first_imgNews Receive email alerts News UzbekistanEurope – Central Asia UzbekistanEurope – Central Asia Uzbek blogger facing possible 10-year jail term News Organisation October 9, 2009 – Updated on January 20, 2016 First anniversary of journalist’s sentencing to 10 years in prison More than six years in prison for Uzbek blogger who covered corruption Newscenter_img One year ago tomorrow, a court in the western autonomous region of Karakalpakstan sentenced journalist Solidzhon Abdurakhmanov to 10 years in prison on a charge of “possession of drugs for the purpose of sale,” a sentence that was upheld a month later by the supreme court despite the inconsistencies of the prosecution case and complete lack of evidence against him.Now aged 59, Abdurakhmanov has been held since June 2008, when he was arrested on a charge of “consuming drugs” under article 276.2 of the criminal code. He has always denied either consuming or selling drugs.“On this anniversary, we appeal to the European authorities, to the representatives of each of the European Union member states and to the United States not to sacrifice human rights in Central Asia to the goal of energy security, especially as regards the dictatorship that is Uzbekistan,” Reporters Without Borders said.“Even if there have been some releases, they have been followed by new arrests,” the press freedom organisation continued. “We are obliged to point out that the pseudo-dialogue on human rights is only benefitting the Uzbek leaders. When they are not imprisoned, journalists, writers and human rights activists continue to live with a permanent threat hanging over them.”Reporters Without Borders added: “The immediate release of Solidzhon Abdurakhmanov and other Uzbek political prisoners should be one of the demands being made by our governments.”Everything about the arrest and trial of Abdurakhmanov suggests that the charges were trumped up, but not very well. The initial charge of consuming drugs was changed after medical tests showed he was not a drug user. He was then charged with possession for the purpose or sale. During the trial, he repeatedly requested a screening of the video the police had made of the entire process of his arrest and the search of his car, in the course of which the police claimed to have found drugs. The court refused.Many leading members of Uzbek civil society have spoken out in his defence but they have failed to sway the authorities. A human rights activist as well as a freelance journalist, Abdurakhmanov wrote for many foreign news media. He was also one of the founders of the Uzbek news website Uznews.net.The many other journalists, writers and human rights activists currently detained in Uzbekistan include the poet Jusuf Djuma and nine journalists – Dilmurod Sayid, Bakhrom Ibragimov, Davron Kabilov, Ravshanbek Vafoev, Abdulaziz Dadakhonov, Botyrbek Eshkuziev, Djamchid Karimov, Jusuf Ruzimuradov et Mohammed Bekjanov. Follow the news on Uzbekistan RSF_en May 11, 2021 Find out more to go further February 11, 2021 Find out more Help by sharing this information New press freedom predators elected to UN Human Rights Council October 15, 2020 Find out morelast_img read more

first_imgTop StoriesBREAKING : Delhi High Court Dismisses WhatsApp, Facebook’s Challenge To CCI Order For Probe On New Privacy Policy Shreya Agarwal21 April 2021 10:08 PMShare This – xA single judge bench of Justice Navin Chawla of the Delhi High Court today rejected Facebook Inc and its subsidiary WhatsApp’s challenge to an order by the Competition Commission of India directing a probe into WhatsApp’s new privacy policy for being allegedly anti-competitive.The court said it found no merits in the petition and refused to quash the CCI probe.The bench had reserved its verdict on Apr 13 on Facebook Inc and its subsidiary WhatsApp’s challenge to a Competition Commission of India (CCI) order directing for a probe into WhatsApp’s new privacy policy for being anti-competitive. The matter was argued at length by the 3 concerned parties – Sr. Adv. Harish Salve for WhatsApp, Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi for Facebook and Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi for the CCI.Advertisement Salve for WhatsApp argued that the CCI’s order stating that there was allegedly excessive date collection being effectuated by the new policy, and it needed to be examine whether excessive data collection would have anti-competitive implications was infringing upon an issue outside its bounds. He said that it is infact the government that has to make a law on the issue.He had added that, “(The) primary aim of the 2021 policy is to provide users more transparency and to inform users how business services work for providing optimal benefits. WhatsApp has a separate business service – providing for linking it with Facebook.” Advertisement Dissing privacy infringement concerns, he had submitted that, “WhatsApp cannot see users’ personal conversations with their friends and family as they are protected by end-to-end encryption and that the 2021 updates do not change this.”He had also highlighted that WhatsApp’s previous 2016 policy already provided for such sharing and said, “All the allegations harp back to the 2016 policy. When you talk of data, please appreciate, what I communicate to my friends, family, colleagues – WhatsApp can’t read. But that I am a user, my number, I contact 10 lawyers in a day, that data is being shared. To use my platform, one has to give me their number. There is commercial use of data created in my system. I am not asking the user for his data.”Advertisement Advertisement He had added that there was no addition to the old policy and that the new policy was brought out purely for business and commercial users, to enable them to “use WhatsApp in a particular way” – a way for WhatsApp to come clean about how it was going to use the data it has collected.Sr. Adv. Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Facebook, argued that it was “nobody’s case that it is a joint policy,” and therefore no order could have been passed against Facebook by CCI.Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement He too had raised the issue of jurisdiction stating based upon the principle of comity of courts, stating that with challenges to the policy pending before the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court itself, the CCI was an “inferior” body that couldn’t adjudicate upon the issue while the challenges were still sub judice before constitutional authorities.”If a controversy is ongoing, can the CCI say, “No, I’m a creature of statute,” and jump into it when it’s already pending before constitutional authorities? I’m challenging the jurisdiction of CCI to do this,” he argued.On various grounds Facebook had sought a stay on the CCI proceedings against Whatsapp and itself, saying that there are already cases pending in other courts, and that no harm will arise if these proceedings are stayed.ASG Aman Lekhi for CCI, on the other hand, had argued that the matter here was not of privacy but of access to data and therefore, the CCI was acting well within its ambit. He had added, “The CCI will come into the picture only when the investigation report says that there is infact abuse of dominant position. Whether or not a positive report will be filed, is an issue still writ large.” He had further submitted that though the policy by way of its nomenclature was called the Privacy Policy, the aspect being rightly looked into by the CCI was of abuse of market position by way of the said policy, which allegedly enabled excessive data collection and sharing.He said that the CCI as the sectoral regulator had correctly passed the probe order, elaborating, “The question was whether in a data driven eco-system whether excessive data sharing or use would result in anti-competitive consequence.”In a hyperbole he added that, “The analysis of the data collected by WhatsApp will give even more information about an individual than actual physical stalking.”Talking about the anti-trust consequences he had said that, “Using this data, they will eventually either buy-out the competition or make it irrelevant. Facebook comes into the picture because of the privacy policy through which data collection is happening.”Tags#Whatsapp Facebook Competition Commission of India (CCI) Justice Navin Chawla WhatsApp Privacy Policy Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

first_imgSuffering is “one of those things that defines the human condition,” Arthur Kleinman told a gathering at the Harvard Faculty Club.More than a year ago, Kleinman, the Victor and William Fung Director of the Harvard University Asia Center, and David McCann, director of the Korea Institute and the Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Literature, discussed organizing an Asia-focused symposium in response to Harvard President Drew Faust’s 2008 Civil War book “This Republic of Suffering: Death and the American Civil War.”Kleinman and McCann’s conversation culminated in a Harvard panel on Friday (Nov. 5) with a collection of scholars who discussed the history, politics, poetries, prose, and anthropologies of suffering in Asian societies.In exploring examples of the literature of suffering, Karen Thornber said Chinese works on the Nanking Massacre, Korean writings about the Korean War, and Japanese prose and poetry dealing with the atomic bomb “graphically depicted the anguish of both soldiers and civilians, of both the living and the dying.”Like Civil War survivors, those who lived through the aftermath of the atomic bombings also found themselves in an “incomprehensible universe,” said Thornber, assistant professor of comparative literature. That sentiment, she noted, is revealed in the writings of the time.Japanese poet Toge Sankichi’s anthology “Poems of the Atomic Bomb” opens with the lines “Give back the fathers, give back the mothers, give back the elderly, give back the children, give back me … give back peace, a peace that will not crumble.”Sankichi was 24 and only three kilometers from ground zero when the bomb fell. He died at age 36 of leukemia, a disease believed related to his exposure to the blast’s radiation. His words, said Thornber, suggest that, like so many survivors, he felt “physically alive but psychologically obliterated.”Offering another perspective, Mark Elliott, acting director of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, and the Mark Schwartz Professor of Chinese and Inner Asian History, compared the Civil War and its legacy of suffering to that of the Taiping Rebellion, a brutal Chinese civil war from 1850 to 1864.Like the American Civil War, it was waged between rebel forces in the south and a northern government trying to preserve its union, and had a staggering death toll. But the conflict, Elliott argued, “is not part of the national discourse of suffering in modern China,” compared with the second Sino-Japanese War, or the Cultural Revolution.Still, he drew comparisons between the two conflicts. Referencing a point in Faust’s book that “Death created the modern American union,” Elliott said the Taiping Rebellion “led to radical restructuring of imperial societies and politics that contributed to the emergence of a republic.”Of Japan’s efforts to cope with the fact that its involvement in World War II is “largely reviled,” Susan Pharr, director of the Edwin O. Reischauer Institute for Japanese Studies, said, “It’s important to understand how crushingly difficult the task is.”Besides needing to express grief for those who lost their lives, communicate a sense of contrition, and recover a sense of self-esteem, Japan has to work to find meaning to the conflict to help future generations understand that the suffering was not in vain, said Pharr, Edwin O. Reischauer Professor of Japanese Politics.While she acknowledged one could fault Japan for its failure to deal effectively with the past, the task, she said, is “extraordinarily complex.”Adding a psychological dimension to the discussion, Kleinman suggested that painting the concept of suffering with the broad brush of trauma theory — the notion that all suffering results in emotional trauma that leads to long-term buried memories with negative consequences — is not necessarily the correct approach.Citing research from a forthcoming book in which he studied those traumatized by China’s Cultural Revolution over 30 years, Kleinman, who has done extensive work on mental illness in Chinese culture, said many of his subjects had decidedly different long-term responses to trauma.“What one sees is a weakening over time of the bite and sharpness of the most difficult of memories, a reworking of memories, and then a sense of increasing balance, a balance between where memories should be and where both the current period and the future lies.”Partly in play is the notion that over time, “Different contextual settings radically change the subjective experience of the past.”Kleinman compared studies in which Holocaust survivors are placed in a laboratory setting and encouraged to recount their memories, versus what happens to them in their daily lives. When examined in an everyday context, the trauma and the memories are not gone, but “reinterpreted and reworked,” he said. “The consequence is that people are able to get on with their lives.”His questioning of trauma theory, Kleinman said, extends to broader concerns about how society increasingly quantifies suffering in economic terms. Casting suffering in an economic framework, Kleinman said, will be “as dangerous a remaking as trauma theory’s remaking of suffering.”Besides being Harvard’s president, Faust is a Civil War scholar and the Lincoln Professor of History. Her book examines the culture spawned by the unprecedented fatalities of the conflict.Faust came to study the Civil War in large part because of her graduate training, which inspired her interest in researching history from “inside the experience” of people in a culture. In addition, she said, she realized that the literature on the Civil War had essentially neglected the topic of death, what she called “an essential part of the …  experience.”“The Civil War, I came to understand, is a significant and transitional moment in the way human beings have related to suffering,” said Faust, who said that many participants in the conflict felt they had elevated the concept of suffering to a “higher level,” one that led to a more humanitarian age and the rise of abolitionism, human rights doctrines, and even the movement against cruelty to animals.“They were aware of a shift in the human condition, in which suffering was seen as terrible, intolerable — not just as a condition of life, but as something that should be resisted.”last_img read more

first_img2008I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. But —WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?OBAMA: No, I would not.WARREN: Why not?OBAMA: Because historically — because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It’s been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let’s break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that’s all right, I don’t think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.http://votesmart.org/public-statement/658545/full-transcript-saddleback-presidential-forum-sen-barack-obama-john-mccain-moderated-by-rick-warren/?search=saddlebackOBAMA’S FLIP-FLOP PAST ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE1996, running for Illinois State Senate: ‘I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.’2004, running for U.S. Senate in Illinois: ‘My religious faith dictates marriage is between a man and a woman, gay marriage is not a civil right.’2008, running for U.S. President: ‘I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a Christian it’s also a sacred union.’2010, after Republican wave election: ‘My feelings with this are constantly evolving, I struggle with this.’2012, running for reelection: ‘I think same sex couples should be able to get married.’http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142198/Gay-marriage-Barack-Obamas-shift-sex-marriage-nets-1m-90-minutes.htmllast_img read more