Mediaboss Marketing

New Delhi: Retired Supreme Court judge Deepak Gupta on Friday condemned the use of sedition laws to curb dissent, saying no party is immune to criticism.

He was speaking at a webinar on Our Right to Dissent that was conducted by the Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum in association with digital legal news portal LiveLaw. Justice Gupta, senior advocate Rebecca John and advocate Chitranshul Sinha were the keynote speakers in conversation with advocates Ritu Bhalla and Manali Singhal. Advocates Arundhati Katju and Swaty Singh Malik were also part of the press conference.

Justice Gupta said that the experiences of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi, who faced sedition cases during the British Raj, would have ensured that the law of sedition would not exist in independent India.

Also Read: How Bal Gangadhar Tilaks 1897 Trial Marked the Criminalisation of Dissent

Disaffection is such a broad term that anything could amount to sedition. Our democracy gives us the right to freedom of speech and expression. Right to dissent is a hallmark of democracy. Even if one party comes into power, it is not immune to criticism and right to dissent allows such criticism, he said.

He continued, Look at the conviction rate, it is so low. Ones reputation is destroyed even if one is not convicted. There can be no progress if we stifle dissent. In the last 9-10 years, we have lost our sense of humour. Even today, Im scared to share or crack a joke even with someone close to me because they might find it offensive.

He further said that people should get together instead of getting divided. In response to whether the Supreme Court should take up cognisance of stifling of right to dissent and not be a mute spectator, Justice Gupta said that suo moto cannot be taken up in every case. The Supreme Court cannot take up suo moto in every case. But, I do believe that high courts should take up the cause. They are entitled to do so. Manali Singhal now refers to how her daughter Shreya Singhal was of the same age as Disha Ravi when she had challenged Section 66A of the IT Act and that any dissent against the government is seen as anti-national now, he said.

Justice Gupta warned against tarnishing the image of the entire judiciary. He said, You do more harm to this movement by tarnishing the entire judiciary because of some aberrations. There are good judgments coming and there are bad judgments coming. It has always happened.

Justice Deepak Gupta. Photo: Wikipedia

Jail is rule, bail is exception

Senior advocate Rebecca John said that currently, the legal doctrine of bail is rule, jail is exception has been reversed. Talking about the provision of bail under UAPA, she said that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA makes getting bail a virtual impossibility, and how the exceptions in such cases have become the norm. Why is bail treated as the be-all and end-all of criminal law? I would say everybody is entitled to bail, she added.

She also said that after FIRs were filed against journalists in connection with the death of a farmer during the Republic Day tractor parade,many journalists have become wary of putting out stories or tweets.

John said, As a lawyer what Im doing is looking at articles written by journalists because now they seek opinion before they publish them just in case they are not violating any laws. I have senior journalists send me their tweets before they put it out. What kind of regime is this? Surely we have thicker skin than this and can look at criticism, even the most extreme kind, a bit more constructively, she said, adding that people are being punished by laws such as the UAPA for their dissent.

On the arrest of Ravi, she said that there are lacunae in the legality of procedures that went into her remand and police custody. She said, I dont understand, when she had her lawyer of choice, why was he not brought in. There was no transit remand order also taken. The Delhi high court order of 2019 categorically states that transit remand order is required, unless exigencies exist.

Priya Ramani with senior advocate Rebecca John. Photo: Twitter/@AnooBhu

Agreeing with Justice Gupta, she said, He rightly said that remand is a judicial function. Its the first important function a magistrate performs when it comes to a criminal case. There is a lack of application of mind which happens at this stage. I cannot emphasise enough the need for magistrates to carefully look into FIRs, case diaries and high court rules and orders to see whether remand is needed or not. Why is it that intrinsically these judicial functions are treated casually?

She added, This is happening in Delhi and not in some obscure corner in India that the magistrate doesnt realise that these are bailable offences. She added that personal liberty is intrinsically linked with procedural law and if one does not follow the procedural law, there will be a great breach of liberty and right of that individual to a fair trial.

Also read: Right to Protest Cannot Be Anytime and Everywhere: SC on Shaheen Bagh Protests

Advocate Chitranshul Sinha said that the Kedar Nath Singh judgment is not being followed by the police. Giving the example of Uttar Pradesh, when some Kashmiri students who apparently supported the Pakistan cricket team were booked under sedition, he said, Sedition is an offence against the state. But, you see individuals coming forward claiming that the State is feeling threatened because of the acts of some people. Whatever anyone might say, our democracy is not that brittle. The right to dissent is the most important one, and there is no democracy without it. Dissent is in fact a duty.

Follow this link:
'Right to Dissent Is Hallmark of Democracy, Allows Criticism of Govt': Retired SC Judge - The Wire

President Joe Biden will "take a virtual trip to Europe" with a pair of high-profile engagements aimed at restoring the United States' place on the global stage, after what he views as its absence during President Donald Trump's years in office, according to a senior Biden administration official.

In his remarks to an international security conference and to the leaders of the world's major industrialized nations on Friday, Biden planned to make a case for multilateralism, the official said -- in stark contrast to Trump's nationalist approach to the world, which the former president termed "America First."

And in a nod to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol and the policies of the president's predecessor, Biden would "acknowledge that democracy is under stress, democratic institutions are under stress, under challenge in the United States" as they are elsewhere, the official told reporters Thursday evening.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken listens as President Joe Biden delivers remarks to State Department staff, Feb. 4, 2021, in Washington.

"We have learned actually over the course of the past four years, that democracy, as he will put it, doesn't happen by accident -- that we have to work at it, that we need to fight for it," the official said.

But, the official added, "the focus of his speech tomorrow is not Donald Trump or what's happened over the last four years."

Speaking first to a virtual meeting of the leaders of the Group of Seven nations, Biden will commit to addressing three "immediate" global crises, according to the official: the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic crisis and climate change.

Later Friday morning, he plans to argue via video teleconference to attendees of the annual Munich Security Conference "that democracy is the model that can best meet the challenges of our time," the official said.

"He will get the opportunity as president of the United States, early in his term, to declare that America is back and the transatlantic alliance is back," the official said.

A health worker holds a dose during a vaccination drill before the arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine at Patio Bonito Tintal hospital on Jan. 26, 2021, in Bogota, Colombia.

Part of that recommitment to the world will include an announcement that the U.S. will donate $4 billion to a global initiative to distribute vaccine doses to poor countries, the White House said Thursday. That money had been allocated by Congress in December but had not yet been donated.

Rolling back Trump's nationalist policies has already become a hallmark of Biden's short time at the White House. And on Friday he plans to make clear his markedly different approach to Russia, China and Iran, the official told reporters.

After Trump approached Russia gingerly, Biden "will specifically talk to what he believes is a concerted effort by the Kremlin to to carry out a strategy to discredit, undermine and destabilize democracies," the official said.

And while Trump launched a combative, bilateral trade war with China, Biden will pursue a multilateral approach to trying to put an end to China's "non-market-oriented policies and practices," according to the official.

On Thursday, the State Department said it was open to talks with Iran about its nuclear program and the official said Biden planned to echo that message Friday.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the World Health Organization attends a news conference on the outbreak of coronavirus disease in Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 12, 2021.

"We are keen to sit down and hear what the Iranians have to say," the official said. "We want to come up with a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear program. And let's get to work."

Biden also planned to "touch on Afghanistan," as he faces questions about whether he will abide by an agreement with the Taliban and withdraw U.S. troops in the coming months, according to the official, who did not provide more details of what the president would say.

Biden's remarks will build upon his actions in office so far.

He has returned the United States to international agreements and organizations his predecessor left -- including the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord, which the U.S. will officially become a party to again on Friday after Trump had pulled it out.

As a candidate, Biden promised to return the U.S. to its position "at the head of the table," restoring it as a world leader on issues ranging from climate change to transnational terrorism. He argued that Trump had ceded that role to other nations during his four years in office.

Read the original here:
Biden to 'acknowledge' democracy 'under stress' in US, as he tries to restore place on global stage: Official - ABC News

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, theorists once thought democracy was both optimal and inevitable. After decades of democratic backsliding, this proved far too optimistic. So was the global perception of the Chinese Communist Partys (CCP) future path. The champions of engagement policies thought that by interacting with China, enhancing economic ties, binding them with international agreements, and then coupling them with a stronger middle class and the pursuit of the rule of law in the country, China would be free and democratic eventually.

It has not happened. On the contrary, China moved the world toward a much more autocratic system. Even so, the world has been reluctant to face reality: Western democracies wishful thinking led to the rise of authoritarianism and the decline of democracy. Theorists who once advocated appeasement strategies bear the responsibility of mending it and redirecting the free world to a position far more capable of combating authoritarianism. This starts with a proper strategy toward China and by treating the crisis of democracy as a global problem that demands coordinated global action.

The 2020 Varieties of Democracy report found that 2020 was the first time since 2001 that the world has more autocratic institutions than democratic ones. Increasing autocracy threatens the rights of people in every corner of the world. This is a global emergency that awaits a coordinated response from the free world.

The decline in democracy means the lack of democratically accountable governments, resulting in increased corruption, human rights violations, and conflict. Like poverty, hunger, and climate emergencies, citizens suffer under autocratic systems. Yet the world lacks the willingness to tackle it like other global problems. Although there is humanitarian assistance worldwide to fight hunger and internationally orchestrated actions to decrease carbon emissions, the international community has not found a vision for how democracy can prevail after the delusional dreams of the end of history failed. The West walked the wrong path and fed the rise of authoritarianism by engaging them without accountabilityits time for action to repair these mistakes.

When the military coup took place in Myanmar, global leaders joined hands to condemn it and demand democratic rights for people. At the same time, China defended the coup by claiming it a major cabinet reshuffle. The Thai junta also claimed the coup was an internal affair and others should not intervene. Authoritarian countries have abused the concept of sovereignty to evade the most basic monitoring from the rule-based international community and commit appalling human rights violations without being held accountable. Countries that are similar support one another, hence why autocracies grow. With China leading the way and Russia following closely, the world is faced with a camp of tyrants who despises universal value.

To tackle authoritarian expansion, the free world and its supporters have to consolidate their efforts and align their goals. It comes with a shift in perception: China is a threat to democracy, and the decline of democracy affects everyone, the same as with climate emergencies and public health crises. Democratic leaders must form alliances to discuss possible policies that can effectively curb the influence of these authoritarian regimes, including blocking their infiltration and propaganda.

When it comes to policy aimed at the CCP, policymakers have to understand how the regimes legitimacy is built. The two major sources of legitimacy are nationalism and economic benefits, instead of a popular mandate. In China, where a large part of the population has enjoyed material gains and is caught in the fanatical rhetoric of patriotism, the public invisibly signed a social contract and tacitly allowed the autocracy to grow. Occasional resistance movements have occurred in China but with, at best, limited influence.

But with the economy slowing and the prospect of being caught in the middle-income trap apparent, the CCP has to develop a new source of legitimacy to compensate. Nationalism must be boosted for the party to survive, and the best way to do it is by creating mythical, glorified national narratives and establish enemies. Thus came the emergence of wolf warrior diplomacy, and a leader, Chinese President Xi Jinping, who ranks unifying (or annexing) Taiwan as the primary mission of achieving national rejuvenation and revoking a century of humiliation. Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaopings mantra of biding Chinas time has gone, and a nation that aims at creating an authoritarian global order has arisen.

When China becomes more aggressive on the international stage, the sole correct response is not appeasing the country but standing firm. This barbaric conduct, including genocide in Xinjiang and the suppression of Hong Kong, must result in economic punishment. This can create a vicious cycle for the CCP; the weaker the economy is, the more aggressive the nationalism will become and the greater the partys isolation will grow, sparking more economic problems. When the cycle spirals, the CCP will need to find a different source of legitimacy, an additional incentive for the people to support the intangible social contract.

Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasant workers would face unemployment problems when the country is stuck in the middle-income trap. The overloaded social benefits system with its aging population, originated by the one-child policy, would start to crack. And the extreme wealth gap has driven more conflicts across social strata. Even though the party declares it has lifted the country from poverty, more than 600 million people still live with an income under $155 per month, and Chinese incomes are below the global average per capita.

Its seemingly invincible economic engine, fueled by the successful transition to modernity over the last four decades, has disguised the genuine face of China. Yet, a country is always fragile when it has to rely on its economic performance to suppress peoples voices. The West should separate the hardworking and honest Chinese people from the regime and trust they will pursue freedom when the time and conditions have come. When the people realize there is a need for them to reshape their relationship with the CCP, that will lead to reform and to a more democratic and freer future.

To reverse the decline of global democracy, the first step is to hold the strongest authoritarian regime accountable, putting pressure on it to seek a new popular mandate from its own people. Democratic leaders should form alliances and implement coherent strategies that put human rights policies as preconditions of further engagement. Trade agreements should be signed only after China has demonstrated tangible and visible enhancement on its human rights record, such as abolishing all the concentration camps in Xinjiang. Divide and conquer efforts run by China, such as the 17+1 initiative, should be reviewed rigorously and opposed if necessary. Chinese state actions should be scrutinized or banned if they threaten core interests in democratic countries, and individuals affiliated with the CCP should be treated as their complicit colluders.

In this intertwined and globalized world, its impractical to form wholly detached blocs. But for the sake of the Chinese people and the future of democracy, the free world must do its best. Whether through decoupling or divergence, the regimes legitimacy must be continually challenged and have limits set on its influence. International bodies like the World Health Organization and the United Nations should be reformed as most of them are compromised by Chinas infiltration and have abandoned universal values in favor of acting in Beijings interests.

I still believe that democracy prevails, but it relies on consolidated efforts from individuals and institutions that believe in it. If we dont walk the walk, we will regret handing future generations a more autocratic world. Perception drives actions. Its time for the West to recognize the decline of democracy as a global problem and resolve it with international action. The Wests misjudgment fed the rise of the largest threat to democracy, and it must bear the responsibility of restraining it.

Read the original:
Engagement Created China's Threat to Democracy Worldwide - Foreign Policy

At a Wednesday House Appropriations Committee hearing, the Secretary of States Office testified in opposition to a bill that would permit the use of ranked choice voting in local elections. At the same hearing, proponents of the bill said ranked choice voting is a pro-democracy reform that will strengthen elections and faith in government.

Under a ranked choice voting system, voters may rank multiple candidates in order of preference. For single-winner elections, votes are tabulated using a method called instant runoff voting. After voters first-choice votes are tabulated, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated. Subsequently, votes for the eliminated candidate are transferred to the next ranked candidate on those ballots. Votes are retallied, and the process continues until one candidate reaches a winning threshold.

The method gets a bit more complicated in elections for multiple-member offices. After the winning threshold is calculated based on the number of seats to be filled and the number of votes cast, ballots are counted in rounds and votes are transferred to candidates based on who has been eliminated and who has passed the winning threshold.

Jay Jennings, Legislative Director for the Secretary of States Office said the bill, sponsored by Rep. Kirsten Harris-Talley (D Seattle) would result in diminished voter confidence.

House Bill 1156 encourages entirely new methods to be adopted in an unknown number of jurisdictions from school board members, city council members, port districts and the like. These are unpredictably spread throughout the state, sometimes in overlapping counties.

According to a legislative summary of the bill, here are a few the main provisions.

Jennings says the number of local jurisdictions and potential outcomes of elections within each will lead to voter confusion.

There are 1,086 eligible jurisdictions, so the number of possible permutations seems nearly infinite, Considering the potential number of variations, you may share our concern regarding voter confusion. As proposed, each of the governing bodies and jurisdictions could choose a new and slightly different method for casting ballots, and a new and slightly different algorithm to determine the outcome of an election. And all of this is to be presented on one ballot.

Jennings and another testifier also lamented what they say is a high cost burden up to $8.2 million for the Secretary of States Office. But Sharon Hanek, a testifier from Pierce County, said the bills fiscal note leaves out the costs for counties, which she says could involve upgrading or buying new tabulation machines, as well as increased labor costs associated with potential audits.

In 2006, Pierce County voted to implement ranked choice voting. But three years later, after the 2008 election, voters repealed the system. Some voters reportedly felt that it helped elect an unqualified assessor-treasurer.

Linda Brewster, Chair of the democratic reform organization, Fix Democracy First, said that the bills fiscal impact is a small price to pay for increased voter engagement.

Rather than being forced to choose what sometimes feels like the lesser of two evils, I could give voice to my priorities. I could better represent my concerns using this method. And voters feel more engaged is priceless. Its always a good thing. Itll increase voter turnout and decrease voter cynicism, said Brewster.

Another testifier, Kelsey Breseman, said the current voting system allows for discussions of policy in elections to be crowded out by concerns over electability.

Under our current system, it is considered hopelessly naive to use your conscience when exercising one of your primary civic duties. Having and using personal values is subsumed by this no-win game which is played at all levels of government. As a voter, instead of voting to represent your stances on issues, our current system requires folks to engage in guessing games redirecting critical conversations about issues and policy to endless discussions of who or what is electable. Do you feel manipulated? Because I do, said Breseman.

Supporters of ranked choice voting also say that it will decrease negative campaigning. A 2020 study by the University of Technology Sydney found that the introduction of ranked choice voting improved the civility of debates with candidates in some municipalities.

Municipalities in California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico and New York have implemented ranked choice voting in local elections. One state, Maine, has used it in statewide and federal elections. And in 2020, Alaska voters approved a ballot measure that will require use of ranked choice voting in future state and federal elections.

Supports say a reform like ranked choice voting meets the moment at hand for American democracy.

With ranked choice voting we have a chance to let citizens vote in ways that would represent their true values and stances, said Breseman. You can list your actual preferences instead of picking between two people you would not like to see hold office or throwing away your vote. This is critical to a restoration of trust in what is now a very beaten down America.

On Thursday, the House Appropriations Committee moved the bill out of executive session in a bipartisan, 22-11 vote.

According to a new release from FairVote Washington, the cities of Olympia, Bellingham, Gold Bar, Spokane, and Seattle have each declared support for HB 1156.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.

Read the original:
Advocates say ranked choice voting will restore trust in democracy; Secretary of State's Office opposes it - Washington State Wire

Even as our nation longs to put the trauma of the January insurrection behind, and to move on and deal with the pressing issues of a pandemic, there can be no moving on until the full story is told and all the attacks instigators and accomplices are held accountable.

And that cant happen until participants and witnesses are questioned under oath by an independent commission a group beholden to no one and to no political party.

If there is a way to unite a deeply divided nation around a set of truths, it is to delve into what happened on Jan. 6 and the days and months leading up to it to uncover all the facts, expose the guilty, and assure, to the extent possible, that the seat of government will never again be threatened.

Over last weekend, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a letter to her Democratic members, introduced the idea of a 9/11-style commission to protect our security.

Referencing the interim report prepared by retired Army Lieutenant General Russel Honor, assigned by Pelosi to assess Capitol security after the attack, the speaker wrote, It is clear from his findings and from the impeachment trial that we must get to the truth of how this happened.

Its an idea this editorial board proposed back on Jan. 8 as a sort of after action report on the events leading up to the attack, how it might have been prevented, and who was complicit in inciting the riot aimed at overturning a lawful election and the peaceful transition of power.

In the intervening days days in which more than 230 arrests have been made, new video released documenting the moments of horror and the full extent of the threat, and timelines drawn and redrawn even more questions have emerged.

Some of those might have been answered in the course of the Senate impeachment trial of former president Donald Trump had it not been short-circuited by the decision of House impeachment managers not to call witnesses.

And while their decision might have made no difference to the outcome, the nation should have heard from Republican Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler about her conversation with House minority leader Kevin McCarthy or better yet, from McCarthy himself. When telephoned in the middle of the riot by McCarthy, did Trump really say, Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are thus proving Trump refused to do anything to stop the riot?

There must still be an accounting for delays in deploying the National Guard and for the failure of the Capitol Police to prepare for what turned into a bloody onslaught.

There is still no definitive answer to whether any members of Congress led possible surveillance tours of the Capitol ahead of the insurrection for those later involved.

Yes, the list of people an independent inquiry can and should put under oath is a long one.

The 9/11 Commission took a long-overdue look at the roots of international terrorism and the ways in which the intelligence community was hampered by both laws and its own tradition of stovepiping intelligence that should have been shared. So, too, a Jan. 6 commission must take an equally hard look at domestic terrorism and the ways in which white supremacists and militia groups have been allowed to grow and prosper.

The words of the 9/11 Commission ring as true today as they did then: We did not grasp the magnitude of a threat that had been gathering over time.

The 9/11 Commission, created by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush, took nearly 21 months to complete its work, which included more than three dozen recommendations for policies and legislation aimed at preventing the next attack. Pelosi is absolutely right that a Jan. 6 commissions membership will be key bipartisan, above reproach, and small in number (the 9/11 Commission had only 10 members), with an abundance of staff.

Most Americans want answers answers they didnt get from a truncated impeachment process. The right-wing extremists who inspired and carried out the attack are still here, and Congress should not assume that the outrage of Jan. 6 cant happen again.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us on Twitter at @GlobeOpinion.

Continued here:
An assault on this democracy demands answers - The Boston Globe