Media Search:



Dawn special report: Predators in the workplace – Pakistan – DAWN … – DAWN.com

Did an American NGO ignore multiple complaints of sexual harassment at its Pakistan office?

KARACHI: Dr Saima Nadeem* was in a meeting with three colleagues, all men, when she says that one of them her boss asked her an extremely offensive, sexually explicit question. While the other two men snickered, she flushed with embarrassment. According to her, this was far from an isolated incident, that she would be repeatedly called into his office and asked indecent and intolerable questions of a sexual nature.

Another doctor at the same organisation, Anisa Hasan*, in a sworn affidavit spoke of sexual innuendo and harassment at the hands of her boss. I was also threatened with a transfer to Multan due to my reluctance [to have] social contact outside the office. The transfer threat was made knowing I was a single mother and dependent on my family for child support.

This is but the tip of the iceberg in what appears to be a shocking years-long saga of workplace sexual harassment that has left a trail of shattered lives in its wake.

The alleged perpetrator is a senior executive of DKT International, an INGO headquartered in the US, and, according to at least five of its female employees in Pakistan, the companys American management showed utter indifference to their complaints.

The women claim that the former country director of DKT Pakistan, Dawar Warraich, carried out a sustained campaign of sexual harassment that began soon after he took up the position in late 2015. Three of the alleged victims have filed sworn affidavits detailing what they went through; two have sent him legal notices; and at least one has taken him to court.

They say the ordeal destroyed their mental peace and for some, led to permanent adverse effects on their personal and professional lives.

A workplace free of sexual harassment is a vital aspect of the long battle for gender parity. In a patriarchal society like Pakistan, the fear of victim-blaming and character assassination inhibits many individuals from taking action against their harassers.

Nevertheless, with increasing numbers of women joining the workforce, many are refusing to be subjected to sexist and degrading treatment at their place of employment. Each one of them who breaks the silence strikes a blow for equality.

Did an American NGO ignore multiple complaints of sexual harassment at its Pakistan office?

Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act 2010 requires every organisation to set up a three-member enquiry committee including at least one woman to investigate complaints of harassment and also provides for the establishment of ombudspersons at the federal and provincial levels to hear complaints. According to the latest annual report of the Federal Ombudsperson Secretariat for Prevention of Sexual Harassment, only 84 cases were registered from 2010 till 2013, while 398 cases were filed between 2013 and 2018. Between 2019 and 2022, however, 5,008 cases of sexual harassment were registered; a vast majority involve female victims.

"A few cases under the Act have made their way up to the high courts and even the Supreme Court, says lawyer Sara Malkani. However, implementation is still gradual and there are many organisations that dont have enquiry committees, and even when they do, we see that they arent hearing cases with the sensitivity and professionalism that is required."

In the West, particularly the US, the #MeToo movement sparked by allegations of sexual harassment and/or rape against former Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein who has since been convicted and sentenced to 39 years behind bars set off ripples around the globe.

That makes the conduct of an American NGO like DKT International all the more questionable. As Dr Saima put it: Was #MeToo only meant to empower American women? Do Pakistani women not deserve protection from sexual harassment? Why did DKTs head office not lift a finger to help us?

Founded in 1989, DKT International, according to its website is one of the largest private providers of family planning products in the world Five of the 10 largest contraceptive social marketing programmes in the world are DKT programmes.

DKT has offices in 24 countries across Asia, Africa and South America, with a sales presence in 60 countries. Its Pakistan programme launched in 2012 and by now has 1,200 plus health care clinics all over the country offering a range of contraceptive services.

Among DKT Internationals donors are governments, foundations and other organisations. These include, among others, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the UK governments Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; the United Nations Population Fund; and the Swedish International Development Agency.

How ironic then that at the Pakistan chapter of an organisation that counts women as its core clientele and where women play a critical role in providing services, multiple accusations of sexual harassment were not taken seriously by its American management. Incidentally, the complainants accusations were also backed by several of their male colleagues in emails to the DKT International head office.

When she made it clear that she would not give him what he wanted, the country director without any rationale had her transferred to Lahore. The legal notice sent on her behalf to DKT says that he was aware that our client was vulnerable as she, a self-supporting woman, had escaped Lahore with her children to keep a distance from her emotionally abusive husband. As a consequence of the vindictive transfer she lost custody of her children to her estranged spouse.

As per documents in Dawns possession, DKT International President and CEO Chris Purdy was first intimated about Mr Warraichs behaviour by email on May 3, 2016. Hadiya Rafiq*, a young woman who former colleagues described as a rising star at DKT, alleged that in late 2015 she was subjected to extremely inappropriate behaviour by Mr Warraich while on the way to an appointment. I was both shocked and frightened .

She said she reported the matter to the previous country head whom she saw as a mentor. Unfortunately, she said, the latter informed Mr Warraich, after which I found myself completely sidelined. My ideas were mocked, my work dismissed out of hand and I was constantly berated in the presence of other colleagues. I spent hours playing computer games in the months before I left. She says she never heard back from Mr Purdy.

This, say the complainants, appears to have been a pattern silence from the company CEO and a campaign of sustained bullying and intimidation by Mr Warraich, with assistance from some DKT employees. Dr Anisa in her affidavit dated Oct 25, 2021 said that on the advice of sympathetic colleagues, she tried to stay out of his way by conducting health camps outside the office but he soon began to turn up there as well.

A hostile atmosphere was created at work. On three occasions starting from February 2017, I was held against my wishes in a room where three men interrogated, shouted and bullied me for more than five hours. This was after office hours and no female was present. Mr Warraich was allegedly present on two of those occasions.

Another female doctor also claimed she was made to stay back at the office till 11.30 pm, hours after a regular workday, long after other female employees had gone. Further, it is alleged in the legal notice sent by her lawyers that Mr Warraich would enforce upon her to be dropped back home by one of her male colleagues whereas she would normally be picked up by her brother. [T]his reflected badly upon [her] reputation as she was being dropped home late at night by different men each day .

According to her, when she made it clear that she would not give him what he wanted, Mr Warraich without any rationale had her transferred to Lahore which left her no choice but to drop out of the MBA course she was pursuing in Karachi on the weekends and which she had nearly completed.

The legal notice sent on her behalf to DKT says that Mr Warraich was aware that our client was vulnerable as she, a self-supporting woman, had escaped Lahore with her children to keep a distance from her emotionally abusive husband. As a consequence of the vindictive transfer she lost custody of her children to her estranged spouse who belongs to an influential family. During that forced posting that lasted three years, she says she was given no work, received no increments or promotions, rendering her career stagnant.

According to the complainants, Mr Warraichs campaign of persecution did not stop even after the women, having found no other recourse, left DKT to work elsewhere. Consider Dr Anisas case. In April 2017, after she joined Marie Stopes, another reproductive health INGO. During her probation period, she was informed by its management that they had received a written complaint from DKT saying she had been terminated from DKT due to corruption. She was asked to resign from her new job.

I sent an email and several reminders to Mr Dawar asking him to clarify his position in writing to MSS but he never bothered to reply. His HR denied writing such a letter but refused to put this in writing . It was ALSO made public by innuendo and verbal means that I was corrupt. I wrote to DKT International [on May 1, 2017] but received no reply. I took my case to HRCP but then did not pursue that further as I was made aware that to do so meant vilification and career ruin in future too.

As a single mother I could not afford this. Ultimately, because she could not get the required clearance from DKT, Marie Stopes did not retain her. The ordeal has taken an enormous toll on Dr Anisas mental health, say former colleagues. According to one of them, She was an extremely confident woman, but when I met her recently I was shocked to see her reduced to a shadow of her former self.

In response to Dawns questions, DKT International President and CEO Purdy stated: DKT strongly denies the allegations levelled by various persons and has yet to see any concrete evidence to support them. He said it is incorrect to suggest that no inquiry or investigation took place and that DKTs internal auditor reached out and made himself available to the complainants but none of them came forward and no evidence was provided.

As per the complainants, no internal auditor made any effort to contact them. (One of them told Dawn, Ive never even heard of such an individual.) This appears to be corroborated by the executive who succeeded Mr Warraich as country director. His email response to Dawn appears later in this report.

Dawn also wrote back to Mr Purdy to ask for evidence that the internal auditor had reached out and made himself available to the complainants, but received no response.

The case of Dr Maheen Bashir* is somewhat different. She was not a DKT employee, but was working at Marie Stopes when she says Mr Warraich contacted her about a vacancy at a senior position at DKT and set up a meeting with her. As per the legal notice sent by Dr Maheens lawyers, during the interview on Dec 23, 2019, she became aware Mr Warraich was, without any shame and absolutely without consent, recording a video of our client.

Mr Warraich then asked her to accompany him to the conference room to meet with other team members. Here a most peculiar incident allegedly took place. When one of the female staff members said she had a stomach ache, Mr Warraich blatantly asked whether she was going through her menstrual cycle, and then continued on by rubbing her shoulders and back, and then [telling Dr Maheen that] the said female employee has a problematic cycle and suffers a lot.

She told Dawn: I thought Id had a really narrow escape. I felt there was something seriously wrong in that environment. Disturbed by what she had experienced, Dr Maheen turned down the DKT job offer. Soon however, she found herself being disregarded from tasks and activities at Marie Stopes and her management stopped sharing financial details/ plans with her, which was previously shared with [her] and was imperative for her role .

When she inquired about the change in attitude, she was informed by her management that Mr Warraich had called some of her colleagues and said to the effect that she had allegedly made promises to him about disclosing confidential information about Marie Stopes and that she would be leaving Marie Stopes to work for him soon.

She said the unsubstantiated rumours made her work environment so difficult that she couldnt work there any longer, and as a result suffered a reputational loss that compromised her career prospects. Despite contacting DKT Pakistans HR department multiple times and submitting a detailed account of the alleged harassment she had suffered, Dr Maheen said she got no response.

In an email conversation with Dawn, Mr Warraich stated: I strongly deny [these allegations] as being false, fabricated, concocted, vague and baseless and pursued with ulterior motives to defame me and harm DKT. I have never sexually harassed anyone nor engaged in any sort of campaign of persecution and intimidation against the complainants. Such claims are incorrect and preposterous.

Asked why a three-member inquiry committee was not set up to look into the complaints, as per the law, Mr Warraich claimed: [O]ne complainant had emailed DKTs head office in Washington, D.C., USA in May 2016 after leaving the organisation The other complainants never lodged any claims of harassment against me while I was Country Director of DKT Pakistan having left the post in May 2021.

However, Mr Purdys own email to Dawn appears to contradict this claim. He wrote: [I]n 2016 and 2017, the DKT Washington DC offices received whistleblower emails alleging harassment and bullying in the DKT Pakistan offices.

The complainant who emailed DKTs head office in May 2016 was Ms Rafiq mentioned earlier in this report. While it is true that she had left the company by then, Ms Rafiq had also approached a female senior manager, Saleha Asim*, with her complaint towards the end of 2015 while she was still employed there and Mr Warraich was the country manager.

Aside from Ms Rafiq, another female employee separately approached Ms Asim around the same time with complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Warraich.

Ms Asim asked the human resources manager to set up an enquiry committee to look into their allegations. (DKT Pakistan did not have such a committee, which was a legal requirement.) When Dawn reached out to her, Ms Asim confirmed this. She added: After the second incident report, I informed Mr Chris Purdy as the matter pertained to the country director. Within days I found myself sidelined and my work virtually disappeared. My team was told not to report to me. I left the organisation about eight weeks later of my own accord .

Both Mr Purdy and Mr Warraich told Dawn that Ms Asim resigned on account of performance issues; they alleged that this precipitated a smear campaign against DKT.

Mr Purdy added: She left very disgruntled. However, when this paper reached out to Ms Asim, who resigned from DKT in early 2016, she said: I have always been a convenient scapegoat but my performance appraisal done two months before Dawar became country head and the increased salary paid directly to me by DKT International should debunk any doubts about my performance.

Ms Asim also shared the contents of an email she said was written by Mr Purdy in 2022 to her prospective employer which read as follows: I am pleased to reach out to you to assure you that [Ms Asims] departure from DKT Pakistan had nothing to do with any issues related to her personal or professional integrity .

Ms Malkani, the lawyer Dawn spoke with said: There are often witnesses who can testify they were informed by the complainant of this incident soon after it took place and their statement has some evidentiary value. There could also be witnesses who could say that the accused person [also] harassed them previously or harassed other people in the workplace, so they can also come forward as character witnesses.

According to some of the complainants, DKTs acts of omission and commission rendered them even more vulnerable. They alleged that not only did Mr Purdy turn a deaf ear to their complaints but that Mr Warraich, the alleged perpetrator, was informed about the content of their emails without being made to answer for his actions.

Dr Saima says: Soon after wed written, I and [another alleged victim] happened to pass Dawar on the stairs. He stopped us, and said wed be sorry wed sent those emails. How else would he have known if Mr Purdy had not forwarded our emails to him? (While Dr Saima had ccd a male colleague on the email, her colleague had written to Mr Purdy alone.) According to the Code of Conduct in the legislation on sexual harassment, The alleged accused will be approached with the intention of resolving the matter in a confidential manner.

Mr Purdy did not address the question Dawn asked as to whether he had forwarded the complainants confidential emails to Mr Dawar.

DKT Pakistans code of conduct, available on its website, spells out a strict policy against harassment. It reads: DKT Pakistan follows a zero-tolerance policy regarding discrimination, bullying, harassment, sexual exploitation & abuse. All employees have an obligation to report any form of discrimination, harassment or exploitation against her/him, another employee .

According to the code of conduct, in the event that a complaint of this nature is confirmed, the perpetrator could find himself fired. The company further claims that its zero tolerance policy follows the minimum standards as those outlined in the Government of Pakistans The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010.

To gauge how well the DKTs zero tolerance policy works in practice, consider how the afore-mentioned Act defines harassment. According to the law, harassment is any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favours or other verbal or written communication or physical conduct of a sexual nature or sexually demeaning attitudes, causing interference with work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment, or the attempt to punish the complainant for refusal to comply to such a request or is made a condition for employment.

According to one of the women Dawn spoke with, the campaign of vindictiveness that Mr Warraich allegedly waged left the victims so frightened that they only raised their heads above the parapet after he was given another international posting as country manager.

On June 11, 2021, Dr Saima emailed the incoming Pakistan country manager, Justin Main Thompson and attached two earlier emails written by male colleagues at DKT that corroborated the allegations of sexual harassment.

Mr Thompson wrote back to say: Thank you for bringing these to my attention. DKT International takes all such allegations extremely seriously, and I have forwarded these to our head office in Washington D.C. . The emails were forwarded to Mr Purdy and HR director Michele Thorburn, but again, says Dr Saima, there was a deafening silence.

When Dawn emailed Mr Thompson who no longer works for DKT he said he was assured by Chris [Purdy] that these issues had been investigated and the matter was closed. [Mr Warraich] had been investigated by David Negus (at that stage an auditor for DKT) in Pakistan. I spoke to Negus who admitted [that no alleged victims] had been interviewed by him throughout the investigations.

As per Section 4 of the sexual harassment law, the inquiry committee shall within three days of receipt of a written complaint enquire into the charge and may examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge or in defence of the accused as the Committee may consider necessary.

During this period, the committee shall communicate the charges to the accused in writing, who will then be required to submit a written defence within seven days. Moreover, the committee shall submit its findings and recommendations to the competent authority within 30 days of the initiation of inquiry.

However, DKT International continued to ignore the womens sworn affidavits as well as the two legal notices sent on June 25, 2022 years after the initial complaints were made. It was only after a human rights activist contacted the UK governments Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office to inform them of the alleged sexual harassment, and the FCDO asked DKT Pakistan to carry out an independent review was there any response.

On Nov 2, 2022, the two complainants who had sent legal notices to Mr Warraich received a letter from Supreme Court advocate Rukhsana Ahmad. She wrote she had been commissioned by DKT International and DKT Pakistan to conduct an external independent third-party investigation on their behalf to verify the veracity of the allegations of harassment .. The letter asked them join the investigation and inquiry and record their evidence before Ms Ahmad within 15 days.

However, Dr Saima has instead pinned her hopes for justice on the civil suit she filed in October 2022 at the Sindh High Court. According to her lawyer, Syed Ali Hyder, My client apprehended a one-sided biased enquiry. This belief was further reinforced by the fact that such action was only initiated after our client filed the civil suit seeking inter alia damages.

In his email to Dawn, Mr Purdy said that Ms Ahmads independent review concluded in January 2023 with a detailed report running into hundreds of pages. After carefully scrutinising the voluminous record, the investigator did not find merit in the complaints.

While referring to the lawsuit, Mr Warraich has claimed that Dr Saima has avoided to proceed with the said case to date, which is a matter of court and public record.

On the contrary, Dr Saimas lawyer shared the copy of an application he filed on Feb 2, 2023 for urgent hearing of the case. The case has only come up for hearing four times [and] we have been there on each and every date.

*Victims names and some identifying details have been changed.

Published in Dawn, March 22nd, 2023

View post:
Dawn special report: Predators in the workplace - Pakistan - DAWN ... - DAWN.com

MD politics: House passes bill removing marijuana smell as … – Maryland Daily Record

The House of Delegates on Saturday passed legislation that would bar police from detaining individuals simply because they smelled of marijuana.

With the Houses 98-34 vote, attention shifts to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, which is expected to consider the legislation in the next two weeks.

House Bill 1071 states that marijuanas odor alone gives police neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to suspect someone of criminal activity. The smell, however, could still be a factor in an officers reasonable suspicion during a traffic stop that a person was driving while impaired by marijuana.

The General Assemblys consideration of HB 1071 arises amid the coming legalization of possession of up to 12 grams of marijuana. Maryland voters approved the possession of a personal amount of the drug by individuals age 21 and above in a referendum last November.

Under the approved referendum and related law, which take effect July 1, possession of between 12 and 20 grams of marijuana will be punishable by a $250 civil fine. Possession of more than 20 grams will be a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Currently, possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana is a civil offense punishable by a $100 fine unless the drug is being used for legal medicinal purposes.

House consideration of HB 1071 also follows a pre-referendum Maryland Supreme Court decision last year that upheld the authority of police to briefly detain and question people smelling of marijuana without violating their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, though possession of less than 10 grams of the drug is not a crime.

Assistant Maryland Public Defender Michele Hall cited the courts decision in In Re: D.D. in telling legislators that HB 1071 is needed because marijuana will still be illegal if possessed in large quantities and thus its smell could still enable police to detain and question individuals.

Legalization alone did not fix this problem, Hall told the House Judiciary Committee this month.

As long as odor supports Fourth Amendment intrusion, Marylanders legally engaging in the cannabis market are at risk, added Hall, who argued in vain for D.D. before the high court.

Alleging odor of cannabis alone is nothing more than a blank check for police to intrude upon a persons right to privacy in the hopes of finding something criminal, and the Fourth Amendment requires more.

HB 1071 has also drawn strong support from the American Civil Liberties Unions Maryland chapter.

Marijuana odor stops and searches not only pose serious risk to peoples Fourth Amendment rights, they enable racial profiling and dangerous and unnecessary police interactions, Yanet Amanuel, the chapters public policy director, told the Judiciary Committee this month.

This is why it is critical that the legislature must step up and ensure that the law and police practices are consistent with the reason you all said you support legalization of marijuana and, most importantly, the law reflects the will of the people, Amanuel added. Marylanders should not fear police interactions because of a lingering odor of a now legal substance.

But William Katcef of the Maryland States Attorneys Association said the constitutional issues of probable cause and reasonable suspicion should be left to judges to determine, not legislators.

I dont think that we should have the General Assembly make the determination as to what constitutes reasonable suspicion or what constitutes probable cause, Katcef told the Judiciary Committee. I think the courts should decide.

The Judiciary Committee sent the bill to the House floor on a 15-6 vote Wednesday.

Del. Charlotte Crutchfield, D-Montgomery, is chief sponsor of HB 1071, which would go into effect July 1. The bill was not cross-filed in the Senate.

Read the rest here:
MD politics: House passes bill removing marijuana smell as ... - Maryland Daily Record

Thune Discusses Bill to Combat National Security Risks From … – Senator John Thune

Click hereto watch the video.

WASHINGTON U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today spoke on the Senate floor about the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act, his new bipartisan bill that would establish a risk-based process to identify and mitigate foreign-adversary threats to American information and communications technology. Thune noted that its time to update our laws to ensure that we are able to confront the national security threats posed by foreign-adversary technology, such as TikTok.

Thune today penned an op-ed with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) in FoxNews.com about the RESTRICT Act.

Thunes remarks below (as prepared for delivery):

Mr. President, theres been a lot of talk about TikTok in the halls of Congress lately, and with good reason.

Because its become increasingly clear that TikTok poses serious national security concerns.

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are Chinese-owned entities with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

And after a Chinese spy balloon floated over our country a few weeks ago, I think its obvious to everyone that the Chinese Communist Party is hostile to the interests of the United States and spies on American citizens.

And I can think of few better or easier ways to spy on American citizens or manipulate American public opinion than to make use of a popular app that is used by over 100 million Americans.

In the United States, of course, we have the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to protect the data Americans provide to apps from being seized by the government.

But the Chinese Communist Party has no such restraints.

In fact, Chinese law requires social media and technology companies to provide information including individually identifiable personal information to the Chinese government when asked.

So there is no legal framework in China to effectively protect TikTok users or users of any China-based app from having their personal information turned over to the Chinese Communist Party.

And there are already concerning signs that TikTok users personal information is not secure.

It was reported last year that China-based employees of ByteDance had repeatedly accessed private data from TikTok users in the U.S., despite TikToks claim to the contrary.

And in December 2022, it was found that ByteDance employees inside China used the app to obtain the locations of journalists who worked on stories highlighting TikToks national security risks.

This obviously has implications for Americans personal security and privacy.

And it raises troubling questions about how the Chinese Communist Party could use TikTok for its own ends, whether thats using personal data to develop sources for espionage or manipulating content to advance the Communist Partys agenda.

Mr. President, TikTok is not the first time technology from a hostile nation has posed a serious security concern.

Before there was TikTok, we had to engage in a protracted effort to remove technology from Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from our telecommunications networks after U.S. security officials raised concerns that much of Huaweis and ZTEs equipment was built with backdoors giving the Chinese Communist Party access to global communications networks.

The digital age has come with enormous benefits, but it also comes with substantial new threats not least the threat of a hostile foreign government exploiting communications technology for nefarious purposes.

And that threat increases substantially when were talking about technology from hardware to social media apps produced by companies in hostile nations and affiliated with hostile governments.

In recent years, a number of foreign companies in the information and communications technology space many of them subject to the control of hostile governments have gained significant market share.

Current law provides some remedies for confronting the dangers these companies present.

For example, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, can block attempted investments from foreign companies if these investments are determined to present a national security risk.

But the authorities the federal government currently has were fashioned in a pre-digital age, and therefore not designed for the specific threats posed by digital technology controlled by foreign-adversary nations.

And as a result the federal government is limited in what it can do in situations like the one we currently face with TikTok.

What is needed is a comprehensive framework for responding to national security risks posed by foreign-adversary-owned digital technology whether thats TikTok, or some other app, or mobile phone technology, or internet hardware.

While CFIUS has the ability to address some risks, the reality is that the mere presence of a technology from a foreign adversary in the United States does not trigger CFIUS review.

For a tech platform that does not acquire, merge with, or invest in a U.S. company, CFIUS review does not apply.

So, for example, WeChat, the other Chinese-controlled app that President Trump sought to ban back in 2020, is apparently not subject to CFIUS review.

Legislation is necessary to fill this important gap in authority.

Thats why earlier this month Democrat Senator Mark Warner chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and I introduced the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act, or the RESTRICT Act which now has the support of 18 senators from both parties.

Our legislation would create a comprehensive process based at the U.S. Department of Commerce for identifying and mitigating foreign threats to information and communications technology products and services.

I want to emphasize that the authorities of the RESTRICT Act only apply to six foreign-adversary countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.

Under our bill, the Department of Commerce would review any information and communications technology product from these countries that is deemed to present a possible security threat, with an emphasis on products used in critical telecommunications infrastructure or with serious national security implications.

And the secretary of commerce would be required to develop a range of measures to mitigate the danger posed by these products, up to and including a complete ban on the product in question.

The bill would also ensure transparency by requiring the commerce secretary to coordinate with the director of national intelligence to provide declassified information on why any measures taken against foreign-adversary-owned technology products were necessary.

Importantly, the RESTRICT Act also requires the secretary of commerce to act within 180 days after initiating a review.

A common complaint about the ongoing CFIUS review of TikTok is that it has been open-ended and taken years to complete.

By comparison, the RESTRICT Act requires quick action to take the necessary steps to mitigate an undue risk from technology of a foreign-adversary nation.

Mr. President, there is bipartisan acknowledgment that TikTok poses a national security risk.

And the RESTRICT Act provides a framework for confronting both current and future risks.

Im grateful to both Republican and Democrat colleagues for joining Senator Warner and me to introduce this bill.

Its time to update our laws to ensure that we are able to confront the national security threats posed by foreign-adversary technology.

And I look forward to working with colleagues from both parties, in both chambers, to advance the RESTRICT Act and get it to the presidents desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

See more here:
Thune Discusses Bill to Combat National Security Risks From ... - Senator John Thune

Mitchell lecture to address race, the Supreme Court and police power – University at Buffalo

What if a constitutional right meant to guarantee your security was actually a license to harm or even kill you?

Thats the premise for the James McCormick Mitchell Lecture, the School of Laws signature lecture series, to be held April 7. The address is titled Race, the Supreme Court, and Police Power.

The speaker, UCLA School of Law Professor Devon W. Carbado, is a renowned scholar of constitutional law, criminal procedure and critical race theory. His widely acclaimed book, Unreasonable: Black Lives, Police Power, and the Fourth Amendment, published last year, argues that the U.S. Supreme Courts decision to treat unreasonable police tactics as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment has shortened the distance between life and death for Black people.

Many forms of policing that people find troubling are perfectly legal under a particular body of constitutional law Fourth Amendment doctrine, Carbado writes. Over the past five decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to allocate enormous power to the police: to surveil, to racially profile, to stop-and-frisk, and to kill.

Carbado will develop those themes in his April 7 appearance in the Charles B. Sears Law Library in OBrian Hall, North Campus. The event, from noon to 2 p.m., includes a discussion with UB Law faculty members Alexandra Harrington, associate professor, and Athena Mutua, professor and Floyd H. & Hilda L. Hurst Faculty Scholar. A reception will follow.

Police victimization of people of color is an obvious moral scandal., says Michael Boucai, professor of law and chair of the schools Mitchell Lecture Steering Committee. Far less evident are the legal mechanisms enabling it. Thats what makes Professor Carbados recent work so necessary. His description of the problems constitutional architecture is unmatched in acumen and accessibility.

A 1994 graduate of Harvard Law School, Carbado holds the Hon. Harry Pregerson Professor of Law chair at UCLA School of Law; he joined the faculty in 1997.

The event is free and open to the public. Registration is available online.

The Mitchell Lecture series was endowed in 1950 by a gift from Lavinia A. Mitchell in memory of her husband, James McCormick Mitchell. An 1897 graduate of the Buffalo Law School, Mitchell later served as chairman of the Council of the University of Buffalo, which was then a private university.

Justice Robert H. Jackson delivered the first Mitchell Lecture in 1951, titled Wartime Security and Liberty Under Law. The lecture was published that year in the first issue of the Buffalo Law Review.

See the original post:
Mitchell lecture to address race, the Supreme Court and police power - University at Buffalo

Court supports suit of Stamford man with ‘cops ahead’ sign – Torrington Register Citizen

STAMFORD A U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that police violated the free-speech rights of Stamford resident Michael Friend, who was arrested in 2018 for holding up a sign saying Cops Ahead near where city police were conducting a distracted-driving operation.

"This decision is a solid affirmation of the fact that people have the right to protest the police," said Elana Bildner, senior staff attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut and an attorney on the case. "When Michael Friend held up a sign on a Stamford sidewalk to alert people to police activity, he was well within his First Amendment rights, and Stamford police never should have arrested him. This decision is good news for protesters rights and should serve as a reminder to all police in Connecticut that they cannot and should not silence speech like Mr. Friends."

But attorney Elliot Spector, who represents Lt. Richard Gasparino, the officer who arrested Friend, maintains that his client was just doing his job and said he plans to file a motion for summary judgement, claiming Gasparino had "qualified immunity."

"An officer in (Gasparino's) position at the time would believe that he is acting in good faith," Spector said. "There is no clearly established lawthat would inform him that his actions are unconstitutional."

Spector also cited cases from the United States Supreme Court and lower courts that "would inform officers under similar circumstances that (Gasparino's) actions were constitutional."

The legal dust-up stems fromApril 2018 when Gasparino then a sergeant arrested Friend and charged him with interfering with police.

According to a lawsuit filed by Friend shortly after his arrest, Friendcreated a sign reading Cops Ahead, after he saw Gasparino standing near where police were conducting the distracted driving detail and alerting other officers to motorists allegedly violating the states distracted driving law.

Gasparino reportedly approached Friend, told him to stop and took the sign away. Gasparino threatened to arrest Friend when he started recording the officer with his phone, according to the suit.

Friend then made a bigger sign reading "Cops Ahead" and moved to another location. Friend was arrested after he recorded Gasparino when he approached again, the suit states.

After his arrest, Friend was held on $25,000 bond until a bail commissioner released him on a promise to appear in court. A Stamford judge dismissed the charge on May 7, 2018.

In his lawsuit, Friend alleged that Gasparino violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fourth Amendment right againstmalicious prosecution. Friend also claimed the City of Stamford violated his 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

In 2020, a federal judge threw out Friend's suit, claiming that it was "questionable" whether Friend's actions rose to "the level ofexpression of an opinion related to a matter of public significance." Even if Friend's actions constituted an exercise of free speech, that court claimed that Gasparino's actions were acceptable because he and his fellow officers were "saving lives by stopping distracted driversand issuing citations for their behavior."

But the Court of Appeals disagreed.

In a decision issued Feb. 27, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the earlier findings that Gasparino violated Friend's rights to free speech and freedom from malicious prosecution.

"The district court erred when it held that Friends arrest was supported by probable cause and that Gasparinos actions did notviolate Friends First Amendment right to freedom of speech," the findings read.

The 29-page decision said, among other things, that "The district courts suggestion that only 'expression(s)of an opinion related to a matter of public significance' merit First Amendment protection is unsupported in our case law."

However, the Court of Appeals did uphold the district court's ruling showing that the City of Stamford didn't violate Friend's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

"The City is pleased the Second Circuit upheld the District Courts grant of summary judgment in its favor," said Barbara L. Coughlan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Stamford.

Excerpt from:
Court supports suit of Stamford man with 'cops ahead' sign - Torrington Register Citizen