<p>Mai Khoi, a dissident musician dubbed Vietnam's Lady Gaga, has appealed to Facebook's directors to safeguard freedom of expression as the government looks to bolster its control of the web.</p>

<p>With 53 million users, Facebook is extremely popular in Vietnam -- where the internet has become a battleground for activists like Khoi.</p>

<p>A controversial cybersecurity bill, due to come into effect in January, will require internet companies to remove "toxic" content and hand over user data if asked by the communist government to do so.&nbsp;</p>

<p>It also requires firms to host servers in-country, which has sparked fears of further government meddling.</p>

<p>"Protecting freedom of expression should be an official policy of Facebook, but sadly, it's not," Khoi told AFP during an interview at the city's airport.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"Facebook is the only space in Vietnam where we can talk freely, express our mind freely and we can access uncensored information, and sometimes organize the peaceful protests. That's why the government is scared. So now they try to control Facebook," she said.</p>

<p>"The crackdown is very heavy."</p>

<p>Banned from selling her CDs and organising concerts, Khoi performs secret gigs away from the watchful eyes of police -- and is now afraid of becoming an online target.</p>

<p>Facebook and Google have so far declined to comment on Vietnam's impending cybersecurity law, though rights groups have slammed the bill.</p>

<p>Khoi said during Friday's meeting with Facebook, she urged the company to prevent government supporters abusing the network's community standards to silence dissidents.</p>

<p>"Facebook said they already worked on this. But in reality, in Vietnam, many independent journalists and activists have their accounts locked and the post deleted every day," she added.</p>

<p>Placed under informal house arrest in late 2017 after she brandished an anti-Donald Trump sign when the US president visited last year, Khoi was also banned from running in parliamentary elections a year earlier.</p>

<p>"I think Facebook should do the right thing to show what they do is protecting freedom of expression," Khoi said.</p>


Mai Khoi, a dissident musician dubbed Vietnam's Lady Gaga, has appealed to Facebook's directors to safeguard freedom of expression as the government looks to bolster its control of the web.

Mai Khoi, a dissident musician dubbed Vietnam's Lady Gaga, has appealed to Facebook's directors to safeguard freedom of expression as the government looks to bolster its control of the web. With 53 million users, Facebook is extremely popular in Vietnam -- where the internet has become a battleground for activists like Khoi. A controversial cybersecurity bill, due to come into effect in January, will require internet companies to remove "toxic" content and hand over user data if asked by the communist government to do so. It also requires firms to host servers in-country, which has sparked fears of further government meddling. "Protecting freedom of expression should be an official policy of Facebook, but sadly, it's not," Khoi told AFP during an interview at the city's airport. "Facebook is the only space in Vietnam where we can talk freely, express our mind freely and we can access uncensored information, and sometimes organize the peaceful protests. That's why the government is scared. So now they try to control Facebook," she said. "The crackdown is very heavy." Banned from selling her CDs and organising concerts, Khoi performs secret gigs away from the watchful eyes of police -- and is now afraid of becoming an online target. Facebook and Google have so far declined to comment on Vietnam's impending cybersecurity law, though rights groups have slammed the bill. Khoi said during Friday's meeting with Facebook, she urged the company to prevent government supporters abusing the network's community standards to silence dissidents. "Facebook said they already worked on this. But in reality, in Vietnam, many independent journalists and activists have their accounts locked and the post deleted every day," she added. Placed under informal house arrest in late 2017 after she brandished an anti-Donald Trump sign when the US president visited last year, Khoi was also banned from running in parliamentary elections a year earlier. "I think Facebook should do the right thing to show what they do is protecting freedom of expression," Khoi said.

Vietnam dissident Khoi urges Facebook to protect freedom of expression

<p>A Lucknow man triggered a huge debate on social media Sunday after he tweeted about cancelling his Ola cab because the driver had been Muslim.</p>

<p>The man concerned, Abhishek Mishra, said he was associated with&nbsp;the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad. News reports said he was the VHP's Uttar Pradesh social media adviser.</p>

<p>Mishra posted a screenshot of his cancellation request on Twitter, saying he did not want to give his money to "jihadi people".</p>

<p>Mishra's tweet expectedly set off a firestorm on Twitter,&nbsp; with people accusing him of spreading hatred. Some people however came out in support of him.</p>

<p>The taxi&nbsp;aggregator issued a statement saying: ''Ola, like our country, is a secular platform, and we don't discriminate our driver partners or customers basis their caste, religion, gender or creed."</p>

<p>"We urge all our customers and driver partners to treat each other with respect at all time," it added.</p>

<p>Mishra, who describes himself as a Hindutva thinker, is reportedly followed by a number of Indian ministers, including&nbsp;defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman, petroleum minister Dharmendra Pradhan and culture minister Mahesh Sharma.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Ola, like our country, is a secular platform, and we don't discriminate our driver partners or customers basis their caste, religion, gender or creed. We urge all our customers and driver partners to treat each other with respect at all times.</p>
— Ola (@Olacabs) <a href="https://twitter.com/Olacabs/status/988042395756482567?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">If this views acceptable then why my views are not acceptable ? <a href="https://t.co/170MWQuBpn">pic.twitter.com/170MWQuBpn</a></p>
— Abhishek Mishra (@Abhishek_Mshra) <a href="https://twitter.com/Abhishek_Mshra/status/987979035560038400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 22, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The man concerned, Abhishek Mishra, said he was associated with the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad. News reports said he was the VHP's Uttar Pradesh social media adviser

A Lucknow man triggered a huge debate on social media Sunday after he tweeted about cancelling his Ola cab because the driver had been Muslim. The man concerned, Abhishek Mishra, said he was associated with the right-wing Vishwa Hindu Parishad. News reports said he was the VHP's Uttar Pradesh social media adviser. Mishra posted a screenshot of his cancellation request on Twitter, saying he did not want to give his money to "jihadi people". Mishra's tweet expectedly set off a firestorm on Twitter, with people accusing him of spreading hatred. Some people however came out in support of him. The taxi aggregator issued a statement saying: ''Ola, like our country, is a secular platform, and we don't discriminate our driver partners or customers basis their caste, religion, gender or creed." "We urge all our customers and driver partners to treat each other with respect at all time," it added. Mishra, who describes himself as a Hindutva thinker, is reportedly followed by a number of Indian ministers, including defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman, petroleum minister Dharmendra Pradhan and culture minister Mahesh Sharma. Ola, like our country, is a secular platform, and we don't discriminate our driver partners or customers basis their caste, religion, gender or creed. We urge all our customers and driver partners to treat each other with respect at all times. — Ola (@Olacabs) April 22, 2018 × If this views acceptable then why my views are not acceptable ? pic.twitter.com/170MWQuBpn — Abhishek Mishra (@Abhishek_Mshra) April 22, 2018 ×

'Secular', like country, says Ola after man cancels ride because driver is Muslim

<p>Ronald Reagan was America&#39;s president when Philipos Melaku-Bello first began protesting in front of the White House.</p>

<p>Thirty-seven years and five presidents later, Melaku-Bello is still there, quietly delivering his message from a tarpaulin-covered shelter plastered with signs advocating for peace, against the nuclear industry, and in support of human rights.</p>

<p>He says the site is a living demonstration of America&#39;s right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by a Constitution which the activist says is being tested under Donald Trump, a president he describes as &quot;unlike any other.&quot;</p>

<p>&quot;Our federal judges, not only the Supreme Court, have tried to keep Donald Trump in check but I tell you, he has them working very hard,&quot; Melaku-Bello says, referring to the numerous court challenges faced by Trump -- on everything from immigration to birth control to potential conflicts of interest.</p>

<p>Opposite the front lawn of the president&#39;s home, Melaku-Bello greets passersby with a gentle manner.</p>

<p>&quot;How do you do, sir?&quot; he asks. &quot;Peace be with you.&quot;</p>

<p>Hour after hour, local residents and tourists stop to chat or to snap photographs of the orderly protest site where he sits behind a box of pamphlets about uranium and nuclear weapons, drone warfare, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.</p>

<p>Some drop donations into a plastic container which says &quot;Free Leonard Peltier,&quot; a member of the American Indian Movement jailed for the 1975 killings of two FBI agents, and whom most people will have long forgotten.</p>

<p>Not Melaku-Bello.</p>

<p>He speaks articulately, knowledgeably -- and at length -- about Peltier&#39;s case and a range of other domestic and global political issues.</p>

<p><strong>They call this &#39;democracy&#39;?</strong></p>

<p>Melaku-Bello dismisses suggestions he himself has become an attraction.</p>

<p>&quot;I&#39;d always want it to be the message more than me,&quot; he says, flanked by signs, large and small.</p>

<p>&quot;Free Tibet,&quot; says one.</p>

<p>&quot;Make a peace treaty with North Korea,&quot; demands another, dwarfed by the biggest placard that calls for &quot;wisdom and honesty.&quot;</p>

<p>Other signs address topical issues including the fate of hundreds of thousands of &quot;Dreamers,&quot; immigrants brought to the country illegally as children whose protections Trump has vowed to end.</p>

<p>A California native in his mid-50s, who describes his personal politics as anarchistic, Melaku-Bello began protesting in the 1970s.</p>

<p>He belonged to a punk rock band which was touring the Washington area when he first came into contact with the protest site and &quot;helped out.&quot;</p>

<p>That was in the summer of 1981.</p>

<p>The vigil was founded earlier that year by activist William Thomas, joined by Concepcion Picciotto who remained until her death in 2016. Thomas died in 2009.</p>

<p>For the first decade of his involvement, Melaku-Bello says he split his time between protesting and working for Amha Selassie, the exiled son of late Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie.</p>

<p>In the course of that work, which involved preparing human rights reports, Melaku-Bello recounts being wounded by a landmine blast in Ramallah in 1987, leaving him in a wheelchair.</p>

<p>For the past seven years, the protest site has been his life, taking 90 to 100 hours a week.</p>

<p>Melaku-Bello, who tucks his hair up Rasta-style in a red and white toque above his untrimmed sideburns and graying beard, has reliable support from only two other activists, Neil Cousins and Craig Thompson, who rotate shifts with him.</p>

<p>On the pedestrian mall in front of the White House, activists for various causes come and go but the peace vigil remains, unique because it is manned day and night, a right Melaku-Bello says has been won through court fights.</p>

<p><strong>Healthy debate</strong></p>

<p>Melaku-Bello&#39;s passion is undiminished.</p>

<p>&quot;How dare they call this a democracy when it&#39;s not government for the people by the people but by an oligarchy government controlled by the few,&quot; he says, complaining that the wealthy are able to buy political influence in the United States.</p>

<p>His devotion earns praise even from those who disagree with him, such as passerby Eric Meek, 47, an Ohio school teacher who describes himself as &quot;more right wing.&quot;</p>

<p>&quot;I think that&#39;s what makes our country great,&quot; Meek says, &quot;if two people who have different philosophies can talk in a sensible way&quot; and listen to each other.</p>

<p>Melaku-Bello says he will keep talking, and listening, as long as he physically can.</p>

<p>&quot;Maybe loving all the civilians of the planet, some people would call it madness,&quot; he says. &quot;So how long will I do it? Maybe till my last breath.&quot;</p>


Thirty-seven years and five presidents later, Melaku-Bello is still there, quietly delivering his message from a tarpaulin-covered shelter plastered with signs advocating for peace

Ronald Reagan was America's president when Philipos Melaku-Bello first began protesting in front of the White House. Thirty-seven years and five presidents later, Melaku-Bello is still there, quietly delivering his message from a tarpaulin-covered shelter plastered with signs advocating for peace, against the nuclear industry, and in support of human rights. He says the site is a living demonstration of America's right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by a Constitution which the activist says is being tested under Donald Trump, a president he describes as "unlike any other." "Our federal judges, not only the Supreme Court, have tried to keep Donald Trump in check but I tell you, he has them working very hard," Melaku-Bello says, referring to the numerous court challenges faced by Trump -- on everything from immigration to birth control to potential conflicts of interest. Opposite the front lawn of the president's home, Melaku-Bello greets passersby with a gentle manner. "How do you do, sir?" he asks. "Peace be with you." Hour after hour, local residents and tourists stop to chat or to snap photographs of the orderly protest site where he sits behind a box of pamphlets about uranium and nuclear weapons, drone warfare, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some drop donations into a plastic container which says "Free Leonard Peltier," a member of the American Indian Movement jailed for the 1975 killings of two FBI agents, and whom most people will have long forgotten. Not Melaku-Bello. He speaks articulately, knowledgeably -- and at length -- about Peltier's case and a range of other domestic and global political issues. They call this 'democracy'? Melaku-Bello dismisses suggestions he himself has become an attraction. "I'd always want it to be the message more than me," he says, flanked by signs, large and small. "Free Tibet," says one. "Make a peace treaty with North Korea," demands another, dwarfed by the biggest placard that calls for "wisdom and honesty." Other signs address topical issues including the fate of hundreds of thousands of "Dreamers," immigrants brought to the country illegally as children whose protections Trump has vowed to end. A California native in his mid-50s, who describes his personal politics as anarchistic, Melaku-Bello began protesting in the 1970s. He belonged to a punk rock band which was touring the Washington area when he first came into contact with the protest site and "helped out." That was in the summer of 1981. The vigil was founded earlier that year by activist William Thomas, joined by Concepcion Picciotto who remained until her death in 2016. Thomas died in 2009. For the first decade of his involvement, Melaku-Bello says he split his time between protesting and working for Amha Selassie, the exiled son of late Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie. In the course of that work, which involved preparing human rights reports, Melaku-Bello recounts being wounded by a landmine blast in Ramallah in 1987, leaving him in a wheelchair. For the past seven years, the protest site has been his life, taking 90 to 100 hours a week. Melaku-Bello, who tucks his hair up Rasta-style in a red and white toque above his untrimmed sideburns and graying beard, has reliable support from only two other activists, Neil Cousins and Craig Thompson, who rotate shifts with him. On the pedestrian mall in front of the White House, activists for various causes come and go but the peace vigil remains, unique because it is manned day and night, a right Melaku-Bello says has been won through court fights. Healthy debate Melaku-Bello's passion is undiminished. "How dare they call this a democracy when it's not government for the people by the people but by an oligarchy government controlled by the few," he says, complaining that the wealthy are able to buy political influence in the United States. His devotion earns praise even from those who disagree with him, such as passerby Eric Meek, 47, an Ohio school teacher who describes himself as "more right wing." "I think that's what makes our country great," Meek says, "if two people who have different philosophies can talk in a sensible way" and listen to each other. Melaku-Bello says he will keep talking, and listening, as long as he physically can. "Maybe loving all the civilians of the planet, some people would call it madness," he says. "So how long will I do it? Maybe till my last breath."

Longtime White House protester has passion for peace

<p>Controversy doggedly follows the film S Durga wherever it goes. I am writing today to tell you that it is not accidental. In fact, given the antics of the director Sanal Kumar Sasidharan, it seems that the name of the film, as well as the content of the movie, has been disingenuously crafted to court controversy.</p>

<p>From the beginning to the very end, the movie is fraught with political as well as religious manipulations.</p>

<p>I can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India. Along with three celebrated directors Satish Kaushik, Vivek Agnihotri and Rahul Rawail (who was also the chairman of the jury), I voted that the film should not be screened at the festival. Seven other members of the jury voted in favour of the screening.</p>

<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 can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India.</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 can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Currently, a one-sided narrative is dominating the discourse over the film. A small clique of intellectuals would like us to believe that the screening of this movie is irrevocably interlinked with the freedom of expression and creative liberty. They argue that preventing the movie from being screened is an attack on our democracy and that scuttling the screening of the movie is only a prelude to suppressing the voice of the people.</p>

<p>I am writing today to dispel these mistaken beliefs.</p>

<p>I am writing today to remind them that freedom of expression is not their preserve alone. It also lies with the viewer. Filmmakers can exercise their right to creative expression as long as the exercise of it does not encroach upon our beliefs or offend our sentiments. The filmmaker&rsquo;s freedom of expression is not absolute and is not entirely vested in him. It partly rests with the viewer as well, and the viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema.</p>

<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>The viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema.</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=The viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema.

" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Our freedom to reject these so-called creative works is a countervailing force against their freedom of expression, and we will not be reluctant in exercising it.</p>

<p>Before we proceed, let me delve briefly into the plot of the film. The movie has been shot in the backdrop of Kerala and there are two parallel themes running throughout the movie. The movie makers have juxtaposed a procession of Durga &mdash; and largely the worship of Durga in India &mdash; with the female lead of the movie who is, incidentally, also named Durga. Now, Durga is shown as eloping with her boyfriend; desperately looking to reach the railway station in the dead of the night. While both of them are stranded on a deserted road, two men arrive in a van and cajole them into taking a ride with them to the railway station. The boyfriend, surprisingly, is keen on taking a ride with them while the girl is naturally reluctant. The movie, essentially, is the journey that these two undertake in the van and the sexual harassment that the girl faces in the course of the night.</p>

<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>When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga.</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=When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga. Clearly, this was an attempt by Sasidharan to be too clever by half. Even if it doesn&rsquo;t say so, the meaning of the three dots is not lost on anybody. Even after taking out the &ldquo;E-X-Y&rdquo;, the title still carries the same connotation.</p>

<p>As someone who has seen the movie first-hand, I cannot emphasise enough that there is no correlation between the film and the title. The director has deliberately and maliciously misused, even milked the title of the movie to present a pretentious facade in the name of creative cinema. It would have been acceptable had the director chosen to title the movie as Durga but there is no explanation, whatsoever, to mischievously changing the name of the film to S###&nbsp; Durga.</p>

<p>At this point, there is something that needs to be said about the mind of the director. The director knew from day one that the movie is going to be controversial. He knew very well, perhaps, even while writing the screenplay that he is inviting controversy. And despite knowing that, he pushed full steam ahead for want of fame. All throughout the movie, there are subtle hints that the director himself is a small-time, novice politician hoping to make it big. He is honing his political instinct in the name of creativity.</p>

<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>India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion.</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=India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In the film, the boyfriend is named Kabir. This is not as innocent as it might seem on the face of it. Mind you, the religion of the characters is not relevant to the plot. But the director deliberately chose the name, Kabir &mdash; predominantly a Muslim name &mdash; to give a Hindu-Muslim spin to the story. In the name of creative cinema, the director thinks it is wise to retain the boyfriend as Muslim and the girl as a Hindu. What&rsquo;s more, the name of the girl has to be that of a Hindu goddess. Had the name of the characters not been Kabir and Durga but Aslam and Ayesha or Ramesh and Sonam, then, the film, per se, wouldn&rsquo;t have been controversial.</p>

<p>I would like to ask the director: Why is that the girl had to be named Durga and not Fatima or Mary? Why not make a movie on the same plot with a Hindu boy and a Muslim or a Christian girl? Why not call it &ldquo;Sexy Fatima&rdquo; or &ldquo;Sexy &ldquo;Mary&rdquo;? Why is that the girl had to be called Durga?</p>

<p>The director may argue here that he has created a parallel with the Durga procession, but there wasn&rsquo;t anything stopping him from finding a parallel in an Islamic or Christian festival or monument? India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion.</p>

<p>The film suffers from another serious moral dereliction. The portrayal of trauma in the film is flawed because it has segregated trauma into religious silos. Irrespective of whether a girl is named Durga or Fatima or Deborah, the trauma of a girl facing sexual harassment will be the trauma of a girl fearing for her life and her safety. Unpardonably, the director has given a religious angle to this ordeal. Another faux pax of the film is that it errs in sexualising a victim of rape or sexual harassment. How can a victim of such a crime be referred to as sexy? The director is effectively belittling the victims of sexual crime.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the film and Sasidharan have come to occupy a disproportionate share in contemporary news coverage. The director is mining the row to the hilt and is playing up the issue as if it is one of national importance.</p>

<p>Lastly, there is a grave and monumental danger afoot if this film is given all clearances, and eventually screened. What is there to stop anyone from making a film titled &ldquo;Sexy Lakshmi&rdquo; or &ldquo;Sexy Saraswati&rdquo;? What defence will the people have against such a film given that film directors will keep raising the bogey of freedom of expression? This could possibly start an ominous trend where directors &mdash; from both the communities &mdash; will start crafting their movies to serve a sectarian agenda.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).</em></p>


S. Durga will possibly start an ominous trend where directors ? from both the communities ? will start crafting their movies to serve a sectarian agenda.

Controversy doggedly follows the film S Durga wherever it goes. I am writing today to tell you that it is not accidental. In fact, given the antics of the director Sanal Kumar Sasidharan, it seems that the name of the film, as well as the content of the movie, has been disingenuously crafted to court controversy. From the beginning to the very end, the movie is fraught with political as well as religious manipulations. I can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India. Along with three celebrated directors Satish Kaushik, Vivek Agnihotri and Rahul Rawail (who was also the chairman of the jury), I voted that the film should not be screened at the festival. Seven other members of the jury voted in favour of the screening. I can state so much about the movie with such authority because I was invited by the festival directorate to judge the film for screening at the International Film Festival of India. × Currently, a one-sided narrative is dominating the discourse over the film. A small clique of intellectuals would like us to believe that the screening of this movie is irrevocably interlinked with the freedom of expression and creative liberty. They argue that preventing the movie from being screened is an attack on our democracy and that scuttling the screening of the movie is only a prelude to suppressing the voice of the people. I am writing today to dispel these mistaken beliefs. I am writing today to remind them that freedom of expression is not their preserve alone. It also lies with the viewer. Filmmakers can exercise their right to creative expression as long as the exercise of it does not encroach upon our beliefs or offend our sentiments. The filmmaker’s freedom of expression is not absolute and is not entirely vested in him. It partly rests with the viewer as well, and the viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema. The viewer has the inalienable right to reject all and any works that are forcibly foisted on him in the name of edgy cinema. × Our freedom to reject these so-called creative works is a countervailing force against their freedom of expression, and we will not be reluctant in exercising it. Before we proceed, let me delve briefly into the plot of the film. The movie has been shot in the backdrop of Kerala and there are two parallel themes running throughout the movie. The movie makers have juxtaposed a procession of Durga — and largely the worship of Durga in India — with the female lead of the movie who is, incidentally, also named Durga. Now, Durga is shown as eloping with her boyfriend; desperately looking to reach the railway station in the dead of the night. While both of them are stranded on a deserted road, two men arrive in a van and cajole them into taking a ride with them to the railway station. The boyfriend, surprisingly, is keen on taking a ride with them while the girl is naturally reluctant. The movie, essentially, is the journey that these two undertake in the van and the sexual harassment that the girl faces in the course of the night. When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga. × When the jury was shown the movie at the festival, the director quite cunningly changed the title of the movie from Sexy Durga to S### Durga. Clearly, this was an attempt by Sasidharan to be too clever by half. Even if it doesn’t say so, the meaning of the three dots is not lost on anybody. Even after taking out the “E-X-Y”, the title still carries the same connotation. As someone who has seen the movie first-hand, I cannot emphasise enough that there is no correlation between the film and the title. The director has deliberately and maliciously misused, even milked the title of the movie to present a pretentious facade in the name of creative cinema. It would have been acceptable had the director chosen to title the movie as Durga but there is no explanation, whatsoever, to mischievously changing the name of the film to S### Durga. At this point, there is something that needs to be said about the mind of the director. The director knew from day one that the movie is going to be controversial. He knew very well, perhaps, even while writing the screenplay that he is inviting controversy. And despite knowing that, he pushed full steam ahead for want of fame. All throughout the movie, there are subtle hints that the director himself is a small-time, novice politician hoping to make it big. He is honing his political instinct in the name of creativity. India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion. × In the film, the boyfriend is named Kabir. This is not as innocent as it might seem on the face of it. Mind you, the religion of the characters is not relevant to the plot. But the director deliberately chose the name, Kabir — predominantly a Muslim name — to give a Hindu-Muslim spin to the story. In the name of creative cinema, the director thinks it is wise to retain the boyfriend as Muslim and the girl as a Hindu. What’s more, the name of the girl has to be that of a Hindu goddess. Had the name of the characters not been Kabir and Durga but Aslam and Ayesha or Ramesh and Sonam, then, the film, per se, wouldn’t have been controversial. I would like to ask the director: Why is that the girl had to be named Durga and not Fatima or Mary? Why not make a movie on the same plot with a Hindu boy and a Muslim or a Christian girl? Why not call it “Sexy Fatima” or “Sexy “Mary”? Why is that the girl had to be called Durga? The director may argue here that he has created a parallel with the Durga procession, but there wasn’t anything stopping him from finding a parallel in an Islamic or Christian festival or monument? India is a secular country but that does not give the director a license to single out the Hindu religion. The film suffers from another serious moral dereliction. The portrayal of trauma in the film is flawed because it has segregated trauma into religious silos. Irrespective of whether a girl is named Durga or Fatima or Deborah, the trauma of a girl facing sexual harassment will be the trauma of a girl fearing for her life and her safety. Unpardonably, the director has given a religious angle to this ordeal. Another faux pax of the film is that it errs in sexualising a victim of rape or sexual harassment. How can a victim of such a crime be referred to as sexy? The director is effectively belittling the victims of sexual crime. Unfortunately, the film and Sasidharan have come to occupy a disproportionate share in contemporary news coverage. The director is mining the row to the hilt and is playing up the issue as if it is one of national importance. Lastly, there is a grave and monumental danger afoot if this film is given all clearances, and eventually screened. What is there to stop anyone from making a film titled “Sexy Lakshmi” or “Sexy Saraswati”? What defence will the people have against such a film given that film directors will keep raising the bogey of freedom of expression? This could possibly start an ominous trend where directors — from both the communities — will start crafting their movies to serve a sectarian agenda. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: I voted against S Durga's screening at IFFI. Here's why

<p>West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday&nbsp;raised serious concerns again on the linkage of Aadhar card with other personal information.&nbsp;</p>

<p>She said, &quot;Linking to&nbsp;Aadhar is very problematic. In the name of Aadhar card, details are being put on websites, which is dangerous for freedom of expression, the society and the country.&quot;&nbsp;</p>

<p>Calling out the Central government, she added, &quot;Why they did this I don&#39;t know. Some people feel happy even after doing bad things.&quot;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Linking of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Aadhar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Aadhar</a> is very problematic. In name of Aadhar card, details are being put on websites, which is dangerous for freedom of expression, the society &amp; the country. Why they did this I don&#39;t know. Some people feel happy even after doing bad things: WB CM Mamata Banerjee <a href="https://t.co/hJ2BSoZQGA">pic.twitter.com/hJ2BSoZQGA</a></p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/932561954173894658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>This is not the first time when Mamata has been vocal against the linkage of Aadhar with personal data.</p>

<p>On <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamata-banerjee-will-not-link-aadhaar-with-phone-let-them-disconnect-it-22894" target="_blank">October 25</a> at a core committee meeting of the Trinamool Congress Mamata attacked the Centre on privacy issue and said, &quot;They (Centre) are interfering in the people&#39;s rights and privacy. Aadhar number should not be linked with one&#39;s mobile phone. I will not link my Aadhar number with my mobile even if my connection is snapped.&quot;</p>

<p>She accused the Centre of having unleashed &quot;autocratic rule&quot; in the country.</p>

<p>On October 30, Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government&nbsp;filed a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/mamata-banerjee-challenges-aadhaar-in-supreme-court-hearing-on-october-30-23047" target="_blank">plea against the Centre&#39;s move to make Aadhaar mandatory</a> for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-can-state-challenge-parliaments-mandate-supreme-court-on-west-bengals-plea-against-aadhaar-23118" target="_blank">Supreme Court thus questioned the West Bengal government for filing plea against Centre&rsquo;s decision to make Aadhaar mandatory</a> for availing benefits of welfare schemes.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;In a federal structure, how can a state file plea challenging Parliament&#39;s mandate,&quot; the Supreme Court bench said.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Earlier, Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government?filed a plea against the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday raised serious concerns again on the linkage of Aadhar card with other personal information. She said, "Linking to Aadhar is very problematic. In the name of Aadhar card, details are being put on websites, which is dangerous for freedom of expression, the society and the country." Calling out the Central government, she added, "Why they did this I don't know. Some people feel happy even after doing bad things." Linking of #Aadhar is very problematic. In name of Aadhar card, details are being put on websites, which is dangerous for freedom of expression, the society & the country. Why they did this I don't know. Some people feel happy even after doing bad things: WB CM Mamata Banerjee pic.twitter.com/hJ2BSoZQGA — ANI (@ANI) November 20, 2017 × This is not the first time when Mamata has been vocal against the linkage of Aadhar with personal data. On October 25 at a core committee meeting of the Trinamool Congress Mamata attacked the Centre on privacy issue and said, "They (Centre) are interfering in the people's rights and privacy. Aadhar number should not be linked with one's mobile phone. I will not link my Aadhar number with my mobile even if my connection is snapped." She accused the Centre of having unleashed "autocratic rule" in the country. On October 30, Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government filed a plea against the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes. The Supreme Court thus questioned the West Bengal government for filing plea against Centre’s decision to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of welfare schemes. "In a federal structure, how can a state file plea challenging Parliament's mandate," the Supreme Court bench said.

Aadhar linking 'dangerous for freedom of expression, the society and the country': Mamata Banerjee

<p>The Madras High Court today dismissed a petition seeking to revoke the censor certificate issued to Vijay-starrer &#39;Mersal&#39; over certain controversial dialogues relating to GST, holding that people&#39;s right to freedom of expression applies to films also.</p>

<p>The petitioner in his PIL had contended that the movie contained scenes and dialogues, which were against the interests of the country&#39;s sovereignty and integrity and the security of the state.</p>

<p>&quot;This is a democracy and people have their right to freedom of expression, and this applies to films as well,&quot; a division bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and M Sundar observed dismissing the plea by advocate A Ashvathaman.</p>

<p>&quot;Even today the media has reported that the Leader of Opposition in the state has criticised demonetisation, can the court pass a gag order against him from making such statements,&quot; the bench said.</p>

<p>The petition contended there was apparent false information about GST and Digital India Scheme, which would encourage people to indulge in tax evasion.</p>

<p>Wondering how the Censor Board had issued certification for the above movie, the petitioner had said &quot;the film was full of wrong propaganda about India and fake dialogues and scenes which obviously lead to misconception about the new taxation system (Goods and Service Tax).&quot;</p>

<p>Coming down on the petitioner, the bench said, &quot;if you were really concerned about public and the society you should have started campaigns against various social evils like untouchability and safety of women. But you choose to target a particular movie.&quot;</p>

<p>Noting that the PIL had in fact helped the film get more publicity, the court dismissed the plea as devoid of merit.</p>

<p>The movie released on October 18, Diwali day, had kicked up a row with the BJP&#39;s Tamil Nadu unit taking exception to references on GST and &#39;Digital India&#39;.</p>


The petitioner in his PIL had contended that the movie contained scenes and dialogues, which were against the interests of the country's sovereignty and integrity and the security of the state.

The Madras High Court today dismissed a petition seeking to revoke the censor certificate issued to Vijay-starrer 'Mersal' over certain controversial dialogues relating to GST, holding that people's right to freedom of expression applies to films also. The petitioner in his PIL had contended that the movie contained scenes and dialogues, which were against the interests of the country's sovereignty and integrity and the security of the state. "This is a democracy and people have their right to freedom of expression, and this applies to films as well," a division bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and M Sundar observed dismissing the plea by advocate A Ashvathaman. "Even today the media has reported that the Leader of Opposition in the state has criticised demonetisation, can the court pass a gag order against him from making such statements," the bench said. The petition contended there was apparent false information about GST and Digital India Scheme, which would encourage people to indulge in tax evasion. Wondering how the Censor Board had issued certification for the above movie, the petitioner had said "the film was full of wrong propaganda about India and fake dialogues and scenes which obviously lead to misconception about the new taxation system (Goods and Service Tax)." Coming down on the petitioner, the bench said, "if you were really concerned about public and the society you should have started campaigns against various social evils like untouchability and safety of women. But you choose to target a particular movie." Noting that the PIL had in fact helped the film get more publicity, the court dismissed the plea as devoid of merit. The movie released on October 18, Diwali day, had kicked up a row with the BJP's Tamil Nadu unit taking exception to references on GST and 'Digital India'.

Madras high court junks PIL against 'Mersal', says 'freedom of expression' applies to films too

<p>Right to expression should not be used as an excuse to criticise the country, Amit Shah, the chief of India&#39;s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said at the India Ideas conclave in Goa today.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In an indirect swipe at the main opposition party, Congress, Shah said that &quot;criticising politicians, the Prime Minister and political parties is part of the democratic tradition, but should not be confused with national pride and honour of the country&quot;. &nbsp;</p>

<p>He said that being critical of the country in the name of freedom of expression is unacceptable. &quot;National pride is integral to the democratic process in India and it must be respected.&quot;</p>

<p>Discussing the nation&#39;s development and political dissent under the larger rubric of &#39;India at 70&#39;, Shah claimed that those who came to power after the birth of the nation &quot;took little pride in their heritage&quot; and the aim of equal engagement was soon replaced with the &quot;politics of appeasement&quot;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Despite developing over the years, India has not been able to remove the shackles of dynastic politics, he said. &quot;Barring a couple of parties, inner-party democracy is absent from Indian politics and political families run them like personal empires.&quot;</p>

<p>Shah admitted that some good work was done in the past 70 years, but said it did not match up with the potential. &quot;Our leaders failed to resurrect the real identity of India.&quot;</p>

<p>He said that a focus on &quot;unity in diversity&quot; instead of &quot;national integration&quot; had a very different outcome than that planned.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Highlighting the work done by the Narendra Modi government, Shah said that the government&#39;s defence and foreign affairs policies have aligned for the first time and that had not been the case under the Congress-led government.</p>

<p>(WION)&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>


Amit Shah's remarks come against the backdrop of criticism of the government by the Opposition

Right to expression should not be used as an excuse to criticise the country, Amit Shah, the chief of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said at the India Ideas conclave in Goa today. In an indirect swipe at the main opposition party, Congress, Shah said that "criticising politicians, the Prime Minister and political parties is part of the democratic tradition, but should not be confused with national pride and honour of the country". He said that being critical of the country in the name of freedom of expression is unacceptable. "National pride is integral to the democratic process in India and it must be respected." Discussing the nation's development and political dissent under the larger rubric of 'India at 70', Shah claimed that those who came to power after the birth of the nation "took little pride in their heritage" and the aim of equal engagement was soon replaced with the "politics of appeasement". Despite developing over the years, India has not been able to remove the shackles of dynastic politics, he said. "Barring a couple of parties, inner-party democracy is absent from Indian politics and political families run them like personal empires." Shah admitted that some good work was done in the past 70 years, but said it did not match up with the potential. "Our leaders failed to resurrect the real identity of India." He said that a focus on "unity in diversity" instead of "national integration" had a very different outcome than that planned. Highlighting the work done by the Narendra Modi government, Shah said that the government's defence and foreign affairs policies have aligned for the first time and that had not been the case under the Congress-led government. (WION)

Accept criticism against government, not country: India's ruling party chief

<p>DhiTV and DhiFM were the first ever private television and radio stations launched in the history of the tiny island nation of the Maldives. Till 2008, Maldives had only government-controlled media houses, such as Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM). Other than these, there were three daily newspapers, which were also owned by the then cabinet ministers. Unfortunately, both DhiTV and DhiFM was shut down on August 10, 2016.&nbsp;</p>

<p>DhiTV and DhiFM became very important in Maldives&#39; media history. For the first time, it allowed the citizens of Maldives to hear a different side of the story;&nbsp; it provided the people with an option other than the official version of an event, emanating from the government-affiliated media establishment.</p>

<p>The news of DhiTV shutdown came as a shock to the whole country, as the news of the closure was abruptly announced to the television staffs, just a day after the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) passed the Anti-defamation bill in the parliament.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The stations, owned by the local business tycoon Champa Mohamed Moosa (uhchu), were operated by Broadcasting Maldives and Maldives Media Company. In a joint memo sent to the staffs on 10th August, the companies announced the shut down of the transmission of the channels that day itself at 00:00 hours, saying that they do not believe the channels could be run in a sustainable manner under the current circumstance. The staffs were given notice of three months with salary. Though the companies did not officially mention anything about the Anti-defamation and Freedom of Expression Act that were ratified on 11th&nbsp; August, arguably the decision was linked to it.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Anti-defamation act allows fines up to MVR 2 Million which is approximately US$ 130,0000.&nbsp; The Act stipulates that any media house can be closed down if found guilty of slander, for having breached social norms, and if it threatened national security in some way. Under the Act, a company can be held accountable and punished for going against the tenets of Islam. Failure to pay the fines will result in a jail sentence of up to 6 months. What makes it worse is, individuals and media stations can only appeal the sentence after paying the fine.</p>

<p>Irrespective of their relation to the government, the Maldivian media stood united against the bill. The only exception was the Public Service Media (PSM) which was independent, yet always supported measures taken by Maldive government. PSM not only supported the&nbsp; proposed bill from the government but also tried to justify it by using Islam as a shield. PSM was broadcasting various programs, bringing Islamic scholars to talk about defamation from a religious perspective.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Maybe what PSM did not understand was that the journalists raising voice against the bill are also not in favor of defamation.&nbsp;</p>

<p>I always believed that to be a responsible reporter, we need to be careful about defamation. But that does not mean, I am supporting any restriction on either freedom of expression or freedom of speech in the name of defamation. It is a right guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen of Maldives, and exercising these rights are necessary for a journalists to act as a watchdog in a democracy. Right to freedom of expression and freedom of media can not be restricted even in a state of emergency. Parliament can only pass a law if it is not opposing the constitution.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Concerns expressed by the majority of Maldivian journalists were ignored by the parliamentary members of the ruling party. Instead, they passed the bill with even tougher penalties. Sadly, some of these members are also the owner of various media outlets; they not only let down Maldivian journalists and the general public but also their own employees. For instance, the owner of Sun Media Group&nbsp;Ahmed Shiyam,&nbsp;who is also the leader of the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) as well as Yamin Rasheed,&nbsp;the owner of the Sangu TV and Member of Parliament of the PPM party,&nbsp;voted&nbsp; in favor of the bill.&nbsp; Journalists from both media outlets were raising their voice against the bill and calling the MPs to vote against it. But their voice went unheard.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Our voice went unheard and the government ratified the bill criminalising defamation with hefty fines.</p>

<p>The Anti-defamation Act could be used by anyone as a harassment tool against journalists and to attack the fourth power of democracy. Now the question is why just DhiTV? After all, DhiTV has been long labeled as a pro-government channel. Why not some other station like RajjeTV, which is popularly known as an anti-government station.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;Informed sources gave us some hints that DhiTV has been on the government&#39;s blacklist as much as RajjeTV; during 2013 presidential election campaign, DhiTV was against President Yamin Abdul Gayoom. During the PPM primary, former Home Minister Umar Naseer and Yamin Gayoom were contesting to be the PPM presidential candidate, DhiTV was against Yamin and backing Umar. Even after Yamin won the primary, DhiTV continued their stand against Yamin by backing the presidential campaign of President Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik of the time. As a business tycoon, investing many projects in Maldives, the owner of DhiTV surely will need the government&rsquo;s cooperation, even if he has to give up DhiTV for that.&nbsp;</p>

<p>When DhiTV was shut down, I was part of the team working as a news anchor. During that last week, I mostly had 2 p.m and 8 p.m news. August 10th was the only day when I had to present the 10 p.m news.&nbsp; Management decided to end the news coverage with the 8.pm news and I did not get the chance to say goodbye. I just wished, I knew 8 p.m prime time news of 9th August was going to be my last time live on DhiTV. What bothered us more was not that we lost our job, but we lost DhiTV. Re-opening DhiTV soon is our hope. And I believe it will happen sooner or later.&nbsp;</p>


Management of DhiTV decided to end the news coverage with the 8PM news and I did not get the chance to say goodbye

DhiTV and DhiFM were the first ever private television and radio stations launched in the history of the tiny island nation of the Maldives. Till 2008, Maldives had only government-controlled media houses, such as Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM). Other than these, there were three daily newspapers, which were also owned by the then cabinet ministers. Unfortunately, both DhiTV and DhiFM was shut down on August 10, 2016. DhiTV and DhiFM became very important in Maldives' media history. For the first time, it allowed the citizens of Maldives to hear a different side of the story; it provided the people with an option other than the official version of an event, emanating from the government-affiliated media establishment. The news of DhiTV shutdown came as a shock to the whole country, as the news of the closure was abruptly announced to the television staffs, just a day after the ruling Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) passed the Anti-defamation bill in the parliament. The stations, owned by the local business tycoon Champa Mohamed Moosa (uhchu), were operated by Broadcasting Maldives and Maldives Media Company. In a joint memo sent to the staffs on 10th August, the companies announced the shut down of the transmission of the channels that day itself at 00:00 hours, saying that they do not believe the channels could be run in a sustainable manner under the current circumstance. The staffs were given notice of three months with salary. Though the companies did not officially mention anything about the Anti-defamation and Freedom of Expression Act that were ratified on 11th August, arguably the decision was linked to it. The Anti-defamation act allows fines up to MVR 2 Million which is approximately US$ 130,0000. The Act stipulates that any media house can be closed down if found guilty of slander, for having breached social norms, and if it threatened national security in some way. Under the Act, a company can be held accountable and punished for going against the tenets of Islam. Failure to pay the fines will result in a jail sentence of up to 6 months. What makes it worse is, individuals and media stations can only appeal the sentence after paying the fine. Irrespective of their relation to the government, the Maldivian media stood united against the bill. The only exception was the Public Service Media (PSM) which was independent, yet always supported measures taken by Maldive government. PSM not only supported the proposed bill from the government but also tried to justify it by using Islam as a shield. PSM was broadcasting various programs, bringing Islamic scholars to talk about defamation from a religious perspective. Maybe what PSM did not understand was that the journalists raising voice against the bill are also not in favor of defamation. I always believed that to be a responsible reporter, we need to be careful about defamation. But that does not mean, I am supporting any restriction on either freedom of expression or freedom of speech in the name of defamation. It is a right guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen of Maldives, and exercising these rights are necessary for a journalists to act as a watchdog in a democracy. Right to freedom of expression and freedom of media can not be restricted even in a state of emergency. Parliament can only pass a law if it is not opposing the constitution. Concerns expressed by the majority of Maldivian journalists were ignored by the parliamentary members of the ruling party. Instead, they passed the bill with even tougher penalties. Sadly, some of these members are also the owner of various media outlets; they not only let down Maldivian journalists and the general public but also their own employees. For instance, the owner of Sun Media Group Ahmed Shiyam, who is also the leader of the Maldives Development Alliance (MDA) as well as Yamin Rasheed, the owner of the Sangu TV and Member of Parliament of the PPM party, voted in favor of the bill. Journalists from both media outlets were raising their voice against the bill and calling the MPs to vote against it. But their voice went unheard. Our voice went unheard and the government ratified the bill criminalising defamation with hefty fines. The Anti-defamation Act could be used by anyone as a harassment tool against journalists and to attack the fourth power of democracy. Now the question is why just DhiTV? After all, DhiTV has been long labeled as a pro-government channel. Why not some other station like RajjeTV, which is popularly known as an anti-government station. Informed sources gave us some hints that DhiTV has been on the government's blacklist as much as RajjeTV; during 2013 presidential election campaign, DhiTV was against President Yamin Abdul Gayoom. During the PPM primary, former Home Minister Umar Naseer and Yamin Gayoom were contesting to be the PPM presidential candidate, DhiTV was against Yamin and backing Umar. Even after Yamin won the primary, DhiTV continued their stand against Yamin by backing the presidential campaign of President Dr. Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik of the time. As a business tycoon, investing many projects in Maldives, the owner of DhiTV surely will need the government’s cooperation, even if he has to give up DhiTV for that. When DhiTV was shut down, I was part of the team working as a news anchor. During that last week, I mostly had 2 p.m and 8 p.m news. August 10th was the only day when I had to present the 10 p.m news. Management decided to end the news coverage with the 8.pm news and I did not get the chance to say goodbye. I just wished, I knew 8 p.m prime time news of 9th August was going to be my last time live on DhiTV. What bothered us more was not that we lost our job, but we lost DhiTV. Re-opening DhiTV soon is our hope. And I believe it will happen sooner or later.

Freedom of expression under siege in Maldives

A federal judge in Rio has issued an injunction overruling a government ban on political banners or slogans during the Olympic Games, allowing &quot;peaceful&quot; demonstrations.<br />
<br />
Judge Joao Augusto Carneiro Ara?jo issued the injunction late on Monday following a request by federal prosecutors who questioned the ban decided by the governments of Brazil and Rio state and the Rio2016 organising committee.<br />
<br />
The prosecutors said the ban infringed constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. The judge&#39;s injunction can be appealed against and, being a constitutional issue, could end up in the Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
The expulsion from Olympic venues of spectators carrying banners or shouting slogans against interim President Michel Temer stirred outcry on social media, but Games organisers threw their support behind the move.<br />
<br />
A video of security guards in red berets and camouflage gear surrounding a man holding a &quot;Temer Out&quot; banner and manhandling him from the stands of the archery event on Saturday prompted a barrage of criticism from Brazilians.<br />
<br />
(Reuters)

Prosecutors said the ban infringed constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression

A federal judge in Rio has issued an injunction overruling a government ban on political banners or slogans during the Olympic Games, allowing "peaceful" demonstrations. Judge Joao Augusto Carneiro Ara?jo issued the injunction late on Monday following a request by federal prosecutors who questioned the ban decided by the governments of Brazil and Rio state and the Rio2016 organising committee. The prosecutors said the ban infringed constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression. The judge's injunction can be appealed against and, being a constitutional issue, could end up in the Supreme Court. The expulsion from Olympic venues of spectators carrying banners or shouting slogans against interim President Michel Temer stirred outcry on social media, but Games organisers threw their support behind the move. A video of security guards in red berets and camouflage gear surrounding a man holding a "Temer Out" banner and manhandling him from the stands of the archery event on Saturday prompted a barrage of criticism from Brazilians. (Reuters)

Rio judge overrules ban on political demos at Olympics

Maldives&#39; new law will criminalise free speech on vague grounds and is a &quot;direct attack&quot; on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the country, a top UN human rights expert has said.<br />
<br />
&quot;Criminalising speech on such vague and broad grounds as set out in the Bill is a direct attack on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the Maldives,&quot; said David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.<br />
<br />
Kaye said elements of the bill, such as the vague use of religion, social norms and defamation as reasons for punishing expression, contradict not only international norms, but also obligations set out in the country&#39;s own Constitution.<br />
<br />
&quot;Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and any restrictions on it must be narrowly and objectively defined, not a matter of common routine,&quot; he said in a statement issued by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.<br />
<br />
This week, the Maldive&#39;s Parliament adopted the &quot;Protection of Reputation and Good Name and Freedom of Expression Bill,&quot; which criminalises speech deemed to be defamatory, to comment against &quot;any tenet of Islam&quot;, to &quot;threaten national security&quot; or to &quot;contradict general social norms&quot;.<br />
<br />
Those committing an offence under the bill can face fines, and failure to pay, will result in jail sentence of three to six months.<br />
<br />
Kaye said that the broad grounds for restrictions in the Bill contradict not only international human rights standards recognised by the Maldives, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but also the its own Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of expression.<br />
<br />
&quot;The use of religion as a ground for limiting free speech is particularly worrying,&quot; he said, emphasising that international human rights law protects individuals from discrimination and violence based on their religion or belief, but it does not protect religion or belief from comment or criticism as such.<br />
<br />
Kaye also said the Bill will have a &quot;strong chilling effect&quot; on media and civil society, making reporting and criticism truly risky.<br />
<br />
&quot;The threat of additional penalties for the media are likely to lead to even greater self-censorship on issues perceived to be sensitive, limiting public debate on issues of public interest and depriving society from accessing important information on sensitive affairs,&quot; he said.<br />
<br />
Noting that he would be eager to engage in discussion with the Maldivian authorities on the law, the rights expert expressed hope that the President will reverse the decision by sending back the bill to Parliament for further review in consultation with independent institutions, journalists, civil society organisations and human rights defenders and bring it in compliance with international human rights standards.<br />
<br />
UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association Maina Kiai and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders Michel Forst also shared the concerns expressed by Kaye.<br />
<br />
They had also co-signed a letter to the national authorities detailing their concerns about the legislation on May 26.<br />
<br />
(PTI)

The law, passed in the Maldives criminalises defamatory actions deemed to be against 'any tenet of Islam'

Maldives' new law will criminalise free speech on vague grounds and is a "direct attack" on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the country, a top UN human rights expert has said. "Criminalising speech on such vague and broad grounds as set out in the Bill is a direct attack on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the Maldives," said David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Kaye said elements of the bill, such as the vague use of religion, social norms and defamation as reasons for punishing expression, contradict not only international norms, but also obligations set out in the country's own Constitution. "Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and any restrictions on it must be narrowly and objectively defined, not a matter of common routine," he said in a statement issued by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. This week, the Maldive's Parliament adopted the "Protection of Reputation and Good Name and Freedom of Expression Bill," which criminalises speech deemed to be defamatory, to comment against "any tenet of Islam", to "threaten national security" or to "contradict general social norms". Those committing an offence under the bill can face fines, and failure to pay, will result in jail sentence of three to six months. Kaye said that the broad grounds for restrictions in the Bill contradict not only international human rights standards recognised by the Maldives, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but also the its own Constitution, which protects the right to freedom of expression. "The use of religion as a ground for limiting free speech is particularly worrying," he said, emphasising that international human rights law protects individuals from discrimination and violence based on their religion or belief, but it does not protect religion or belief from comment or criticism as such. Kaye also said the Bill will have a "strong chilling effect" on media and civil society, making reporting and criticism truly risky. "The threat of additional penalties for the media are likely to lead to even greater self-censorship on issues perceived to be sensitive, limiting public debate on issues of public interest and depriving society from accessing important information on sensitive affairs," he said. Noting that he would be eager to engage in discussion with the Maldivian authorities on the law, the rights expert expressed hope that the President will reverse the decision by sending back the bill to Parliament for further review in consultation with independent institutions, journalists, civil society organisations and human rights defenders and bring it in compliance with international human rights standards. UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association Maina Kiai and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders Michel Forst also shared the concerns expressed by Kaye. They had also co-signed a letter to the national authorities detailing their concerns about the legislation on May 26. (PTI)

New law 'direct attack' on freedom of expression in Maldives: UN

freedom-of-expression

Freedom Of Expression, News on Freedom Of Expression, stories on Freedom Of Expression, articles on Freedom Of Expression, Freedom Of Expression stories at Wion, Freedom Of Expression news, Freedom Of Expression latest news

freedom of-expression