#as a way to censor the parliament and political participation
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
srtatropicalia · 2 months ago
Text
Yes, dictatorial states make it VERY HARD for people to organize and protest, even though SOME brave people do try and a lot end up tortured and killed for that. Even so, a lot of people are silenced and don't have the means to actively go against the government on times of censorship. It's a tactic that actively does harm opposition, and that's why dictatorships continue using these methods.
At the same time, I understand the frustration of being from the global south and having seen the US install authoritative regimes on Latin America willy nilly. Of knowing people in your life who suffered. Of having the institutions in your country dismantled by these regimes. A whole generation that didn't learn politics or history at school because of the regime. And now this generation votes and some want this regime back.
I understand the frustration of seeing US citizens joke about being censored or being in a dictatorship, all the while it was the US that put a lot of our countries in these same awful situations. But these people who are afraid of what Trump will do are not the ones who wronged us. And I don't wish for their government to wrong and oppress them too.
It feels unfair to see the US express the usual fears of a totalitarian regime while we've been doing that for centuries becuse of them. And it is unfair, but it's just the way of the world and we shouldn't wish harm on anyone like that.
“We won’t be able to organize/ protest under Trump”.
People in the Global South have been organizing and protesting under dictatorships that America has installed as puppets for decades. You will be fine.
12K notes · View notes
margdarsanme · 4 years ago
Text
NCERT Class 12 Political Science (India) Chapter 6 The Crisis of Democratic Order
NCERT Class 12 Political Science Solutions (India Since Independence)
Chapter 6 The Crisis of Democratic Order 
TEXTBOOK QUESTIONS SOLVED : Q l. State whether the following statements regarding the Emergency are correct or incorrect. (a) It was declared in 1975 by Indira Gandhi. (b) It led to the suspension of all fundamental rights. (c) It was proclaimed due to the deteriorating economic conditions. (d) Many Opposition leaders were arrested during the emergency. (e) CPI supported the proclamation of the Emergency.
Answer: (a) Correct, (b) Correct, (c) Wrong, (d) Correct, (e) Correct. Q 2. Find the odd one out in the context of proclamation of Emergency. (a) The call for ‘Total Revolution’. (b) The Railway Strike of 1974 (c) The Naxalite Movement (d) The Allahabad High Court verdict (e) The findings of the Shah Commission Report
Answer: (c) The Naxalite Movement Q 3. Match the following:
Tumblr media
Answer: (a)-(iii), (b)-(i), (c)-(ii), (d)-(iv). Q 4. What were the reasons which led to the mid-term elections in 1980?
Answer: 1. Janata party lacked direction, leadership and a common programme. 2. Janata party government could not bring a fundamental change in policies pursued by Congress. 3. There was a split in Janata Party and the government led by Morarji Desai which lost its majority in less than 18 months. 4. Charan Singh government was formed due to support of Congress party which later decided to withdraw its support resulting resignation of Charan Singh government within four months. 5. All the above mentioned reasons led midterm elections of 1980, which defeated Janata Party and again Congress led by Indira Gandhi came back to power by winning 353 seats. Q 5. The Shah Commission was appointed in 1977 by the Janata Party Government. Why was it appointed and what were its findings?
Answer: The Shah commission was appointed in May 1977 by Janata Party government which was headed by J.C. Shah, retired chief justice of Supreme Court of India to look into the matters of: 1. Allegations of abuse of authority, excesses and malpractices as well as actions taken in the name of emergency proclaimed on 25 June 1975. 2. The Commission performed to examine various evidences to give testimonies even including Indira Gandhi to appear before Commission, but she refused to answer any questions. Findings of Shah Commission: (a) It found many ‘excesses’ committed during Emergency. (b) Under preventive detention laws nearly one lakh eleven thousand people were arrested. (c) Press censorship took place without any proper legal sanctions. (d) Even general manager of Delhi Power Supply Corporation received verbal orders from the officers of the Lt. Governor of Delhi to cut electricity to all newspapers press at 2 a.m. on 26 June 1975. Q 6. What reasons did the Government give for declaring a National Emergency in 1975?
Answer: Emergency was proclaimed in response to petition filed by Raj Narain to declare Indira Gandhi’s election invalid. (i) On June 25, 1975, the government declared the threat of internal disturbances to invoke Article 352 of constitution. (ii) Article 352 can declare emergency on ground of either internal or external disturbances. (iii) The government decided a grave crisis to be arisen to proclaim emergency to bring law and order, restore efficiency and implement pro-poor welfare programmes. (iv) The President Fakhruddin Adi Ahmad proclaimed emergency which became the most controversial episode in Indian Politics. Q 7. The 1977 elections for the first time saw the Opposition coming into power at the Centre. What would you consider as the reasons for this development?
Answer: The 1977 elections were evolved as a shock to everyone as Congress party was defeated for the very first time and opposition party came into power: 1. The opposition adopted the slogan ‘Save democracy’ against imposition of emergency earlier. 2. The opposition campaigned non- democratic character of rule which provided various excesses. 3. The opposition party highlighted the preventive detention and press censorship to favour public opinion. 4. Janata Party also ensured not to divide non-Congress votes. 5. Middle section of north India was moving away from Congress for whom Janata Party became a platform. 6. Hence, elections of 1977 emerged many other factors instead about emergency only. Q 8. Discuss the effects of Emergency on the following aspects of our polity.
(a) Effects on civil liberties for citizens. (b) Impact on relationship between the Executive and Judiciary. (c) Functioning of Mass Media. (d) Working of Police and Bureaucracy.
Answer: 
(a) Effects on Civil Liberties for Citizens: 1. The government made large scale arrests under preventive detention. 2. Arrested political persons could not challenge arrest even under Habeas Corpus petition. 3. Despite of filing many petitions government claimed it not to be necessary to be informed on grounds to arrested persons. 4. In April 1976, finally it was proved that the government could take away citizen’s right to life and liberty by overruling of high courts under supreme court and accept government’s plea.
(b) Impact on Relationship between the Executive and Judiciary: 1. The Parliament brought in many new changes in Constitution which made an amendment declaring that elections of Prime Minister, President and ViceÂŹPresident could not be challenged in the court. 2. The forty-second amendment (42nd) was also passed to bring a series of changes in constitution like duration of legislatures, elections can be postponed by one year during an emergency.
(c) Functioning of Mass Media: 1. Press censorship took place which banned freedom of press and newspapers w7ere supposed to prior approval before they publish any material i.e. RSS and Janata Island were banned. 2. Protests, strikes and public agitations were also banned. 3. Various fundamental rights were also suspended including even Right to move to court for restoration of Fundamental Rights. 4. Kannada writer Shivarama Karanth awarded with Padma Bhushan and Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Tlenu with Padmashri returned their awards in protest against suspension of democracy.
5. Newspapers mainly Indian Express, and the statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank spaces where news items were censored.
(d) Working of Police and Bureaucracy: Refer Part (a) + (b) of the same question. Q 9. In what way did the imposition of Emergency affect the party system in India? Elaborate your answer with examples.
Answer: 1. Due to absolute majority to party in power, leadership even dared to suspend democratic process. 2. The constitution makers presumed to be abide by laws and democratic orders, hence, wide and open ended powers were given to the government during emergency. 3. A tension and differences arose between institution based democracy and democracy based on spontaneous popular participation. 4. It was attributed to incapability of party system to incorporate aspirations of the people. 5. For the first time, opposition parties came together to form a new party ‘Janata Party’ not to divide the non-Congress votes. 6. 1977 elections brought an end to one party dominance and created coalition government. Q 10. Read the passage and answer the questions below:
“Indian democracy was never so close to a two-party system as it was during the 1977 elections. However, the next few years saw a complete change. Soon after its defeat, the Indian National Congress split into two groups The Janata Party also went through major convulsions David Butler, Ashok Lahiri and Prannoy Roy. —Partha Chatterjee (a) What made the party system in India look like a two-party system in 1977? (b) Many more than two parties existed in 1977. Why then are the authors describing this period as close to a two-party system? (c) What caused splits in Congress and the Janata Party?
Answer: (a) The imposition of emergency in 1977 and political crisis made the party system in India look like a two-party system. (b) Two parties existed in 1977 were Congress and non-Congress parties to be described as close to two party system because it ended the one party dominance and emerged Janata Party, umbrella of nonÂŹCongress parties. (c) Split in Congress: Congress splitted on the issues of presidential elections in 1969. Split in Janata Party: On tensions among three leaders Morarji Desai, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram for leadership in 1979.
Very Short Answer Type Questions [1 Mark]
Q 1. Mention the main reason for the defeat of Congress party in the elections 1977.
Answer: The opposition party adopted the slogan ‘Save democracy’ against the imposition of emergency. Q 2. In which year fifth general elections to Lok Sabha held?
Answer: 1971. Q 3. Name the political party which came to power at centre in 1977.
Answer: Janata Party Q 4. In January 1974, Students of Gujarat started an agitation against which two major problems?
Answer: 1. Rising prices of food grains, cooking oil and other essential commodities. 2. Corruption in high places. Q 5. Who was Charu Majumdar?
Answer: Charu Majumdar was a communist revolutionary and the leader of Naxalbari uprising. He founded the Communist Party of India (Marxist Leninist). Q 6. Name the president who proclaimed emergency in 1975 in India.
Answer. President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad at midnight on 25 June 1975. Q 7. Who introduced Twenty Point Programme and Why?
Answer: Congress government led by Indira Gandhi introduced ‘Twenty Point Programme’ to maintain law and order and to restored efficiency including land reforms, eradication of bonded labour, land redistribution, workers participation in management etc. Q 8. Who became the symbol of restoration of democracy?
Answer: Jayaprakash Narayan, leader of Janata Party. Q 9. Mention the Historic decision given by the court in famous Kesavananda Bharati Case.
Answer: That there are some basic features of constitution not to be amended by parliament at all. It led to a crisis between the government and judiciary. Q 10. What was the controversy regarding the appointment of the chief justice A.N. Ray in 1973?
Answer: It became political controversial because in this appointment the government set aside the seniority of three judges who had given ruling against the stand of government. Q 11. Why did Congress win in Southern states?
Answer: 1. The impact of emergency was not felt equally in all the states. 2. The forced relocation and disÂŹplacements, the forced sterilisations were mostly concentrated in the northern states. Q 12. What do you mean by Preventive Detention?
Answer: In Preventive Detention Act, people are arrested and detained on the apprehension to commit any offence in future and government made large scale arrests under this during emergency.
Very Short Answer Type Questions [2 Marks]
Q 1. What factors led to crisis of democratic order in Indian Politics?
Answer: 1. Emergence of Indira Gandhi with a lot of popularity. 2. Party competitions had been created. 3. Relation between the government and judiciary had become tense. Q 2. Mention the factors which led Naxalite movement in backward states.
Answer: 1. Forced labour 2. Exploitation by moneylenders 3. Exploitation of resources by outsiders. Q 3. What was Shah Commission of inquiry? How did government react to it? “
Answer: The Shah commission was appointed in May 1977 by Janata Party government headed by S.C. Shah, retired chief justice of Supreme Court of India to look into the matter of: 1. Allegations of abuse of authority. 2. Excesses and malpractices. 3. Actions taken in the name of emergency proclaimed on 25 June 1975. The government appeared before commission against various evidences but she refused to answer any question. Q 4. Describe any two outcomes of Naxalite Movement.
Answer: The ‘Naxalites’ were the Marxist and Leninist Agricultural workers of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and adjoining areas who organised massive agitations against economic injustice and inequality and demanded redistribution of land to cultivators. Q 5. Mention circumstances to be characterised for imposition of emergency?
Answer: 1. Emergence of Indira Gandhi. 2. Power Politics became personalised and governmental authority was converted into personalization. 3. Bitter party competition. 4. Tense relations between the government and judiciary. Q 6. Who organised the first nationwide Satyagraha and Why?
Answer: It was organised by Jayaprakash Narayan for Indira Gandhi’s resignation, he appealed to people not to obey illegal and immoral orders by a massive demonstration on 25 June 1975. All these changed the political mood of the country against Congress.
Short Answer Type Questions [4 Marks]
Q 1. Explain the reasons for students movement of 1974 in Bihar and the role played by Jayaprakash Narayan in this movement.
Answer: Reasons for Student’s Movement of 1974: Students organised movement against: 1. Rising prices of food grains, cooking oil and other essential commodities. 2. Corruption in high places. Assess Role played by Jai Prakash Narayan: Satyagraha was organised by Jayaprakash Narayan for Indira Gandhi’s resignation, he appealed to people not to obey illegal and immoral orders by a massive demonstration on 25 June 1975. All these changed the political mood of the country against Congress. Q 2. Evaluate the consequences of declaration of emergency in 1975? 
Answer: 1. It effected civil liberties of peoples i.e. in April11976 it was proved that the government could take away citizens’ right to life and liberty by overruling of high courts under supreme courts and accepted government’s plea. 2. The forth-second Amendment was also passed to bring a series of changes in constitution. 3. It affected the functioning of mass media also as press censorship took place which banned freedom of press and newspapers, which were supposed to prior approval before they publish any material. 4. Despite of filing many petitions government claimed it not to be necessary to be informed the grounds to arrested persons. Q 3. Explain any two lessons learnt from emergency imposed in 1975.
Answer: The emergency brought out weaknesses and strengths both to India’s democracy: 1. First lesson was felt that it was extremely difficult to do away with democracy in India. 2. Secondly, it amended that internal emergency could be proclaimed only on the grounds of armed rebellion, on the advice to the president to proclaim emergency must be given in writing by council of ministers. 3. Thirdly, emergency made everyone more aware of civil liberties as well as courts also took an active role in protecting civil liberties of individuals. Q 4. Examine the legacy of emergency of 1975 in India.
Answer: The legacy of emergency was felt in every sphere of people’s life and politics: 1. Between the elections of 1977 and 1980, Congress identified itself with particular ideology, claiming to be only socialist and pro-poor party. 2. The concept of non-Congression was created among oppositions parties. 3. The issues of welfare of backward classes began to dominate politics i. e. northern states elected non¬Congress leaders of backward class since 1977. 4. This period of emergency saw the period of constitutional crisis to loose its origin in constitutional battle over jurisdiction of parliament and judiciary. 5. This period created political crisis also as the party in power enjoyed absolute majority, still decided to suspend the democratic process. 6. The emergency tensed between institution based democracy and democracy based on spontaneous popular participation for which party system was to be blamed. Q 5. Why is emergency and period around it known as the period of constitutional crisis? Explain.
Answer: 1. The Parliament brought in many new changes in constitution which made an amendment declaring that elections of Prime Minister, President and Vice President could not be challenged in the court. 2. The forty second amendment was also passed to bring a series of changes in constitution like duration of legislatures, elections can be postponed by one year during emergency. Q 6. How far do you agree that the government had misused its emergency powers during 1975-77? Explain.
Answer: No, the government hence misused its ‘Emergency Powers’. But it said that it wanted to use the emergency: 1. To bring law and order into society. 2. To restore efficiency into administra¬tion and system. 3. To implement the pro-poor welfare programmes. Q 7. How did emergency of 1975 benefit the Indian democratic set up?
Answer: 1. Between the elections of 1977 and 1980, Congress identified itself with particulars ideology, claiming to be only socialist and pro-poor party. 2. The concept of non-Congressism was created among opposition parties. 3. The issues of welfare of backward class began to dominate politics i. e. Northern states elected non- Congress leaders of backward class since 1977. 4. The emergency tensed between institution based democracy and democracy based on spontaneous popular participation for which party system was to be blamed. Q 8. Describe any four circumstances for proclamation of emergency in 1975.
Answer:1. Emergence of Indira Gandhi. 2. Power politics became personalised and governmental authority was converted into personalization. 3. Bitter party competition. 4. Tensed relations between the government and judiciary. Q 9. Discuss the role of Jayaprakash Narayan in Bihar movement and national politics.
Answer: 1. Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan from Janata Party was a Marxist of youth, who became a Gandhian and involved himself in a Bhoodan movement. 2. He led Bihar movement and opposed the emergency. 3. Bihar students invited him and he accepted on the condition of movement to be non-violent and not to limit only to Bihar territory. Hence, Bihar movement assumed a political character and national appeal. 4. This movement demanded dismissal of Congress government in Bihar and called for total revolution in social, economic and political aspects to establish a total democracy. 5. Bandhs, gheraos, strikes were organised in protest. Even employees of railways organised a strike which threatened to paralyse the country. 6. In 1975, Janata Party led people’s march to parliament to be one of the largest political rallies ever held in capital. 7. Janata was supported by non¬Congress parties like BJS, socialist parties etc., which projected JP as an alternative to Indira Gandhi. Q 10. ‘Emergency was a Blackmark in Indian History’. Comment.
Answer: 1. Emergency was declared on the ground of internal disturbances on 25 June 1975 to invoke Article 352 of constitution. 2. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi recommended to impose emergency to president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad. 3. Emergency was one of the most controversial episode which possessed different virus regarding to impose emergency. 4. Emergency practically suspended the democratic functioning. 5. ‘Shah Commission’ exposed many excesses committed during emergency. 6. Emergency highlighted some hidden matters over constitutional battle between the parliament and judiciary. 7. Tensions or conflicts had been arisen between institution based democracy and popular participation of people.
Passage Based Questions [5 Marks]
1. Read the passage given below carefully and answer the questions: Once an emergency is proclaimed, the federal distribution of powers remains practically suspended and al 1 t be powc itc the hands of the union government. Secondly, the government also gets the power to curtail or restrict all or any of the Fundamental Rights during the emergency. From the wording of the provisions of the Constitution, it is clear that an Emergency is seen as an extra-iordinary condition in which normal democratic politics cannot function. Therefore, special powers are granted to the government.
Questions 1. When was emergency imposed? 2. Who recommended emergency to be imposed and to whom? 3. Mention the implications of emergency.
Answer: 1. 25 June 1975. 2. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi recommended to impose emergency to the president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad. 3. (i) The federal distribution of powers remains practically suspended. (ii) All the powers are concentrated in the hands of Union government. (iii) The government also gets power to restrict all or any of Fundamental Rights during emergency. 2. Read the passage given below carefully and answer the questions: There were many acts of dissent and resistance to the Emergency. Many political workers who were not arrested in the first wave, went ‘underground’ and organised protests against the government. Newspapers like the Indian Express and the Statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank spaces where news items had been censored. Magazines like the Seminar and the Mainstream chose to close down rather than submit to censorship. Many journalists were arrested for writing against the Emergency. Many underground newsletters and leaflets were published to bypass censorship. Kannada writer Shivarama Karanth, awarded with Padma Bhushan, and Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Renu, awarded with Padma Shri, returned their awards in protest against the suspension of democracy. By and large, though, such open acts of defiance and resistance were rare.
Questions 1. Why did people began to protest against government? 2. How did newspapers protest against censorship? 3. How did writers protest against the emergency? 4. Which magazines protested against censorship?
Answer: 1. Against imposition of emergency. 2. Newspaper like Indian Express and the Statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank spaces where news items had been censored. 3. Kannada writer Shivarama Karanth awarded with Padma Bhushan and Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Renu awarded with Padma Shri returned their awards in protest against suspension of democracy. 4. Magazines like ‘Seminar’ and ‘Mainstream’ chose to close down rather than submit to censorship.
Long Answer Type Questions [6 Marks]
Q 1. Analyse any three lessons learnt from the emergency of 1975.
Answer: 
(i) The emergency of 1975 at once brought out both the weaknesses’ and the strengths of India’s democracy. Though there are many observers who think that India ceased to be democratic during the emergency, it is noteworthy that normal democratic functioning resumed within a short span of time. Thus, one lesson of Emergency is that it is extremely difficult to do away with democracy in India.
(ii) It brought out some ambiguities regarding the emergency provision in the constitution that have been rectified since. Now ‘internal’ emergency can be proclaimed only on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’ and it is necessary that the advice to the President to proclaim emergency must be given in writing by the Council of Ministers.
(iii) The Emergency made everyone aware of the value of civil liberties. The courts, too, have taken an active role after the emergency in protecting the civil liberties of the individuals. This is in response to the inability of the judiciary to protect civil liberties effectively during the emergency. Many civil liberties organizations came up after this experience. Q 2. Examine the three consequences of emergency imposed in 1975.
Answer: 
(a) Effects on Civil Liberties of Citizens: 1. The government made large scale arrests under preventive detention. 2. Arrested political persons could not challenge arrest even under Habeas Corpus petition. 3. Despite filing many petitions government claimed it not to be necessary to be informed of grounds to arrested persons. 4. In April 1976, finally it was proved that the government could taken away citizen’s right to life and liberty by over ruling of high courts under supreme court and accepted government’s plea.
(b) Impact on Relationship between Parliament and Judiciary: 1. The parliament brought in many new changes in constitution which made an amendment declaring that election of Prime Minister, President and ViceÂŹpresident could not be challenged in the court. 2. The forty-second amendment (42nd) was also passed to bring a series of changes in constitution like duration of legislatures, elections can be postponed by one year during an emergency.
(c) Functioning of Mass Media: 1. Press censorship took place which banned freedom of press is newspapers were supposed to seek prior approval before they publish any material. 2. Protests, strikes and public agitations were also banned. 3. Various fundamental rights were also suspended including even Right to move to Court for Restoration of Fundamental Rights. 4. Kannada writer Shivarama Karnata awarded with Padma Bhushan and Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Renu with Padmashri returned their awards on protest against suspension of democracy. 5. Newspapers mainly Indian Express, and the Statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank editorial column. Q 3. Examine any six reasons for the imposition of emergency in India in 1975. Or Analyse any three reasons for imposing emergency on 25 June 1975. Did the government misuse its emergency powers? Give any three arguments in support of answers.
Answer: (i) Emergency was proclaimed in response to petition filed by Raj Narayan to declare Indira Gandhi’s election invalid. (ii) On June 25, 1975, the government declared the threat of internal disturbances to invoke Article 352 of constitution. (iii) Article 352 can declare emergency on ground of either internal or external disturbances. (iv) The government decided a grave crisis to be arisen to proclaim emergency to bring law and order, restore efficiency and implement pro-poor Welfare Programmes. (v) The President FakhruddinAli Ahmad proclaimed emergency which became the most controversial episode in Indian politics. (vi) Power politics became personalised and governmental authority was converted into personalization Q 4. Assess any three happenings which were responsible for the downfall of Congress Party in the 1977 elections. Or ‘The 1977 elections for the first time saw the opposition coming to power at the centre’. Examine any six reasons for this change.
Answer: The 1977 elections were evolved as a shock to everyone as Congress Party was defeated for the very first time and opposition party came into power: 1. The opposition adopted the slogan ‘save democracy’ against imposition of emergency earlier. 2. The opposition campaigned non- democratic character of rule which provided various excesses. 3. The opposition party highlighted the preventive detention and press censorship to favour public opinion. 4. Janata Party also ensured not to divide non-Congress votes. 5. Middle section of North India was moving away from Congress for whom Janata Party became a platform. 6. Hence, elections of 1977 emerged many other factors instead about emergency only. Q 5. Explain any three outcomes of Lok Sabha elections of 1977.
Answer: 1. In March 1977 elections, for the first time, Congress lost elections with winning 154 seats only. 2. Janata Party and its allies won 330 seats out of 542 seats. 3. Congress lost from the states of Bihar, U.P., Haryana, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. 4. Janata Party was formed of coalitions under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayana. 5. Janata Party called this election as a referendum on emergency. 6. Opposition party realised not to divide the votes to enjoy the power under one umbrella. 7. All these indicated a tough time for Congress ahead. Q 6. What is Naxalite movement? Evaluate its role in Indian politics.
Answer: The Naxalites were the Marxist and Leninist agricultural workers of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and adjoining areas which organised massive agilations against economic injustice and inequality and demanded redistribution of land to cultivators. Role in Indian Politics: 1. Naxalite, did not participate in the elections formally but these were actively associated with parties. 2. Naxalites ensured a better representation of demands of deprived social sections in party politics. 3. These movements retained associations or relations alongwith the political parties either as an individual or as an organisations.
Picture/Map Based Questions [5 Marks]
1. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:
Tumblr media
Questions 1. What was the slogan of Janata Party to campaign in elections? 2. Identify the person who is sitting on ground holding the slogan. 3. Against which practices Jayaprakash Narayana agitated?
Answer: 1. Save Democracy. 2. Jayaprakash Narayan. 3. Corruption, lawlessness, violence, and most important against imposition of emergency. Q 2. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:
Tumblr media
Question. 1. When did cartoon appear in the newspaper and why? 2. Identify the person behind Indira Gandhi. 3. Identify what does the ‘Political Crisis’ stand for. Explain.
Answer: 1. This cartoon appeared few days before the declaration of emergency to capture the sense of impending political crisis. 2. The then Congress president D.K. Barooah. 3. Political crisis in 1977 made the party system in India look like a two party system i.e. Congress and nonÂŹCongress to end one party dominance and emergence of non-Congress party Janata Party as an umbrella for others. Q 3. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:
Tumblr media
Questions 1. What situation does the picture refer to? 2. Which Commission is represented into the cartoon? 3. Mention some points of this Commission’s report.
Answer: 1. Appearance of Indira Gandhi before Commission but refused to answer any question. 2. Shah Commission’s report about emergency. 3. (i) There were many excesses committed during emergency. (ii) Several restrictions were put on the press sometimes without legal sanction. (iii) Many people were arrested under preventive detention law. (iv) Even general manager of Delhi Power Supply Corporation received verbal orders from the officers of Lt. Governor of Delhi to cut electricity to all newspaper presses at 2 a.m. on 26 June 1975.
via Blogger https://ift.tt/31OhBB8
0 notes
mostlysignssomeportents · 5 years ago
Text
#1yrago The EU's Copyright Directive charm offensive pats Europeans on the head and tells them leave it up to the corporations
Tumblr media
When it comes to the new Copyright Directive, some in the EU would prefer that Europeans just stop paying attention and let the giant corporations decide the future of the Internet.
In a new Q&A about the Directive, the European Parliament – or rather, the JURI committee, which, headed by Axel Voss, spearheaded the shepherding of Article 13 and 11 through a skeptical Parliament, sets out a one-sided account of the most far-reaching regulation of online speech in living memory, insisting that "online platforms and news aggregators are reaping all the rewards while artists, news publishers and journalists see their work circulate freely, at best receiving very little remuneration for it."
The author of JURI’s press release is right about one thing: artists are increasingly struggling to make a living, but not because the wrong corporations are creaming off the majority of revenue that their work generates. For example, streaming music companies hand billions to music labels, but only pennies reach the artists. Meanwhile, a handful of giant companies make war with one another over which ones will get to keep the spoils of creators' works. In a buyers' market, sellers get a worse deal, and when there are only five major publishers and four record labels and five Internet giants, almost everyone is a seller in a buyers' market.
The EU's diagnosis is incomplete, and so its remedy is wrong. Article 13 of the new Copyright Directive requires filters for big online platforms that watch everything that Europeans post to the Internet and block anything that anyone, anywhere has claimed as a copyrighted work. Recent versions of Article 13 have gone to great lengths to obscure the fact that it requires filters, but any rule that requires platforms to know what hundreds of millions of people are posting, all the time, and not allow anything that seems like a copyright infringement is obviously about filters.
When Big Content and Big Tech sit down to make a meal out of creators, it doesn't matter who gets the bigger piece.
These filters don't come cheap. Google's comparatively modest version of an Article 13 filter, the YouTube ContentID system, cost $60 million to develop and tens of millions more to maintain, and it can only compare videos to a small database of copyright claims from a trusted group of rightsholders. It would cost hundreds of millions of Euros to develop a filter that could manage every tweet, Facebook update, YouTube comment, blog post, and other form of expressive speech online to ensure that it's not a match for a crowdsourced database that any of the Internet's two billion users can add anything to.
Google has hundreds of millions of Euros, and so do Facebook and the other US Big Tech companies. Notably, Europe's struggling online sector — who represent a competitive alternative to US Big Tech — do not. While America’s tech giants would prefer no regulation, they'll happily settle for regulation that's so expensive it clears the field of all possible competitors.
For creators, this is a terrible state of affairs. The consolidation of the online dominance of the Big Tech players won't increase the competitive market for their works — nor will any of the billions squandered on black-box censorship algorithms enrich creators. Instead all that money will go to the tech companies that build and operate the filters.
And since Big Content will have the only direct lines into Big Tech to get wrongly censored material restored, creators will find themselves more hemmed in.
When Big Content and Big Tech sit down to make a meal out of creators, it doesn't matter who gets the bigger piece.
Meanwhile, for everyone else, the Directive will mean that all of our non-entertainment expression will be liable to being blocked by the copyright algorithms, and since the Internet is how we take care of our health, do our jobs, get our educations, fall in love, stay in touch with our families, and participate in civic and political life, all of that will be risked on an absurd bet that slightly tilting the balance between two giant industrial sectors will make a little more money trickle down to artists.
This "clarification" of the Copyright Directive is a whitewash, and an insult to the more than four million Europeans who have opposed the Directive, and the hundreds of MEPs that have so far questioned the direction of the Directive and its terrible proposals.
Europeans have a right and a duty to engage with the EU's processes: here's a way to get in touch with European national lawmakers and tell them to reject Articles 13 and 11.
(Crossposted from EFF Deeplinks)
https://boingboing.net/2019/01/16/nothing-to-see-here.html
2 notes · View notes
comp6841 · 6 years ago
Text
Separation of Powers
Our System (Australia)
Our constitution defines the rules by which our country run and describes three main bodies responsible for governance:
Parliament - Composed of the Queen (represented by Governor-General), Senate and House of Representatives.
Role: Produces and amends laws
Executive - Made up of the Queen (represented by Governor-General), Prime Minister and ministers.
Role: Puts the laws into action
Judiciary - Composed of the High Court and other federal courts.
Role: Makes judgements about the law
Tumblr media
The system doesn’t have complete separation of power as we have overlap in the roles of the Queen, ministers and responsibilities of appointments regarding judges. However, there is an expectation that the executive are held to account as they are required to maintain support of their parties within parliament to remain in government. Every few years these members of parliament change with elections, where the people are “given a say” as to who they wish to represent them.
The Romans
The Roman Republic had a rather complex constitution which consisted of a number of controls to ensure the separation of powers. Initially it was heavily influenced by the aristocrats (of nobility) but over time many of the laws which cemented their control were repealed, giving more power back to the plebians. During their massive expansion and conquest of much of Europe, this system was replaced with an Empire - this is credited as occurring just after the assassination of Julius Caesar and the Senate’s grant of power to August which essentially made him the first emperor.
The Senate
The Senate derived it’s authority from the prestige of the members within it; it was responsible for passing decrees which gave official direction to magistrates. It also provided management advice on foreign policy and military direction. You had to be born of nobility, held public office and had a sizeable amount of land (100,000 denarii) worth to be eligible to enter the Senate, and had to be accepted by the existing senators.
Legislative Assembly
There were two types of assemblies made up from the People of Rome:
Committees (comitia) - group of citizens
Councils (concilia) - assemblies of specific citizens
These groups were responsible for enacting laws, managing alliances and war, capital punishments and election of magistrates.
Magistrates
These people were chosen by the People of Rome and held a number of constitutional powers. Depending on their level this may include:
Imperium (consuls, praetors) - authority to command a military force
Coercion - maintain public order; able to freely punish out of Rome however inside Rome citizens had protection (to appeal) via Provocatio
Auspicia  - power and duty to look for omens which could be used to obstruct political opponents (i.e. ending meet or vetoing colleague)
They had checks and balances in place over a magistrates power such as:
Collegiality - every magisterial office held by at least 2 people
Provocatio - citizen’s could appeal powers used by magistrate against them to a tribune
Limited terms - they needed to wait 10 years before serving in same office again after expiry
There were a number of different levels within the magistrates:
Consul - highest ranking with supreme power over military and civil matters; they would lead armies abroad and could be the authority in the Senate and assemblies
Praetor - lead smaller armies and involved in civil law
Censors - 2 elected every five years to conduct a census; during this time they could add or remove from the senate
Aediles - responsible for running games and shows in Rome
Quaestors - often responsible for finances, assisting either the consuls or governors
Tribunes - some involved in commanding portions of the Roman army, some as checks on authority for the Senate and other magistrates
Dictator - appointed officials for periods of six months during military emergency (dissolving the government during this time) and had absolute power of the state
The Greeks
They were actually responsible for the first known democracy in the world - referred to as “Athenian democracy” it controlled the balance of power in the city of Athens and surrounding regions. It revolved around a system of legislation and bills, with participation in the systems limited to adult men of at least 20 years of age. I feel that the power was much more in the people’s hands than in the Roman system - the diagram below (courtesy of Wikipedia) easily sums it up better than I could in a page of words.
Tumblr media
Defying Term Limits
China used to have a two-term limit on their presidents since the 1990s, however this restriction was removed fairly recently in 2018. The constitutional changes were passed by the parliament with 2959/2964 votes (described as a “rubber-stamping exercise”); president Xi also used his power to write his name and political ideology into his party’s constitution. Interestingly, the president’s political philosophy being enshrined into the constitution will mean that school children and staff will also be forced to study it.
Some Personal Thoughts
I still feel that most these Ancient political systems are designed in such a way to give the illusion of distribution of power - they still seem to have distinct hierarchies in society. The main ideas behind these systems is the fair assumption that for the most part people will act in their own self-interest; the point being that you could use external bodies to keep everybody on check circularly. However this tended to backfire with those involves in politics essentially forming a separate social class and looking after each other.
The Roman Senate was pretty much full of rich people and while magistrates were voted on, you could only do it within the city of Rome (which was costly travel). The assemblies were divided into voting sections by wealth which meant that the top 1-2% by wealth had approximately 50% of the votes. All the officials within the system were also extremely susceptible to bribery and corruption; no-one really had a vested interest to keep them in check.
I think we still face many of these issues today - people in political power are still looking out for themselves and we rely on transparency in government for the people to be able to keep them in check. I would argue we don’t really have the level of transparency we should have; there are still many methods to provide “political donation” in a sense, without a need for disclosure. We have a growing concentration of wealth in a number of individuals which are able to control the media and thus control the imagery that the people see. This makes it almost political suicide to act against their interests.
1 note · View note
liyingliu · 3 years ago
Text
Are you in a social media filter bubble?
According to a recent Pew Research Center survey on news consumption, 62% of adults in the US use social media to get their news, and 66% of Facebook users use the platform for news consumption. At the same time, as social media becomes a larger share of news and information consumption, social networks show an increasing ideological polarisation. In recent years, social media filter bubbles have been influencing people's daily browsing, including harmful content promoted by algorithms. A few days ago, photo-sharing program instagram said they would allow users to freely switch between messages that are arranged in chronological order, rather than being pushed according to a computer algorithm. In response, the UK Parliament has proposed the introduction of an Internet Safety Bill to protect children and adults from viewing information about harmful and illegal internet content.
Tumblr media
Regarding the term 'filter bubble', Pariser (2011 ) states that "you live in an online, personal and unique world of information. What's in your filter bubble depends on who you are and what you do. At the same time, you don't get to decide what gets entered. What's more, you don't actually see what gets censored."He argues that the algorithms that customise and personalise the experience place users in a bubble where they will only see information that interests them or matches what they have seen before. This format creates an online form of isolation from differing opinions. As the concept focuses on the influence of the algorithm, people tend to share and discuss with people who have the same group when they choose articles that match their concerns(Seargeant & Tagg, 2019). To a certain extent, filter bubbles create 'echo chambers' for the exchange of opinions and provide a good place for communication. However, the concept of filter bubbles has also had to face some real problems. Some social media giants, including Google, Facebook and Twitter, are using ever-changing algorithms that ultimately create these filter bubbles. Facebook, for example, prefers to push news with the same political beliefs to users when they are browsing for information, and in particular tends to amplify news stories preferred by the same political partners in terms of news algorithms.
Tumblr media
https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_what_obligation_do_social_media_platforms_have_to_the_greater_good?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
In response, Strohma(2019) also said that the reality is that social media platforms are providing users with information that matches their interests and can be collected from other social media followers and fed back to users, and that users who use the platforms are like having hundreds of friends. There is no way to change the impact of the algorithm while the user is using it. However, Strohma suggests that people can try to break out of these bubbles to limit people's access.
Tumblr media
http://www.ftchinese.com/interactive/56298?exclusive
 With the introduction of the Government's Online Safety Bill, the media regulator will regulate these social platforms, which will change the way information is pushed. Users will have the right to choose the communities they want to participate in discussions with, as well as the ability to change the original fixed message push by searching for sources of information, and to communicate with people with different views and access different aspects of information. All of this helps users to break the algorithms of social platforms in their own way.
Reference
Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2019). Social media and the future of open debate: A user-oriented approach to Facebook’s filter bubble conundrum. Discourse, Context & Media, 27, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.03.005
Gould, W. R. (2019, October 21). Are you in a social media bubble? Here’s how to tell. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896
Schiffer, Z. (2019, November 12). “Filter Bubble” author Eli Pariser on why we need publicly owned social networks. The Verge; The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/11/12/20959479/eli-pariser-civic-signals-filter-bubble-q-a
1 note · View note
expatimes · 4 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media
Academic freedom is under attack in Modi’s India | Human Rights News
Last year I had the opportunity to listen to the prominent Indian intellectual and author, Anand Teltumbde, speak at an academic conference in Delhi. At one point in his speech, he got teary-eyed and told the audience that he has lost all hope because India’s transformation into a “Hindu nation” under Prime Minister Narendra Modi appears complete. Having followed his profound anti-caste scholarship and civil rights activism closely over the years, I was heartbroken to witness his despair. I wanted to walk up to him and tell him that things will eventually get better. But since I did not know him personally, I chose not to.
I thought of him and his sorrow about the state of India often in the following months. I was miles away in the United States studying towards a PhD, but I was aware of the increasing repression of dissident academics and student activists in my home country. So when I read about Professor Teltumbde’s arrest in April this year, it felt personal. He was accused of having links with Maoist rebels and conspiring against the government, including “plotting the assassination” of Modi. Countless legal experts agree that the charges are fabricated and politically motivated, but he remains behind bars to this day.
Sadly, Teltumbde is not the only scholar to have fallen victim to the ongoing witch hunt against government critics in Indian academia – many public intellectuals have been accused of endangering “national security” and imprisoned for challenging Modi’s authoritarianism in recent years.
Just last month, a report published by the international NGO Scholars at Risk exposed the steady curtailment of academic freedoms in India under the Modi government. While the findings of the report were undoubtedly disturbing, they did not come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the news from India closely.
Since assuming power in 2014, Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been systematically destroying the secular, democratic foundations of India and transforming the country into a strictly Hindu nation. BJP’s Hindu supremacist ideology portrays Muslims as the nefarious “other”. Moreover, Hindu supremacy is about the hegemony of upper-caste Hindus. Lower castes, which constitute the majority of the Indian population, are on one hand told to be proud Hindus, and on the other hand, oppressed violently because the caste system deems them inferior. It is in this context that anti-caste, Dalit (formerly “untouchable”) scholars such as Teltumbde, as well as Muslim and other dissident academics, are accused of being “anti-national” and prosecuted with fabricated charges.
Last August, India revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority region over which both India and Pakistan claim jurisdiction. Following this move, the world’s so-called “largest democracy” imposed a communication lockdown in the region, closed all educational institutions and erected police barracks in university campuses.
Without access to the internet and university campuses, scholars and students from the region were left struggling to study, teach and communicate with each other and the outside world. To make matters worse, Hindu nationalist groups supporting the government started attacking Kashmiri students in other parts of India for merely “looking Kashmiri”. Scholars working on subjects related to Kashmir, meanwhile, have been summoned by state authorities to explain why they are doing “anti-national” research. Attempts by the Indian government and its supporters to silence dissenting voices in academia have not been contained within the country’s borders, either. Letters accusing Kashmiri scholars based in the US of “supporting terrorism” have been sent to the universities they are associated with, and events they participate in have been disturbed by Modi’s supporters.
Just a few months after the revocation of Kashmir’s special status, Modi’s BJP rammed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which offers an accelerated path to citizenship to migrants who are not Muslim, through India’s parliament.
On university campuses across India, students held unprecedented, peaceful protests against this blatantly discriminatory law. These protests were met with brutal state repression. Police and paramilitary forces entered university campuses and fired tear gas and rubber bullets and beat up students. In some cases, officers stood by and watched as Hindu nationalist groups stormed the same campuses, vandalised property and attacked anti-CAA student protesters.
Indian scholars and students studying abroad, such as myself, watched these events in horror. Many of us published open letters against the CAA and in support of the protesters. Despite a large number of signatories including many prominent scholars, these letters made little difference to the Modi government – it continued its repression of peaceful protesters, which eventually resulted in an anti-Muslim pogrom in Delhi that claimed 53 lives.
This year, the COVID-19 pandemic provided another opportunity for the government to clamp down on any criticism of its policies and actions. As protests became difficult and at times “unlawful gatherings” amid the pandemic restrictions, the Modi government decided to utilise its powers to further silence dissenting voices. It started wielding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – which gives the state the power to designate an individual as a terrorist before being proven guilty by trial – against dissident scholars and students participating in anti-CAA protests and anti-caste activism.
In July, at the height of the coronavirus crisis, the BJP government also approved the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) outlining its vision for India’s education system. Not only does NEP pave the way for further privatisation of education and the erosion of the federal character of the educational structure, BJP’s rhetoric around NEP reveals how Hindu supremacy is shaping education in India.
BJP officials’ discussion of NEP has been replete with proclamations that education needs to be grounded in “culture” and “traditions” and that India was a “knowledge superpower” in the ancient past, before Muslim invasions and British colonialism.
According to Education Minister Ramesh Pokhriyal, the NEP is based on the dictum that “nation must”. Under this ideological design, questioning caste oppression, Islamophobia, patriarchy and crony capitalism is “anti-national” and scholars who dare to do so lack “character”.
The NEP prioritises the development of “practical skills” over critical thinking abilities. I, myself, have seen what this means during my undergraduate studies in one of the country’s premier engineering and science institutes, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). It means keeping the curriculum and the university atmosphere strictly apolitical, which ensures graduates obtain remarkable technical skills but remain unable to think critically and question oppressive structures.
With Indian engineers and technical professionals working across the world, this issue has global ramifications. After watching my college peers bash affirmative action for Dalit students for years, I was not surprised to find that there is rampant caste discrimination among Indian-origin engineers in Silicon Valley. Having experienced the meritocratic, technocratic environment of the IIT, I was not surprised that Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who is an IIT alumnus, chose to work with the Chinese government to create a censored, trackable search engine rather than question how doing so will endanger human rights in China.
The ongoing unlawful imprisonment of Professor Teltumbde and numerous other scholars is a clear reflection of the bleak state of academic freedom in India. It will take years, if not decades, to undo the damage that Modi and his Hindu nationalist supporters have inflicted on Indian education. It will require university leaders, lawmakers, civil society, and crucially, the international community, urging the state to end repression of ideas and safeguard academic freedoms.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
#humanrights Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=15809&feed_id=24012 #asia #humanrights #india #opinions
0 notes
opedguy · 4 years ago
Text
Europeans Don’t Get U.S. Democracy
LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Nov. 5, 2020.--Products of a more genteel culture, on the surface, Europeans generally don’t get the ruff-and-tumble of U.S. democracy, where people pick the president, not a parliament or more authoritarian regimes where prime ministers or presidents have no term limits.  Every four years, at a cost of billions of dollars, voters pick a new president or stick with the old one but only for a maximum of eight years.  U.S. senators have more longevity with six-year terms with House members having two-year terms but without term limits.  Europe, of course, doesn’t like criticism, something 74-year-old President Donald Trump wasn’t shy about dishing out, especially when it came to NATO’s mutual defense treaty, where EU countries didn’t pony up to Trump’s liking.  Members of the British parliament weren’t too happy with Trump backing the Brexit movement, to vote to remove the U.K. from the European Union.     
        Trump’s been unlike any other U.S. president because he comes from the private business background, where things get done behind closed doors with colorful language, something appreciated by many of Trump’s loyal followers.  Trump’s fans like his brashness, something seen as a cherished American value, swashbuckling and bold, often viewed as obnoxious by Europeans.  No where on the planet was Trump reviled more than in the U.S. media, who felt humiliated when he was elected in 2016, after they all endorsed his challenger former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.  When Trump won in 2016, it started a ongoing war with the press, working in overdrive to see Trump removed from office.  U.S. mainstream press made a secret pact with Democrats to oust Trump from office.  Lying, cheating, distorting, fabricating anything possible to toss Trump from office.       
      Trump endured four years of FBI investigations all based on fake evidence, manufactured by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele to help Hillary beat Trump in 2016.  Accused of being a Russian asset, the media, and House Democrats tried to hound Trump out of office.  Nowhere in the world other than the most corrupt regimes are politicians framed by their press with no evidence, just writing gossip, innuendo, flat out lies, the most vicious disinformation and propaganda in the world today.  No where except the most repressive regimes, where there is no Free Press, does the press censor compelling information about a presidential candidate.  U.S. press in the 2020 election censored compelling information about former Vice President Joe Biden and his family’s corrupt business deals in China, Russia and Ukraine.  Yet Biden stands almost victorious today unseating Trump.      
       Europeans have strong opinions about Trump because he doesn’t mince words, tells it like it is and calls out politicians for corruption and disastrous domestic and foreign policies.  Trump, at least for four years, broke the costly U.S. cycle of funding and participating in endless Mideast wars.  Biden, now minutes away from declaring victory, was responsible, together with his boss former President Barack Obama, for toppling Col Muammar Gaddafi and backing a nine-year-old Saudi-funded proxy war to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.  Al-Assad is a president like North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, a ruthless dictator responsible for genocide in their countries.  Yet Obama and Biden drove 15 million Syrians into refugees, killing 500,000, creating the worst humanitarian crisis since WW II.  Obama and Biden’s foreign policy pushed the U.K. into Brexit, practically breaking the EU.     
        German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas urged both sides in the U.S. to resolve the election peacefully.  “America is more than a none-man show.  Anyone who continues to pour oil on the fire in a situation like this sis acting irresponsibly,” Maas said, referring to Trump.  But Maas really doesn’t get U.S. politics, for better or worse, works out its problems one way or another.  Trump has a right to question whether voter fraud by the Democrat Party ousted him from office.  From Trump’s perspective, when he spoke to supporters at the White House early more Nov. 4, he was well ahead, looking like he was coasting to a second term.  Then, suddenly, his fortunes changed, with Biden making up ground and overtaking him in Wisconsin and Michigan, then making inroads in Pennsylvania where Trump held a commanding 14-point lead.  That lead is now under two percent, with more votes counted.      
       Foreigners, especially Europeans, don’t understand American democracy, including the rough-and-tumble of elections.  With Biden closing in on 270 Electoral Votes, all the chatter coming across the pond will start to fade, while today’s foreign press reports make it look like the U.S. is close to civil war.  “Now is the time to keep a cool head until an independently determined result is available,” Maas said, telling his European counterparts to trust the process.  EU officials would of course prefer to see Biden president, getting back to more traditional diplomacy, tossed out the window when Trump became president.  Biden, like his boss Obama, will get back to global diplomacy, with the U.S. taking more collective action, rather than Trump “America First” approach.  Trump’s legal battles should be of no concern to anyone, knowing that when Biden hits 270 Electoral votes, it’s a done deal. 
About the Author 
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.   Reply  Reply All  Forward
0 notes
es-feminismo-blog · 8 years ago
Text
Venezuela
The world needs to know what is happening in Venezuela right now. As many of you might know, Venezuela is been in a dictatorship for more than 15 years and it’s only getting worse. After Chavez’ dead, Nicolas Maduro unconstitutionally took the place as the president and things has been getting worse since then. In 2013, the start of the big protests in Venezuela more than 200 people (mostly students between the age of 16 and 21) all over the country were arrested, the majority of those protesting were hurt by guns, bird shots and teargas resulting in the dead of many of them (again, not even older than 25). All of those attacks are from the government itself to try and repress the population from voicing their constitucional rights. Venezuela is been suffering since then a huge humanity crisis that are also the reasons for the protests. There’s not medicine in the hospitals and pharmacies, kids are basically dying from lack of resources. We can’t afford to have basic necessities such as toilet paper because there’s a huge scarcity in products of first necessity. There’s not food, and those who can afford to buy them need to spent a lot of money that the normal salary can’t cover, in fact, our salary doesn’t even afford us to have a nice diner at a restaurant. Our inflation is the highest in the world and the devaluation of our coin keeps getting even worst. There’s families/kids eating out of garbage. We have constants blackouts. The insecurity in our country is one of the worst, trust me, many Venezuelans are afraid to go outside on a certain hour, most Venezuelans have been victims of some robbery. In fact, many localities close at 6pm due to insecurity. My own mother was assaulted with guns at least 3 times in less time. Universities also suffer from insecurity. We can’t even talk about this because the government forcibly closed, censored or took out of circulation our only sources of information. The national channels don’t even speak about the protests or necessities suffered in the country because they want to brain wash those in vulnerable positions. Recently CNN was taken out of circulation in our country so the only way we can watch the news is due internet, that at this rate might be even controlled as well. There’s also a huge problem of indoctrination, the public employees get forced to attempt to political events held by the government and if they don’t they get fired, it happened to the father of a friend of mine and thousands of others.
A month ago, Nicolas Maduro proclaimed a law and eliminate the rights that constitutionally belong to the National Assembly (also known as Parliament), the National Assembly that is mostly directed by the opposition party voted by the majority of Venezuelans is the one (as stated in the constitution) in charge of making, eliminate and change laws which also protect the citizens, with this new law, the assembly can’t do their job because all their proceedings were given to the President (which means he can do what he wants with not repercussions) and to the Justice system, an unreliable source because all the public institutions in Venezuela are corrupted by this system and have done nothing but turn their back of the citizens and their rights such as the Electoral System (CNE) that has actively participated in the frauds created by the government in the voting procedures & failed to re-count votes when asked to. We don’t even have the security of a good police and military organization because like the public institutions they only obey this dictatorship government and their follow the orders to kill, torture and persecute those students, political activists and any one proclaiming their right to pacifically protest as it’s stated in the constitution.
This last few days there’s been various protests around the country and things aren’t that different from 2013. Students are getting arrested and beaten in hands of the police and national military. Just today, April 10, there’s been 3 deaths (kids younger than 20 years old), and there's over 400 arrests all around the country were the majority are minors. The police and military (GNB - Guardia Nacional Bolivariana) has been repressing students with expired teargas, bird shots and actual guns without any disregard for the citizens. Hospital has been affected, many people including babies. ALL OF THIS is happening RIGHT NOW. There’s literal kids being killed on the streets for protesting against a dictatorship government. Please take a look at this Instagram account: @venezuelalucha, this accounts has been posting the videos about all of this attacks and some of them might be triggering but is the reality of the country.
A government that wants to held power in any means possible including going against the constitution is a dictatorship. Those who need to suppress, kill, repress and persecute the citizens for protesting against them it’s a clear example of lack of human rights. Spread the world about what is happening around the world. Kids should NOT be killed and assault for protesting. This needs to be an international issue because this is a clear example of violation of human rights and the international media needs to be aware of this.
Venezuela is a war zone right now.
391 notes · View notes
teq-talks · 6 years ago
Text
Should social media be regulated?
Today, social media is used to communicate, debate, crowdsource and organize protests (to mention a few). Therefore, you could say that effective use of social media and its affordances makes it easier to participate, and thus increases our participation in society. You could even say that social media platforms have become essential for us to participate in society since “everyone” is on social media. Therefore a legal and regulatory framework for secure online interactions on these platforms is important for digital citizens.
But why are regulations needed at all, do we even need governing of this digital society?
The answer is YES.
Despite the positive benefits of social media, like connectivity and instant information sharing, social media also enables people to create false identities, spread hate, share fake news and participate in cyberbullying. Therefore it is understandable that the standards and data regulations on the Internet largely affect our lives as digital citizens.
But would regulating social media be intervening with the right of freedom of speech?
Unfortunately, in some cases this is true. Since digital technologies and the widespread use, of social media, has given everyone a voice and a space to communicate with pretty much anyone, anywhere, it is evident that digital citizenship is democratizing and empowering. Some leaders do however not believe in empowering their citizens.
Tumblr media
In China, social media is heavily regulated and a report published by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) writes that "Xi Jinping's China is getting closer and closer to a contemporary version of totalitarianism".
Sadly, Russia is moving in the same extreme direction as China. Putin's government is already heavily censoring online content, one example of the extent of this is Maria Motuznaya, a 24-year-old who is facing up to six years in prison because of a series of memes she shared online. Including this photo with the caption “quick, while there’s no God”:  
Tumblr media
Extensive data collection is also a major threat for the digital citizens of Russia. This is sometimes referred to as surveillance capitalism, where those who own our personal data are given unique information about our lives and knowledge is power, so ultimately they also gain power over their citizens.
The Putin government is already blocking companies who refuse to locate their data servers inside the country, They also blocked the popular messaging app Telegram since they refused to give Russian security services access to their users' encrypted messages. The government's data collection and control over the internet (and its citizens) is predicted to increase since Putin now wants to build his own internet system called “Sovereign Internet”. The bill suggesting the new infrastructure is likely to pass in parliament and would mean that the authorities get full control of the Russian cyberspace (and ultimately, its users).
Other countries taking similar measures to control the internet and access its citizens’ information are Turkey, Iran and Kazakhstan.
Tumblr media
On the same notion, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reported that the Press Freedom is also declining in the world. RSF highlighted in the report that  Donald Trump, Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping's are perpetrating anti-media rhetoric and are actively trying to undermine press freedom, something that we can see online:
youtube
Since the American president started using “Fake news” the harassment and the imprisonment of journalist all over the world has increased drastically. CNN reports that leaders of Syria, Myanmar, China, Philippines, Libia, Tukey, and Russia, to name a few are following suit of the American President and have all used the term "fake news" to dismiss credible reports they disagree with.
Can regulations be done in a better way?
Yes.
The Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said this about the hostile Russian influence propaganda:  "They have a potential of not only threatening our security, but they may also have a fatal impact on democratic principles and institutions that are the basis of our political system and the guarantee of our personal freedom". Several disinformation campaigns had been detected in the Czech Republic that is believed to be funded by the Russian government. These have included the use of fake news websites, paid trolls, hackers and Twitter Bots to influence the outcome of the upcoming election.
The Czech government launched a specialized anti-fake news unit against Terrorism and Hybrid Threats (CTHH) to fight back. Their mission is to publicly debunk fake news and improve their defence against computer hacking.  
Tumblr media
“Czechs are concerned the Kremlin could influence the outcome of their elections”
Can we fight back?
Yes.
One example of fighting back is the Ukrainian professors and students who founded the independent journalists’ organisation StopFake in 2014 with the purpose to stop Russian influence propaganda and battle the spreading of fake news. On their website you can read that “Journalists, editors, IT specialists, translators, all those who cared about the future of Ukraine during this dangerous time of the annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine joined the project”.
Today, the volunteer project examines and analyzes all aspects of “Kremlin propaganda” in 11 different languages and are aiming to educate people on how to recognise “fakes”. Maybe their work even contributed to Ukraine’s achievement in holding such a free election this year?
Unfortunately, there is more work to be done. According to a ‘Kremlin Watch Report’ by the ‘European Values Think-Tank,’ ( a non-governmental policy institute defending liberal democracy), there are 7 EU states that continue to ignore or deny the existence of Russian disinformation and hostile influence operations - Hungary, Austria, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia
Where does this leave us?
Despite the positive benefits of social media, it also has great negative impacts on our society and democracies that it should to some extent be censored and monitored. However, this power can be misused or overlooked but it is possible to fight back. What we can do as individuals are to take online responsibility, not only for our actions but also the responsibility that comes from being a good citizen in a society working towards the greater good for everyone, be an anti-troll!
“Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.”
― Euripides
Tumblr media
0 notes
justfinishedreading · 6 years ago
Photo
Tumblr media
Part 1 – Historical Background
The most important thing to know about Felizmente há luar! is that it was a product of its time; this play was written in 1961 during the rule of Portuguese dictator António de Oliveira Salazar, and it is now studied in Portuguese secondary schools because of its themes on politics, corruption and censorship. In researching the historical background of this work I’ve
 ended up writing an essay on Salazar and in the process learnt quite a bit about my country. The following is information I found interesting from Wikipedia and which I’ve copy and pasted, and reworded and condensed:
The End of the Portuguese Monarchy
After the revolution in 1910 when the Portuguese monarchy was overthrown, the country fell into chaos with continual anarchy, government corruption, arbitrary imprisonment and religious persecution. The next 18 years saw the inauguration of 8 presidents, 44 cabinet re-organisations and 21 revolutions. According to official police figures, 325 bombs burst in the streets of Lisbon between 1920 and 1925. The public began to view political parties as elements of division and become more tolerant to the idea of being governed by an authoritarian regime.
AntĂłnio de Oliveira Salazar
Salazar became Minister of Finance in 1928, before that others had tried to persuade him to enter politics, but he found the state of parliament so chaotic that he refused. He finally agreed when the state of Portugal become too dire to be ignored. He agreed under the condition that he would have a free hand to veto expenditure in all government departments, not only his own. Within a year Salazar balanced the budget and stabilised Portugal's currency.
In 1932 he became Prime Minster. Now Salazar is quite an interesting figure to study, he did a lot of good for Portugal, but every good sentence written about him can be countered with something bad. He brought order to a country in chaos, but he did not believe in democracy, he used censorship and a secret police to crush opposition and ensure that he continued to be Prime Minister from 1932 until 1968.
World War II
Salazar had lived through the hard times of World War I, in which Portugal participated, so when it came to World War II Salazar kept Portugal neutral. From the very beginning Salazar was convinced that Britain would suffer in the war but remain undefeated and that the United States would step in and the Allies would win. However because Portugal was neutral, the country was forced to supply materials used for military purposes to both the Allies AND the Axis. In May 1943, the USA wanted to take control of Portuguese islands for strategic military use, the British responded that forceful measures weren’t necessary, Salazar would honour the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance. In August of that year when the British requested military use of those islands, Portugal allowed it.
Salazar’s upbringing was religious, he studied at a seminary for eight years and considered becoming a priest. He was a devote catholic and nationalist but argued that Portuguese nationalism did not glorify a single race because such a notion was pagan and anti-human. In 1938, he sent a telegram to the Portuguese Embassy in Berlin, ordering that it should be made clear to the German Reich that Portuguese law did not allow any distinction based on race, and that therefore, Portuguese Jewish citizens could not be discriminated against. On 26 June 1940, four days after France's surrender to Germany, Salazar authorised the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society in Paris to transfer its main office to Lisbon.
In July 1940, the civilian population of Gibraltar was evacuated due to imminent attacks expected from Nazi Germany. At that time, Portuguese Madeira agreed to host about 2,500 Gibraltarian refugees, mostly women and children, who remained there until the end of the war. Portugal, particularly Lisbon, was one of the last European exit points to the USA and a few hundred thousand to one million refugees found shelter in Portugal and escaped through there.
Portuguese Colonial Rule
Portugal can be proud of its action during the Second World War, but not so much of its colonial rule (
can any country ever be proud of colonialism?). Portugal had an extensive colonial empire that included Cape Verde, São Tomé e Príncipe, Angola (including Cabinda), Portuguese Guinea, Mozambique in Africa, Portuguese India in South Asia, and Macau and Timor in the Far East.
In 1947, Captain Henrique GalvĂŁo, a Portuguese parliamentarian, submitted a report disclosing the situation of forced labour and precarious health services in the Portuguese colonies of Africa. The natives, it said, were simply regarded as beasts of burden. All African men had to pay a tax in Portuguese currency, the government created a situation in which a large percentage of men in any given year could only earn the amount needed to pay the tax by going to work for a colonial employer. In practice, this enabled settlers to use forced labour on a massive scale, frequently leading to horrific abuses. GalvĂŁo's courageous report eventually led to his downfall, and in 1952, he was arrested for subversive activities.
Following the Second World War, the colonial system was subject to growing dissatisfaction, and in the early 1950s the United Kingdom launched a process of decolonization. Belgium and France followed suit. Unlike the other European colonial powers, Salazar attempted to resist this tide and maintain the integrity of the empire. In order to justify it and Portugal's alleged civilising mission, Salazar ended up adopting Gilberto Freyre's theories of Lusotropicalism, which propose that the Portuguese were better colonizers than other European nations because they had a special talent for adapting to environments, cultures and the peoples who lived in the tropics, this talent helped them build harmonious multiracial societies and promote pro-miscegenation.
Side note, we Portuguese are very proud of our history during the 15th century, the age of discovery, when we set out to map the world, many consider it our golden age. Less talked about is our involvement in the slave trade, the first European to actually buy enslaves was Antão Gonçalves, a Portuguese explorer in 1441 AD. The Spanish were the first Europeans to use enslaved Africans in the New World. I’ve just done a little googling to try to find out how many slaves the Portuguese took from Africa, it’s not easy finding a straight answer, about 20 websites later I find three that agree that officially the total number of Africans shipped by the Portuguese is conservatively put at 4.2 million. However this excludes the millions that died crossing land to get to the Portuguese slave ships or during the horrible Atlantic passage. Just to be clear these facts are regarding Trans-Atlantic Slavery, unfortunately the concept of slavery has existed in all societies long before that.
Anyway that’s a bit of a digression from the main topic of Salazar, moving forward to 1960-1, armed revolutionaries and scattered guerrillas were starting to become active in Mozambique, Angola, and Portuguese Guinea. The Portuguese just about managed to keep control in some parts but the Portuguese military warned the government that this was not a long term solution, the military would not be able to keep order for long.
1961
And now finally I’ve reached 1961, the year Felizmente há luar! was written. For the western world the 60s were the decade of cultural revolution: ‘Make Love, Not War’, just like the American hippies were protesting against the Vietnam war, the Portuguese were protesting against colonial wars they could not win and which were wrong to begin with. This was an age of liberalism, of drug and sexual experimentation, of artistic creativity. And yet those liberals and free thinkers were being governed by a 72-year-old Salazar, a conservative, nationalist and catholic whose motto was "Deus, Pátria e Familia" (meaning "God, Fatherland, and Family"). There was no free speech, anyone opposing the dictatorship was imprisoned and tortured. Portuguese laws and government procedures were changed to enable those in power to stay in power. Felizmente há luar! was written by Luís de Sttau Monteiro and censored, prohibited from ever being performed. That is until 1975, the year after the government was overthrown.
Wrapping Up Part 1
Phew, I haven’t even started reviewing Felizmente há luar! yet, I could have just written “the play was written during a time of great oppression of freedom of speech and during a reign of political dictatorship” and left it at that. But, it’s curious to know how things came about, extreme political movements don’t just suddenly manifest, they are born out of circumstance, and it is important to understand what gives raise to the systems that change our lives.
In Part 2, I’ll actually review Felizmente há luar! By the way it’s actually set in 1817, when real life general Gomes Freire de Andrade was accused of leading a revolt against the Portuguese government – so... yay even more history XS 
Most of this text on Salazar was taken from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AntĂłnio_de_Oliveira_Salazar
Review by Book Hamster
0 notes
compare-wp10 · 5 years ago
Text
Censorship Has Mutated During Coronavirus Pandemic
See on Scoop.it - COMPARE RISK COMMUNICATION
Censorship, Pandemic Style Censorship is unfortunately alive and well during this pandemic madness, taking on a variety of mutated forms as it participates in the various rights-trampling parades going on in America. We have seen the petty tyrant governors and mayors use this time to overreach and cavalierly brush aside constitutional rights in the name of safety. The First Amendment has been particularly roughed up, with the free exercise of religion, free speech, and the right to peaceably assemble all taking major hits. Matt Taibbi — not exactly a rightwing stalwart — warned last month of what he called the “Inevitable Coronavirus Censorship Crisis.” He was responding to a rather insane and disturbing article in The Atlantic that was basically making the case for adopting a more ChiCom approach to dealing with internet speech. That’s right, a venerable American publication was advocating for more censorship. The ChiComs themselves aren’t letting the crisis go to waste. Pro-commie establishment members of Hong Kong’s parliament are pushing legislation to censor and punish any language mocking the mainland’s national anthem. As I wrote last weekend, social media platforms are using the pandemic as an excuse to censor any voices that run counter to the preferred narrative. There is to be no real free speech or debate about how we should proceed through each new phase of dealing with the pandemic. Each of the major platforms has opted to be tools of the various states and prop up whichever arbitrary shutdown rules are in place. The media bias we’ve seen during all of this is a perverse sort of self-censorship that the MSM hacks are doing to themselves. They’ve been running with whatever the official word from China is, and surely they know that the censoring is kind of baked into the cake with that deal. It’s always amazing to see American “journalists” be drawn to the types of ideologues who would be the first to shut them down. This may not be directly related to the coronapocalypse, but it happened on Monday. The United Nations took some time to offer the great unwashed a list of words that we should no longer say. I’m not really sure which part of the UN’s charter lays out why it should be in the censor game, but then I still haven’t figured out what in the hell they have to do with climate change. The shutting down of church services is a form of censorship as well, and I can’t help but believe that the Democratic governors have enjoyed keeping the church folk away from worship just a little too much. Thankfully, saner legal heads seem to be prevailing on that front in the last couple of weeks. The policing of speech had become worrisome long before this pandemic hit us. The danger now is obviously having some of these more tyrannical types make some new permanent censorship rules. Speech that’s censored today may very well remain censored when we emerge from this rough patch. I’ve been fighting censorship since I first started doing stand-up and it’s a battle I’m willing to wage until they find a way to shut me up. PC Police Step Up Efforts to Completely Ruin Stand-Up Comedy This Ought to Work Out Well Many low-wage workers earn more on unemployment than in their former jobs https://t.co/jMwBs9efgG pic.twitter.com/7iKO5Hq9KX — CBS News (@CBSNews) May 19, 2020 PJM Linktank My Tuesday column: My Last ‘Obama Is the Worst’ Column This Month (I Think) HILARIOUS: Trump Campaign Mocks Biden. Journalists Don’t Get the Joke Texas Reopens. What’s Really Happening With Its COVID-19 Numbers? Sheriff Revolts Against Lockdown: ‘We Are Not Stormtroopers. We Are Peacekeepers’ And not just for fun. Wow! Guess Who’s Taking Hydroxychloroquine? Donald Trump! God wins. Again. Hallelujah! Church Lawsuit Forces Oregon Governor to Re-Open EVERYTHING Ben Sasse Picks the Correct Fight With His Democrat Challenger Shock! Pensacola Shooter Turns Out to Be Al-Qaeda Operative Who Plotted His Attack for Years SANITY: New Jersey Gym Owner Defies Lockdown Order and Cops Refuse to Stop Him The Real Coronavirus Timeline Liberals Don’t Want You To See China Threatened Dan Crenshaw. Now He’s Demanding Sanctions. Attorney General Barr Just Made Major News on ‘Obamagate.’ You’ll Want to Sit Down for This Trump Didn’t Botch the Coronavirus Response, Andrew Cuomo Did VodkaPundit: China Orders New Wuhan Virus Lockdown Because They Beat COVID-19, Honest Quarantine them in a jail. Why Did New York Infect America With Coronavirus? New Report Blames Cuomo, de Blasio FBI ‘Mistakenly’ Reveals Identity of Saudi Diplomat Suspected of Aiding 9/11 Jihadis Anti-Lockdown Champion Elon Musk Just Picked a Side and It’s Glorious Obama Fired an Inspector General to Cover Up a Sex Scandal and No One Said Boo About It Liberals’ Direct Cash Payments Promise to Do to Main Street What They’ve Done to the Black Community: Crush It ‘Joe Has Absolutely No Idea What’s Happening’ It Is Very Strange That General Flynn Was Unmasked Almost 50 Times VIP VodkaPundit, Part Deux: Giving Government the Finger: Americans Ending the Shutdown on Our Own Terms VIP Gold The Tragic End to Deshone Kizer’s NFL Career
And It Began Where QBs Usually Go to Die The Emotional Toll Social Distancing Has Taken on People Should Not Be Underestimated From the Mothership and Beyond I like this story. The internal watchdogs Trump has fired or replaced Excellent. Oklahoma Governor Signs Bill Banning Red Flag Laws School District’s Fight For Armed Teachers Heads To OH Supreme Court NZ Gun Crime Rates Soar Following Gun Bans GOP Governors Rip McConnell Challenger for Partisan Attack Ad I’ll binge-watch this. Graham Moves to Subpoena Brennan, Clapper and Other Major ‘Obamagate’ Players Pelosi’s Strange Reason for Not Wanting Trump to Take Hydroxychloroquine Katie Hill Threw a Tantrum Because Republican Mike Garcia Won Her Vacant Seat Rep. Jim Banks: ‘Shameful’ Dems Are Focused on Going After Trump Instead of Holding China Accountable Leader McConnell Taps Rubio to Lead Senate Intelligence Committee Amid Burr Investigation The Misleading Attack From CNN’s ‘Reliable Sources’ on Fox News’ Coverage on Flynn and COVID-19 Petty Tyrant Update. Ohio Governor Reveals How State Will Respond to Businesses Not Complying with Restrictions WATCH: Crowd Cheers New Jersey Police After They Refuse to Cite Violators of Lockdown Order Trump to the WHO: I’ll Permanently Pull U.S. Funds From the Organization Unless
 James Woods: Trump ‘Loves America More Than Any President in My Lifetime,’ Obama Admin Was ‘Scum and Villainy’  Twitch Thots are Horrible but They’re a Symptom, Not a Disease When Even CNN Gets There’s a Problem in the Flynn Case, But the Judge Doesn’t, You Know It’s a Problem LA County Public Health Director Isn’t an M.D.; Why Do These Official Websites Say She Is? Petty Tyrant Update II. Bill de Blasio Threatens Fences Around NYC Beaches and Warns Swimmers They’ll be ‘Taken Right Out of the Water’ Kira Davis: I Don’t Want To See One More Damn Coronavirus Commercial #MouthBarf: Who’s Ready For Michelle Obama’s “Prom-Athon” With MTV? Um
Feminist Susan Faludi: “Believe All Women” Is A Right-Wing Straw Man That Liberals Don’t Actually Embrace Navarro: Let’s Face It, The CDC “Really Let The Country Down” In The COVID-19 Crisis Eric Trump: Dems Have A Very Deliberate Strategy To Use Social Distancing Rules To Prevent Trump From Holding Rallies Gov. Gavin Newsom, ready to lay off first responders, kicks off coronavirus assistance for illegal aliens He’s not owned! He’s not owned! Ezra Klein corncobs himself trying to pretend he didn’t get trolled by Trump campaign’s ‘Truth Over Facts’ site Losing. Their. MINDS! Chris Cillizza calls Trump ‘an unlikable jerk that gets stuff done’ and the Left breaks out pitchforks and torches Oh. 2 professors warn using wedding pictures as Zoom background is a “microaggression” Poland marks centenary of St. John Paul’s birth Bee Me Back To Normal: Conservatives Go To Work While Liberals Stay Home https://t.co/GKabQNFVrM — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) May 18, 2020 The Kruiser Kabana pic.twitter.com/cq0yyGR9yy — Archillect (@archillect) May 19, 2020 Let’s treat Taco Tuesday with the reverence it deserves, people. ___ Kruiser Twitter Kruiser Facebook PJ Media Senior Columnist and Associate Editor Stephen Kruiser is the author of “Don’t Let the Hippies Shower” and “Straight Outta Feelings: Political Zen in the Age of Outrage,” both of which address serious subjects in a humorous way. Monday through Friday he edits PJ Media’s “Morning Briefing.” His columns appear every Tuesday and Friday.
0 notes
margdarsanme · 4 years ago
Text
NCERT Class 12 Political Science (India) Chapter 6 The Crisis of Democratic Order
NCERT Class 12 Political Science Solutions (India Since Independence)
Chapter 6 The Crisis of Democratic Order 
TEXTBOOK QUESTIONS SOLVED : Q l. State whether the following statements regarding the Emergency are correct or incorrect. (a) It was declared in 1975 by Indira Gandhi. (b) It led to the suspension of all fundamental rights. (c) It was proclaimed due to the deteriorating economic conditions. (d) Many Opposition leaders were arrested during the emergency. (e) CPI supported the proclamation of the Emergency.
Answer: (a) Correct, (b) Correct, (c) Wrong, (d) Correct, (e) Correct. Q 2. Find the odd one out in the context of proclamation of Emergency. (a) The call for ‘Total Revolution’. (b) The Railway Strike of 1974 (c) The Naxalite Movement (d) The Allahabad High Court verdict (e) The findings of the Shah Commission Report
Answer: (c) The Naxalite Movement Q 3. Match the following:
Tumblr media
Answer: (a)-(iii), (b)-(i), (c)-(ii), (d)-(iv). Q 4. What were the reasons which led to the mid-term elections in 1980?
Answer: 1. Janata party lacked direction, leadership and a common programme. 2. Janata party government could not bring a fundamental change in policies pursued by Congress. 3. There was a split in Janata Party and the government led by Morarji Desai which lost its majority in less than 18 months. 4. Charan Singh government was formed due to support of Congress party which later decided to withdraw its support resulting resignation of Charan Singh government within four months. 5. All the above mentioned reasons led midterm elections of 1980, which defeated Janata Party and again Congress led by Indira Gandhi came back to power by winning 353 seats. Q 5. The Shah Commission was appointed in 1977 by the Janata Party Government. Why was it appointed and what were its findings?
Answer: The Shah commission was appointed in May 1977 by Janata Party government which was headed by J.C. Shah, retired chief justice of Supreme Court of India to look into the matters of: 1. Allegations of abuse of authority, excesses and malpractices as well as actions taken in the name of emergency proclaimed on 25 June 1975. 2. The Commission performed to examine various evidences to give testimonies even including Indira Gandhi to appear before Commission, but she refused to answer any questions. Findings of Shah Commission: (a) It found many ‘excesses’ committed during Emergency. (b) Under preventive detention laws nearly one lakh eleven thousand people were arrested. (c) Press censorship took place without any proper legal sanctions. (d) Even general manager of Delhi Power Supply Corporation received verbal orders from the officers of the Lt. Governor of Delhi to cut electricity to all newspapers press at 2 a.m. on 26 June 1975. Q 6. What reasons did the Government give for declaring a National Emergency in 1975?
Answer: Emergency was proclaimed in response to petition filed by Raj Narain to declare Indira Gandhi’s election invalid. (i) On June 25, 1975, the government declared the threat of internal disturbances to invoke Article 352 of constitution. (ii) Article 352 can declare emergency on ground of either internal or external disturbances. (iii) The government decided a grave crisis to be arisen to proclaim emergency to bring law and order, restore efficiency and implement pro-poor welfare programmes. (iv) The President Fakhruddin Adi Ahmad proclaimed emergency which became the most controversial episode in Indian Politics. Q 7. The 1977 elections for the first time saw the Opposition coming into power at the Centre. What would you consider as the reasons for this development?
Answer: The 1977 elections were evolved as a shock to everyone as Congress party was defeated for the very first time and opposition party came into power: 1. The opposition adopted the slogan ‘Save democracy’ against imposition of emergency earlier. 2. The opposition campaigned non- democratic character of rule which provided various excesses. 3. The opposition party highlighted the preventive detention and press censorship to favour public opinion. 4. Janata Party also ensured not to divide non-Congress votes. 5. Middle section of north India was moving away from Congress for whom Janata Party became a platform. 6. Hence, elections of 1977 emerged many other factors instead about emergency only. Q 8. Discuss the effects of Emergency on the following aspects of our polity.
(a) Effects on civil liberties for citizens. (b) Impact on relationship between the Executive and Judiciary. (c) Functioning of Mass Media. (d) Working of Police and Bureaucracy.
Answer: 
(a) Effects on Civil Liberties for Citizens: 1. The government made large scale arrests under preventive detention. 2. Arrested political persons could not challenge arrest even under Habeas Corpus petition. 3. Despite of filing many petitions government claimed it not to be necessary to be informed on grounds to arrested persons. 4. In April 1976, finally it was proved that the government could take away citizen’s right to life and liberty by overruling of high courts under supreme court and accept government’s plea.
(b) Impact on Relationship between the Executive and Judiciary: 1. The Parliament brought in many new changes in Constitution which made an amendment declaring that elections of Prime Minister, President and ViceÂŹPresident could not be challenged in the court. 2. The forty-second amendment (42nd) was also passed to bring a series of changes in constitution like duration of legislatures, elections can be postponed by one year during an emergency.
(c) Functioning of Mass Media: 1. Press censorship took place which banned freedom of press and newspapers w7ere supposed to prior approval before they publish any material i.e. RSS and Janata Island were banned. 2. Protests, strikes and public agitations were also banned. 3. Various fundamental rights were also suspended including even Right to move to court for restoration of Fundamental Rights. 4. Kannada writer Shivarama Karanth awarded with Padma Bhushan and Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Tlenu with Padmashri returned their awards in protest against suspension of democracy.
5. Newspapers mainly Indian Express, and the statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank spaces where news items were censored.
(d) Working of Police and Bureaucracy: Refer Part (a) + (b) of the same question. Q 9. In what way did the imposition of Emergency affect the party system in India? Elaborate your answer with examples.
Answer: 1. Due to absolute majority to party in power, leadership even dared to suspend democratic process. 2. The constitution makers presumed to be abide by laws and democratic orders, hence, wide and open ended powers were given to the government during emergency. 3. A tension and differences arose between institution based democracy and democracy based on spontaneous popular participation. 4. It was attributed to incapability of party system to incorporate aspirations of the people. 5. For the first time, opposition parties came together to form a new party ‘Janata Party’ not to divide the non-Congress votes. 6. 1977 elections brought an end to one party dominance and created coalition government. Q 10. Read the passage and answer the questions below:
“Indian democracy was never so close to a two-party system as it was during the 1977 elections. However, the next few years saw a complete change. Soon after its defeat, the Indian National Congress split into two groups The Janata Party also went through major convulsions David Butler, Ashok Lahiri and Prannoy Roy. —Partha Chatterjee (a) What made the party system in India look like a two-party system in 1977? (b) Many more than two parties existed in 1977. Why then are the authors describing this period as close to a two-party system? (c) What caused splits in Congress and the Janata Party?
Answer: (a) The imposition of emergency in 1977 and political crisis made the party system in India look like a two-party system. (b) Two parties existed in 1977 were Congress and non-Congress parties to be described as close to two party system because it ended the one party dominance and emerged Janata Party, umbrella of nonÂŹCongress parties. (c) Split in Congress: Congress splitted on the issues of presidential elections in 1969. Split in Janata Party: On tensions among three leaders Morarji Desai, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram for leadership in 1979.
Very Short Answer Type Questions [1 Mark]
Q 1. Mention the main reason for the defeat of Congress party in the elections 1977.
Answer: The opposition party adopted the slogan ‘Save democracy’ against the imposition of emergency. Q 2. In which year fifth general elections to Lok Sabha held?
Answer: 1971. Q 3. Name the political party which came to power at centre in 1977.
Answer: Janata Party Q 4. In January 1974, Students of Gujarat started an agitation against which two major problems?
Answer: 1. Rising prices of food grains, cooking oil and other essential commodities. 2. Corruption in high places. Q 5. Who was Charu Majumdar?
Answer: Charu Majumdar was a communist revolutionary and the leader of Naxalbari uprising. He founded the Communist Party of India (Marxist Leninist). Q 6. Name the president who proclaimed emergency in 1975 in India.
Answer. President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad at midnight on 25 June 1975. Q 7. Who introduced Twenty Point Programme and Why?
Answer: Congress government led by Indira Gandhi introduced ‘Twenty Point Programme’ to maintain law and order and to restored efficiency including land reforms, eradication of bonded labour, land redistribution, workers participation in management etc. Q 8. Who became the symbol of restoration of democracy?
Answer: Jayaprakash Narayan, leader of Janata Party. Q 9. Mention the Historic decision given by the court in famous Kesavananda Bharati Case.
Answer: That there are some basic features of constitution not to be amended by parliament at all. It led to a crisis between the government and judiciary. Q 10. What was the controversy regarding the appointment of the chief justice A.N. Ray in 1973?
Answer: It became political controversial because in this appointment the government set aside the seniority of three judges who had given ruling against the stand of government. Q 11. Why did Congress win in Southern states?
Answer: 1. The impact of emergency was not felt equally in all the states. 2. The forced relocation and disÂŹplacements, the forced sterilisations were mostly concentrated in the northern states. Q 12. What do you mean by Preventive Detention?
Answer: In Preventive Detention Act, people are arrested and detained on the apprehension to commit any offence in future and government made large scale arrests under this during emergency.
Very Short Answer Type Questions [2 Marks]
Q 1. What factors led to crisis of democratic order in Indian Politics?
Answer: 1. Emergence of Indira Gandhi with a lot of popularity. 2. Party competitions had been created. 3. Relation between the government and judiciary had become tense. Q 2. Mention the factors which led Naxalite movement in backward states.
Answer: 1. Forced labour 2. Exploitation by moneylenders 3. Exploitation of resources by outsiders. Q 3. What was Shah Commission of inquiry? How did government react to it? “
Answer: The Shah commission was appointed in May 1977 by Janata Party government headed by S.C. Shah, retired chief justice of Supreme Court of India to look into the matter of: 1. Allegations of abuse of authority. 2. Excesses and malpractices. 3. Actions taken in the name of emergency proclaimed on 25 June 1975. The government appeared before commission against various evidences but she refused to answer any question. Q 4. Describe any two outcomes of Naxalite Movement.
Answer: The ‘Naxalites’ were the Marxist and Leninist Agricultural workers of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and adjoining areas who organised massive agitations against economic injustice and inequality and demanded redistribution of land to cultivators. Q 5. Mention circumstances to be characterised for imposition of emergency?
Answer: 1. Emergence of Indira Gandhi. 2. Power Politics became personalised and governmental authority was converted into personalization. 3. Bitter party competition. 4. Tense relations between the government and judiciary. Q 6. Who organised the first nationwide Satyagraha and Why?
Answer: It was organised by Jayaprakash Narayan for Indira Gandhi’s resignation, he appealed to people not to obey illegal and immoral orders by a massive demonstration on 25 June 1975. All these changed the political mood of the country against Congress.
Short Answer Type Questions [4 Marks]
Q 1. Explain the reasons for students movement of 1974 in Bihar and the role played by Jayaprakash Narayan in this movement.
Answer: Reasons for Student’s Movement of 1974: Students organised movement against: 1. Rising prices of food grains, cooking oil and other essential commodities. 2. Corruption in high places. Assess Role played by Jai Prakash Narayan: Satyagraha was organised by Jayaprakash Narayan for Indira Gandhi’s resignation, he appealed to people not to obey illegal and immoral orders by a massive demonstration on 25 June 1975. All these changed the political mood of the country against Congress. Q 2. Evaluate the consequences of declaration of emergency in 1975? 
Answer: 1. It effected civil liberties of peoples i.e. in April11976 it was proved that the government could take away citizens’ right to life and liberty by overruling of high courts under supreme courts and accepted government’s plea. 2. The forth-second Amendment was also passed to bring a series of changes in constitution. 3. It affected the functioning of mass media also as press censorship took place which banned freedom of press and newspapers, which were supposed to prior approval before they publish any material. 4. Despite of filing many petitions government claimed it not to be necessary to be informed the grounds to arrested persons. Q 3. Explain any two lessons learnt from emergency imposed in 1975.
Answer: The emergency brought out weaknesses and strengths both to India’s democracy: 1. First lesson was felt that it was extremely difficult to do away with democracy in India. 2. Secondly, it amended that internal emergency could be proclaimed only on the grounds of armed rebellion, on the advice to the president to proclaim emergency must be given in writing by council of ministers. 3. Thirdly, emergency made everyone more aware of civil liberties as well as courts also took an active role in protecting civil liberties of individuals. Q 4. Examine the legacy of emergency of 1975 in India.
Answer: The legacy of emergency was felt in every sphere of people’s life and politics: 1. Between the elections of 1977 and 1980, Congress identified itself with particular ideology, claiming to be only socialist and pro-poor party. 2. The concept of non-Congression was created among oppositions parties. 3. The issues of welfare of backward classes began to dominate politics i. e. northern states elected non¬Congress leaders of backward class since 1977. 4. This period of emergency saw the period of constitutional crisis to loose its origin in constitutional battle over jurisdiction of parliament and judiciary. 5. This period created political crisis also as the party in power enjoyed absolute majority, still decided to suspend the democratic process. 6. The emergency tensed between institution based democracy and democracy based on spontaneous popular participation for which party system was to be blamed. Q 5. Why is emergency and period around it known as the period of constitutional crisis? Explain.
Answer: 1. The Parliament brought in many new changes in constitution which made an amendment declaring that elections of Prime Minister, President and Vice President could not be challenged in the court. 2. The forty second amendment was also passed to bring a series of changes in constitution like duration of legislatures, elections can be postponed by one year during emergency. Q 6. How far do you agree that the government had misused its emergency powers during 1975-77? Explain.
Answer: No, the government hence misused its ‘Emergency Powers’. But it said that it wanted to use the emergency: 1. To bring law and order into society. 2. To restore efficiency into administra¬tion and system. 3. To implement the pro-poor welfare programmes. Q 7. How did emergency of 1975 benefit the Indian democratic set up?
Answer: 1. Between the elections of 1977 and 1980, Congress identified itself with particulars ideology, claiming to be only socialist and pro-poor party. 2. The concept of non-Congressism was created among opposition parties. 3. The issues of welfare of backward class began to dominate politics i. e. Northern states elected non- Congress leaders of backward class since 1977. 4. The emergency tensed between institution based democracy and democracy based on spontaneous popular participation for which party system was to be blamed. Q 8. Describe any four circumstances for proclamation of emergency in 1975.
Answer:1. Emergence of Indira Gandhi. 2. Power politics became personalised and governmental authority was converted into personalization. 3. Bitter party competition. 4. Tensed relations between the government and judiciary. Q 9. Discuss the role of Jayaprakash Narayan in Bihar movement and national politics.
Answer: 1. Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan from Janata Party was a Marxist of youth, who became a Gandhian and involved himself in a Bhoodan movement. 2. He led Bihar movement and opposed the emergency. 3. Bihar students invited him and he accepted on the condition of movement to be non-violent and not to limit only to Bihar territory. Hence, Bihar movement assumed a political character and national appeal. 4. This movement demanded dismissal of Congress government in Bihar and called for total revolution in social, economic and political aspects to establish a total democracy. 5. Bandhs, gheraos, strikes were organised in protest. Even employees of railways organised a strike which threatened to paralyse the country. 6. In 1975, Janata Party led people’s march to parliament to be one of the largest political rallies ever held in capital. 7. Janata was supported by non¬Congress parties like BJS, socialist parties etc., which projected JP as an alternative to Indira Gandhi. Q 10. ‘Emergency was a Blackmark in Indian History’. Comment.
Answer: 1. Emergency was declared on the ground of internal disturbances on 25 June 1975 to invoke Article 352 of constitution. 2. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi recommended to impose emergency to president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad. 3. Emergency was one of the most controversial episode which possessed different virus regarding to impose emergency. 4. Emergency practically suspended the democratic functioning. 5. ‘Shah Commission’ exposed many excesses committed during emergency. 6. Emergency highlighted some hidden matters over constitutional battle between the parliament and judiciary. 7. Tensions or conflicts had been arisen between institution based democracy and popular participation of people.
Passage Based Questions [5 Marks]
1. Read the passage given below carefully and answer the questions: Once an emergency is proclaimed, the federal distribution of powers remains practically suspended and al 1 t be powc itc the hands of the union government. Secondly, the government also gets the power to curtail or restrict all or any of the Fundamental Rights during the emergency. From the wording of the provisions of the Constitution, it is clear that an Emergency is seen as an extra-iordinary condition in which normal democratic politics cannot function. Therefore, special powers are granted to the government.
Questions 1. When was emergency imposed? 2. Who recommended emergency to be imposed and to whom? 3. Mention the implications of emergency.
Answer: 1. 25 June 1975. 2. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi recommended to impose emergency to the president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad. 3. (i) The federal distribution of powers remains practically suspended. (ii) All the powers are concentrated in the hands of Union government. (iii) The government also gets power to restrict all or any of Fundamental Rights during emergency. 2. Read the passage given below carefully and answer the questions: There were many acts of dissent and resistance to the Emergency. Many political workers who were not arrested in the first wave, went ‘underground’ and organised protests against the government. Newspapers like the Indian Express and the Statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank spaces where news items had been censored. Magazines like the Seminar and the Mainstream chose to close down rather than submit to censorship. Many journalists were arrested for writing against the Emergency. Many underground newsletters and leaflets were published to bypass censorship. Kannada writer Shivarama Karanth, awarded with Padma Bhushan, and Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Renu, awarded with Padma Shri, returned their awards in protest against the suspension of democracy. By and large, though, such open acts of defiance and resistance were rare.
Questions 1. Why did people began to protest against government? 2. How did newspapers protest against censorship? 3. How did writers protest against the emergency? 4. Which magazines protested against censorship?
Answer: 1. Against imposition of emergency. 2. Newspaper like Indian Express and the Statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank spaces where news items had been censored. 3. Kannada writer Shivarama Karanth awarded with Padma Bhushan and Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Renu awarded with Padma Shri returned their awards in protest against suspension of democracy. 4. Magazines like ‘Seminar’ and ‘Mainstream’ chose to close down rather than submit to censorship.
Long Answer Type Questions [6 Marks]
Q 1. Analyse any three lessons learnt from the emergency of 1975.
Answer: 
(i) The emergency of 1975 at once brought out both the weaknesses’ and the strengths of India’s democracy. Though there are many observers who think that India ceased to be democratic during the emergency, it is noteworthy that normal democratic functioning resumed within a short span of time. Thus, one lesson of Emergency is that it is extremely difficult to do away with democracy in India.
(ii) It brought out some ambiguities regarding the emergency provision in the constitution that have been rectified since. Now ‘internal’ emergency can be proclaimed only on the grounds of ‘armed rebellion’ and it is necessary that the advice to the President to proclaim emergency must be given in writing by the Council of Ministers.
(iii) The Emergency made everyone aware of the value of civil liberties. The courts, too, have taken an active role after the emergency in protecting the civil liberties of the individuals. This is in response to the inability of the judiciary to protect civil liberties effectively during the emergency. Many civil liberties organizations came up after this experience. Q 2. Examine the three consequences of emergency imposed in 1975.
Answer: 
(a) Effects on Civil Liberties of Citizens: 1. The government made large scale arrests under preventive detention. 2. Arrested political persons could not challenge arrest even under Habeas Corpus petition. 3. Despite filing many petitions government claimed it not to be necessary to be informed of grounds to arrested persons. 4. In April 1976, finally it was proved that the government could taken away citizen’s right to life and liberty by over ruling of high courts under supreme court and accepted government’s plea.
(b) Impact on Relationship between Parliament and Judiciary: 1. The parliament brought in many new changes in constitution which made an amendment declaring that election of Prime Minister, President and ViceÂŹpresident could not be challenged in the court. 2. The forty-second amendment (42nd) was also passed to bring a series of changes in constitution like duration of legislatures, elections can be postponed by one year during an emergency.
(c) Functioning of Mass Media: 1. Press censorship took place which banned freedom of press is newspapers were supposed to seek prior approval before they publish any material. 2. Protests, strikes and public agitations were also banned. 3. Various fundamental rights were also suspended including even Right to move to Court for Restoration of Fundamental Rights. 4. Kannada writer Shivarama Karnata awarded with Padma Bhushan and Hindi writer Fanishwarnath Renu with Padmashri returned their awards on protest against suspension of democracy. 5. Newspapers mainly Indian Express, and the Statesman protested against censorship by leaving blank editorial column. Q 3. Examine any six reasons for the imposition of emergency in India in 1975. Or Analyse any three reasons for imposing emergency on 25 June 1975. Did the government misuse its emergency powers? Give any three arguments in support of answers.
Answer: (i) Emergency was proclaimed in response to petition filed by Raj Narayan to declare Indira Gandhi’s election invalid. (ii) On June 25, 1975, the government declared the threat of internal disturbances to invoke Article 352 of constitution. (iii) Article 352 can declare emergency on ground of either internal or external disturbances. (iv) The government decided a grave crisis to be arisen to proclaim emergency to bring law and order, restore efficiency and implement pro-poor Welfare Programmes. (v) The President FakhruddinAli Ahmad proclaimed emergency which became the most controversial episode in Indian politics. (vi) Power politics became personalised and governmental authority was converted into personalization Q 4. Assess any three happenings which were responsible for the downfall of Congress Party in the 1977 elections. Or ‘The 1977 elections for the first time saw the opposition coming to power at the centre’. Examine any six reasons for this change.
Answer: The 1977 elections were evolved as a shock to everyone as Congress Party was defeated for the very first time and opposition party came into power: 1. The opposition adopted the slogan ‘save democracy’ against imposition of emergency earlier. 2. The opposition campaigned non- democratic character of rule which provided various excesses. 3. The opposition party highlighted the preventive detention and press censorship to favour public opinion. 4. Janata Party also ensured not to divide non-Congress votes. 5. Middle section of North India was moving away from Congress for whom Janata Party became a platform. 6. Hence, elections of 1977 emerged many other factors instead about emergency only. Q 5. Explain any three outcomes of Lok Sabha elections of 1977.
Answer: 1. In March 1977 elections, for the first time, Congress lost elections with winning 154 seats only. 2. Janata Party and its allies won 330 seats out of 542 seats. 3. Congress lost from the states of Bihar, U.P., Haryana, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. 4. Janata Party was formed of coalitions under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayana. 5. Janata Party called this election as a referendum on emergency. 6. Opposition party realised not to divide the votes to enjoy the power under one umbrella. 7. All these indicated a tough time for Congress ahead. Q 6. What is Naxalite movement? Evaluate its role in Indian politics.
Answer: The Naxalites were the Marxist and Leninist agricultural workers of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and adjoining areas which organised massive agilations against economic injustice and inequality and demanded redistribution of land to cultivators. Role in Indian Politics: 1. Naxalite, did not participate in the elections formally but these were actively associated with parties. 2. Naxalites ensured a better representation of demands of deprived social sections in party politics. 3. These movements retained associations or relations alongwith the political parties either as an individual or as an organisations.
Picture/Map Based Questions [5 Marks]
1. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:
Tumblr media
Questions 1. What was the slogan of Janata Party to campaign in elections? 2. Identify the person who is sitting on ground holding the slogan. 3. Against which practices Jayaprakash Narayana agitated?
Answer: 1. Save Democracy. 2. Jayaprakash Narayan. 3. Corruption, lawlessness, violence, and most important against imposition of emergency. Q 2. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:
Tumblr media
Question. 1. When did cartoon appear in the newspaper and why? 2. Identify the person behind Indira Gandhi. 3. Identify what does the ‘Political Crisis’ stand for. Explain.
Answer: 1. This cartoon appeared few days before the declaration of emergency to capture the sense of impending political crisis. 2. The then Congress president D.K. Barooah. 3. Political crisis in 1977 made the party system in India look like a two party system i.e. Congress and nonÂŹCongress to end one party dominance and emergence of non-Congress party Janata Party as an umbrella for others. Q 3. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:
Tumblr media
Questions 1. What situation does the picture refer to? 2. Which Commission is represented into the cartoon? 3. Mention some points of this Commission’s report.
Answer: 1. Appearance of Indira Gandhi before Commission but refused to answer any question. 2. Shah Commission’s report about emergency. 3. (i) There were many excesses committed during emergency. (ii) Several restrictions were put on the press sometimes without legal sanction. (iii) Many people were arrested under preventive detention law. (iv) Even general manager of Delhi Power Supply Corporation received verbal orders from the officers of Lt. Governor of Delhi to cut electricity to all newspaper presses at 2 a.m. on 26 June 1975.
from Blogger http://www.margdarsan.com/2020/08/ncert-class-12-political-science-india_2.html
0 notes
mostlysignssomeportents · 6 years ago
Text
The EU's Copyright Directive charm offensive pats Europeans on the head and tells them leave it up to the corporations
Tumblr media
When it comes to the new Copyright Directive, some in the EU would prefer that Europeans just stop paying attention and let the giant corporations decide the future of the Internet.
In a new Q&A about the Directive, the European Parliament – or rather, the JURI committee, which, headed by Axel Voss, spearheaded the shepherding of Article 13 and 11 through a skeptical Parliament, sets out a one-sided account of the most far-reaching regulation of online speech in living memory, insisting that "online platforms and news aggregators are reaping all the rewards while artists, news publishers and journalists see their work circulate freely, at best receiving very little remuneration for it."
The author of JURI’s press release is right about one thing: artists are increasingly struggling to make a living, but not because the wrong corporations are creaming off the majority of revenue that their work generates. For example, streaming music companies hand billions to music labels, but only pennies reach the artists. Meanwhile, a handful of giant companies make war with one another over which ones will get to keep the spoils of creators' works. In a buyers' market, sellers get a worse deal, and when there are only five major publishers and four record labels and five Internet giants, almost everyone is a seller in a buyers' market.
The EU's diagnosis is incomplete, and so its remedy is wrong. Article 13 of the new Copyright Directive requires filters for big online platforms that watch everything that Europeans post to the Internet and block anything that anyone, anywhere has claimed as a copyrighted work. Recent versions of Article 13 have gone to great lengths to obscure the fact that it requires filters, but any rule that requires platforms to know what hundreds of millions of people are posting, all the time, and not allow anything that seems like a copyright infringement is obviously about filters.
When Big Content and Big Tech sit down to make a meal out of creators, it doesn't matter who gets the bigger piece.
These filters don't come cheap. Google's comparatively modest version of an Article 13 filter, the YouTube ContentID system, cost $60 million to develop and tens of millions more to maintain, and it can only compare videos to a small database of copyright claims from a trusted group of rightsholders. It would cost hundreds of millions of Euros to develop a filter that could manage every tweet, Facebook update, YouTube comment, blog post, and other form of expressive speech online to ensure that it's not a match for a crowdsourced database that any of the Internet's two billion users can add anything to.
Google has hundreds of millions of Euros, and so do Facebook and the other US Big Tech companies. Notably, Europe's struggling online sector — who represent a competitive alternative to US Big Tech — do not. While America’s tech giants would prefer no regulation, they'll happily settle for regulation that's so expensive it clears the field of all possible competitors.
For creators, this is a terrible state of affairs. The consolidation of the online dominance of the Big Tech players won't increase the competitive market for their works — nor will any of the billions squandered on black-box censorship algorithms enrich creators. Instead all that money will go to the tech companies that build and operate the filters.
And since Big Content will have the only direct lines into Big Tech to get wrongly censored material restored, creators will find themselves more hemmed in.
When Big Content and Big Tech sit down to make a meal out of creators, it doesn't matter who gets the bigger piece.
Meanwhile, for everyone else, the Directive will mean that all of our non-entertainment expression will be liable to being blocked by the copyright algorithms, and since the Internet is how we take care of our health, do our jobs, get our educations, fall in love, stay in touch with our families, and participate in civic and political life, all of that will be risked on an absurd bet that slightly tilting the balance between two giant industrial sectors will make a little more money trickle down to artists.
This "clarification" of the Copyright Directive is a whitewash, and an insult to the more than four million Europeans who have opposed the Directive, and the hundreds of MEPs that have so far questioned the direction of the Directive and its terrible proposals.
Europeans have a right and a duty to engage with the EU's processes: here's a way to get in touch with European national lawmakers and tell them to reject Articles 13 and 11.
https://boingboing.net/2019/01/16/nothing-to-see-here.html
32 notes · View notes
neworoldnews · 5 years ago
Text
I have focused quite a bit on Immanuel Kant, whom I consider to be a particularly practical philosopher, but I deal with a wide range of topics in epistemology and applied ethics. Recently I organised a seminar series on freedom of speech, and set about inviting speakers. I wanted people from a range of theoretical and ideological positions, including some who had experienced controversy about the expression of their ideas. Therefore in March 2018 I informed the university administration that my invited speakers included Marc Jongen, cultural spokesman for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the German Parliament, and Thilo Sarrazin, a prominent member of the centre-left Social Democratic Party, who wrote a bestselling book attacking Germany’s post-war immigration policies. In September, given the alleged right-wing backgrounds of Jongen and Sarrazin, the Dean prohibited me from using my financial resources to invite these speakers. Such resources are allotted to each professor on a yearly basis and commonly used for guest speakers and workshops. He later told me that it was only the use of faculty resources for expenses and honoraria that was prohibited. Shortly afterwards, however, I received a letter from the Dean and the Rector informing me that the use of any university resources was prohibited. This grew into a dispute that eventually became public, sparking a heated debate throughout Germany regarding freedom of speech for thinkers from conservative or right wing circles, such as Jongen and Sarrazin. On a personal level, a colleague felt entitled to issue me a ‘final warning’, and I was publically accused of an ‘ego trip’ by the Dean.
The whole controversy, in its occasionally absurd details, is not only philosophically interesting, but also helps us to cast an eye at what Kant called ‘the crooked timber of humanity’. Out of the seminar’s seven scheduled speakers – one later withdrew – three were not from the right of the political spectrum at all. Two of these count themselves as left-liberal, while I see myself as liberal. Despite this fairly even political balance, and although I’d also tried to invite a further fourteen individuals, none of whom, to put it cautiously, shares anything with the milieu of the right (Rainer Forst and Axel Honneth, for example), the University still reproached me publicly on repeated occasions for organizing a seminar that was ‘one-sidely oriented’. But even if I had only invited people from the spectrum of the right, this would still have been perfectly legitimate. Could anyone seriously claim that lecture series on, say, gender research or migration are always characterized by theoretical and political balance in terms of the list of invited speakers?
It was claimed again and again that my inclusion of Jongen and Sarrazin in the list of speakers meant that I myself had adopted a right-wing ideological position. Aside from any interest in damaging my reputation, this insistence is rooted in a failure to grasp that one can be strongly conservative in ethical outlook yet extremely liberal in terms of legal rights. For instance, one can regard the practice of assisted dying as morally wrong, but still support the case for its legalisation, as I do. It is a sign of philosophical ignorance if the enemies of freedom (as Karl Popper would call them) are unable to recognize this elementary distinction between ethics and rights, and thus falsely infer something like a populist conception of law from an ethically conservative position. I was also astonished to see how little attention was accorded in this connection to the arguments of Kant or John Stuart Mill about the need for rational debate. The will to power seemed more in evidence than the will to argument. It was even claimed that the invitation of Jongen and Sarrazin contravened a legal requirement for political neutrality – although under German law it is only the University that is bound by this requirement rather than individual scholars or researchers. Certainly no questions are ever raised about ‘observing political neutrality’ in most seminars in sociology or the humanities.
Another complaint was that neither Jongen nor Sarrazin are academics, and hence should not be speaking at the University in the first place – although such status is by no means a necessary condition for being invited to speak at a university. If poets are invited to speak on the subject of contemporary verse, no one is seen mounting the barricades.
© Federico de Cicco 2019. Please visit zumar7.com instagram.com/zumar7
Free Speech: Not Just A Theoretical Research Topic
My seminar was concerned with the philosophy and practice of the freedom of expression. In this connection, ‘freedom of expression’ is a generic concept that embraces all of the freedoms that are included in Article 5 of the German Grundgesetz, our ‘Basic Law’. Freedom of expression doesn’t merely imply the absence of censorship. This freedom can also be restricted by non-judicial or non-governmental sanctions, and by forms of social tyranny which affect the well-being of those who openly express their thoughts and opinions. This can include various means of intimidation, such as death threats – something that I have actually experienced myself. The objection that someone like Sarrazin can still express his opinions in any way he likes is made far too quickly. It is quite true that no one has a right to teach at a specific university, or to participate in any particular congress or conference; but it also seems clear to me that all those who are appropriately qualified, and who keep within the limits of the law, have a fundamental right to participate somehow in the world of science, learning, and education. Clearly too, this is sometimes denied to scholars and researchers who are held to be associated with the right. Someone like Jongen, who trained as an academic philosopher, no longer has the chance to succeed in the competitive context of the German university system. And anyone like myself, who invites such people to speak without actually sharing their views, will soon find themselves relegated to the side table as well.
The techniques of social tyranny are far more subtle than the cudgels or crowbars of direct censorship or proscription. In an academic climate such as the one I found myself in, where private conversations are illegally recorded, it becomes very hard to avoid censoring oneself in advance.
It is an intellectual catastrophe when contentious people like Ulrich Kutschera, Martin van Creveld, Jörg Baberowski or Rainer Wendt are no longer allowed to speak at a German university without the moral police from the imperium paternale [Kant’s term for paternal government. Ed.] being sent out on patrol.
Legal & Moral Rights To Freedom of Speech
Freedom of thought and expression must also include academic freedom. Before setting out my arguments for academic freedom, I would like to ask a simple question: Do I have the right, legally speaking, to invite Jongen and Sarrazin on the basis of academic freedom? The answer is, of course I have this right, it is conferred by Germany’s Basic Law – and indeed for good reason, for there are strong philosophical grounds for it, as we shall see. Academic freedom is a fundamental legal right that may only be legally restricted under very specific conditions, if at all.
You could object that my academic freedom was not being restricted in this case because I was still being allowed to hold my seminar. But if I am not permitted to draw on the usual resources for inviting speakers in the name of the University, and if, as the Dean instructed me, I am not even permitted to publicize the meetings in question via the usual email channels, then my academic freedom is in fact being significantly limited, even if being officially upheld at the same time.
However, the legal right to do something does not imply that it is sensible or justifiable to do it in a moral, political, or academic sense. So are there any good reasons beyond the issue of its legal permissibility which must allow Jongen and Sarrazin to be invited to speak in a university? I can see five such reasons, which we’ll look at soon.
But first a point about consistency. If we allow left-wing individuals such as Sahra Wagenknecht or Jutta Ditfurth to speak at the University of Siegen, why not right-wing individuals as well? It is inconsistent. No one will deny that the humanities departments in our universities regularly invite academic speakers who not only come from the left of the political spectrum but also expressly promote left-wing positions in their talks. Many of my colleagues pursue a fairly radical political perspective precisely through their academic work on issues such as migration, racism, gender studies and social justice. Just so that I am not misunderstood here: I find this to be not only normal but also acceptable in the context of academic study and research. I regarded it therefore as a completely unacceptable attack on the freedom of academic thought when Hungarian President Victor OrbĂĄn recently used a governmental edict to remove Gender Studies from the list of permitted Masters degrees in Hungary. But also intolerable in the context of academic study and research is the one-sidedness and intellectual exaggeration which is promoted on the left.
The Golden Rule
On the basis of consistency it is possible to develop an initial argument, which I call the argument from the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule enjoins: ‘Treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated in the same situation’. An enemy of free speech should therefore consider the following situation. Imagine that you wanted to invite someone to speak at your university – a person who some find morally or politically objectionable. Let’s assume, for instance, that the person in question is a Marxist. But you stand on the ground of the Basic Law, as does the person you want to invite. Would you will that anyone should contest your right to invite that person? If not, you may not contest that right to other individuals who do not share your perspective, either.
We Can Always Be Wrong
My second argument reflects the fact that human beings are fallible; we can never be entirely sure that something we are quite convinced of actually is the case. So if we suppress a certain view, we can never completely exclude the possibility that we are suppressing a view that is correct. The claim that climate change is humanly produced is a good example. Anyone who questions this at a German university is almost treated as if they’d denied the Holocaust. Yet is it impossible that the claim is false? Moreover, a counter-position not only deserves to be heard in its own right, but is also something that, at least as a rule, proves most useful to us to consider, as this takes us further in our own thinking.
Now it is very often the case that views and opinions, or complex systems of views and opinions, are not simply true or false as a totality; they may be partly true; and we may also learn something from them.
Let us briefly consider Jongen and Sarrazin. Sarrazin has been sharply criticized for claims he made regarding the inheritability of intelligence, in his anti-immigration tome Germany Abolishes Itself. Yet Axel Meyer, a renowned evolutionary biologist, wrote that in Sarrazin’s book “the current state of knowledge about the genetic basis of intelligence was presented in a way that was largely scientifically correct.” (Adams Apfel und Evas Erbe, 2015, p.254). It is not a question here (at least not for me) of the truth of these claims, but simply a question of whether they have any apparent plausibility. What I find disturbing is that combination of ignorance and dogmatism that would prevent us from thinking about certain claims which according to well-informed people are at least not entirely or self-evidently false, and may even be quite correct. If we followed the approach of Sarrazin’s critics, we wouldn’t be able to invite Steven Pinker to give a talk on intelligence either.
Or let us consider the case of Marc Jongen. In 2017 he was invited to speak at the Hannah Arendt Center at Bard College, in upstate New York, and there was a huge protest against the invitation. In his talk he said: “It would be a very bad idea to build our society and our nations and states on the concept of race, of genetic affiliation.” On the other hand, he continues, we should not deny that “a sufficiently strong consciousness of we for a functioning democracy can only be established amongst a people [that shares] the same values and thus will engage in a common project for the future.” And let me just quote another observation, that it is “important to morality that I can only be a moral agent because we are moral agents
 Detached from my community, I will be apt to lose my hold on all genuine criteria of judgement.” In case you didn’t notice, this last quotation is drawn not from Jongen but from the ethicist Alasdair MacIntyre. Would the enemies of freedom also try to prevent anyone from inviting that world-renowned philosopher to the University of Siegen merely because he regards a patriotism as a virtue?
But this argument from fallibility has further implications. We can still learn something by engaging with other views and opinions even if they are completely false (although it should be added, we can rarely know whether they are completely false). Consider Peter Singer. In his book Practical Ethics (1979), Singer argues for some positions which horrify many people, such as that there are particular conditions in which it would be permissible to kill handicapped new-born infants. There are good reasons for regarding this view as mistaken, and also as extremely dangerous from a moral and political perspective. Should we therefore prevent Singer from giving lectures (as has in fact already happened in Germany)? I do not think so. And this is precisely because an engagement with his theses – even if we know that they’re false – provides an important touchstone for articulating our own positions, and thereby becoming more aware of the gaps, problems, and implications of our positions. Anyone who defends a theory must be prepared, and able, to defend it against possible objections.
Engagement, contestation, and doubt are important sources of progress, and so we may profit from thinking about views that we regard as false, and perhaps even as dangerous. If we turn the university into an echo chamber, we shall find all these sources drying up.
At the Court of Reason
My third argument is a strategic one. A university auditorium is not a marketplace where people cry up their wares, but a place for reasoned argument. I was not offering Jongen and Sarrazin an uncontested ‘platform’, but bringing them before the court of reason. Either their arguments really are as weak as many claim them to be, in which case an academic audience will be able to expose them; or their arguments are not so poor after all, in which case it’s worth giving them a hearing. Is it not permitted for an academic to debate with racists without being suspected of being a racist themselves? It is true that if Jongen and Sarrazin are racists, their presentations might encourage certain racist tendencies. That is possible. But it is at least equally plausible that more individuals than before will recognize how problematic or untenable their positions are. The ‘consequentialist’ approach, according to which actions must be judged in terms of their consequences (rather than, say, the intentions behind them), works on the strong assumption that we can actually know what will happen as a result of actions. Even if this is sometimes possible, it is certainly not the case here. And even if it were true that my seminar might encourage racism, I would not thereby be responsible for the actions of any third party. Breweries are not responsible for the fact that certain people commit crimes under the influence of drink, and nor do we see that fact as a good reason to introduce prohibition.
The objection that there was no need to invite Jongen and Sarrazin to speak at the University in the first place since one could simply read their books, is, if not completely false, certainly overdrawn. It is false in the sense that direct and personal communication with individuals may teach us much more, or at least something different, than we can learn from the study of their texts. Even if that turns out not to be the case, the objection proves too much, since if it were upheld there would then be no need for talks or lectures at all! At any rate, I must say that my personal encounter with both speakers has only strengthened the impression that I’d already received from reading their texts that they are not racists, let alone Nazis.
Weakening the Defences
The core of my fourth argument is that restricting freedom of thought and expression in any case where this restriction only might be justifiable tends to reduce the limits of tolerance to ideas, which narrows the space of freedom even further.
A central reason for this weakening of freedom is the imprecise and inflationary use of terms such as ‘racism’, ‘nationalism’, ‘sexism’, ‘essentialism’, ‘homophobia’, ‘contempt for humanity’, and so on. Thus one colleague, as he put it to me, takes Sarrazin to be a racist with whom he would not wish to appear in the same series of lectures. That is his perfect right. But what does racism mean here? In my view it is absurd to claim that someone is a racist just because they say there are such things as genetically distinguishable ethnic groups (‘races’); and even more absurd to claim that someone is a racist because they challenge, as Sarrazin does, the idea that all human beings possess an unlimited right to migrate to every country in the world. It seems to me that someone is a racist if they believe not only that there are biologically distinguishable human populations but also that these distinctions imply differences in value, perhaps going so far as to endorse the appalling idea that certain populations are intrinsically superior to others and so are entitled to rule over them. I cannot see that Sarrazin is a racist in this sense.
In Dubio Pro Libertate
This brings me to my fifth and final argument, which can be described as a meta-argument. Let us assume that the enemies of freedom found all my previous arguments unconvincing. And let us suppose that these enemies of freedom were not actually enemies of freedom: that they are simply lovers of freedom who want to protect it from its true – that is, its anti-democratic, racist and nationalistic – opponents. They would therefore respect my academic freedom of thought and expression too. Shouldn’t they be able to entertain some doubt about their own critical position in order to see whether there might be something to be said for my arguments? And shouldn’t they at least allow me the right to be mistaken? Isn’t freedom such a preeminent good that it should be restricted only in the most extreme predicaments? And is the predicament I presented really so great, and the doubt or uncertainty over the permissibility of restricting me so minor? I would argue that what holds for the right of the accused in a criminal trial holds for freedom of expression too: in dubio pro libertate. If in doubt, allow freedom.
Anyone who treats freedom of thought and expression as a kind of ‘fair weather’ principle, only to be promoted for the kind of thought and expression we like, has not understood what this freedom means. And to put it bluntly, it has certainly not been understood by the Faculty Council, the Senate, and the University Council at Siegen, all of which endorsed the restrictions approved by the university administration. Nor has it been understood by most of the committee members of the German Society for Philosophy, who proved unable to show solidarity with me in this matter. In the summer of 2018, Claudia Roth, the Vice President of the German Parliament, delivered a speech which specifically defended freedom of thought and expression. Yet when I later asked her for the full text of her speech she refused, saying “We do not support any proceedings which offer a platform to racist positions or those of the extreme right.”
It is one thing to attack the right to academic freedom (which attack is not legitimate), and another to criticize the specific exercise of this right (which criticism may of course be entirely legitimate). But anyone who attempts not only to criticise but to systematically restrict the academic freedom of another colleague – for example by calling on the Rector of Siegen to ‘dis-invite’ my two speakers – deserves to be called an enemy of freedom. The friends of freedom must defend themselves. For, as Kant pointedly observed, anyone who turns himself into a worm cannot later complain if he gets trampled on.
0 notes
bigbirdgladiator · 6 years ago
Link
Violence erupted in Hong Kong on Monday as protesters stormed the Legislative Council on the anniversary of the city’s return to Beijing, amid growing anger over a plan to allow extraditions to China.     Hundreds of masked demonstrators ran riot inside the building, forcing their way into the chamber, and smashing up doors, walls and paintings. Portraits of Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam and Chinese President Xi Jinping were torn down. On Monday night, Hong Kong police moved in to clear the hundreds of protesters who stormed the legislature, and fired tear gas at protesters outside parliament.   Hours earlier, they had streamed into the legislature after shattering windows with metal trolleys and poles and wrenching open metal shutters. The council issued a red alert, ordering them to leave. But the riot police who had previously been pushing them back appeared to have retreated. Earlier, police had raced toward protesters, beating some with batons and using pepper spray to thin the crowds. As the day wore on, more people turned out to participate in a planned rally to mark the date the former British colony was given back to China in 1997. The organisers said some 550,000 attended. Anti-government protesters stormed Hong Kong's parliament building  Credit: VIVEK PRAKASH/AFP/Getty Images Jeremy Hunt, the British Foreign Secretary, tweeted in support of the demonstrations, saying: "No violence is acceptable but HK people must preserve right to peaceful protest exercised within the law." Away from campaigning want to stress UK support for Hong Kong and its freedoms is UNWAVERING on this anniversary day. No violence is acceptable but HK people MUST preserve right to peaceful protest exercised within the law, as hundreds of thousands of brave people showed today.— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) July 1, 2019 “I wanted to add to the crowd numbers so that the government could hear the dissatisfaction of so many people,” said Gary, 35, a teacher, who declined to give his surname. Ming, 50, a business owner, told The Daily Telegraph: “I have marched all three times. I completely support the young people and their ideals and ambitions, which is for the good of Hong Kong.  "Seeing these young people like this, if I didn’t come out, I couldn’t have that on my conscience. I’m in my fifties, what can we do for these young people? One thing we can do is come out and march." Pro-democracy activists use the handover anniversary every year to march through Hong Kong calling for greater freedoms, though have failed to win any concessions from Beijing. Coming after three weeks of ongoing rallies, this year's rally took on even greater significance.  Hundreds of protesters poured into the building after hours of trying to break through windows Credit: Vivek Prakash/AFP Marches since June 9 have seen crowds swell to over one million with people demanding Hong Kong’s Beijing-backed leader, Ms Lam, withdraw a controversial extradition bill. Rights activists argue that, if passed, it would see suspects face unfair trials in mainland China where the courts are controlled by the ruling Communist Party and authorities use torture to extract forced confessions. The proposed bill, which has been delayed but not scrapped since protests intensified, adds to growing fears that China is gradually snuffing out the city’s freedoms, which were guaranteed for at least 50 years in a handover agreement between Britain and Beijing. China has become more willing to openly intervene in politics, barring individuals from running for the city’s legislature, forcing elected lawmakers to step down, and jailing young activists. As fears over human rights have grown, Germany has recently granted asylum to two Hong Kong dissidents. Riot police had pushed protesters back earlier in the day but later retreated Credit:  Anthony Kwan/ Getty Images  “The government is doing so much to threaten our way of life,” said Jessica Yeung, 50, a university professor who left a family holiday in York early to come home and join the protests. “We have to stand and safeguard our values.” Mrs Ho, a manual worker in her fifties, said: “I’ve come out to all the marches. I am not just supporting the students, I am supporting our Hong Kong spirit. They said it was one country two systems, but it’s not like that anymore. As for the glass breaking, we don’t know who they are.” The latest rallies in Hong Kong represent the biggest popular challenge to Chinese president Xi Jinping since he came to power in 2012. The extradition issue has re-united Hong Kong’s previously fractured anti-Beijing resistance movement which had been riven with in-fighting and squabbles between different camps. Police officers use baton to disperse anti-extradition protesters during a clash outside the Legislative Council Complex  Credit: Getty “It’s a matter of a raw nerve having been touched for both the political groups and parties, as well as for the general public, so people came out,” said Steve Tsang, director of the University of London’s SOAS China Institute. “It didn’t matter who was asking them,” he said. “They voluntarily and proactively went out to show how much they care about the consequences of allowing those laws to be passed.” Protest organisers hope “to transform our power from the streets into the political system,” Bonnie Leung, vice-convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front, told The Telegraph, looking ahead to elections for the city’s legislature next year. It’s an opportunity for the resistance camp to win more seats and whittle down the current pro-Beijing majority, she said. As it stands, 43 of 70 seats are currently held by Beijing supporters in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. “Then the government can no longer ignore our voices as they are doing now,” said Ms Leung. Hong Kongers have also criticised the UK, urging London to do more to pressure China to uphold its end of the handover agreement, the Sino-British Joint Declaration.  Anti-extradition protesters push barricades toward police on a street during a stand-off outside the Legislative Council Complex Credit: Getty “The British suck,” said Alex, a designer, 25, who declined to give his real name. “They abandoned us and only paid us lip service.” Protesters have been increasingly wary of their identities being revealed over fears of future backlash. Many have used umbrellas or donned face masks as a way to obscure their faces, as well as to defend against tear gas. On Sunday, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt urged the Hong Kong authorities to respect the “rights and freedoms” ahead of anniversary date, reiterating the UK’s support for the declaration. “It is a legally binding treaty and remains as valid today as it did when it was signed and ratified over thirty years ago,” he said. “It is imperative that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, and the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people, are fully respected in line with the joint declaration and the Hong Kong basic law.” Two years ago, China said the joint declaration was a historical document that no longer had any practical significance. Beijing reiterated its stance on Monday, calling on the UK to stop “gesticulating” and “interfering” in its former colony and that Britain’s rights and obligations under the joint declaration had ended.  Police officers pepper spray during a clash with anti-extradition protesters Credit: Getty “Britain has no so-called responsibility for Hong Kong,” said Geng Shuang, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry. “Hong Kong matters are purely an internal affair for China. No foreign country has a right to interfere.” “We urge Britain to know its place and stop interfering in any form in Hong Kong matters and do more for its prosperity and stability rather than the opposite,” he added. Aside from Mr Geng’s comments there was no mention of the protests in Hong Kong on Monday in China, where censors tightly control news and information. State media instead carried remarks from Mr Xi extolling the virtues of the Communist Party on the 98th anniversary of its founding – coincidentally the same day as the handover anniversary. Protesters have indicated no plans of backing down – unlike past demonstrations, the latest wave have coalesced through a groundswell from many groups – political parties, labour unions, business groups, schools – rather than one main convenor. “This is a pretty organic movement; there is not one single organizer like in 2014, where everyone was looking to the student leaders,” Dennis Kwok, a politician who opposes the extradition bill, told the Telegraph. “There are no leaders in this one.” Additional reporting by Yiyin Zhong Are you participating in the Hong Kong protests? Or have you been watching them unfold? Are you Hong Kongese or an expat? We want to hear from you about your reasons for taking part, what you hope the outcome will be and how it will impact the future of Hongkongers.  Send us an email to [email protected] including your name, location and any images or video of the protests for the chance to be featured in the Telegraph. Submission of material is subject to our website terms and conditions which can be found here.
from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/327nPLo
0 notes
supertrendingnewsarticles · 6 years ago
Link
Violence erupted in Hong Kong on Monday as protesters stormed the Legislative Council on the anniversary of the city’s return to Beijing, amid growing anger over a plan to allow extraditions to China.     Hundreds of masked demonstrators ran riot inside the building, forcing their way into the chamber, and smashing up doors, walls and paintings. Portraits of Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam and Chinese President Xi Jinping were torn down. On Monday night, Hong Kong police moved in to clear the hundreds of protesters who stormed the legislature, and fired tear gas at protesters outside parliament.   Hours earlier, they had streamed into the legislature after shattering windows with metal trolleys and poles and wrenching open metal shutters. The council issued a red alert, ordering them to leave. But the riot police who had previously been pushing them back appeared to have retreated. Earlier, police had raced toward protesters, beating some with batons and using pepper spray to thin the crowds. As the day wore on, more people turned out to participate in a planned rally to mark the date the former British colony was given back to China in 1997. The organisers said some 550,000 attended. Anti-government protesters stormed Hong Kong's parliament building  Credit: VIVEK PRAKASH/AFP/Getty Images Jeremy Hunt, the British Foreign Secretary, tweeted in support of the demonstrations, saying: "No violence is acceptable but HK people must preserve right to peaceful protest exercised within the law." Away from campaigning want to stress UK support for Hong Kong and its freedoms is UNWAVERING on this anniversary day. No violence is acceptable but HK people MUST preserve right to peaceful protest exercised within the law, as hundreds of thousands of brave people showed today.— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) July 1, 2019 “I wanted to add to the crowd numbers so that the government could hear the dissatisfaction of so many people,” said Gary, 35, a teacher, who declined to give his surname. Ming, 50, a business owner, told The Daily Telegraph: “I have marched all three times. I completely support the young people and their ideals and ambitions, which is for the good of Hong Kong.  "Seeing these young people like this, if I didn’t come out, I couldn’t have that on my conscience. I’m in my fifties, what can we do for these young people? One thing we can do is come out and march." Pro-democracy activists use the handover anniversary every year to march through Hong Kong calling for greater freedoms, though have failed to win any concessions from Beijing. Coming after three weeks of ongoing rallies, this year's rally took on even greater significance.  Hundreds of protesters poured into the building after hours of trying to break through windows Credit: Vivek Prakash/AFP Marches since June 9 have seen crowds swell to over one million with people demanding Hong Kong’s Beijing-backed leader, Ms Lam, withdraw a controversial extradition bill. Rights activists argue that, if passed, it would see suspects face unfair trials in mainland China where the courts are controlled by the ruling Communist Party and authorities use torture to extract forced confessions. The proposed bill, which has been delayed but not scrapped since protests intensified, adds to growing fears that China is gradually snuffing out the city’s freedoms, which were guaranteed for at least 50 years in a handover agreement between Britain and Beijing. China has become more willing to openly intervene in politics, barring individuals from running for the city’s legislature, forcing elected lawmakers to step down, and jailing young activists. As fears over human rights have grown, Germany has recently granted asylum to two Hong Kong dissidents. Riot police had pushed protesters back earlier in the day but later retreated Credit:  Anthony Kwan/ Getty Images  “The government is doing so much to threaten our way of life,” said Jessica Yeung, 50, a university professor who left a family holiday in York early to come home and join the protests. “We have to stand and safeguard our values.” Mrs Ho, a manual worker in her fifties, said: “I’ve come out to all the marches. I am not just supporting the students, I am supporting our Hong Kong spirit. They said it was one country two systems, but it’s not like that anymore. As for the glass breaking, we don’t know who they are.” The latest rallies in Hong Kong represent the biggest popular challenge to Chinese president Xi Jinping since he came to power in 2012. The extradition issue has re-united Hong Kong’s previously fractured anti-Beijing resistance movement which had been riven with in-fighting and squabbles between different camps. Police officers use baton to disperse anti-extradition protesters during a clash outside the Legislative Council Complex  Credit: Getty “It’s a matter of a raw nerve having been touched for both the political groups and parties, as well as for the general public, so people came out,” said Steve Tsang, director of the University of London’s SOAS China Institute. “It didn’t matter who was asking them,” he said. “They voluntarily and proactively went out to show how much they care about the consequences of allowing those laws to be passed.” Protest organisers hope “to transform our power from the streets into the political system,” Bonnie Leung, vice-convenor of the Civil Human Rights Front, told The Telegraph, looking ahead to elections for the city’s legislature next year. It’s an opportunity for the resistance camp to win more seats and whittle down the current pro-Beijing majority, she said. As it stands, 43 of 70 seats are currently held by Beijing supporters in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. “Then the government can no longer ignore our voices as they are doing now,” said Ms Leung. Hong Kongers have also criticised the UK, urging London to do more to pressure China to uphold its end of the handover agreement, the Sino-British Joint Declaration.  Anti-extradition protesters push barricades toward police on a street during a stand-off outside the Legislative Council Complex Credit: Getty “The British suck,” said Alex, a designer, 25, who declined to give his real name. “They abandoned us and only paid us lip service.” Protesters have been increasingly wary of their identities being revealed over fears of future backlash. Many have used umbrellas or donned face masks as a way to obscure their faces, as well as to defend against tear gas. On Sunday, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt urged the Hong Kong authorities to respect the “rights and freedoms” ahead of anniversary date, reiterating the UK’s support for the declaration. “It is a legally binding treaty and remains as valid today as it did when it was signed and ratified over thirty years ago,” he said. “It is imperative that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, and the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people, are fully respected in line with the joint declaration and the Hong Kong basic law.” Two years ago, China said the joint declaration was a historical document that no longer had any practical significance. Beijing reiterated its stance on Monday, calling on the UK to stop “gesticulating” and “interfering” in its former colony and that Britain’s rights and obligations under the joint declaration had ended.  Police officers pepper spray during a clash with anti-extradition protesters Credit: Getty “Britain has no so-called responsibility for Hong Kong,” said Geng Shuang, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry. “Hong Kong matters are purely an internal affair for China. No foreign country has a right to interfere.” “We urge Britain to know its place and stop interfering in any form in Hong Kong matters and do more for its prosperity and stability rather than the opposite,” he added. Aside from Mr Geng’s comments there was no mention of the protests in Hong Kong on Monday in China, where censors tightly control news and information. State media instead carried remarks from Mr Xi extolling the virtues of the Communist Party on the 98th anniversary of its founding – coincidentally the same day as the handover anniversary. Protesters have indicated no plans of backing down – unlike past demonstrations, the latest wave have coalesced through a groundswell from many groups – political parties, labour unions, business groups, schools – rather than one main convenor. “This is a pretty organic movement; there is not one single organizer like in 2014, where everyone was looking to the student leaders,” Dennis Kwok, a politician who opposes the extradition bill, told the Telegraph. “There are no leaders in this one.” Additional reporting by Yiyin Zhong Are you participating in the Hong Kong protests? Or have you been watching them unfold? Are you Hong Kongese or an expat? We want to hear from you about your reasons for taking part, what you hope the outcome will be and how it will impact the future of Hongkongers.  Send us an email to [email protected] including your name, location and any images or video of the protests for the chance to be featured in the Telegraph. Submission of material is subject to our website terms and conditions which can be found here.
from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/327nPLo
0 notes