#mohammed zubair case | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 7 months ago

Text

In 2017, Pratik Sinha and Mohammed Zubair cofounded the fact-checking website AltNews in India. Almost immediately, the pair were targeted with persistent and vicious attacks from the far-right news website OpIndia. Many of the attacks claimed that Zubair was a Rohingya Muslim who illegally migrated to India and that his cousin was a rapist. In several headlines, the site described Zubair as an “Islamist” spreading fake news.

This wasn’t far off from OpIndia’s other coverage: In addition to routinely attacking journalists and news sites critical of the government, OpIndia spreads conspiracies and, at times, outright disinformation, particularly about the country’s minority Muslim population. Founded in 2014, OpIndia is regularly name-checked by leading lawmakers in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the site admits it is funded in part by ads run by the BJP. As hundreds of millions of Indians vote in elections across the country, critics fear that OpIndia’s election-related disinformation and overt support of the Modi government could further undermine trust in the democratic process. Already, the website has echoed Modi’s widely criticized description of the Muslim vote as “vote jihad.”

Yet despite this, US tech companies, which have rules against hate speech and disinformation, continue to platform OpIndia and, in some cases, allow it to continue to make money through advertising. OpIndia has a robust presence on Facebook, Instagram, and X. Additionally, a new report, shared exclusively with WIRED, has found that Google’s ad platform is being used to partially fund OpIndia’s operation.

“In an increasingly polarized space, they create a vicious narrative against you,” Sinha tells WIRED. “All of this is narrative building. Their job is to defame anyone who's critical of the government, and that's what they do.”

Despite repeated efforts by activists to defund the site—and the fact that publications that have partnered with a Google-supported election fact-checking initiative, Shakti, have fact-checked OpIndia’s articles and found it routinely publishes fake news—OpIndia continues to operate thanks in part to ads that Google’s ad exchange platform places next to its content. In 2019, Poynter’s International Fact Checking Network, which accredits publications as trustworthy arbiters of information, rejected OpIndia’s application.

“Google’s own publisher policies prohibit the monetization of content that incites hatred, incitement of racism, promoting discrimination of an individual or group,” says Sarah Kay Wiley, director of policy and partnerships at Check My Ads, a nonprofit digital advertising watchdog organization and author of the new report. “Google also says that they don't monetize or work with publishers that make claims that are false and could significantly undermine trust in an election or democratic process.”

Ad exchanges allow publishers to sell ad space and advertisers to buy it through an entirely automated process that happens in the split seconds before a website loads. Ad sellers and buyers set limits for price and spending, with Google taking a cut of all transactions. Because of the automated nature of the process, advertisers likely don’t realize that their products are showing up next to hateful and misleading content.

Other ad exchanges such as Magnite have discontinued working with OpIndia. If Google were to stop working with OpIndia, says Wiley, that “would definitely have a material impact.”

On Facebook, OpIndia runs pages in English and Hindi, with 310,000 followers and 431,000 followers in each language, respectively. Both pages list their administrator as Aadhyaasi Media and Content Services Private Limited, which owns OpIndia.

On its Hindi page, OpIndia has shared stories promoting the “love jihad” conspiracy theory, which asserts that Muslim men are trying to marry, seduce, or kidnap Hindus in order to force them to convert and create a demographic shift in Hindu-majority India, and has promoted false claims, including that a new inheritance law would reallocate wealth from Hindus to Muslims. Meta spokesperson Erin McPike did not comment on whether this content violated Meta’s policies, nor on whether Meta takes into account the violations of the Hindi page when assessing the English page.

These narratives then get picked up and spread on other platforms, like X and Telegram, says Siddharth Venkataramakrishnan, an analyst with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. “In some of these places there’s even more explicit calls for violence against Muslims or for the removal of Muslims,” he says. The site has international appeal as well: WIRED was able to find OpIndia articles shared in non-Indian, right-wing channels on Telegram, including a pro-Kremlin channel with over 1.3 million subscribers and numerous conspiracy channels with hundreds of thousands of followers.

The site is also highly active on the social media platform X with the official OpIndia account, which has 688,000 subscribers. OpIndia appears to pay for X Premium, giving it a blue checkmark, but did not respond to whether it subscribes to the service. WIRED has identified at least half a dozen OpIndia writers, columnists, and editors, including editor in chief Nupur Sharma, who has more than 680,000 followers, who appear to be subscribed to X Premium.

Sharma did not respond to a question about OpIndia monetizing its content via X Premium, and the company itself also failed to respond.

“It’s a hyper-partisan, right-wing outlet that set themselves up by saying that mainstream news media in India have a liberal bias, very similar to what American right-wing outlets say about professional journalism in America,” says Kalyani Chadha, an associate professor at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University who published an in-depth report in 2020 on India’s right-wing media ecosystem that included OpIndia. “They bill themselves as a news outlet, but there's not a lot of original reporting. A lot of it is commentary and opinion.”

In addition to Sinha and Zubair, OpIndia has regularly targeted journalists and outlets it sees as “far left.” In one piece, the site’s staff listed the Indian journalists and publications supposedly associated with billionaire George Soros, who has long been the target of conspiracies from the global far right. In another, they attacked veteran journalist Ravish Kumar, falsely accusing him of harboring sympathies for the perpetrators of a 2019 rape case. OpIndia has also spent years attacking Raqib Hameed Naik, an Indian journalist and the founder of India Hate Lab, which documents instances of hate speech and conspiracies that target India’s minority communities. This, he says, was made all the harder by government officials sharing the articles.

“The goal is to amplify this disinformation, and you have BJP leaders sharing this, so people think it’s authentic,” says Naik. “In the long term, this kind of builds the case against a critic, a journalist, that this person is bad, because there is reporting against them.”

When WIRED contacted OpIndia for comment, Sharma responded to our emailed questions by posting her responses on X.

When asked about hate speech and disinformation on her site, Sharma wrote: “Our critics are mostly Islamists, Jihadis, Terrorists, Leftists and their sympathizers—like yourself. We don't particularly care about any of them.” She then added that “Islamophobia does not exist” and pointed to an OpIndia article that outlines her position. Sharma added that it was “none of your concern” when asked if OpIndia was funded by the BJP. Sharma’s post also tagged one of the authors of this story, who then faced a torrent of abuse from Sharma’s followers.

For years, activists and researchers have tried to highlight the problematic content published by OpIndia. A 2020 campaign from UK-based advocacy group Stop Funding Hate led to a number of advertisers removing their ads from the site. Google, however, says the content published on the site does not appear to breach its own rules.

"All sites in our network, including Opindia, must adhere to our publisher policies, which explicitly prohibit ads from appearing alongside content promoting hate speech, violence, or demonstrably false claims that could undermine trust or participation in an election,” Google spokesperson Michael Aciman says. “Publishers are also subject to regular reviews, and we actively block or remove ads from any violating content."

Despite this, users can find ads for Temu or the Palm Beach Post next to many OpIndia articles promoting conspiracies and Islamophobia, placed with the help of ad-exchange platforms like Google’s Ad Manager, which is the market leader.

Facebook, meanwhile, says Wiley, is more of a “walled garden.” Once a publisher meets the company’s criteria for monetization, including having more than 1,000 followers, it can earn money from ads that run on the page.

While researchers that spoke to WIRED were unable to tell exactly how much the site has made from Google Ads and Facebook monetization, they said it’s likely that OpIndia is not solely reliant on the ad exchange for its revenue. It appears that, as with many news outlets in India, part of that funding comes in the form of more traditional advertising from a major client: the government.

“A large section of India's mainstream press depends on the government ads for their survival,” says Prashanth Bhat, professor of media studies at the University of Houston. “That revenue is critical for the mainstream media survival in a hypercompetitive media environment like in India. We have about 400 round-the-clock television news channels in India in different languages, and we have over 10,000 registered newspapers. For them to survive, they definitely need government patronage.”

Sharma confirmed that OpIndia is reliant in part on ads from the government. “Literally every media house gets advertising from various political parties,” said Sharma. “In fact, a part of your salary could also be funded by such parties and/or their sympathizers. Do get down from your high horse.”

The BJP has, however, also sought to help OpIndia in other ways. In 2019, the BJP reached out to Meta directly, asking the company to allow OpIndia to monetize on Facebook. Meta spokesperson McPike told WIRED that OpIndia’s English page is still able to monetize but that monetization on its Hindi page is currently not allowed “due to violations of our policies.”

“In order to monetize on Facebook, Pages must comply with our community standards, our partner monetization policies, and our content monetization policies,” McPike says.

Google did not respond to questions from WIRED about whether it had ever received a similar request from the Indian government. Google’s Aciman says, “As we do with all publishers, we’ve taken prior page-level enforcement action on this site when we’ve found policy violations. We will of course continue to enforce our policies on violating content across our publisher network.”

X did not respond to questions about whether OpIndia and its staff are able to monetize through X Premium or whether the company has ever received requests from the government to restore content from OpIndia or its staff. The company has complied with several takedown requests from the Indian government to ban accounts or tweets critical of the government.

But Wiley says that without transparency on the part of tech companies as to how they’re deciding which organizations are able to earn money through ads—and how much—outlets like OpIndia will continue to fall through the cracks.

“The business model of the internet at the end of the day is advertising, and what we're seeing over and over again is, that business model is broken,” she says. “Advertisers don't know where their money is going. And the biggest issue is that a lot of that is being funneled to mis- and disinformation online.”

7 notes · View notes

newsclickofficial · 23 days ago

Link

BBCMohammed Zubair is a co-founder of the fact-checking website AltNewsMore than two years after the Supreme Court granted bail and ordered “immediate release” of Mohammed Zubair from prison, the leading Indian fact-checker and journalist is once again back in court.On Tuesday, the Allahabad high court is due to hear his petition in a fresh case as police in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh seek his arrest, accusing him of “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”.The charge is non-bailable and a conviction could mean a minimum of seven years in jail and fine or even life imprisonment.Zubair, who’s a co-founder of the fact-checking website called AltNews, denies all the accusations against him. “I feel I’m being targeted because of the work I do,” he told the BBC.Described by some as “a thorn in the side for the government because he's single-handedly taking on hate crimes", Zubair is wanted in connection with a post he put out on X spotlighting hate speech by a controversial Hindu priest.Shared on 3 October, the post included a video that showed Yati Narsinghanand delivering comments against Prophet Muhammad that many Muslims found hurtful.The 60-year-old priest is the head of the powerful Dasna Devi temple in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghaziabad town and has been repeatedly in the news for openly calling for violence against Muslims. In 2022, he was arrested for making Islamophobic and misogynistic comments and spent a month in jail. A day after Zubair’s post pointed out his latest offensive comments, Muslims protested outside the temple. Police said 10 people were arrested for allegedly pelting stones during the protest, PTI reported.Several Muslim groups lodged police complaints against Narsinghanand and the priest disappeared from public view amid reports that he had been arrested. Police, however, denied that. Yati Narsinghanand has often made news for openly calling for violence against MuslimsA few days later, hundreds of Narsinghanand's supporters surrounded the local police station, demanding action against Zubair. Police opened a case against the fact-checker after Uditya Tyagi – a politician from India’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and a close aide of the priest - lodged a complaint.In the initial complaint, Zubair faced somewhat milder charges - including promoting enmity between different religious groups, defamation and giving false evidence. But last week, police added Section 152 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - as India’s new legal code is called - to the list of charges, accusing him of “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”.This, legal experts say, allows police to arrest Zubair. His lawyer has sought interim bail and also asked the court to throw out the case.In his defence, Zubair says he was not the only one who had posted Narsinghanand’s remarks and that a number of journalists, politicians and media channels had tweeted the video even before him.“Police have registered a case against me based on complaints from the followers of a man who routinely gives hate speeches. And they are going after someone who's reporting hate speeches, while people giving hate speeches are going free,” he says.“This is an attempt to gag people trying to hold the government to account,” he adds.Pratik Sinha, Zubair’s colleague and the other co-founder of AltNews, says the authorities go after Zubair because of the work he does and because it makes an impact.“It's a classic case of shooting the messenger. It's a witch-hunt,” he told the BBC.“Why are the police invoking more stringent charges against him nearly two months later? It's not just Narsinghanand and his supporters going after him - this is actually the government going after him.”The addition of the draconian charge against Zubair has also been criticised by rights organisations and groups representing journalists and media in India who say that Section 152 is a “new version” of the colonial-era sedition law.Amnesty International India said it was an example of how the law was being used “to harass, intimidate, and persecute human rights defenders, activists, journalists, students, filmmakers, singers, actors and writers for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression”.The Press Club of India condemned the move and demanded withdrawal of the police case against Zubair.“All sane minds have been opposing this section as it has potential to silence the free thinkers and media. It can also be imposed against those who are critical of dispensation,” it said in a statement. Digipub, an association of digital media organisations, condemned the “escalating harassment” of Zubair and described the allegations against him as “unfounded”.“This is a vindictive and unreasonable over-reach by agencies of the state,” it said. Getty ImagesMohammed Zubair's arrest in 2022 was criticised by the UN Secretary General's officeThe government had faced similar criticism in 2022 when Zubair was arrested and spent more than three weeks in jail before the Supreme Court freed him on bail.Delhi police had arrested him over a 2018 tweet which was a screengrab from a popular 1980s Bollywood film, but they accused him of "insulting Hindu religious beliefs". Later, police in Uttar Pradesh also registered cases against him, accusing him of other misdemeanours including criminal conspiracy and receiving foreign funds.BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia had accused him of being “selective and politically biased” in his fact-checking and said his tweets “hurt the religious sentiments of a large number of Hindus”.But many at the time linked his arrest to the controversial Islamophobic comments made by BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma. The Hindu newspaper said Zubair was “being made to pay for a tweet that had drawn wide attention to Sharma’s vile remarks” against Prophet Mohammad and described it as an instance of the government's "intolerance towards fact-checkers who frequently expose its claims". International rights groups and the United Nations had also expressed concern, with a spokesperson for the UN chief Antonio Guterres saying that "journalists should not be jailed for what they write, tweet, and say".But critics say that’s exactly what the authorities are using to pick on Zubair and other journalists.India has been consistently sliding on the Global Press Freedom rankings - it is now placed at 159 out of 180 countries - according to media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).“Journalists critical of the government are routinely subjected to online harassment, intimidation, threats and physical attacks, as well as criminal prosecutions and arbitrary arrests,” the annual RSF report said. In the past, the Indian government has rejected the report, saying its methodology was “questionable and non-transparent”.

0 notes

globalnews1 · 23 days ago

Link

0 notes

legalattorneyblog · 1 year ago

Text

Ibadan Magistrate Court Remands Two Over Alleged Murder.

In a significant development, the Iyaganku Magistrates’ Court in Ibadan has remanded Shamsun Mohammed, 25, and Ya’u Yinusa, 25, at the Ibadan correctional facility for their alleged involvement in a murder case. The defendants are facing charges of conspiracy and murder, according to information obtained by Naija News. During the court proceedings, Magistrate S. Zubair declined to hear the…

View On WordPress

#Ibadan Magistrates’ Court Remands Two Over Alleged Murder in Ibadan

0 notes

rudrjobdesk · 3 years ago

Text

दिल्ली पुलिस ने क्यों किया है मोहम्मद जुबैर को गिरफ्तार, जानिए पूरा मामला

Image Source : TWITTER/ZOO_BEAR Mohammed Zubair Highlights सोमवार को दिल्ली पुलिस ने किया था गिरफ्तार आईपीसी की धारा 153/295 के तहत किया गया है केस दर्ज जुबैर को एक दिन की पुलिस रिमांड पर भेज दिया गया है Mohammad Zubair Arrest: ऑल्ट न्यूज के सह-संस्थापक और फैक्ट चेकर मोहम्मद जुबैर को सोमवार को दुश्मनी को बढ़ावा देने और धार्मिक भावनाओं को आहत करने के आरोप में दिल्ली पुलिस ने गिरफ्तार कर लिया।…

View On WordPress

0 notes

gujjukathiyawadi · 3 years ago

Text

3 हिंदू संतों का कहा था घृणा फैलाने वाला, ऑल्‍ट न्‍यूज के मोहम्‍मद जुबैर के खिलाफ रद्द नहीं होगी FIR

प्रयागराज: इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट (Allahabad High Court) ने फैक्ट चेक वेबसाइट ऑल्ट न्यूज़ (Alt News) के सह-संस्थापक मोहम्मद जुबैर (Mohammed Zubair) को तगड़ा झटका दिया है। हाई कोर्ट ने उनकी याचिका खारिज कर दी है, जिसमें उन्होंने इस महीने की शुरुआत में एक ट्वीट के लिए उनके खिलाफ दर्ज एफआईआर को चुनौती दी थी। ट्वीट में 3 हिंदू संतों यति नरसिंहानंद सरस्वती, बजरंग मुनि और आनंद स्वरूप को ‘हेट मांगर’ यानी…

View On WordPress

#allahabad high court #Allahabad High Court on Mohammed Zubair #Alt News #alt news mohammad zubai latest news #Alt News Mohammed Zubair #Case against Mohammad Zubair will not be canceled

0 notes

creepingsharia · 4 years ago

Text

Hamas-linked, UAE-terror listed CAIR projects 57 Muslims won seats in November 2020 elections

Scroll down for details. If any of these candidates have not distanced themselves from CAIR, citizens should be very concerned and monitor their actions and associations carefully.

Jetpac, CAIR, MPower Change Release Preliminary Snapshot of American Muslim Candidates in 2020 Election Cycle

A record 110 candidates who identify as Muslim were on ballot across the 24 states on November 3rd with more than half projected to win (WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/6/20)

Snapshot: 110 candidates were on 2020 general election ballots across 24 states and Washington D.C., which is the highest number since the 3 organizations started mapping the electoral progress of politicians who identify as Muslim.

... Fifty-seven of the one hundred and ten candidates on November 3, 2020 ballots won or are projected to win their elections. At least seven made representation history.

In Delaware, Madinah Wilson-Anton will be the first practicing Muslim lawmaker to serve in the state’s General Assembly and the first Muslim to hold the local state House seat when she is inaugurated as the State Representative for the 26th District.

In Wisconsin, Samba Baldeh became first the Muslim elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly, and the first Black man to represent Dane County in the legislature.

Christopher Benjamin won the race to represent the 107th District in the Florida House of Representatives, becoming the first Muslim American elected to any state office in the Sunshine State.

Nafisa Fai became the first Muslim and first Black commissioner in Washington County history when she won her race to represent District 1 in Oregon.

Iman Jodeh, the State Representative-elect for the 41st District in the Colorado House of Representatives, will be the first Muslim lawmaker in the state’s history.

Fady Qaddoura became the first Muslim to win an election to the Indiana State Legislature when he won the race for the 30th District in the State Senate.

Mauree Turner, the State Representative-elect for the Oklahoma 88th District, will be the first Muslim lawmaker elected to the state’s legislature.

Below is a preliminary summary of Muslim electoral results from November 3, 2020:

18 ran in California, 16 in Michigan, 14 in Minnesota, and 18 in New Jersey.

8 were on the ballot for U.S. House of Representatives in 7 states, including incumbents Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Andre Carson who all won reelection. Mike Siegel lost a close race to represent the 10th Congressional District in Texas.

29 ran for municipal seats in 6 states with 12 declared winners or are projected to win.

29 ran for state legislature seats in 18 states with 20 winning.

9 ran for county seats in 8 states; 6 won. 28 ran for school committee or board positions in 5 states with 12 winning.

5 ran for judiciary positions with 4 winning.

Jetpac, CAIR, and MPower plan to release a list of all 2020 local, primary, and general election candidates who publicly identify as Muslim after general election results have been certified. Some one hundred and seventy candidates who publicly identify as Muslim ran in all of 2020, which is almost thirty more than the previous high of one hundred and thirty-four candidates running in 2018.

---------------END CAIR PRESS RELEASE--------------------------------

If terror-linked CAIR’s projections hold, there are some notable wins and some big losses.

That said, the specter of voter fraud should be analyzed carefully in many of these races, particularly where there are large Muslim populations. One Muslim whistleblower in Minnesota explains in this video:

Notable Losses:

Deedra Abboud - AZ - CAIR/MSA executive who bailed out Muslim who was later killed waging jihad on Americans in Texas

Shahid Buttar - CA - radical Pakistani immigrant and self-avowed socialist

Ammar Campa-Najjar aka Ammar Yasser Najjar - not on CAIR’s list but definitely would have joined the Hamas Squad - background via California: Grandson of Islamic Terrorist Wins Democratic Primary Election

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair - CA - Dubai-born, far-left Sunrise Movement-linked radical

Imtiaz Mohammad - FL - serial candidate who has run for 3 seats in Florida this year alone

Azam Nizamuddin - IL - counsel for Hamas-linked NAIC designated by the DOJ as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in America history, and is still an executive at one of the group’s subsidiaries; details here

Regina Mustafa - MN - serial candidate who got her start with terror-linked CAIR

Amir Malik - MN - State House District 37B - former CAIR executive, details here

Qasim Rashid - VA - US House of Representatives - Rashid tries to tell gullible voters that Islamic terrorism does not exist, details here

Zul Mirza Mohamed - TX - Carrollton mayoral candidate arrested on 100+ felony voter fraud charges - still received 20% (20,000) votes

Notable Wins:

Farrah Khan - CA - Mayor Irvine, California (won easily)

Iman Jodeh - CO State House 41st District - spokesperson for Colorado Muslim Society, a mosque w a lengthy history of preaching homophobia, misogyny and intolerance, details here

Madinah Wilson-Anton - DE - State House 26th District - BLM organizing, Biden Institute radical - details here

Andre Carson - IN - CAIR-linked radical who wants Muslims to take over Congress - watch video here

Three (3) Wayne County, Michigan 3rd circuit court judges

Abraham Aiyash - MI - State Senate 4th District - Gun-banning, (Hamas) Squad & (domestic terrorist) BLM-supporting Muslim in District 4 (Hamtramck), details here

Three (3) state reps in Minnesota, background on Minnesota candidates here

Two (2) state legislators in North Carolina

Nida “Fuck the Police” Allam - NC - Durham County Board of Commissioners - Nida Allam is an Islam-first, anti-cop, anti-Israel socialist infamous for tweeting “fuck the police”, details here

Two (2) state legislators in New Hampshire (1 Dem and 1 Republican)

New Jersey is rapidly being Islamized - too many to list

Shahin Khalique - NJ - Paterson City Council - brother of Muslim arrested in major 2020 voter fraud bust that forced the redo of the Paterson elections; also responsible for the Islamic call to prayer being blasted over loudspeakers throughout the city 5x a day/night; Khalique’s candidacy has also been engulfed in voter fraud allegations for years including his dead father voting, details here

Mohamed Baayd - UT - Salt Lake School Board

Samba Baldeh - WI - State Assembly 48th District

Grace Meng - not a Muslim but pushing for Muslim judges in NY

Read more about the Democratic-CAIR partnership, and CAIR’s notorious terror ties here.

#Islam #Muslim #Sharia #Jihad #Legal #Law #News #Media #Politics #Immigration #election #Elections

14 notes · View notes

eretzyisrael · 6 years ago

Link

Portraying Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of the world’s only Jewish state, as a dog speaks to the deep hatred of dogs espoused by Mohammed, who is, according to Muslims, the most perfect human being ever to walk the earth, someone to be emulated in all respects. On man’s best friend, he was quite emphatic:

Below are a number of Hadith on various aspects involving dogs. All Hadith are from the Sahih collections of Bukhari and Muslim, or the Sunan of Abu Dawud. After the Quran, Bukhari's set of Hadith are regarded to be the second most important books in Islam, followed closely by the Hadith of Muslim…. [T]hese Hadith are not just a few isolated or unsupported cases. (snip)

1) KILL THE DOGS

From Bukhari Vol. 4, #540

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle ordered that the dogs should be killed.

From Abu Dawud #2839

Abd Allah B. Mughaffal reported the apostle of Allah as saying: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.

The Hadith's note for #2839 says, "The prophet did not order the killing of all the dogs, for some are to be retained for hunting and watching. He ordered to kill the jet black ones. They might be more mischievous among them.

From Muslim #3814

Ibn Mughaffal reported: Allah's messenger ordered the killing of dogs and then said, "what is the trouble with them (the people of Medina? How dogs are nuisances to them (the citizens of Medina)? He then permitted keeping of dogs for hunting and (the protection of) herds. ...[and for] for the protection of cultivated land.

From Muslim #Number 055

Ibn Mughaffal reported: The Messenger of Allah ordered killing of the dogs, and then said: What about them, i. e. about other dogs? and then granted concession (to keep) the dog for hunting and the dog for (the security) of the herd, and said: When the dog licks the utensil, wash it seven times, and rub it with earth the eighth time.

From Muslim #3813

Abu Zubair heard Jabir Abdullah saying: Allah's messenger ordered us to kill dogs and we carried out this order so much so that we also killed the dog roaming with a women from the desert. Then Allah's apostle forbade their killing. He said: "It is your duty to kill the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes) for it is a devil.

But Muslims are not the only group pandered to. Even more deliberate is the use of a Dachshund – the quintessentially German dog – as Netanyahu’s canine manifestation. So far as I know, there has never been a Dachshund used as a seeing eye dog. They are far too yappy and temperamental to be useful in that helping role. The only reason to use the recognizably German breed would be to further insult Netanyahu. And to offer delight to neo-Nazis.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/nyts_antisemitic_cartoon_was_carefully_crafted_to_pander_to_prejudices_of_muslims_and_neonazis.html#ixzz5mPZrXzh6

#new york times #anti-semitic cartoon #donald trump #bibi netanyahu #muslims #neo-nazis

56 notes · View notes

neethypaksham · 2 years ago

Text

A Liberal Chief Justice During A Majoritarian Rule : Challenges Before Justice DY Chandrachud As CJI

Chief Justice of India-designate Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud passionately champions the vision of a "transformative Constitution" that attempts a "radical transformation of a society which is based on caste and patriarchy". His judgment in Navtej Johar vs Union of India (which decriminalized consensual adult homosexuality) described the Indian Constitution as "a great social document, almost revolutionary in its aim of transforming a medieval, hierarchical society into a modern, egalitarian democracy". In Joseph Shine vs Union of India, he stated that the Constitution must be interpreted to "challenge hegemonic structures of power and secure the values of dignity and equality for its citizens".

Justice Chandrachud has also given primacy to the individual's rights over collective social morality. "The individual, as the basic unit, is at the heart of the Constitution. All rights and guarantees of the Constitution are operationalized and are aimed towards the self-realization of the individual", he wrote in the Sabarimala case.

Also, personal liberty is a value which is held very dear by him. "Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many", he famously said in the Arnab Goswami case. In the Mohammed Zubair case, Justice Chandrachud granted relief to the journalist after noting that he was "trapped in a vicious cycle of criminal process". In the Bhima Koregaon case, he wrote a dissenting judgment to hold that the investigation must be transferred from the Maharashtra police to an SIT constituted by the Court. "Court has to be vigilant to ensure the liberty of those who take up unpopular causes. Voices of opposition cannot be muzzled because it is a dissent", he said.

So, how will a Chief Justice who advocates transformation of social hierarchies, calls for breaking traditional stereotypes, cherishes personal liberty and values the power of dissent will fare in a "new" India, which is seeing the ascendancy of a majoritarian rule buoyed by Hindutva politics, rise of socio-cultural conservatism and resurgence of traditionalism?When the announcement of Justice Chandrachud as the next CJI was imminent, there was vicious trolling in social media against him by a particular section. Fake news was spread that he is a holder of a US Green Card Visa. Some of his observations in the judgment striking down Section 497 IPC were twisted to spread a malicious message that he has approved adultery. His landmark judgment upholding the abortion rights of women rattled far-right groups and "men's rights activists", as the judgment acknowledged the existence of marital rape and held that a wife has the right to seek termination of pregnancy arising out of forcible sex by husband. The same group reacted with hostility to Justice Chandrachud's observation that non-traditional families, including unmarried and queer relationships, must not be denied legal rights.

Justice Chandrachud had also caused upset among caste-apologists when he held that "merit" cannot be narrowly seen as mere performance in an examination while allowing OBC reservation in NEET-AIQ.

Dialogic judicial review

Justice Chandrachud has also advanced the concept of "dialogic judicial review", where the Court raises questions at the executive and demands justifications from regarding its decisions, while refraining from dictating the policy. A perfect example will be the orders passed in the suo motu COVID case, where the Court doubted the vaccine policy followed by the Union Government. After the bench led by Justice Chandrachud raised certain strong questions and even asked the Government to show the details of the utilization of its budgetary allocation for procurement of vaccines, the Government changed its vaccine policy.

"Our Constitution does not envisage courts to be silent spectators when constitutional rights of citizens are infringed by executive policies....Judicial review and soliciting constitutional justification for policies formulated by the executive is an essential function, which the courts are entrusted to perform", the bench said.

Reviewing the decisions of the armed forces, Justice Chandrachud's bench quashed the criteria adopted for granting permanent commission for women officers on the ground that they were propagating gender-based stereotypes resulting in discrimination against women. In the MediaOne case, Justice Chandrahcud was not prepared to accept at face value the sealed cover documents produced by the Ministry of Home Affairs raising "security concerns" about the channel and permitted its telecast.

The concept of federalism - which has become a deeply contentious issue of late- received a boost from Justice Chandrachud's judgment which held that GST Council recommendations cannot bind state legislatures. He introduced an interesting idea in the judgment - "uncoopeartive federalism" - and said that a degree of contestation between the Union and States is good for democracy.

Since Justice Chandrachud is not hesitant to exercise the powers of judicial review when the situation demands it, the executive is likely to be circumspect about his term as the CJI for nearly two years, which will coincide with the next Lok Sabha elections as well.

Recently, the Union Minister for Law and Justice Krien Rijiju, who had hitherto been adopting a sober and reverential tone while addressing the judiciary, launched a sharp criticism against judicial activism and collegium system. "When there doesn't exist any mechanism to control/keep the Judiciary within its boundaries then questions concerning JudicialActivism are raised…It would be better if people/institutions focus on the responsibilities given to them otherwise we would also be blamed that we are doing Executive Activism.", the Minister said.

Criticism regarding approach in cases with high political stakes

Justice Chandrachud has also come under criticism for the manner in which certain cases with high political stakes were dealt with. He was the author of the judgment which ruled out foul play in the death of Judge BH Loya, who was holding the trial against Amit Shah and others in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case. The judgment left many questions unanswered, as an extraordinary procedure was allowed to shut out an enquiry; a sort of mini-trial was held in petitions seeking investigation, but without allowing examination of witnesses (detailed critique of the judgment can be read here).

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, in a recent interview with Karan Thapar, said that in politically sensitive matters, Justice Chandrachud can be disappointing. While lauding Justice Chandrachud as an intellectual giant, the former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association however criticised the approaches taken in cases like Ayodhya and Gyanvapi in the interview. Dave pointed out that the oral remark made by Justice Chandrachud while hearing the Gyanvapi case that ascertainment of religious character of a monument is not barred under the Places of Worships Act "opened a pandora's box".

Challenging phase

It can be undoubtedly said that Justice Chandrachud will be heading the Indian judiciary at a time when the country is facing several challenges. There are ideological movements gaining momentum against some of the core Constitutional values like secularism and federalism; there are concerns about the weakening of institutions in the face of authoritarian tendencies of the executive; concerns are also raised about the weaponization of criminal law against dissenters and activists; society has been polarized like never before; there are complaints about the climate of hate and minority community members are expressing feelings of insecurity.

In fact, Justice Chandrachud himself has commented about the "growing intolerance" and the threat posed by "organized groups and interests" against free speech. Speaking at a webinar last year, he lamented that a popular brand had to withdraw its advertisement on the theme of LGBT rights due to "public intolerance". He has also condemned the tendencies to brand dissent as "anti-national".

Tackling judicial appointments

Ensuring the timely filling up of judicial vacancies with the suitable persons will be another onerous task which awaits Justice Chandrachud as the Chief Justice of India. The Union Government has been acting in flagrant disrespect of the judicial precedents and conventions by segregating collegium resolutions to keep certain recommendations pending and also by brazenly ignoring the names reiterated by the Collegium. The Centre withholding the approval for the recommendations relating to Justices Dipankar Dutta and Dr S Muralidhar has already raised eyebrows. The recent tirade made by the Union Law Minister against the collegium system is perhaps indicative of the executive's intention to assert primacy over judicial appointments. This will be an area where the future CJI will have to carefully negotiate, as proper judicial appointments are closely interlinked with the sustenance of judicial independence.

In the Navtej Johar judgment, there is a passage by Justice Chandrachud, which illuminates his constitutional vision :

"It is the responsibility of all the three organs of the State to curb any propensity or proclivity of popular sentiment or majoritarianism. Any attempt to push and shove a homogeneous, uniform, consistent and a standardised philosophy throughout the society would violate the principle of constitutional morality. Devotion and fidelity to constitutional morality must not be equated with the popular sentiment prevalent at a particular point of time".

The prime challenge before Justice Chandrachud as the CJI will be to materialize this vision during a majoritarian rule when the march of modernity is sought to be arrested by forces seeking to cement traditional hierarchies.

( Manu Sebastian is the Managing Editor of LiveLaw. He may be contacted at [email protected]. He tweets @manuvichar)

0 notes