;"defend freedom of expression".

However, Trudeau was careful in framing his responses, especially after seeing the outrage against the French President Emmanuel Macron after his statements about the repeated attacks in France being a result of "Islamist radicalism".&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/posters-of-emmanuel-macron-pasted-on-road-in-mumbai-police-remove-them-339067">Also read|&nbsp;Posters of Emmanuel Macron pasted on road in Mumbai, police remove them</a>

"Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today, we are not just seeing this in our country,"&nbsp;Macron had said, after which he has faced several harsh criticisms from organisations, political leaders and individuals worldwide, combined with another terror attack in the country.

Learning from Macron's mistake, Trudeau distanced himself from any direct statement in the press conference and said freedom of expression does not come without limits.&nbsp;"We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet," Trudeau said.

"We do not have the right for example to shout fire in a movie theatre crowded with people, there are always limits," he added.

He also urged people to be more aware of their words and actions towards fellow humans. "In a pluralist, diverse and respectful society like ours, we owe it to ourselves to be aware of the impact of our words, of our actions on others, particularly these communities and populations who still experience a great deal of discrimination," he said. Trudeau also added that people need to have these complex conversations in a very responsible way.

He also openly condemned the attacks saying, "it is unjustifiable and Canada wholeheartedly condemns these acts while standing with our French friends who are going through extremely difficult times," he said.

While talking about the right to show a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau while defending 'free speech' said it is important but it sure does come with limits.

While talking about the right to show a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau while defending 'free speech' said it is important but it sure does come with limits. His statement about free speech was related to the recent controversy surrounding the cartoon printed and re-printed by the Charlie Hebdo magazine in France and said Canada will always "defend freedom of expression". However, Trudeau was careful in framing his responses, especially after seeing the outrage against the French President Emmanuel Macron after his statements about the repeated attacks in France being a result of "Islamist radicalism". Also read| Posters of Emmanuel Macron pasted on road in Mumbai, police remove them "Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today, we are not just seeing this in our country," Macron had said, after which he has faced several harsh criticisms from organisations, political leaders and individuals worldwide, combined with another terror attack in the country. Learning from Macron's mistake, Trudeau distanced himself from any direct statement in the press conference and said freedom of expression does not come without limits. "We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet," Trudeau said. "We do not have the right for example to shout fire in a movie theatre crowded with people, there are always limits," he added. He also urged people to be more aware of their words and actions towards fellow humans. "In a pluralist, diverse and respectful society like ours, we owe it to ourselves to be aware of the impact of our words, of our actions on others, particularly these communities and populations who still experience a great deal of discrimination," he said. Trudeau also added that people need to have these complex conversations in a very responsible way. He also openly condemned the attacks saying, "it is unjustifiable and Canada wholeheartedly condemns these acts while standing with our French friends who are going through extremely difficult times," he said.

Canada's Justin Trudeau condemns France attacks but says free speech has limits

The Chinese foreign ministry has not yet divulged any details surrounding the disappearance of a foreign journalist, Cheng Lei.

A Chinese-born Australian journalist, Lei used to work for the Chinese state media, but has been missing for&nbsp;two weeks. Her videos and stories have mysteriously been deleted from the website of her employer.

Not too long ago, Cheng Lei&nbsp;was a high-profile anchor at CGTN, China's largest state media broadcaster. “I felt my skills could be better used in China”, she had once said.

Australian media says Cheng has been detained by Chinese authorities.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-why-has-china-detained-this-australian-journalist-324602/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"No specifics"

“I don't have any specifics to offer you. You all know China is a country governed by law and it will handle matters according to the law. If you are really concerned and want to know more details, I recommend you ask this to the responsible department. I don't have the information you want”, said Hua Chunying, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson.

The Chinese regime is feigning ignorance about this Australian journalist's disappearance. The focus has shifted to her withering Facebook posts about the Chinese Communist Party.

On March 8, when coronavirus was still spreading rapidly in China, Cheng Lei had written, “In China, the belief 'do as I say, not as I do' runs deep in public office. ‘Serve the people' goes the slogan, reality is the opposite." Cheng's family and colleagues have been unable to contact her for weeks.

The Australian government has now stepped in and is fighting for her release.

“We're working through details in terms of the consular assistance that we can provide, and we will give all assistance that we can. Obviously this is a concerning time for her family, and that's why we will continue to provide every bit of assistance that we can, within the usual consular terms”,&nbsp; said Simon Birmingham, Australian trade minister.

China is furious with Australia for demanding a probe into the origins of the coronavirus. In the last few months, Beijing has become increasingly hostile towards Canberra.

It has imposed new restrictions on Australian businesses, and has threatened consumer boycott of Australian products.

The Chinese foreign ministry has not yet divulged any details surrounding the disappearance of a foreign journalist, Cheng Lei. A Chinese-born Australian journalist, Lei used to work for the Chinese state media, but has been missing for two weeks.

The Chinese foreign ministry has not yet divulged any details surrounding the disappearance of a foreign journalist, Cheng Lei. A Chinese-born Australian journalist, Lei used to work for the Chinese state media, but has been missing for two weeks. Her videos and stories have mysteriously been deleted from the website of her employer. Not too long ago, Cheng Lei was a high-profile anchor at CGTN, China's largest state media broadcaster. “I felt my skills could be better used in China”, she had once said. Australian media says Cheng has been detained by Chinese authorities. "No specifics" “I don't have any specifics to offer you. You all know China is a country governed by law and it will handle matters according to the law. If you are really concerned and want to know more details, I recommend you ask this to the responsible department. I don't have the information you want”, said Hua Chunying, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson. The Chinese regime is feigning ignorance about this Australian journalist's disappearance. The focus has shifted to her withering Facebook posts about the Chinese Communist Party. On March 8, when coronavirus was still spreading rapidly in China, Cheng Lei had written, “In China, the belief 'do as I say, not as I do' runs deep in public office. ‘Serve the people' goes the slogan, reality is the opposite." Cheng's family and colleagues have been unable to contact her for weeks. The Australian government has now stepped in and is fighting for her release. “We're working through details in terms of the consular assistance that we can provide, and we will give all assistance that we can. Obviously this is a concerning time for her family, and that's why we will continue to provide every bit of assistance that we can, within the usual consular terms”, said Simon Birmingham, Australian trade minister. China is furious with Australia for demanding a probe into the origins of the coronavirus. In the last few months, Beijing has become increasingly hostile towards Canberra. It has imposed new restrictions on Australian businesses, and has threatened consumer boycott of Australian products.

China's silence on the disappearance of Australian journalist Cheng Lei speaks volumes

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end.&nbsp;

The only thing that happened was that both of them were dropped from campaigning in Delhi following the order of the Election Commission of India (ECI ) as star campaigners of the BJP.

Parvesh Chandra othered Muslims and accused them as predatory whereas Anurag Thakur allowed people to chant 'death to traitors'. Both of them indulged in hate speech which portrayed minorities as anti-national and unreliable.

These steps are cosmetic and do not hide the basic thinking within the party which is premised around othering Muslims and marking protests as illegitimate. This ugliness further draws strength from Leftist response which has failed to absorb resurgence of nationalism in daily life. It ends up vilifying institutions like the Army or the state in general.&nbsp;

Such politics pushes people to take a stand on silly controversies which are not related to bread and butter issues. The silence of senior BJP leaders on such issues is a repetition of the narrative leading to the demolition of Babri Mosque. The seniors remained silent on verbal poison while junior leaders lampooned anything and anyone they liked. The progression of this politics has happened with the marriage of idea of aggressive Hinduism with liberal use of sedition laws.

A school in Karnataka has recently been booked under sedition laws by the BJP state government because the play enacted by the students portrayed Narendra Modi in a bad light. Question is, since when it has become a crime in the country to charge a politician? Wasn’t’ Rajiv Gandhi accused of corruption? Wasn’t Nehru accused of dereliction of duty after losing war with China? Wasn’t Narasimha Rao blamed for the demolition of Babri Masjid? Wasn’t Vajpayee blamed for disastrous Kargil and Kandahar episode and not to forget inaction during Gujarat riots? Wasn’t Advani blamed for Parliament attack? Wasn’t Manmohan Singh vilified and attacked after tragic Mumbai terror attack? All these leaders were attacked and abused personally but not once anyone thought at that point of time that one may get booked under the sedition law for attacking the leadership of the country.

Ironically, it is being argued that since it works for the BJP electorally, it is good to go. Like Shamshan and Kabristan worked for BJP in 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. The debate does not address the issue of right and wrong in politics but what works or not. This approach can work in short-run, but will have disastrous consequences in long.

It has emboldened people to break codes of decency in public life and made it cool for people at large to talk in terms of communities which is so tragic because the first Lok Sabha election was fought against the very issues. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru campaigned on the issue of secularism and spoke against regionalism, linguistic politics, casteism and communalism. It was perhaps the only election which was fought on the vision of Constitution drafted by the founding father of the young nation.

&nbsp;After 70 years, India continues to wrestle with the idea of nationhood. It has become so contested that it has started to tear India’s social fabric apart. It's&nbsp;time that the vision of the Constitution is not sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics. BJP’s othering of Muslims for an electoral reason and hard Left’s irresponsible response on cultural and religious issues has torn India’s Centre apart. It is forcing people to take sides on stupid issues. It is pushing the boundary of civil conduct in public life. The politics is getting subservient to the social media echo chamber and it has started to impact the Indian economy too.

It cannot be expected of BJP to arrest othering of 18 crore people in India. Party is too trapped in the logic of electoral politics to create a new consensus. Congress is to adrift and still ideologically unclear on basic issues of economy and cultural politics.

The balance must be regained by the civil society itself which has acquired the capacity to create public opinion. The public cannot be held hostage to hate speech in the name of free speech which is vitiating political discourse on a daily basis.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end.

Hate speech is not free speech and the right to defend one’s idea should not end up vilifying the other community. The statements which came from Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and Delhi MP Jag Parvesh Chandra were a classic example of hate speech for the electoral end. The only thing that happened was that both of them were dropped from campaigning in Delhi following the order of the Election Commission of India (ECI ) as star campaigners of the BJP. Parvesh Chandra othered Muslims and accused them as predatory whereas Anurag Thakur allowed people to chant 'death to traitors'. Both of them indulged in hate speech which portrayed minorities as anti-national and unreliable. These steps are cosmetic and do not hide the basic thinking within the party which is premised around othering Muslims and marking protests as illegitimate. This ugliness further draws strength from Leftist response which has failed to absorb resurgence of nationalism in daily life. It ends up vilifying institutions like the Army or the state in general. Such politics pushes people to take a stand on silly controversies which are not related to bread and butter issues. The silence of senior BJP leaders on such issues is a repetition of the narrative leading to the demolition of Babri Mosque. The seniors remained silent on verbal poison while junior leaders lampooned anything and anyone they liked. The progression of this politics has happened with the marriage of idea of aggressive Hinduism with liberal use of sedition laws. A school in Karnataka has recently been booked under sedition laws by the BJP state government because the play enacted by the students portrayed Narendra Modi in a bad light. Question is, since when it has become a crime in the country to charge a politician? Wasn’t’ Rajiv Gandhi accused of corruption? Wasn’t Nehru accused of dereliction of duty after losing war with China? Wasn’t Narasimha Rao blamed for the demolition of Babri Masjid? Wasn’t Vajpayee blamed for disastrous Kargil and Kandahar episode and not to forget inaction during Gujarat riots? Wasn’t Advani blamed for Parliament attack? Wasn’t Manmohan Singh vilified and attacked after tragic Mumbai terror attack? All these leaders were attacked and abused personally but not once anyone thought at that point of time that one may get booked under the sedition law for attacking the leadership of the country. Ironically, it is being argued that since it works for the BJP electorally, it is good to go. Like Shamshan and Kabristan worked for BJP in 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. The debate does not address the issue of right and wrong in politics but what works or not. This approach can work in short-run, but will have disastrous consequences in long. It has emboldened people to break codes of decency in public life and made it cool for people at large to talk in terms of communities which is so tragic because the first Lok Sabha election was fought against the very issues. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru campaigned on the issue of secularism and spoke against regionalism, linguistic politics, casteism and communalism. It was perhaps the only election which was fought on the vision of Constitution drafted by the founding father of the young nation. After 70 years, India continues to wrestle with the idea of nationhood. It has become so contested that it has started to tear India’s social fabric apart. It's time that the vision of the Constitution is not sacrificed at the altar of electoral politics. BJP’s othering of Muslims for an electoral reason and hard Left’s irresponsible response on cultural and religious issues has torn India’s Centre apart. It is forcing people to take sides on stupid issues. It is pushing the boundary of civil conduct in public life. The politics is getting subservient to the social media echo chamber and it has started to impact the Indian economy too. It cannot be expected of BJP to arrest othering of 18 crore people in India. Party is too trapped in the logic of electoral politics to create a new consensus. Congress is to adrift and still ideologically unclear on basic issues of economy and cultural politics. The balance must be regained by the civil society itself which has acquired the capacity to create public opinion. The public cannot be held hostage to hate speech in the name of free speech which is vitiating political discourse on a daily basis. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Hate speech is not free speech

Chinese foreign ministry today claimed that the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-biggest-jailer-of-journalists-turkey-second-worst-report-267594">report highlighting China</a> as having jailed the most journalists in 2019 lacked ''credibility''.

The report was released by a United States-based non-profit organisation. 
 
According to the report, China imprisoned at least 48 journalists this year, more than any other country, effectively dethroning Turkey.&nbsp;

The report was published by the Committee to Protect Journalists yesterday.&nbsp;The report, which is published annually, said that at least 250 journalists were imprisoned worldwide this year.

Hua Chunying, the spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry said that she knew nothing about the imprisoned journalists. She rebuffed the claim by saying, "you need to think about what illegal things these 40-some people have done."

Turkey was ranked second in the report, as it had imprisoned 47 journalists in 2019, down from 68 last year. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both with 26; Eritrea with 16; Vietnam, with 12; and Iran with 11 were the next-most oppressive countries for journalists, the report said.

(With inputs from Reuters)

Chinese foreign ministry today claimed that the report highlighting China as having jailed the most journalists in 2019 lacked ''credibility''. The report was released by a United States-based non-profit organisation.

Chinese foreign ministry today claimed that the report highlighting China as having jailed the most journalists in 2019 lacked ''credibility''. The report was released by a United States-based non-profit organisation. According to the report, China imprisoned at least 48 journalists this year, more than any other country, effectively dethroning Turkey. The report was published by the Committee to Protect Journalists yesterday. The report, which is published annually, said that at least 250 journalists were imprisoned worldwide this year. Hua Chunying, the spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry said that she knew nothing about the imprisoned journalists. She rebuffed the claim by saying, "you need to think about what illegal things these 40-some people have done." Turkey was ranked second in the report, as it had imprisoned 47 journalists in 2019, down from 68 last year. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both with 26; Eritrea with 16; Vietnam, with 12; and Iran with 11 were the next-most oppressive countries for journalists, the report said. (With inputs from Reuters)

No 'credibility' to report highlighting detention of journalists: Chinese foreign ministry

Saudi Arabia has detained at least nine academics, writers and activists, campaigners said Monday, the latest in a series of crackdowns on intellectuals over the past two years.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/gay-saudi-journalists-detained-in-australia-after-asylum-bid-263362">The detention of liberals</a>,&nbsp;in the midst of a much-hyped liberalisation drive,&nbsp;underscores what observers call increasing repression and authoritarianism under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's de facto rule as he consolidates his grip on power.

In a sweeping crackdown that began on November 16, authorities raided the homes of nine journalists, bloggers and activists across multiple cities, including Riyadh, Jeddah and Hail,&nbsp;and seized their laptops and mobiles, rights group ALQST said.

"Saudi authorities have carried out a new wave of arrests of journalists and activists, women and men, over the past few days, in a continuation of their previous crackdowns on civil society," ALQST said in a statement.

"At the same time, the authorities have stepped up their harassment of existing prisoners of conscience by means of continued torture, sexual harassment and other kinds of abuse."

Prisoners of Conscience, a Saudi group that tracks political prisoners, put the number of people detained at 10.

The charges against them were unclear and there was no immediate comment from Saudi authorities.&nbsp;

Prisoners of Conscience said writer Suleiman al-Nasser was among those detained on "the grounds of his intellectual opinions", as was blogger Fuad al-Farhan for his "intellectual activities".

Many of those held had given up writing or maintained a low public profile amid Prince Mohammed's widening crackdown on dissent that has seen dozens of activists, businessmen and clerics arrested since 2017.

Saudi Arabia, which has taken over the G-20 presidency as it prepares to host the gathering next year, has faced intense global criticism since the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.

The killing sparked unprecedented scrutiny of the kingdom's human rights record, including its crackdown on women activists, many of whom have accused interrogators of sexual harassment and torture. Saudi prosecutors deny the accusations.

Riyadh has faced pressure from Western governments to release the women, most of whom were detained in summer last year in a wide-ranging crackdown just before the historic lifting of a decades-long ban on female motorists.

In April this year, Saudi Arabia mounted a fresh crackdown that sent shock waves through the kingdom.

Authorities arrested at least nine writers and academics, including two US citizens, in what appeared to be a targeted crackdown on supporters of the detained women activists, campaigners said.

Such arbitrary crackdowns are amplifying public fears as aggressive hyper-nationalism takes root that promotes veneration of the kingdom's rulers.

Prince Mohammed has eased social restrictions in the conservative kingdom, allowing mixed-gender concerts and sporting extravaganzas as he seeks to open up the country to foreign tourists while curtailing the freedom of expression.

Saudi Arabia has detained at least nine academics, writers and activists, campaigners said Monday, the latest in a series of crackdowns on intellectuals over the past two years.

Saudi Arabia has detained at least nine academics, writers and activists, campaigners said Monday, the latest in a series of crackdowns on intellectuals over the past two years. The detention of liberals, in the midst of a much-hyped liberalisation drive, underscores what observers call increasing repression and authoritarianism under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's de facto rule as he consolidates his grip on power. In a sweeping crackdown that began on November 16, authorities raided the homes of nine journalists, bloggers and activists across multiple cities, including Riyadh, Jeddah and Hail, and seized their laptops and mobiles, rights group ALQST said. "Saudi authorities have carried out a new wave of arrests of journalists and activists, women and men, over the past few days, in a continuation of their previous crackdowns on civil society," ALQST said in a statement. "At the same time, the authorities have stepped up their harassment of existing prisoners of conscience by means of continued torture, sexual harassment and other kinds of abuse." Prisoners of Conscience, a Saudi group that tracks political prisoners, put the number of people detained at 10. The charges against them were unclear and there was no immediate comment from Saudi authorities. Prisoners of Conscience said writer Suleiman al-Nasser was among those detained on "the grounds of his intellectual opinions", as was blogger Fuad al-Farhan for his "intellectual activities". Many of those held had given up writing or maintained a low public profile amid Prince Mohammed's widening crackdown on dissent that has seen dozens of activists, businessmen and clerics arrested since 2017. Saudi Arabia, which has taken over the G-20 presidency as it prepares to host the gathering next year, has faced intense global criticism since the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018. The killing sparked unprecedented scrutiny of the kingdom's human rights record, including its crackdown on women activists, many of whom have accused interrogators of sexual harassment and torture. Saudi prosecutors deny the accusations. Riyadh has faced pressure from Western governments to release the women, most of whom were detained in summer last year in a wide-ranging crackdown just before the historic lifting of a decades-long ban on female motorists. In April this year, Saudi Arabia mounted a fresh crackdown that sent shock waves through the kingdom. Authorities arrested at least nine writers and academics, including two US citizens, in what appeared to be a targeted crackdown on supporters of the detained women activists, campaigners said. Such arbitrary crackdowns are amplifying public fears as aggressive hyper-nationalism takes root that promotes veneration of the kingdom's rulers. Prince Mohammed has eased social restrictions in the conservative kingdom, allowing mixed-gender concerts and sporting extravaganzas as he seeks to open up the country to foreign tourists while curtailing the freedom of expression.

Saudi Arabia: 9 academics, writers detained in new crackdown

Major Crackdown On Free Speech & Dissent In Russia.

Gravitas: In Russia, Journalist = Foreign Agent

Facebook Inc&nbsp;Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/european-governments-move-to-veto-facebooks-digital-money-256813">defended the social media company's light regulation of speech</a> and lack of fact-checking on political advertising while citing China's censorship as a roadblock to operating in the country.

Facebook has been under fire in recent years for its lax approach to fake news reports, state-backed disinformation campaigns and violent content spread on its services, prompting calls for new regulations around the world.

In a speech at Georgetown University filled with references to the First Amendment and the fight for democracy, Zuckerberg stood his ground, saying social media had introduced transformative avenues for speech that should not be shut down.

"People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world. It is a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society," he said.

Zuckerberg framed the company's decisions around that concept, including its recent retreat from years of the aggressive courtship of China, an obstacle to his vision of connecting the world's population.

He attacked the rapidly growing Chinese-owned app TikTok, saying the short video platform censored political protest, including in the United States, a charge the company denies.

In leaked audio of an address to Facebook employees weeks earlier, Zuckerberg spoke about TikTok as a formidable competitor, calling it the first consumer internet product built by a Chinese tech giant to find global success, but did not mention its approach to speech.

Over the course of Facebook's charm offensive, Zuckerberg met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, learned Mandarin and posted a photo of himself running through Tiananmen Square.

Facebook briefly won a license to open an "innovation hub" in Hangzhou last year, but it was later revoked.

Zuckerberg effectively closed the door to China in March, when he announced his plan to pivot Facebook towards more private forms of communication and pledged not to build data centres in countries with "a track record of violating human rights like privacy or freedom of expression."

He repeated his concern about data centres on Thursday, this time specifically naming China.

"I wanted our services in China because I believe in connecting the whole world and I thought we might help create a more open society," Zuckerberg said. "I worked hard to make this happen. But we could never come to an agreement on what it would take for us to operate there, and they never let us in."

He received a question from the audience about what conditions or assurances he would need to enter the Chinese market, but did not address them in his response. 
 
''Feigned concern for free expression''

Zuckerberg also <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mark-zuckerberg-defends-facebooks-hands-off-policy-for-politicians-256608">defended the company's political advertising policies</a> on similar grounds, saying Facebook had at one time considered banning all political ads but decided against it, erring on the side of greater expression.

That assertion was immediately panned by critics, among them candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination who have asserted the company should do more to address disinformation and abuse ahead of the November 2020 election.

Former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign quickly accused Zuckerberg of using "the Constitution as a shield" for Facebook's bottom line.

"His choice to cloak Facebook's policy in a feigned concern for free expression demonstrates how unprepared his company is for this unique moment in our history and how little it has learned over the past few years," said spokesman Bill Russo.

US&nbsp;Senator Elizabeth Warren, another leading contender for the Democratic nomination, has been especially vocal about her critiques of Facebook, bashing its advertising policy and calling for the company to be broken up on antitrust grounds.

She recently challenged Facebook's policy that exempts politicians' ads from fact-checking, running ads on the social media platform containing the false claim that Zuckerberg endorsed Trump's re-election bid.

But the focus on free speech is likely to win Zuckerberg some friends on the right, whom he has been courting aggressively in a recent visit to Washington and dinners at his home in California.

Republican lawmakers routinely accuse the company of showing "anti-conservative bias" in its content moderation, without offering evidence. The company denies any favouritism.

Facebook has been under scrutiny after finding Russian propaganda on its platform which many believe affected the outcome of the 2016 US&nbsp;presidential election, won by Donald Trump.

Trump has disputed claims that Russia has attempted to interfere in US&nbsp;elections. Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied it.

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday defended the social media company's light regulation of speech and lack of fact-checking on political advertising while citing China's censorship as a roadblock to operating in the country.

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday defended the social media company's light regulation of speech and lack of fact-checking on political advertising while citing China's censorship as a roadblock to operating in the country. Facebook has been under fire in recent years for its lax approach to fake news reports, state-backed disinformation campaigns and violent content spread on its services, prompting calls for new regulations around the world. In a speech at Georgetown University filled with references to the First Amendment and the fight for democracy, Zuckerberg stood his ground, saying social media had introduced transformative avenues for speech that should not be shut down. "People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world. It is a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society," he said. Zuckerberg framed the company's decisions around that concept, including its recent retreat from years of the aggressive courtship of China, an obstacle to his vision of connecting the world's population. He attacked the rapidly growing Chinese-owned app TikTok, saying the short video platform censored political protest, including in the United States, a charge the company denies. In leaked audio of an address to Facebook employees weeks earlier, Zuckerberg spoke about TikTok as a formidable competitor, calling it the first consumer internet product built by a Chinese tech giant to find global success, but did not mention its approach to speech. Over the course of Facebook's charm offensive, Zuckerberg met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, learned Mandarin and posted a photo of himself running through Tiananmen Square. Facebook briefly won a license to open an "innovation hub" in Hangzhou last year, but it was later revoked. Zuckerberg effectively closed the door to China in March, when he announced his plan to pivot Facebook towards more private forms of communication and pledged not to build data centres in countries with "a track record of violating human rights like privacy or freedom of expression." He repeated his concern about data centres on Thursday, this time specifically naming China. "I wanted our services in China because I believe in connecting the whole world and I thought we might help create a more open society," Zuckerberg said. "I worked hard to make this happen. But we could never come to an agreement on what it would take for us to operate there, and they never let us in." He received a question from the audience about what conditions or assurances he would need to enter the Chinese market, but did not address them in his response. ''Feigned concern for free expression'' Zuckerberg also defended the company's political advertising policies on similar grounds, saying Facebook had at one time considered banning all political ads but decided against it, erring on the side of greater expression. That assertion was immediately panned by critics, among them candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination who have asserted the company should do more to address disinformation and abuse ahead of the November 2020 election. Former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign quickly accused Zuckerberg of using "the Constitution as a shield" for Facebook's bottom line. "His choice to cloak Facebook's policy in a feigned concern for free expression demonstrates how unprepared his company is for this unique moment in our history and how little it has learned over the past few years," said spokesman Bill Russo. US Senator Elizabeth Warren, another leading contender for the Democratic nomination, has been especially vocal about her critiques of Facebook, bashing its advertising policy and calling for the company to be broken up on antitrust grounds. She recently challenged Facebook's policy that exempts politicians' ads from fact-checking, running ads on the social media platform containing the false claim that Zuckerberg endorsed Trump's re-election bid. But the focus on free speech is likely to win Zuckerberg some friends on the right, whom he has been courting aggressively in a recent visit to Washington and dinners at his home in California. Republican lawmakers routinely accuse the company of showing "anti-conservative bias" in its content moderation, without offering evidence. The company denies any favouritism. Facebook has been under scrutiny after finding Russian propaganda on its platform which many believe affected the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election, won by Donald Trump. Trump has disputed claims that Russia has attempted to interfere in US elections. Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied it.

Zuckerberg defends Facebook's approach to free speech, draws line on China

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday defended the huge social network's policy of refraining from <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-exempts-political-speech-from-fact-checking-251925">fact-checking </a>politicians, saying it's not the job of tech firms to "censor."

Speaking to students at Georgetown University in Washington, Zuckerberg responded to critics who argued that Facebook is enabling political leaders including President Donald Trump to propagate misinformation.

Zuckerberg said the policy,&nbsp;which does not include the fact-checking of political speech or ads,&nbsp;is based on a long tradition of allowing free expression.

"I don't think most people want to live in a world where you can only post things that tech companies judge to be 100 per cent true," he said.

"I don't think it's right for private companies to censor politicians or the news in a democracy."

Zuckerberg said Facebook still may remove content from political leaders or others when it may lead to "harm."

But he added: "When it's not absolutely clear what to do, I believe we should err on the side of greater expression."

The comments come with Facebook under heightened pressure to root out misinformation, and at the same time avoid charges from Trump and others of political bias.

Zuckerberg, whose speech was described as a "Conversation on Free Expression," said he still sees Facebook and other social platforms as a positive force because they give more people "a voice."

"The ability to speak freely has been central in the fight for democracy worldwide," he said.

Zuckerberg said he welcomes new regulations on tech platforms but warned against any effort that would strengthen the role in the online ecosystem of Chinese firms or others without the same values of free expression.

"Until recently the internet in almost every country outside of China has been defined by American platforms with strong free expression values," he said.

"But there's no guarantee these values will win out," he said.

He noted that Facebook-owned WhatsApp is used by activists and protesters, while Chinese-based app TikTok has been censoring information on protests.

"Is that the internet that we want?" he asked.

Zuckerberg said any regulation must take into account the value of open expression at a time when China is seeking to "export" its version of the internet.

"While we may disagree on exactly where to draw the line on specific issues, we at least can disagree," he said.

"If another nation's platforms set the rules, our discourse will be defined by a completely different set of values."

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday defended the huge social network's policy of refraining from fact-checking politicians, saying it's not the job of tech firms to "censor.

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday defended the huge social network's policy of refraining from fact-checking politicians, saying it's not the job of tech firms to "censor." Speaking to students at Georgetown University in Washington, Zuckerberg responded to critics who argued that Facebook is enabling political leaders including President Donald Trump to propagate misinformation. Zuckerberg said the policy, which does not include the fact-checking of political speech or ads, is based on a long tradition of allowing free expression. "I don't think most people want to live in a world where you can only post things that tech companies judge to be 100 per cent true," he said. "I don't think it's right for private companies to censor politicians or the news in a democracy." Zuckerberg said Facebook still may remove content from political leaders or others when it may lead to "harm." But he added: "When it's not absolutely clear what to do, I believe we should err on the side of greater expression." The comments come with Facebook under heightened pressure to root out misinformation, and at the same time avoid charges from Trump and others of political bias. Zuckerberg, whose speech was described as a "Conversation on Free Expression," said he still sees Facebook and other social platforms as a positive force because they give more people "a voice." "The ability to speak freely has been central in the fight for democracy worldwide," he said. Zuckerberg said he welcomes new regulations on tech platforms but warned against any effort that would strengthen the role in the online ecosystem of Chinese firms or others without the same values of free expression. "Until recently the internet in almost every country outside of China has been defined by American platforms with strong free expression values," he said. "But there's no guarantee these values will win out," he said. He noted that Facebook-owned WhatsApp is used by activists and protesters, while Chinese-based app TikTok has been censoring information on protests. "Is that the internet that we want?" he asked. Zuckerberg said any regulation must take into account the value of open expression at a time when China is seeking to "export" its version of the internet. "While we may disagree on exactly where to draw the line on specific issues, we at least can disagree," he said. "If another nation's platforms set the rules, our discourse will be defined by a completely different set of values."

Mark Zuckerberg defends Facebook's hands-off policy for politicians

Protesters rallied outside Ecuador's embassy in London on Monday on the day that documents and electronic equipment belonging to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange were expected to be seized for handover to US authorities.

"Free speech" and "Free Assange", read some of the signs held up by a small group of campaigners outside the embassy where Assange was holed up for seven years before police arrested him last month after Ecuador revoked his asylum.

Assange is currently serving out a 50-week prison sentence in Britain for breaking his bail conditions when he first fled to the embassy in 2012.

He is also facing a US extradition request on computer hacking charges. And Sweden announced Monday that it has issued a formal request to hold Assange on suspicion of rape, which could lead to an extradition request from that country too.

The US case involves WikiLeaks publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents exposing American military wrongdoing in the Iraq war and diplomatic secrets about scores of countries.

Ecuador's Foreign Minister Jose Valencia earlier this month confirmed that the belongings that Assange had to leave behind would be seized and Ecuadorian prosecutors would then decide what material to hand over to US investigators.

Valencia defended the handover, saying: "This is derived from a very clear order from a competent judicial authority."

One of the protesters, Venezuelan journalist Carolina Graterol, 52, said the handover constituted a violation of "privacy and free speech".

"They are breaking all the laws that protect us as journalists," she said.

According to WikiLeaks, the seized material includes two of Assange's manuscripts, as well as his legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment.

"The seizure of his belongings violates laws that protect medical and legal confidentiality and press protections," the website said in a statement.

WikiLeaks said it believed the chain of custody for the property "has already been broken".

Fidel Narvaez, a former consul of Ecuador to London, who was also protesting outside the embassy on Monday, warned that there could be "tampering" with evidence.

Protesters rallied outside Ecuador's embassy in London on Monday on the day that documents and electronic equipment belonging to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange were expected to be seized for handover to US authorities.

Protesters rallied outside Ecuador's embassy in London on Monday on the day that documents and electronic equipment belonging to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange were expected to be seized for handover to US authorities. "Free speech" and "Free Assange", read some of the signs held up by a small group of campaigners outside the embassy where Assange was holed up for seven years before police arrested him last month after Ecuador revoked his asylum. Assange is currently serving out a 50-week prison sentence in Britain for breaking his bail conditions when he first fled to the embassy in 2012. He is also facing a US extradition request on computer hacking charges. And Sweden announced Monday that it has issued a formal request to hold Assange on suspicion of rape, which could lead to an extradition request from that country too. The US case involves WikiLeaks publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents exposing American military wrongdoing in the Iraq war and diplomatic secrets about scores of countries. Ecuador's Foreign Minister Jose Valencia earlier this month confirmed that the belongings that Assange had to leave behind would be seized and Ecuadorian prosecutors would then decide what material to hand over to US investigators. Valencia defended the handover, saying: "This is derived from a very clear order from a competent judicial authority." One of the protesters, Venezuelan journalist Carolina Graterol, 52, said the handover constituted a violation of "privacy and free speech". "They are breaking all the laws that protect us as journalists," she said. According to WikiLeaks, the seized material includes two of Assange's manuscripts, as well as his legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment. "The seizure of his belongings violates laws that protect medical and legal confidentiality and press protections," the website said in a statement. WikiLeaks said it believed the chain of custody for the property "has already been broken". Fidel Narvaez, a former consul of Ecuador to London, who was also protesting outside the embassy on Monday, warned that there could be "tampering" with evidence.

Protest against seizure of Assange's belongings

Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid on Monday gave his assent to a controversial new law that local media organisations fear could cripple press freedom and curb free speech in the country.

"The President has given his assent to the Digital Security Act today making it law," said Joynal Abedin, press secretary to the president.

The South Asian nation's parliament passed the Digital Security Act on Sept. 19, combining the colonial-era Official Secrets Act with tough new provisions such as allowing police to arrest individuals without a warrant.

Last month, protests by local media groups against the new legislation were cancelled after the government held talks with them and promised to amend the legislation to address some of their concerns.

Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid on Monday gave his assent to a controversial new law that local media organisations fear could cripple press freedom and curb free speech in the country.

Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid on Monday gave his assent to a controversial new law that local media organisations fear could cripple press freedom and curb free speech in the country. "The President has given his assent to the Digital Security Act today making it law," said Joynal Abedin, press secretary to the president. The South Asian nation's parliament passed the Digital Security Act on Sept. 19, combining the colonial-era Official Secrets Act with tough new provisions such as allowing police to arrest individuals without a warrant. Last month, protests by local media groups against the new legislation were cancelled after the government held talks with them and promised to amend the legislation to address some of their concerns.

Bangladesh president Hamid gives assent to digital law seen curbing free speech

Singapore on Wednesday began a public hearing on how to tackle the threat of fake news, with speakers suggesting measures ranging from blocking websites to balancing the interests of national security and free speech.

The wealthy city state is among the countries looking to introduce legislation to rein in fake news, a trend that has stirred concern that such laws could be used to exert government control over media.

A panel set up to consider possible measures, including legislation, drew 164 written responses from the public, a record for reactions to such a committee on any issue.

&quot;Often times, and understandably so, there are worries about how it may stifle the freedom of speech,&quot; Carol Soon, a specialist in communications and new media at the National University of Singapore, said of legislation.

There should be &quot;fine balancing of the interests of protecting national security and public order and the interests of enabling people to speak up and have meaningful discussion pertaining to governance&quot;, she added.

She was among 79 people asked to speak in parliament over the eight days set for the hearing, which would make it the longest in Singapore&#39;s history.

Many of the examples of fake news cited in a Singapore government paper on deliberate online falsehoods published in January came from abroad.

However, the government said Singapore was vulnerable because of its position as a global financial hub, its mixed ethnic and religious population and citizens&#39; widespread internet access.

Singapore, which ranks 151 among 180 countries rated in the World Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders, a non-government group that promotes freedom of information.

&quot;Deliberate online falsehoods are a serious global problem,&quot; panel chairman Charles Chong, the deputy speaker of parliament, said at the start of the hearing, adding that they affected Singapore in many different ways.

Other speakers urged the Singapore panel to take firm action against fake news.

Mathew Mathews, a social policy researcher at the National University of Singapore, proposed that the government &quot;stop the access of the local population to media sites which feature deliberate online falsehoods that threaten Singapore&#39;s social harmony&quot;.

Others felt such action would be ineffective.

&quot;It is no longer possible to stop &#39;fake news&#39; simply by blocking websites or publications because social media utilises person-to-person sharing,&quot; said Andre Ahchak, communications director in the office of Singapore&#39;s Roman Catholic archbishop.

Foreign entities, such as the European Values Think-Tank and the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, are due to make presentations later in the week.

The wealthy city state is among the countries looking to introduce legislation to rein in fake news

Singapore on Wednesday began a public hearing on how to tackle the threat of fake news, with speakers suggesting measures ranging from blocking websites to balancing the interests of national security and free speech. The wealthy city state is among the countries looking to introduce legislation to rein in fake news, a trend that has stirred concern that such laws could be used to exert government control over media. A panel set up to consider possible measures, including legislation, drew 164 written responses from the public, a record for reactions to such a committee on any issue. "Often times, and understandably so, there are worries about how it may stifle the freedom of speech," Carol Soon, a specialist in communications and new media at the National University of Singapore, said of legislation. There should be "fine balancing of the interests of protecting national security and public order and the interests of enabling people to speak up and have meaningful discussion pertaining to governance", she added. She was among 79 people asked to speak in parliament over the eight days set for the hearing, which would make it the longest in Singapore's history. Many of the examples of fake news cited in a Singapore government paper on deliberate online falsehoods published in January came from abroad. However, the government said Singapore was vulnerable because of its position as a global financial hub, its mixed ethnic and religious population and citizens' widespread internet access. Singapore, which ranks 151 among 180 countries rated in the World Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders, a non-government group that promotes freedom of information. "Deliberate online falsehoods are a serious global problem," panel chairman Charles Chong, the deputy speaker of parliament, said at the start of the hearing, adding that they affected Singapore in many different ways. Other speakers urged the Singapore panel to take firm action against fake news. Mathew Mathews, a social policy researcher at the National University of Singapore, proposed that the government "stop the access of the local population to media sites which feature deliberate online falsehoods that threaten Singapore's social harmony". Others felt such action would be ineffective. "It is no longer possible to stop 'fake news' simply by blocking websites or publications because social media utilises person-to-person sharing," said Andre Ahchak, communications director in the office of Singapore's Roman Catholic archbishop. Foreign entities, such as the European Values Think-Tank and the Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, are due to make presentations later in the week.

Singapore starts landmark public hearing on fake news

An Australian publisher has shelved plans to release a book detailing alleged Chinese interference in the country over fears of legal attacks by Beijing, the author said Monday.

Academic Clive Hamilton said his book &quot;Silent Invasion&quot; was pulled by publisher Allen &amp; Unwin last week just as it was about to go to press.

He told AFP that Allen &amp; Unwin had cited &quot;serious...threats&quot; of possible legal action from Beijing should the company release the work.

The book, which was to be his ninth with the publishing house, included the names of individuals and organisations trying to influence Australian society and politics in China&#39;s interests, Hamilton said.

He described it as &quot;very factual, very deeply researched&quot;.

In an email exchange with Allen &amp; Unwin which Hamilton shared with AFP, the publisher said there was a &quot;very high chance&quot; the company could be sued for defamation if the book was published.

&quot;If pursued with malice, this kind of vexatious legal action... could result in the book being withdrawn from sale, and both you and Allen &amp; Unwin being tied up in expensive legal action for months on end or longer,&quot; it said.

Hamilton, a prominent author and professor of ethics and Charles Sturt University, called the decision &quot;a watershed moment in Australia, when Beijing can suppress free speech&quot;.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said Monday that he was not aware of the situation involving the pulled publication.

&quot;China has been developing exchanges and cooperation in various areas with Australia based on mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit,&quot; spokesman Geng Shuang said during a regular press briefing.

&quot;We hope relevant parties can put this in perspective and do more things that are conducive to the sound and steady development of China-Australia relations.&quot;

The incident came amid heightened anxieties in Australia over the extent of Beijing&#39;s soft power.

Canberra in June ordered an inquiry into espionage laws and foreign government activities following a media investigation into large political donations by two Chinese billionaires with reported links to China&#39;s Communist Party.

The probe, by the ABC and Fairfax Media, said intelligence agencies had major concerns that Beijing was interfering in Australian institutions and using the political donations system to gain access.

Last month Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warned Chinese students in Australia they should abide by the nation&#39;s values of &quot;openness and upholding freedom of speech&quot;.

Hamilton said Allen &amp; Unwin had suggested delaying his book&#39;s publication until court cases brought by Beijing against other Australian media were settled.

But he rejected letting his manuscript &quot;sit on a shelf gathering dust for a year or more&quot; and insisted he would find another publisher for the work.

Other Western publishers have reported being pressured by Chinese authorities over content inside China.

In August, another foreign publisher, Britain&#39;s Cambridge University Press, temporarily removed 300 academic articles covering sensitive Chinese political issues from a journal&#39;s website in China at the request of an import agency, only to revive the texts in response to public outcry.

That same month, US-based Association for Asian Studies said it had received a similar request from China&#39;s publications administration, but it did not comply.

In a statement to several media outlets, global publisher Springer Nature said this month that it has blocked access within mainland China to &quot;a small percentage of our content (less than one percent) in compliance with local distribution laws&quot;.

The censored articles, covering topics such as Tibet and the Tiananmen Square protests, are still viewable outside mainland China.

An Australian publisher has shelved plans to release a book detailing alleged Chinese interference in the country over fears of legal attacks by Beijing, the author said Monday.

An Australian publisher has shelved plans to release a book detailing alleged Chinese interference in the country over fears of legal attacks by Beijing, the author said Monday. Academic Clive Hamilton said his book "Silent Invasion" was pulled by publisher Allen & Unwin last week just as it was about to go to press. He told AFP that Allen & Unwin had cited "serious...threats" of possible legal action from Beijing should the company release the work. The book, which was to be his ninth with the publishing house, included the names of individuals and organisations trying to influence Australian society and politics in China's interests, Hamilton said. He described it as "very factual, very deeply researched". In an email exchange with Allen & Unwin which Hamilton shared with AFP, the publisher said there was a "very high chance" the company could be sued for defamation if the book was published. "If pursued with malice, this kind of vexatious legal action... could result in the book being withdrawn from sale, and both you and Allen & Unwin being tied up in expensive legal action for months on end or longer," it said. Hamilton, a prominent author and professor of ethics and Charles Sturt University, called the decision "a watershed moment in Australia, when Beijing can suppress free speech". A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said Monday that he was not aware of the situation involving the pulled publication. "China has been developing exchanges and cooperation in various areas with Australia based on mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit," spokesman Geng Shuang said during a regular press briefing. "We hope relevant parties can put this in perspective and do more things that are conducive to the sound and steady development of China-Australia relations." The incident came amid heightened anxieties in Australia over the extent of Beijing's soft power. Canberra in June ordered an inquiry into espionage laws and foreign government activities following a media investigation into large political donations by two Chinese billionaires with reported links to China's Communist Party. The probe, by the ABC and Fairfax Media, said intelligence agencies had major concerns that Beijing was interfering in Australian institutions and using the political donations system to gain access. Last month Foreign Minister Julie Bishop warned Chinese students in Australia they should abide by the nation's values of "openness and upholding freedom of speech". Hamilton said Allen & Unwin had suggested delaying his book's publication until court cases brought by Beijing against other Australian media were settled. But he rejected letting his manuscript "sit on a shelf gathering dust for a year or more" and insisted he would find another publisher for the work. Other Western publishers have reported being pressured by Chinese authorities over content inside China. In August, another foreign publisher, Britain's Cambridge University Press, temporarily removed 300 academic articles covering sensitive Chinese political issues from a journal's website in China at the request of an import agency, only to revive the texts in response to public outcry. That same month, US-based Association for Asian Studies said it had received a similar request from China's publications administration, but it did not comply. In a statement to several media outlets, global publisher Springer Nature said this month that it has blocked access within mainland China to "a small percentage of our content (less than one percent) in compliance with local distribution laws". The censored articles, covering topics such as Tibet and the Tiananmen Square protests, are still viewable outside mainland China.

Australian academic's book pulled over China backlash fears

A place of education, like a university, is often revered for both the space it provides to develop&nbsp;newer ideas&nbsp;and to let existing ones to thrive. Many students say the spaces outside the classroom is&nbsp;what really impacts&nbsp;their lives, where they&nbsp;indulge in meaningful non-academic interactions.&nbsp;

In search of these open spaces, I&nbsp;explored&nbsp;the famous canteens at one of India&#39;s most prestigious universities, Jamia Millia Islamia.&nbsp;

A prominent women-only canteen, Dastarkhwan, is where you get everything from biryani (a rice and meat preparation) to savoury snacks to feed on. The word Dastarkhwan&nbsp;in Urdu means a table spread where a variety of food is served.&nbsp;The canteen is run exclusively by women and is operated by Ekta Self Help Group with a mission to provide employment to underprivileged women of the neighbourhood who can support their families with their&nbsp;earnings. It was started in 2015.

<h3>Inside Dastarkhwan:</h3>

&nbsp;

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dl3fAUNc2To" width="970"></iframe>

When it began there were problems. Apart from difficulties&nbsp;procuring funds and finding employees who fit mission&#39;s criteria, the&nbsp;female employees&nbsp;faced&nbsp;the&nbsp;&quot;explicit disapproval of the society&quot;. Boys who came to order food would&nbsp;abuse and threaten them. They would belittle the girls and make them feel guilty for coming out to earn. Also women working here would be tortured day in, day out by their husbands for stepping outside the homes, coming late from work, not taking care of the kids among many other things.

Dastarkhwan was started with a promise to build a synergy between the university and its surroundings.&nbsp;Two years later, have these open spaces changed?

Anjum, a final year master&#39;s student at Jamia, discusses the changing power equations here. She says, &ldquo;Many things that were not okay a few years back are now easily seeping into the social system. Although issues like sexual harassment are at the fore, men are also equally participating in dialogues centred around women. They want to be a part of the change now more than ever.&rdquo;

Now when around 40 women&nbsp;are seen walking into the campus to work--the society does not flinch. These women are accepted--they don&#39;t&nbsp;seem odd or out of place and are easily absorbed within the social fabric.&nbsp;

Shabana, who heads the Dastarkwhan, believes&nbsp;things have changed for the better.&nbsp;&ldquo;Now when people come to order food, the idea of a girl working does not perturb them. They are more accepting. Even the families of these women have become more open, more accommodating than before. The women are not tortured by the families too. Thus, this open space is the epicentre of changing social dynamics.&rdquo;

Dastarkhwan is&nbsp;opening up dialogue between men and women&nbsp;to&nbsp;break&nbsp;stereotypical Indian social narratives, but another canteen on campus&nbsp;has an interesting tale to tell.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Castro Cafe is&nbsp;named after&nbsp;Fidel Castro, one of the most famous&nbsp;anti-imperialist leaders of modern times.&nbsp;Castro Cafe not only has the best tea in the campus but promises&nbsp;a good, long talk while feeding on snacks.

Part liberal and part conservative, the canteen has grown to play an important part in the lives of the students: Students from different religions and cultural backgrounds may&nbsp;get exposed to concepts and ideas that are&nbsp;hard&nbsp;or sensitive to discuss&nbsp;in a classroom, but aren&#39;t&nbsp;in an informal setting like a canteen.&nbsp;

The commitee tasked with supervising the renovation at the canteen&nbsp;affirms that they consciously created a space like Castro Cafe with certain values in mind.

&ldquo;By creating a modern eating facility with a sleek look, we wanted to project a progressive image of Jamia,&rdquo; a committee member said.&nbsp;He adds, &ldquo;Jamia was built out of the anti-colonial movement and Castro Cafe reminds us of the anti-imperialist cause.&rdquo;&nbsp;

With indoor and outdoor seating, students come to these &ldquo;open spaces&rdquo; to let down, share memories and opinions and hope to make a difference while exploring themselves in the process.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Students come to these &#39;open spaces&#39; to let down, share memories and opinions and hope to make a difference while exploring themselves in the process.&nbsp;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Students come to these 'open spaces' to let down, share memories and opinions and hope to make a difference while exploring themselves in the process.?" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Both Dastarkhwan and Castro Cafe complement each other in offering a space for a &ldquo;different kind of a dialogue&rdquo;, one that we must cherish and encourage.

After all, what is a university campus without a healthy exchange of ideas over a cup of tea and samosas?&nbsp;

(WION)

It is in these 'open spaces' that students indulge in meaningful interactions outside of the regular classroom work ?

A place of education, like a university, is often revered for both the space it provides to develop newer ideas and to let existing ones to thrive. Many students say the spaces outside the classroom is what really impacts their lives, where they indulge in meaningful non-academic interactions. In search of these open spaces, I explored the famous canteens at one of India's most prestigious universities, Jamia Millia Islamia. A prominent women-only canteen, Dastarkhwan, is where you get everything from biryani (a rice and meat preparation) to savoury snacks to feed on. The word Dastarkhwan in Urdu means a table spread where a variety of food is served. The canteen is run exclusively by women and is operated by Ekta Self Help Group with a mission to provide employment to underprivileged women of the neighbourhood who can support their families with their earnings. It was started in 2015. Inside Dastarkhwan: When it began there were problems. Apart from difficulties procuring funds and finding employees who fit mission's criteria, the female employees faced the "explicit disapproval of the society". Boys who came to order food would abuse and threaten them. They would belittle the girls and make them feel guilty for coming out to earn. Also women working here would be tortured day in, day out by their husbands for stepping outside the homes, coming late from work, not taking care of the kids among many other things. Dastarkhwan was started with a promise to build a synergy between the university and its surroundings. Two years later, have these open spaces changed? Anjum, a final year master's student at Jamia, discusses the changing power equations here. She says, “Many things that were not okay a few years back are now easily seeping into the social system. Although issues like sexual harassment are at the fore, men are also equally participating in dialogues centred around women. They want to be a part of the change now more than ever.” Now when around 40 women are seen walking into the campus to work--the society does not flinch. These women are accepted--they don't seem odd or out of place and are easily absorbed within the social fabric. Shabana, who heads the Dastarkwhan, believes things have changed for the better. “Now when people come to order food, the idea of a girl working does not perturb them. They are more accepting. Even the families of these women have become more open, more accommodating than before. The women are not tortured by the families too. Thus, this open space is the epicentre of changing social dynamics.” Dastarkhwan is opening up dialogue between men and women to break stereotypical Indian social narratives, but another canteen on campus has an interesting tale to tell. The Castro Cafe is named after Fidel Castro, one of the most famous anti-imperialist leaders of modern times. Castro Cafe not only has the best tea in the campus but promises a good, long talk while feeding on snacks. Part liberal and part conservative, the canteen has grown to play an important part in the lives of the students: Students from different religions and cultural backgrounds may get exposed to concepts and ideas that are hard or sensitive to discuss in a classroom, but aren't in an informal setting like a canteen. The commitee tasked with supervising the renovation at the canteen affirms that they consciously created a space like Castro Cafe with certain values in mind. “By creating a modern eating facility with a sleek look, we wanted to project a progressive image of Jamia,” a committee member said. He adds, “Jamia was built out of the anti-colonial movement and Castro Cafe reminds us of the anti-imperialist cause.” With indoor and outdoor seating, students come to these “open spaces” to let down, share memories and opinions and hope to make a difference while exploring themselves in the process. Students come to these 'open spaces' to let down, share memories and opinions and hope to make a difference while exploring themselves in the process. × Both Dastarkhwan and Castro Cafe complement each other in offering a space for a “different kind of a dialogue”, one that we must cherish and encourage. After all, what is a university campus without a healthy exchange of ideas over a cup of tea and samosas? (WION)

Redefining 'open spaces' in university campuses

Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Shazia Ilmi on Wednesday claimed that she was not allowed to speak at a seminar on &quot;triple talaq&quot; at the Jamia Millia Islamia University because she belongs to the BJP. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&quot;I was invited to speak and was one of the participants in a panel discussion and it was to be on triple talaq. It is a very important issue on that we had to debate, but there was a lot of pressure on the organisers. They felt if Shazia will speak then it would lead to some kind of disturbance in the campus,&quot; Ilmi told ANI.

Highlighting the hypocrisy in the political narrative and discrimination, Ilmi said that she was barred from speaking at the university because of her being a part of the BJP.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>I have never ever caused any disturbance. I have always spoken against violence and led a very successful Anna Hazare campaign. How can they blame me as I have no track records of violence? Just because I am in BJP and there is open discrimination, I was not allowed to speak</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=I have never ever caused any disturbance. I have always spoken against violence and led a very successful Anna Hazare campaign. How can they blame me as I have no track records of violence? Just because I am in BJP and there is open discrimination, I was not allowed to speak" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&quot;I have never ever caused any disturbance. I have always spoken against violence and led a very successful Anna Hazare campaign. How can they blame me as I have no track records of violence? Just because I am in BJP and there is open discrimination, I was not allowed to speak,&quot; Ilmi further said.

&quot;Because we are part of a party, because we call the bluff of Communist and call Congress corrupt, we have to face this harassment,&quot; she added.

As per reports, protests erupted in Jamia University after the organisers rescheduled the event and also changed the list of speakers removing Ilmi.

Ilmi was scheduled to attend a seminar at the college organised to discuss the controversial issue of &quot;triple talaq&quot; on February 16.

The incident came to light at a time when assault on freedom of speech is coming under spotlight in the national capital where two incidents - Delhi University&#39;s Ramjas College row and Gurmehar Kaur controversy, triggered a stir.

(WION with inputs from ANI)

Ilmi was to speak at a seminar on 'triple talaq'

Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Shazia Ilmi on Wednesday claimed that she was not allowed to speak at a seminar on "triple talaq" at the Jamia Millia Islamia University because she belongs to the BJP. "I was invited to speak and was one of the participants in a panel discussion and it was to be on triple talaq. It is a very important issue on that we had to debate, but there was a lot of pressure on the organisers. They felt if Shazia will speak then it would lead to some kind of disturbance in the campus," Ilmi told ANI. Highlighting the hypocrisy in the political narrative and discrimination, Ilmi said that she was barred from speaking at the university because of her being a part of the BJP. I have never ever caused any disturbance. I have always spoken against violence and led a very successful Anna Hazare campaign. How can they blame me as I have no track records of violence? Just because I am in BJP and there is open discrimination, I was not allowed to speak × "I have never ever caused any disturbance. I have always spoken against violence and led a very successful Anna Hazare campaign. How can they blame me as I have no track records of violence? Just because I am in BJP and there is open discrimination, I was not allowed to speak," Ilmi further said. "Because we are part of a party, because we call the bluff of Communist and call Congress corrupt, we have to face this harassment," she added. As per reports, protests erupted in Jamia University after the organisers rescheduled the event and also changed the list of speakers removing Ilmi. Ilmi was scheduled to attend a seminar at the college organised to discuss the controversial issue of "triple talaq" on February 16. The incident came to light at a time when assault on freedom of speech is coming under spotlight in the national capital where two incidents - Delhi University's Ramjas College row and Gurmehar Kaur controversy, triggered a stir. (WION with inputs from ANI)

Shazia Ilmi: Was not allowed to speak at Jamia because I'm from BJP

Western nations warned Monday that a new defamation bill could severely undermine freedom of speech in the Maldives, as they accused President Abdulla Yameen of eroding democracy on the honeymoon islands. 
 
The United States led calls on Yameen to withdraw the bill that is being discussed in parliament this week, saying it gave authorities powers to impose severe penalties on people seeking to exercise basic human rights. &quot;The defamation bill that has been introduced in the Maldivian parliament risks being, if passed, a serious setback for freedom of speech in the Maldives,&quot; the US embassy said in a statement. 
 
&quot;It will allow severe penalties to be imposed on those who wish to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.&quot; 
 
The strongly-worded missive was supported by the Sri Lanka-based diplomatic missions of Britain, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and the European Union, which have responsibility for the Maldives. The statement also expressed &quot;concern about the erosion of fundamental freedoms and the institutions of democracy, including freedom of assembly and press&quot; under Yameen, who came to power in 2013. 
 
&quot;We urge President Yameen to reverse the backsliding of the past many months and return to the path of democracy, transparency, and rule of law -&ndash; for the well-being and prosperity of all of the people in the Maldives,&quot; it added. 
 
Maldivian police arrested 16 journalists in April for protesting against the bill, which seeks to criminalise defamation and proposes heavy fines and jail terms for offenders. 
 
Independent media institutions fear it could be used to stifle freedom of speech on the islands, whose pristine seas and white sandy beaches are a popular draw for wealthy Western tourists. The Indian Ocean archipelago adopted multiparty democracy in 2008 after decades of autocratic rule. 
 
But it has been gripped by turmoil since its first democratically-elected leader Mohamed Nasheed was toppled in 2012. Nasheed, whose jailing last year on terror charges has been widely criticised by the West, has since secured political asylum in Britain after travelling there for medical treatment while on prison leave. 
 
(AFP)

It will allow severe penalties to be imposed on those who wish to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms: US embassy

Western nations warned Monday that a new defamation bill could severely undermine freedom of speech in the Maldives, as they accused President Abdulla Yameen of eroding democracy on the honeymoon islands. The United States led calls on Yameen to withdraw the bill that is being discussed in parliament this week, saying it gave authorities powers to impose severe penalties on people seeking to exercise basic human rights. "The defamation bill that has been introduced in the Maldivian parliament risks being, if passed, a serious setback for freedom of speech in the Maldives," the US embassy said in a statement. "It will allow severe penalties to be imposed on those who wish to exercise their democratic rights and freedoms, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." The strongly-worded missive was supported by the Sri Lanka-based diplomatic missions of Britain, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and the European Union, which have responsibility for the Maldives. The statement also expressed "concern about the erosion of fundamental freedoms and the institutions of democracy, including freedom of assembly and press" under Yameen, who came to power in 2013. "We urge President Yameen to reverse the backsliding of the past many months and return to the path of democracy, transparency, and rule of law -– for the well-being and prosperity of all of the people in the Maldives," it added. Maldivian police arrested 16 journalists in April for protesting against the bill, which seeks to criminalise defamation and proposes heavy fines and jail terms for offenders. Independent media institutions fear it could be used to stifle freedom of speech on the islands, whose pristine seas and white sandy beaches are a popular draw for wealthy Western tourists. The Indian Ocean archipelago adopted multiparty democracy in 2008 after decades of autocratic rule. But it has been gripped by turmoil since its first democratically-elected leader Mohamed Nasheed was toppled in 2012. Nasheed, whose jailing last year on terror charges has been widely criticised by the West, has since secured political asylum in Britain after travelling there for medical treatment while on prison leave. (AFP)

Proposed Maldives defamation bill threatens freedom of speech, critics warn

free-speech

Free Speech, News on Free Speech, stories on Free Speech, articles on Free Speech, Free Speech stories at Wion, Free Speech news, Free Speech latest news