Mediaboss Marketing

Members of the old regime are still calling the shots

BEIRUT

THE MOST popular candidate in Algerias presidential election might be a rubbish bag. On December 12th Algerians will choose a successor to Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who stepped down in April after 20 years of dictatorial rule. Or, rather, a small minority of Algerias 41m people will choose one. Much of the country seems unenthused by the vote. In the capital, Algiers, protesters hang rubbish bags over campaign posters or replace them with pictures of jailed activists. One candidates headquarters was pelted with eggs and tomatoes. Another was forced to cancel his first campaign rally because almost no one turned up.

To hear the government tell it, the election is an important step towards democracy. It will probably be the most tightly contested presidential vote since 1995. Yet for the millions of Algerians who demanded the ousting of Mr Bouteflikaand who continue to protestit is nothing to celebrate. Instead the election demonstrates the difficulty of removing the structures that sustained the strongman.

First scheduled for July, the election was postponed amid calls for a boycott. Only two people, a veterinarian and a mechanic, registered to run. This time 23 candidates tried to make the ballot. Most failed to meet the requirements, such as collecting signatures from supporters in at least 25 provinces. The five who made it all served under Mr Bouteflikatwo as prime minister, two as cabinet members and the fifth as an MP who led a small loyalist party.

It may seem paradoxical to shun an election to support democracy. But activists say they have learned from the failed uprisings in countries like Egypt, where protesters toppled a ruler but not his regime. By the end of his long reign, the ailing Mr Bouteflika was no longer up to the task of running the country. Though he remained the figurehead, a group of men known as le pouvoir wielded power behind the scenes. They are loth to surrender it.

For the armed forces, which saw their own pouvoir curtailed in favour of businessmen close to Mr Bouteflika, the current vacuum is a chance to regain control. One of the candidates, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, a former prime minister, is thought to be close to the army chief, Gaid Salah.

The regime had hoped to simply outlast the protesters, who call themselves Hirak (movement in Arabic). That strategy has not yet worked: Algerians have demonstrated every week since February. As the election approaches the regime has turned to coercion, detaining scores of activists and journalists. Having been embarrassed in July, the authorities are determined to hold the vote. General Salah warns of foreign plots against Algeria, while the interior minister labels critics of the election as traitors, mercenaries, homosexuals.

The bigger question is what happens after December 12th. Algeria will have a new president widely seen as illegitimate. But he will still be president, with all the power that entails. Compared with other Arab countries, the repression in Algeria has been mild. The incoming president, keen to cement his grip on power, may not show such forbearance.

He will also inherit a stagnant economy. Despite its vast oil and gas wealth, Algerias per-capita income is below that of some resource-poor Arab states, such as Lebanon. Unemployment is 12% overall and much higher for young people. The finance minister recently warned that foreign reserves, which amounted to $200bn in 2014, may drop to $50bn by the end of next year. The value of oil and gas exports, which supply 60% of government revenue, fell by 13% in the first nine months of 2019. A new hydrocarbons law, meant to draw foreign investment, has been criticised by protesters and energy experts alike.

Algerians are not alone. In Sudan, Lebanon and Iraq this year angry citizens toppled their rulers but have struggled to force deeper changes. The protests cannot continue for ever. Algerias election might be a stunt to keep the ancien rgime in powerbut that does not mean it will fail.

This article appeared in the Middle East and Africa section of the print edition under the headline "Algerians fear their election will be a blow to democracy"

More here:
Algerians fear their election will be a blow to democracy - The Economist

A distant goal on the barely visible other side of a treacherous climb along a path filled with potholes, snakes and rusted spikes. Indian democracy looks a bit like that, after the recent killings in Hyderabad.

The rape and murder of a young woman in Hyderabad was gruesome enough. The response of the state, of rounding up four presumed culprits and bumping them off in a so-called encounter, was no less appalling. The response of many, particularly those in public life, who gleefully cheered the police action, is indeed horrific. Indians have to be careful while washing their skin with deep-cleansing lotions: these might peel off the entirety of the democratic sensibility they have managed to accumulate since Independence and all the markers of civilisation that set modern humans apart from savages.

Democracy is the rule of the people, by the people and for the people. That is a glib definition, sufficient for a summary that also serves as a rhetorical flourish. When the people in question are not homogeneous, but differentiated, in terms of income and education, social status and stratification, faith and ritual, and language, region and ethnicity, that definition is a mere starting point for a journey across uncharted terrain.

Democracy differentiates itself from majoritarianism by virtue of certain individual and group rights it commits itself to. The will of a temporary majority cannot breach those rights. To secure those rights, certain institutions and institutional mechanisms are integral to democracy. Due process is what we call setting those institutions and mechanisms in motion.

In Hyderabad, the four accused were killed without the benefit of due process. No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence, says Article 20 of the Constitution.

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, says Article 21. Two fundamental rights were blatantly violated by the state in Hyderabad.

When a member of Parliament, having sworn allegiance to the Constitution, calls for rapists to be lynched, she commits perjury, admits to lack of faith in the legal system and in democracy.

But what of the victim, why dont you talk about the rights of the poor girl who was so brutally killed, ask some people. Of course, those who committed the crime against the young woman deserve all the punishment that could be inflicted under the law. But first, it must be established that these four were, indeed, the ones who committed the crime.

The police have a habit of making quick arrests when the public outcry is loud against a heinous crime. Often, the accused stay in jail for a decade or so and get acquitted. The police get some relief from public anger, so what if some young men lose their youth behind bars for no reason other than that they were convenient for the police to arrest.

People hail extra-judicial reprisals when the law proves dysfunctional so goes another line of justification. Two separate rape victims from Unnao being fatally attacked by their rapists or their agents while on their way to proceedings against the rapists is clear evidence of such legal dysfunction. But is the solution to give up the law and hope for redemption either from caped crusaders who deliver vigilante justice or from law enforcers who breach the law at will?

The right to equality is yet another fundamental right. Equality can be uplifting, decidedly. But do you want equality with those unfortunate souls who are picked up by the police and locked up for crimes the police are under pressure to solve but lack the needed competence to? Clearly not. If you still want to celebrate the working of death squads, you believe not in equality but in social hierarchy: of different groups with differential rights, mentally ensconcing yourself within the elite lot immune to such arbitrary violence at the hands of the state.

When the rule of law matters no more, who takes the hit can be entirely arbitrary. Who is in power changes, so does who is in the line of fire.

India has a democratic Constitution, thanks to the political leadership at the time of Independence. Indian society lags far behind the Constitution, with a sensibility tempered by the segmented solidarity of religion, caste and region. To transcend primordial urges that valorise vengeance over justice and immediate gratification over the slow but sure working of institutional mechanisms, people must identify themselves with the larger collective that has agency in democracy, that is, the people of India. But when politics turns sectarian, such identification crumbles.

Lynch mobs and those baying for the blood of those accused of crimes but with unproven culpability, are signs of the strains on Indias as yet fledgling democratic project.

Read the original:
View: What the Hyderabad encounter tells us about the state of India's democracy - Economic Times

Timothy Zick believes the principles involved in the lessons hes drawing about the First Amendment in the current era are useful for readers to know and to embrace regardless of their political beliefs. (WYDaily/Courtesy of W&M Law School)

Writing his latest book on the First Amendment his fourth in 10 years William & Mary Law ProfessorTimothy Zickdecided to try something a little different. His new volume would be slimmer, more accessible to general audiences, and ripped from the latest headlines.

And as of Oct. 28, its also in eager readers hands.

InThe First Amendment in the Trump Era,Zick, the John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship at William & Mary Law School, not only examines the growing number of First Amendment controversies in the past three years, but also connects present concerns to episodes throughout American history. He also relates recent First Amendment controversies to the concept of dissent.

Indeed, dissent looms large, beginning when Zick dedicates his book to all the noisy dissenters past, present, and future.

Zick believes that dissenters deserve a significant amount of credit for doing the hard work of checking governments and influencing citizens, often at considerable cost to their own safety and livelihoods. Although he has not chosen the path of activism, Zicks First Amendment scholarship highlights public contention and dissent.

I am a true believer in the power of dissent to facilitate social, political and constitutional change, Zick said.

Zick wrote his most recent book with minimal legal jargon or extensive discussions of cases or doctrines. He wants it to be read by people whether they support the current president or not.

I think the principles involved in the lessons Im drawing to the current era are useful to know and to embrace regardless of your partisan stripe, Zick said. I didnt want to write a book that was anti-Trump so much as pro-First Amendment.

Cracks in that amendment were forming well before the 2016 election, the result of what Zick refers to as preexisting conditions. Among them were the weakening of the institutional press, heightened political polarization, the rise of the Internet and the distrust of experts and institutionsall of which the President took advantage of when the time arose.

Digitized culture gives you democratic speech cheap and efficient speech, Zick said. But it also gives you a culture that trades on instant conflict, hate and take-downs; its a very mixed bag. Zick added, Trump is an archetype of the erahyper-communicative, hyper-combative and deeply polarizing.

Witnessing increasingly strident speech before and during the 2016 campaign, Zick knew a book was imminent. He noted that candidate Trump incited his supporters to rough up protesters, promised to open up the libel laws, and even proposed shutting down parts of the Internet to thwart terrorists. Many of these themes and patterns continued after Trump became president.

As of a year into his presidency, I thought there was already enough material for a book, Zick said. And the President just kept on talkingand tweeting.

With more and more examples piling up after the publication of the book, and the possibility of a second Trump administration, Zick does not rule out a second edition with, at the very least, an updated introduction or prologue.

I dont know if Trump will emphasize new themes or issues if he is re-elected or just go back to the old attacks, Zick said, So you just might get more examples of things that I point out in the book. Even so, the presidents views on free press and speech, and those of his supporters, are worth examining.

As noted, this book is very different from Zicks previous works. His other books include, Speech Out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Places, The Cosmopolitan First Amendment: Protecting Transborder Expressive and Religious Liberties and The Dynamic Free Speech Clause: Freedom of Speech and Its Relation to Other Constitutional Rights. These books were written primarily for academic audiences. The current book is aimed at a much broader audience and is about events happening in real time.

Its happening in front of you, and that poses challenges for trying to write with some dispatch, but it also means that the book connects to current and timely concerns, Zick said.

Pondering an audience beyond the academy, Zick hopes that readers will learn about the many misperceptions people have about the First Amendment. Its one thing, for example, for a president to speak about a subject from a bully pulpit, Zick says, but its quite another for him to coerce others or regulate speech.

And then there is the misunderstanding about the press in general the idea that there is a separate Constitutional provision the Free Press Clause that gives the institutional press a broad set of rights or immunities. The reality is that the institutional press does not generally have any special rights and privileges. The press rests on far shakier constitutional ground than many Americans realize.

I think its important to remember that the press has always been both problematic and essential, Zick says. Its always had excesses like any other institution, but its also been critically important to self-government, the search for truth, and other First Amendment values.

Above all, Zick hopes readers learn about the value of dissent. He notes that noisy dissent has long been considered part of the American ethos, but the reality is that the citizenry have an increasingly low tolerance for opinions that they dont agree with, from those who attend Trump rallies to students on college campuses.

Although headlines seem more clamorous as a new election looms, Zick nevertheless feels cautiously optimistic, particularly given the evidence that people still exercise their right to disagree and disrupt. He cites as examples the March for Life, the Womens March after the 2016 election, and protests at airports after the initiation of the Muslim travel ban.

These were pockets that suggest dissent is very much alive, and people havent caved into efforts to suppress public contention, Zick said.

Early reviews of The First Amendment in the Trump Era have been favorable. Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, says the book makes a truly important contribution to our understanding of the contemporary First Amendment. Nadine Strossen, the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School and past president of the ACLU, calls the book a must read and says, Zicks book shows how the lessons of the past can helpfully guide us through the unique First Amendment challenges we face today.

Zick says his next project might be about public protests. In the meantime, he is enjoying talking about his latest book and sharing it with others.

I have friends and neighbors who are reading it, and asking questions, Zick says. Those conversations have been gratifying, and I hope others will learn about the First Amendment by reading the book.

Zick graduatedsumma cum laudefrom Indiana University andsumma cum laudefrom Georgetown University Law Center, where he received the Francis E. Lucey, S.J. Award for graduating first in his class. While at Georgetown, he was a Notes and Comments editor of theGeorgetown Law Journal. Following law school, he was an associate with the law firms of Williams and Connolly in Washington, D.C., where he assisted in the defense of congressional term limits in the Supreme Court of the United States, and Foley Hoag in Boston.

Zick served as a law clerk to the Honorable Levin H. Campbell of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He also served as a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the United States Department of Justice, where he defended the constitutionality and legality of a variety of federal programs and statutes.

A frequent commentator in local, national, and international media regarding public protests and other First Amendment concerns, Zick testified before Congress on the Occupy Wall Street protests and rights of free speech, assembly and petition. He received the Plumeri Award for Faculty Excellence in 2011, 2013 and 2017.

Always be informed. Click here to get the latest news and information delivered to your inbox

See the article here:
W&M professor's new book examines the First Amendment in the Trump era - WYDaily

CharlesDickensunwittingly described our current political situationwhen writingA Tale of Two Cities:It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness.

United States citizens live in an age of unprecedented rights. Our Supreme Court in 2015upheld the right for gay people to get married.Recently,civil asset forfeitureis being reconsidered, and theapparatuses supporting the war on drugs arebeginning to be dismantled.The currentgenerationhas upheldtheimportance of Miranda Rightsin Florida v. Powelland more broadly questioned the importance of the police state. Thecourts agree that speech includes the right to spend money onadvertising ideasand that corporationsalso are entitled tospeechprotection.This generation realizes that patriotism should not stifle dissent. In fact,the United States Supreme Court recognizes in Snyder v. Phelps that one isevenable tolegallypicket a service members funeral.More charter schoolsare becoming another school choicefor poorer Americansand,as a result,are producing better-educated students.The death penalty is illegal in 21 states,andthe First Step Act is a good start to sentencing reform. In many ways, were living in the best of times.

On the other hand,all is not well in theUnited States. Thecurrent president workedvigorouslyto deport millions of undocumented immigrants, wanted to use extreme vetting of Muslim immigrants and tried toencouragea Muslim registry. His efforts todecry independent mediaandhis support for the death penalty andfor unconstitutionalstop-and-friskpoliciesaredisgustingremnants of a worse time.However, thedandyDemocratsare no lesser of a poison.Rather than condemn authoritarianism, the DemocraticParty has looked toward ways of making power polite.ElizabethWarrens specific brand of economic populism callsfor wealth taxes,which will increasegovernment intrusion into the lives of citizens ina way never before seen. Additionally, Warren calls for eliminating charter schools,which primarily benefit poorer children,while ironicallysending her son to a private school. OtherDemocratic darlingslikeBetoORourke claim that theyre forcibly going to be taking guns from the American populace.

Outside the larger political scene, First Amendment rights have been largely upheldby the Supreme Courtin the 2010s.Janus v. AFSCME successfully argued that labor unions collecting fees fromnon-union members violates the First Amendment provisions relating to free association and freedom of speech.In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court upheld the right of conscience relating to artistic and religious freedom. In 2017, Lee v. Tam upheld the right of trademarking an offensive name.In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, the freedom to be associated with a religious group does not make one ineligible for government benefits and thus upholds free association.Another landmark win for free expression took place in 2017 whenPackinghamv. North Carolina struck down the statute that prohibited sex offenders from accessing social media. In Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, tax breaks and grants were further allowed to be given to churches and other religious organizations. Furthermore, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Schoolv. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission established that discrimination laws do not apply to organizations selections of religious leaders. In 2012 notably, United States v. Alvarez struck down exceptions to the First Amendment relating to stolen valor.

The trend through the 2010s showsan increasingly broad look on rights. By denying restrictions on churches, free assembly, artistic freedom, etc.,we strengthen the values of dissent and discourse that allow our country to thrive.

However, outsideof the Supreme Courtthe First Amendment has fared worse.Former PresidentBarackObama actively encouraged IRS action against conservative nonprofit organizations. In 2013, journalists protested the exclusion of press photographers from news events and criticized the first amendment case of Citizens United. Thats not to say that our current president has done any better.President Trump frequently bashes the mediaas fake news andwants to change libel laws. Also, our students are increasingly hostile to freedom of speech. According to a Brookings Institution poll, 40% of students believe the Constitution does not protecthate speech. Nineteen percentof students said that physical violence is an acceptable way to deal with offensive speech,and 50% of students said the appropriate response to speech they disagree with is to shut it down.

Overall, while the First Amendment is increasingly being upheld by higher courts, the cultureand political will upholding expressionhas weakenedand needs to be bolstered.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual writers in the opinion section do not reflect the views and opinions of The Daily Campus or other staff members. Only articles labeled Editorial are the official opinions of The Daily Campus.

See the rest here:
First Amendment rights in the 2010s - UConn Daily Campus

PLAINVILLE The state says justices should reject a petition by Michelle Carter to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, because there is no First Amendment issue to decide in the landmark texting-suicide case.

Lawyers for Michelle Carter, 23, who is currently in jail serving a 15-month sentence, argued that her text messages and calls were protected free speech and that she was not responsible for the suicide of Conrad Roy III.

In their response filed last month, the state Attorney Generals office says the courts verdict in Carters speech is consistent with previous decisions by the nations highest court regarding speech integral to criminal conduct.

Inasmuch as petitioners wanton or reckless conduct causing Roys death was carried out by speech, that speech was therefore un-protected because it was integral to the commission of involuntary manslaughter, according to the state attorneys generals response.

Carter filed what is called a certiorari petition. Experts say the court accepts about 1.2 percent of the petitions they receive.

Roy, 18, of Mattapoisett, killed himself in July 2014 by breathing in toxic carbon monoxide from a gas-powered water pump in placed in his pickup truck. Carter, then a 17-year-old at King Phillip Regional High School, was at her Plainville home at the time and spoke twice by phone to Roy in addition to text messages.

Before Roys suicide, prosecutors argued that Carter and Roy shared an intimate online relationship over several months and that she coerced him into killing himself.

Presiding over Carters jury-waived trial, Taunton Juvenile Judge Lawrence Moniz ruled that Carter caused Roys death when she instructed him to get back in his truck as it was filling with toxic gas after he changed his mind about killing himself.

Carter told friends she could hear the motor from the water pump and Roy moaning before he stopped responding to her calls.

The state Supreme Judicial Court unanimously upheld her conviction in a landmark decision criticized by free speech advocates and legal scholars.

In the state attorney generals 29-page response, it argued that the SJCs decision was correct.

The document was written by state Attorney General Maura Healey, state Solicitor Elizabeth Dewar and assistant attorney general Maria Granick, argues that the justices should deny Carters petition.

In the response, Healey also argued that Carters due process rights were not violated and that the states manslaughter statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct.

Carters lawyers also argued the state SJC created a conflict with at least three other state supreme courts about the application of the First Amendment in such circumstances. But the attorney generals office said there is no conflict. Carter was convicted in 2017 and sentenced in February. Earlier this year, a former Boston College student was indicted by a Suffolk County grand jury for involuntary manslaughter in a similar texting suicide case.

David Linton may be reached at 508-236-0338.

Read the original post:
State argues there is no First Amendment issue in Michelle Carter case - The Sun Chronicle