Latest news with #freedomOfExpression
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Irish Times
Minister denies Sinn Féin's claim anti-terrorism Bill contains a ‘Kneecap' clause
Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan has rejected Opposition claims that Kneecap band member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh could be prosecuted under antiterrorism legislation being introduced in the Dáil. Sinn Féin justice spokesman Matt Carthy described provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism Offences) (Amendment) Bill as the 'Kneecap clause' in the wake of the prosecution in England of the Belfast band member whose stage name is 'Mo Chara'. He was charged under UK antiterrorism legislation with showing support for a proscribed organisation. It is alleged he draped himself in a Hizbullah flag at a London gig last November and shouted 'up Hamas , up Hizbullah', referring to the Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups respectively. He is contesting the charge. The proposed new Irish legislation broadens the category of terrorist offences to bring it in line with a 2017 EU directive, to include travelling or facilitating travel for the purposes of terrorism and receiving or providing training for terrorism. READ MORE The Bill also revises the definition of provoking terrorism, stating that the glorification of a terrorist activity, including by praise or celebration, 'may be considered publicly provoking the commission of a terrorist offence'. Mr Carthy, who called this the 'Kneecap clause', said it is 'deeply problematic' because 'there is a real fear that this inclusion could lead to charges against political activism and legitimate freedom of expression, similar to the manner in which Mo Chara from Kneecap is currently facing terrorism charges in the UK'. This sort of antiterrorism legislation 'undercuts civil liberties, free speech and the rule of law, with little or no effect on actual terrorist activity', he said. 'It is exactly the type of language that has been used, in the North in particular, to attempt to curtail the rights of families to remember loved ones killed in the conflict in the six counties. It has equally been used in arguments against commemorating the 1916 Rising or wearing an Easter lily,' he said. But Mr O'Callaghan said 'what Kneecap is being prosecuted for in the UK would not happen here'. [ Fans rally behind Kneecap after London court appearance: 'If you're supporting Ireland, you're supporting Kneecap' Opens in new window ] 'Under this legislation, people would be entitled to say they support Hamas, although it has been involved in reprehensible behaviour,' he said. Describing the UK legislation as 'alarmingly wide' and a provision 'that would not be enacted by this House', he said that under the UK law it is an offence if a person in a public place 'wears, carries or displays an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation'. Sinn Féin's Mark Ward said people singing republican songs about Irish heroes could be prosecuted under the legislation. However, the Minister said the deputy could sing whatever songs he wants. 'People can sing songs about the Boys of Barr na Sráide and the Men Behind the Wire. In loyalist parts of Belfast, they can sing whatever they want.' He said TDs' 'concern that this will have a restrictive impact on protest or freedom of expression is not accurate'. 'The only time your message is going to come within the criminal law and face criminal sanction is if it is being done with the intention of inciting someone else to commit criminal terrorist activity.'
Arab News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Algeria prosecution seeks 10 years jail for writer Sansal on appeal
ALGIERS: Algeria's prosecutor general sought at an appeal hearing on Tuesday 10 years in prison for novelist Boualem Sansal, doubling his current sentence, an AFP journalist in the courtroom reported. The dual Algerian French writer, whose case has been at the heart of a diplomatic row between Paris and Algiers, was sentenced to five years imprisonment on March 27. A verdict is expected on July 1. Sansal, 80, was arrested in November at the Algiers airport and has been detained since for undermining Algeria's territorial integrity. This came after he said in an interview with a far-right French media outlet that France unfairly ceded Moroccan territory to Algeria during the 1830-1962 colonial era. The statement was viewed by Algeria as an affront to its national sovereignty and echoed a long-standing Moroccan claim. On Tuesday, Sansal appeared before the judge without legal representation after authorities said he wished to defend himself. 'The Algerian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and conscience,' he told the court during the roughly 20-minute hearing, seemingly in good health. 'This makes no sense.' Defending the remarks he made to French far-right media on Algeria's borders, he said: 'Fortunately, after independence in 1962, the African Union declared that inherited colonial borders are inviolable.' Also questioned on some of his books, Sansal answered: 'We are holding a trial over literature? Where are we headed?' According to his relatives, Sansal has been undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, and many feared his health would deteriorate in prison. French President Emmanuel Macron has urged his Algerian counterpart Abdelmadjid Tebboune to show 'mercy and humanity' toward Sansal. But Algiers has insisted that the writer has been afforded due process. His conviction and sentence further frayed ties between Paris and Algiers, already strained by migration issues and Macron's recognition last year of Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara, which is claimed by the Algeria-backed pro-independence Polisario Front. Charges against the writer include 'undermining national unity,' 'insulting state institutions,' 'harming the national economy,' and 'possessing media and publications threatening the country's security and stability.'
CBC
5 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
CCLA launches Charter challenge against bubble zone protest bylaw in Vaughan, Ont.
Social Sharing The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) is launching a constitutional challenge against Vaughan's bubble zone protest bylaw — one of several in Ontario that restricts protests around places of worship, schools and child-care centres. The bylaw, which passed in June last year, bans organizing or participating in a "nuisance demonstration" within 100 metres of the property line of any vulnerable social infrastructure, which also includes hospitals and care facilities. "Vaughan's bylaw punitively prohibits an extremely wide range of peaceful protests," said Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the CCLA's fundamental freedoms program, at a news conference Tuesday. "It severely infringes upon freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association in a manner that is not justified in a free and democratic society." CBC Toronto has reached out to the Vaughan mayor's office for comment. The bylaw defines a nuisance demonstration as one or more people "protesting against something or expressing views on any issue … whether it is intended or not, that is likely, on an objective standard, to cause a reasonable person to be intimidated." This means the person is either concerned for their safety or security, or they are unable to access vulnerable social infrastructure, the bylaw reads. 'This is not a narrow limit on free speech' Toronto, Brampton and Oakville have passed similar bylaws in recent months. In May, Ottawa city council directed its staff to develop its own bubble zone bylaw. But the CCLA chose to launch its challenge against Vaughan because it was the first municipality in Ontario to pass such a bylaw, and it also has "extremely broad prohibitions," said Daniel Goudge, lawyer at Stockwoods LLP, who is representing the association. WATCH | Toronto passed bubble zone bylaw in May after hours of debate in city council: Toronto passes bylaw to restrict protests around places of worship, schools 1 month ago Duration 3:55 Under Toronto's bylaw, vulnerable institutions can apply for a 50-metre buffer zone around them, which will last for a year. But Vaughan's bylaw does not have an application-based system and its buffer zone is double the size. Vaughan also imposes a maximum fine of $100,000 for anyone found guilty of an offence under the bylaw, while Toronto is imposing a maximum $5,000 fine for people who refuse to leave a protected area. "This is not a narrow limit on free speech," Goudge said. He said Vaughan's bylaw gives enforcement officers — which include municipal enforcement officers and police — the power to decide what is considered acceptable protest speech. Protests outside a school opposing education system cuts, for example, could now be prohibited, he said. Bylaw passed after protests outside synagogue Vaughan's bubble zone bylaw was passed following several demonstrations that took place in Thornhill outside a synagogue. Demonstrators said they gathered to decry a real estate event that marketed occupied land in the West Bank, and counter-protesters showed up in response to a call-out from leaders of the synagogue. Vaughan Mayor Steven Del Duca proposed the bylaw in March 2024, saying at the time that "large, ugly protests" near synagogues and schools in Thornhill were "deeply, deeply concerning to our residents." McNicoll said everyone in Canada is entitled to physical safety, and police can and should intervene to protect public safety. But she said police already have broad powers to fulfill their mandate and did not need an additional bylaw. "We know too well how punitive laws initially passed in the name of protecting vulnerable communities can easily be co-opted to suppress marginalized voices striving to challenge the status quo," she said. Stodge said the CCLA filed a notice of application with the court on Monday, and it is now in the process of being issued. He said the notice will be delivered to the City of Vaughan on Tuesday.
Free Malaysia Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Student activist, Akmal set for July 1 debate after caricature burning
Umno Youth chief Dr Akmal Saleh had criticised students who burned a caricature of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim at an anti-corruption rally on Saturday. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA : A student activist has taken up Umno Youth chief Dr Akmal Saleh's offer to meet for a debate after the latter criticised students who recently burned a caricature of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, describing them as 'cowardly and stupid'. Akmal yesterday hit out at rally-goers who set a caricature of Anwar on fire at an anti-corruption rally in Kota Kinabalu on Saturday, labelling such acts disrespectful. He had issued an invitation to any student unhappy with his remarks to arrange a meeting with him. In response, student activist Fakhrurrazzi Khairur Rijal today said he had accepted Akmal's invitation and had agreed to his proposal to meet at 9pm on July 1 for a debate. 'The dignity of students and the freedom of expression must be defended. We are not afraid to speak the truth,' said the National Youth Federation of Malaysia coordinator in a statement. Youth NGO Mandiri and student group Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia are helping coordinate the event, with the venue to be announced on their official social media channels. Fakrurrazzi also said he remains open to the head of PKR Youth, Kamil Munim, joining the July 1 debate alongside Akmal. He said the meeting was crucial to defend the dignity of students and their right to freedom of expression, which had been increasingly challenged by the rhetoric of political leaders. Kamil, who is also Anwar's aide at the finance ministry, previously criticised the student protesters in Sabah who burned Anwar's caricature, describing the incident as excessive and rude. The Gempur Rasuah 2.0 rally, organised by several Universiti Malaysia Sabah students, ended with the burning of the caricature. More than 100 people took part in the protest to call for action over the Sabah water department scandal. Police are investigating the burning of the caricature under the Sedition Act and Penal Code.
Asharq Al-Awsat
18-06-2025
- Business
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Rise in 'Harmful Content' Since Meta Policy Rollbacks, Survey Shows
Harmful content including hate speech has surged across Meta's platforms since the company ended third-party fact-checking in the United States and eased moderation policies, a survey showed Monday. The survey of around 7,000 active users on Instagram, Facebook and Threads comes after the Palo Alto company ditched US fact-checkers in January and turned over the task of debunking falsehoods to ordinary users under a model known as "Community Notes," popularized by X. The decision was widely seen as an attempt to appease President Donald Trump's new administration, whose conservative support base has long complained that fact-checking on tech platforms was a way to curtail free speech and censor right-wing content. Meta also rolled back restrictions around topics such as gender and sexual identity. The tech giant's updated community guidelines said its platforms would permit users to accuse people of "mental illness" or "abnormality" based on their gender or sexual orientation. "These policy shifts signified a dramatic reversal of content moderation standards the company had built over nearly a decade," said the survey published by digital and human rights groups including UltraViolet, GLAAD, and All Out. "Among our survey population of approximately 7,000 active users, we found stark evidence of increased harmful content, decreased freedom of expression, and increased self-censorship". One in six respondents in the survey reported being the victim of some form of gender-based or sexual violence on Meta platforms, while 66 percent said they had witnessed harmful content such as hateful or violent material. Ninety-two percent of surveyed users said they were concerned about increasing harmful content and felt "less protected from being exposed to or targeted by" such material on Meta's platforms. Seventy-seven percent of respondents described feeling "less safe" expressing themselves freely. The company declined to comment on the survey. In its most recent quarterly report, published in May, Meta insisted that the changes in January had left a minimal impact. "Following the changes announced in January we've cut enforcement mistakes in the US in half, while during that same time period the low prevalence of violating content on the platform remained largely unchanged for most problem areas," the report said. But the groups behind the survey insisted that the report did not reflect users' experiences of targeted hate and harassment. "Social media is not just a place we 'go' anymore. It's a place we live, work, and play. That's why it's more crucial than ever to ensure that all people can safely access these spaces and freely express themselves without fear of retribution," Jenna Sherman, campaign director at UltraViolet, told AFP. "But after helping to set a standard for content moderation online for nearly a decade, (chief executive) Mark Zuckerberg decided to move his company backwards, abandoning vulnerable users in the process. "Facebook and Instagram already had an equity problem. Now, it's out of control," Sherman added. The groups implored Meta to hire an independent third party to "formally analyze changes in harmful content facilitated by the policy changes" made in January, and for the tech giant to swiftly reinstate the content moderation standards that were in place earlier. The International Fact-Checking Network has previously warned of devastating consequences if Meta broadens its policy shift related to fact-checkers beyond US borders to the company's programs covering more than 100 countries. AFP currently works in 26 languages with Meta's fact-checking program, including in Asia, Latin America, and the European Union.
