Mediaboss Marketing

What do we call it when a state broadcaster bans a song critical of the government? Censorship? No, not in Iran right here in Britain. Right now, in fact.

The BBC claims that reggae band Captain SKAs Liar Liar, which was at the top of the iTunes chart last week, breaks impartiality rules during the election. The song is about Theresa May, you see.

The BBCs stance sounds straightforward but something isn't quite right. Its radio stations will report that Liar Liar reached No 1 on iTunes, but refuse to play it. This matters, as playing a song because it tops the charts is a different rationale to playing it because a DJ likes it. The former decision is driven by public choice, the latter is a matter of personal taste. The former shouldnt really be up for debate.

I asked Ofcom what they thought. They couldn't offer a view since it hadn't been aired yet. I went through their rules covering elections (section 6) and found nothing to justify the ban. The same goes for BBC guidelines. The song doesnt advocate for one party over another; it is merely critical of the Government. I found nothing to suggest that any music with a political message cannot be played during elections.

In other words, the BBC has banned a political song not because of rules but because it doesnt want to anger the Government. That is outrageous in itself. But the real problem isnt just one banned song it's that the BBCs rules on impartiality have been broken. And moreover, that BBC bosses don't want a fight with the Tory Government. The ban on Liar Liar illustrates the problem with the prevailing culture at the top of the BBC.

The job of a journalist should be to get to the truth, not worry about impartiality. It should be to serve the audience, not care for how politicians feel they are being treated.

The problem with BBC news journalism in this instance is twofold: first, that producers feel they are being balanced by giving each side equal time. That is a convenient illusion. A news programme can be biased even if it offers two sides equal time, merely by prioritising one story over another.

On Tuesday morning Corbyn briefly forgot his costings for a key policy in an interview. Theres no doubt it was a gaffe. But the BBC ran it as their top story even at 10pm, on a day when Osborne slammed the PM over her key manifesto pledges. In any other universe a former Chancellor criticising a former close colleague would be big news. Instead the BBC led with a minor gaffe from the morning.

This isn't a one-off either. For years BBC management didnt even acknowledge the absurdity of having a balanced debate on climate change because, apparently, the weight of scientific opinion counted for nothing. Now, after acknowledging mistakes, BBC producers avoid accusations of bias by ignoring the issue entirely. Its coverage of climate change on political programmes is almost non-existent. Its barely featured anywhere this election.

General Election polls and projections: June 1

This isnt to say all attempts at balance are useless. I know plenty of journalists and producers who try their best to offer all sides of the story. But sometimes false balance does no one any favours.

The second problem is that BBC executives lack the courage to cross the Government. Again, this isnt new, but its now a glaring problem.

May has been so shameless in exploiting the media that some journalists have become rightly exasperated. Why does [Theresa May] go around just saying things that arent true?, Channel 4s Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked David Davis last night. He had no answer. Other than the one interview by Andrew Neil, there has been no such grilling across the BBC.

Our national broadcaster suffers from weak executives who dont have the courage to take on the Government. It has plenty of excellent journalists but the corporate culture fails them. And in turn that fails the vast majority of its audience.

In the past a BBC executive may have defended playing Captain Skas song by saying they were simply reflecting popular public opinion.

Read more here:
The BBC is censoring political content by banning 'Liar Liar' but not because it is biased towards the Government - The Independent

Who among us hasnt claimed censorship from the man at the slightest inconvenience?

On Friday, political strategist and former Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson took to Twitter to suggest the site was suppressing her tweets about Kathy Griffin.

Given the absurdity of whining about a comedian while the president was selling out planet Earth to Big Oil interests, that may have been a blessing in disguise. The truth, however, was much stupider. Piersons message to @kathygriffin didnt begin with a period, soas Twitter explains on its help pagethe tweet would only be seen by Griffin herself and those who follow both her and Pierson.

Many, many people tried to explain this to Piersonto no avail.

Refusing to admit shed made a simple goof, Pierson decided to write off the matter as a glitch before getting back to her primary role as a senior political strategist: tweeting about comedian Kathy Griffin and not the betrayal of 195 countries with whom we promised to combat climate change. #MAGA.

If you remember Pierson at all, it may be for her stunningly off-base comments during last years election. Among other things, Pierson claimed that President Obamas policies probably killed Gold Star parent Khizr Khans son, who died in Iraq four years before Obama took office. She also, tastefully, wore a bullet necklace during a CNN appearance and still hasnt deleted this vaguely eugenicist tweet about pure breeds running for president.

If nothing else, Piersons former boss knows how to use Twitter. Pierson, who joined the service in 2009, still needs help, apparently.

See more here:
Former Trump Spokeswoman Cries Censorship Because She Has No Idea How Twitter Works - Gizmodo

A 'free speech' gathering deserves a place, even if the mayor and others disagree with the group hosting Saturday's event.

Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it.

That's why we are joining Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler in asking the organizers of two upcoming public demonstrations to put their plans on hold.

The first, slated for Sunday, June 4, is billed as a Trump Free Speech Rally aimed at "exercising free speech" in "one of the most liberal areas on the West Coast." The second, more-disturbing, event is a March Against Sharia on Saturday, June 10.

Both events were planned before the sickening attack last Friday in which two men on a MAX train were killed after coming to the aid of two young women, one of whom wore a Muslim hijab, who was being verbally attacked by Jeremy Joseph Christian.

Alt-right organizers for the June 4 pro-Trump rally have tried to distance themselves from Christian, though he attended their previous "free-speech" rally earlier this spring. But any event supporting our president is ill-timed, given his past anti-Muslim statements and the three days it took him to issue a tepid condemnation of last week's fatal attack.

The June 10 event is one of 22 nationwide being organized by ACT for America, which cloaks anti-Muslim sentiments in a purported concern about Muslim women's rights. Even if the group was truly interested in drawing a distinction between Muslims who twist a part of Islamic tradition to justify violence and the vast majority of the peaceful practitioners of that faith, doing so would be nearly impossible in Portland's highly charged political climate right now.

There's nothing organizers can do to unlink the planned public events to Christian's actions, so for the good of the community as well as their own political messages they should call off the events.

If, however, they choose to go forward, the city must ensure everyone's safety without standing in the way of constitutionally protected speech.

That's why we were troubled by Wheeler's announcement on Monday that he'd asked the federal government to revoke the permit for the June 4 event and deny a permit for the June 10 event. (Both events are planned for the federally owned Terry Schrunk Plaza downtown.)

We understand his motivation, but believe he's on shaky constitutional grounds.

Yes, the murders on the MAX were horrific, particularly because the men killed were defending two young women from ugly, bigoted verbal assault.

But that doesn't justify using political influence to try and deny permits for people to express their opinions, even unpopular opinions, without proof that doing so poses an imminent threat of harm. And, despite violence at past events put on by the organizers of the June 4 rally, Wheeler did not on Monday offer any evidence that public safety was an issue.

Wheeler has every right to ask organizers of the permitted marches to reschedule them and we strongly concur with his request.

But if they don't, absent any proof of threat, they must be allowed to continue and any hateful rhetoric espoused should be matched and overmatched with a peaceful, clear, response that Portland will not stand for bigotry (or censorship).

Go here to read the rest:
Our Opinion: Rallies distasteful, but so is censorship - Portland Tribune

The impulse to do something after a horrific event is universal, and perhaps even more pronounced in politicians than typical civilians. And so, in the wake of the horrific murder of two commuters on a Portland, Oregon, light rail over the weekend, it's not entirely surprising to see that city's mayor attempt an ill-conceived attack on free speech as a palliative.

Jeremy Joseph Christian, who allegedly murdered two people who were attempting to protect two young women that he was harassing on the crowded train, is a well-known white supremacist. Christian also stabbed a third man, who survived the attack.

Christian happens to have also attended a Portland "alt-right" rally in April; the organizer of said rally, Joey Gibson, claims he asked Christian, who was screaming obscenities, to leave the demonstration.

Gibson has another march planned for Portland on June 4, this one to purportedly "bring back strength and courage to those who believe in freedom." The rally will take place on federal grounds in downtown Portland; the federal government has already approved permitting for it.

Now, Portland mayor Ted Wheeler is demanding that the feds revoke their approval: "Our city is in mourning," the mayor said, "our community's anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation I am calling on every elected leader in Oregon, every legal agency, every level of law enforcement to stand with me in preventing another tragedy."

There's a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand here; why would banning the rally prevent another terrible murder? And the message is alarming: The mayor is suggesting that certain viewpoints effectively be censored. Oregon's ACLU chapter recognizes this danger, releasing a statement shortly after Wheeler's demands were made public. "The government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators," the ACLU said, ""It may be tempting to shut down speech we disagree with, but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech."

Again, it appears that Mayor Wheeler wishes to do somethinganythingto relieve the city of its trauma. That's an understandable urge. But rather than suppress speech, the mayorand any WEEKLY STANDARD readerscould channel their impulses in more productive directions, by, for example, donating to the GoFundMe page of the man who was attacked on the train and survived.

See the original post here:
Censorship Won't Help - The Weekly Standard

All religious literature would be subject to censorship, sharing beliefs would be banned, adults wanting to study faith abroad would have to notify Religious Affairs officials, and 500 adult citizens in one location would be required to apply for registration if parliament adopts Religion Law amendments.

Full state censorship of all religious literature published, distributed or photocopied in Kyrgyzstan or imported into the country, as well as a ban on sharing beliefs in public particularly from door to door could soon become law. Proposed amendments to the 2009 Religion Law are due to have their first reading in the Zhogorku Kenesh (Parliament) in the capital Bishkek tomorrow (1 June).

The amendments were prepared by the State Commission for Religious Affairs (SCRA), which has been headed since 13 February by Zaiyrbek Ergeshov.

Other provisions in the proposed amendments include a rise in the number of adult citizens living in one place required before a religious community can apply for registration from 200 to 500, as well as a requirement that even adults who travel abroad for religious education have to inform the state where they are studying.

Punishments have not yet been set out for those violating all these provisions.

In addition to the new proposed restrictions, the amendments do not propose removing any of the restrictions on exercising freedom of religion or belief in the current Law. Existing provisions which violate Kyrgyzstan's international human rights commitments include a ban on exercising freedom of religion or belief without state registration (see Forum 18's Kyrgyzstan religious freedom survey http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2013).

Deputies told Forum 18 the amendments could be adopted before parliament's summer break, or after parliament returns in September.

Many provisions of the proposed amendments are close to provisions proposed in 2014. They were strongly criticised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (see below).

The SCRA's amendments

The proposed amendments were prepared by the SCRA. They were approved by the government on 11 April and sent to Parliament. The text of the draft was published in April on several government websites, including those of the Justice Ministry and the SCRA.

On 16 May Parliament's International Affairs, Defence and Security Committee approved the proposed amendments.

At a hearing on 29 May, the Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee also approved it. SCRA's Director Ergeshov spoke up in the Committee in support of the amendments.

In a demonstration of the wide backing for the proposed new restrictions, the Committee invited to the hearing the Interior, Justice, Foreign, Education and Culture Ministers, the head of the secret police and the General Prosecutor.

Also invited were Chief Mufti Maksat Toktomushev and Russian Orthodox bishop Daniil (Kuznetsov). (The Chief Mufti gained religious education in Pakistan and the bishop in Russia.)

Muftiate representatives backed the amendments, according to the parliamentary website. "Everyone must adhere to their own faith," one insisted. "Cases arise when there are followers of different movements in one family, Muslims and Baptists. This leads to conflicts."

Committee member Ryskeldi Mombekov "supported the amendments in Committee and will speak up in support of them tomorrow in parliament", his assistant told Forum 18 from parliament on 31 May.

Three Committee members opposed the amendments, Committee member Yevgeniya Strokova told Forum 18. One of them, Tazabek Ikramov, described the draft as "unfinished" and called on it to be sent back for further work, according to the parliamentary website.

The proposed amendments have been included in Parliament's agenda for a first reading on 1 June, according to the parliamentary website. The draft will require three readings in parliament before being adopted. It would then be sent to the President to be signed into law.

How soon?

Many previous proposed laws or amendments about religion have failed to be adopted or have been approved by Parliament but not signed into law. Many observers therefore remain unsure whether these amendments will be adopted and, if so, when.

Religious studies expert Galina Kolodzinskaya acknowledges that deputies could adopt the amendments before Parliament's summer break at the end of June, particularly as she believes they have strong political support from leading state figures and agencies.

"If there is no unified voice from civil society and religious communities, the amendments might move through parliament quickly," Kolodzinskaya told Forum 18 from Bishkek on 31 May. "Sadly, religious communities are fragmented and are unlikely to work together on this."

"But it's quite possible they will be postponed until after the presidential elections now scheduled for 15 October," Kolodzinskaya added. "If that is the case, all will depend on what attitude the new president will take, as religious policy is in the hands of the president."

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Natalya Nikitenko, who has concerns about some provisions in the draft amendments, says that ten days should separate the three readings at minimum. "But the initiators could speed up the adoption of the amendments," she told Forum 18 from Bishkek on 31 May.

Nikitenko hopes consideration of the draft will not be rushed. "There must be time to consider this properly, hopefully in the autumn after parliament has had a proper chance to listen to people's views in public hearings."

Proposed new restrictions: religious censorship

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 22 would introduce full state censorship of all religious literature produced, copied or distributed in Kyrgyzstan or imported into the country. Only registered religious organisations are identified as being allowed religious literature and only "commensurate with their needs" (which are undefined).

Individuals would be allowed to acquire only "individual copies" of religious books and materials and only "in line with procedures established by the government".

All religious literature in print or digital form and other materials would be subject to compulsory prior state censorship by the SCRA. The amendments specifically ban the printing or publication of any works without its express permission.

SCRA Deputy Director Zakir Chotayev denied that this would represent censorship. "It is the same as in the current Law," he claimed to Forum 18 from Bishkek on 31 May. However, while the current Law allows the SCRA to censor religious literature it does not mandate it.

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Strokova supported the religious censorship. "I'm not against freedom," she claimed to Forum 18. "But there must be limits."

But fellow Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Nikitenko warned that the proposed state religious censorship would increase the powers of the SCRA. "There is no control over what the SCRA does," she complained to Forum 18. "It's not a transparent organisation."

Proposed new restrictions: ban on sharing faith

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 5 widens the ban on sharing faith. "Illegitimate proselytism, going round flats or homes with the aim of spreading religious views is banned, as is any illegal missionary activity. Those guilty of violating this provision bear responsibility under the Code of Administrative Offences."

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 3 defines "illegitimate proselytism" as "actions directed at attracting to one's own faith followers of other faiths by means of psychological and physical pressure, threats and violence".

The current Article 5 bans only "insistent actions" aimed at sharing faith, though it does ban "illegal missionary activity".

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Strokova defended this restriction. She complained that "religiously illiterate people" share their faith and argued that this has to be stopped.

"Anyone could say they are doing this, but there's no guarantee they're professing the faith that they should profess," she told Forum 18. "You don't allow unqualified people to talk about medicine the same goes for religion. We need to prevent spiritual violence." Asked whether adults are incapable of making up their own mind about any views they hear on religion, she responded: "You're deliberately twisting my words."

Proposed new restrictions: Further registration obstruction

Religious communities which want to gain state registration will find it even harder if the amendments are adopted. A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 8 would require not 200 adult citizens as at present but 500 to apply to register a religious community. The amendment also implies that these 500 adult citizens must live in one region of the country.

SCRA Deputy Director Chotayev insisted to Forum 18 that the suggestion for 500 adult citizen members in one location came from a "public consultation". He declined to say who had proposed this or why it had been included.

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Nikitenko told Forum 18 she sees no need for the number of required members to be increased. She fears this could harm "law-abiding religious communities", including smaller communities such as of Jews or Buddhists. Fellow deputy Strokova told Forum 18 of her similar concerns.

However, another proposed amendment to Article 8 would allow the creation of a centralised religious organisation to religious organisations from a minimum of seven of the country's nine regions. Under the current Law, organisations have to be present and registered in all nine regions before they can apply for a centralised religious organisation.

The proposed amendments at least in theory remove one of the obstacles for local communities to apply for formal registration (known in Russian as "uchetnaya registratsia"). Previously this required local keneshes (councils) to approve such applications, but the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled in September 2014 that this was illegal. However, officials have so far ignored this ruling and many local communities struggle to get such registration (see F18News 11 November 2016 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2230).

Proposed new restrictions: State notification to study religion abroad

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 6 requires anyone wishing to study in a foreign religious educational establishment to notify the SCRA of where they intend to study. The amendments do not say whether the SCRA is empowered to withhold permission for an individual to study their faith abroad.

Another proposed amendment to Article 6 would ban private teaching of religion. The current Law bans the private teaching of "religious studies".

Proposed new restrictions: SCRA's warning, liquidation powers

A proposed amendment to Religion Law Article 26 would allow the SCRA greater powers to warn, halt or seek to liquidate religious organisations that conduct activity "contradicting the goals" of an organisation or "not specified in the statute". A warned or halted religious organisation can challenge the SCRA's decision in court. The SCRA would have to seek liquidation of an organisation through the courts.

The SCRA is empowered to conduct inspections of religious organisations to ensure that they are abiding by the law either at its own initiative, at the initiative of state agencies or in response to complaints.

UN comments ignored

The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee commented on the Religion Law and possible plans to amend it in March 2014 Concluding Observations (CCPR/C/KGZ/CO/2) to its consideration of Kyrgyzstan's record under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It noted that "the Committee is concerned about the restrictions incompatible with provisions of the Covenant [ICCPR] contained in the current law, including with respect to missionary activities, registration procedure and dissemination of religious literature" (see F18News 1 April 2014 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1944).

The Committee stressed that the then planned amendments to the Religion Law should "remove all restrictions incompatible with Article 18 of the Covenant, by providing for a transparent, open and fair registration process of religious organizations and eliminating distinctions among religions that may lead to discrimination" (see F18News 1 April 2014 http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=1944).

However, many provisions of the current proposed amendments are similar to those proposed in 2014.

SCRA Deputy Director Chotayev dismissed the UN's stated views. "We live in Kyrgyzstan and have our own procedures," he told Forum 18. "We're an independent state." When Forum 18 reminded him that Kyrgyzstan is a member of the UN and has acceded to the ICCPR he put the phone down.

Religious communities mostly no comment

While Muftiate leaders have been vocal in their support for the proposed restrictions, leaders of most other faiths have remained silent. Forum 18 could find no leaders of other faiths prepared to express their views publicly.

Parliamentary deputy and Social Affairs, Education, Science, Culture and Health Committee member Nikitenko said she had seen no comments from other communities. "Our Committee was not given any comments," she told Forum 18.

Nikitenko acknowledged that many communities are afraid to come forward with comments. "There is fear among the population, which is a limit on freedom of speech. But parliament must hear the voice of the people that's why we are calling for public hearings in parliament on the proposed amendments."

Privately, a number expressed concerns over at least parts of the draft. One spoke of the "onerous registration requirements which make registration for minority religions virtually impossible", adding that the "total ban" on sharing faith is also a concern.

"After the SCRA published the draft in April, most religious leaders preferred not to lodge official comments," a religious activist told Forum 18 from Bishkek. "This was because of the negative response last time around, when their comments were used to make the draft even harsher. In effect they were revealing their Achilles heel." (END)

For more background information see Forum 18's Kyrgyzstan religious freedom survey at http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2013.

More reports on freedom of thought, conscience and belief in Kyrgyzstan can be found at http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?query=&religion=all&country=30.

A compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments can be found at http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id=1351.

A printer-friendly map of Kyrgyzstan is available at http://nationalgeographic.org/education/mapping/outline-map/?map=Kyrgyzstan.

Twitter: @Forum_18

Follow us on Facebook: @Forum18NewsService

All Forum 18 News Service material may be referred to, quoted from, or republished in full, if Forum 18 is credited as the source.

Read the original post:
KYRGYZSTAN: Religious censorship, sharing faiths ban? - Forum 18