Mediaboss Marketing

Islamists and liberals have now flocked to the defence of Javed Ahmed, the alleged mastermind of the Prayagraj riots, whose unlawfully constructed residence is set to be razed as per the competent authorities directives. Self-proclaimed intellectuals and activists like Sharjeel Usmani and Suchitra Vijayan stood up to the defence of Javed Ahmed, who has been arrested by the police over his role in the violence in Prayagraj on Friday.

Sharjeel Usmani resorted to Twitter to defend the riot-accused Ahmed whose unlawfully constructed home is being razed by authorities. Usmani defended the accused in a series of tweets. He even mentioned Javeds daughter, Afreen Fatima, who has beena JNU student and has periodically defended terrorists.

Usmani characterised the entire investigation and action by the Prayagraj Development Authority as revenge. In a tweet, he wrote, Afreen Fatima and her family is paying a price for who they are. This is dangerously cruel. This is a witch hunt. May Allah have his mercy on all the families who keep the wheels of struggle moving despite huge personal risks. May Allah protect them and all families. Ameen.

Similarly, intellectual Suchitra Vijayan came to Twitter to express her solidarity with Afreen Fatima and Javed Ahmed. Suchitra posted a tweet with the hashtag #StandWithAfreenFatima and a picture urging people to storm Twitter with additional hashtags such as #MuslimLivesMatter.

Rana Ayyub, a Washington Post columnist accused of financial fraud, also joined in to defend the family accused of instigating riots. Rana employed the same strategy to play the victim when wrongdoing is unearthed. Labeling the action by the authorities as oppression, she tweeted, Another day of Oppression in India. The injustices against #AfreenFatima ; the teenagers who were murdered for protesting, the brazen demolition of houses. Muslims in India are being made to pay for the international outrage.

Javed Ahmed, the accused mastermind of the riots in Prayagraj on June 10th, was detained by the Uttar Pradesh Police. On June 10, the Prayagraj Development Authority served hima notice to abandon the premises of his illegally constructed residence by 11 AM on June 12.

The notice was issued by the zonal officer of the Prayagraj Development Authority. According to the notice, the property in the Kareli Police Station area was erected illegally and without the consent of the competent authorities. A show-cause notice was issued in this regard on May 10 of this year.

As per the notice, Javed Ahmed failed to appear before the authority, thus the authority issued orders on May 25for the house to be self-demolished by June 9th. However, the authority discovered that the orders had not been observed and that the house had not been demolished, thereafter the authority issued this notice to evacuate the premises by June 12.

Go here to read the rest:
Islamists and liberals rally behind Prayagraj riots accused Javed Ahmed, call demolition of illegally constructed house vendetta - OpIndia

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Bill C-18 would force Google and Facebook parent Meta to share revenue with news publishers for their content

Publishing date:

Google discussed funding a lobbyist to represent a coalition of independent news publishers to help them push for changes to the Liberal governments Online News Act, the National Post has learned.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Google and Facebook parent-company Meta, the companies targeted by the Liberals Bill C-18, the Online News Act, are opposed to the bill. The legislation would force them to share revenue with news publishers for making news content available through their platforms. Google has publicly criticized the bill.

The coalition of smaller publishers, which says it represents more than 100 independent outlets, has raised its own concerns about the act, which is supported by many large, mainstream news organizations, including Postmedia, publisher of the National Post. The coalition last week issued an open letter outlining its concerns with the legislation, proposing several changes to the bill, including a transparent, universal funding formula and for compensation to be based on metrics such as direct editorial expenditures or number of journalists employed.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Independent publishers began discussing forming a coalition in response to Bill C-18 at the Google-hosted Newsgeist industry conference in Montreal last month, according to notes from that conversation circulated among coalition members.

It was at that same conference that the possibility of Google providing funding for a lobbyist for the group was discussed, the notes show.

Google has offered to fund a government relations consultant to help us have a voice at the table, the notes read. A majority of the group was in favour of accepting the funding at that first meeting, the notes indicate.

Googles offer to pay for a lobbyist was again discussed a few days later at a May 18 meeting of the coalition, where participants suggested approaching the independent-journalism advocacy group Press Forward to work with Google to hire a lobbyist and administer the funding. At least two participants expressed some doubts or opposition to accepting the money, according to the notes.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A majority of Press Forward members are also affiliated with the independent publishers coalition.

Press Forward ultimately declined the idea of accepting lobbyist funding from Google. Some members of the coalition asked Press Forward if it was interested in considering funding from Google to pay for a lobbyist, Press Forward chair Mike De Souza explained in an email response to a National Post inquiry. The board of Press Forward discussed this and rejected this proposal.

The Liberal government is fast-tracking Bill C-18 through the House of Commons. Google has reached out to each MP individually to express its concerns over the bill, as reported by The Canadian Press last week.

The notes from the first meeting also state that Aaron Brindle, a former Google executive, had offered to advise the independent publishers on a government relations strategy. Brindle, who now heads public affairs for investment firm Radical Ventures, was previously head of public affairs for Google Canada.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Brindle said in an email he has no formal role advising the coalition but noted that he is a former journalist and a close friend of one of the coalition members. I care deeply about the health of Canadas news ecosystem and support the coalitions calls for a more transparent and equitable version of Bill C-18. For this reason, I was happy to offer the coalition advice on how best to amplify their message.

The National Post contacted four members of the independent publishers coalition to ask about the Google funding proposal. In an emailed joint response from those four members, (and noting she was not speaking on behalf of other publishers or the coalition as a whole) Erin Millar, CEO of Discourse Media, said there was no formal offer from Google, but there was an informal discussion between two coalition members and Google about whether our coalition needed funding to support our efforts.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Asked whether the group is still considering accepting funding from Google, Millar said the coalition is a group of independent publishers who are free to make their own decisions about how best to represent their voices in the ongoing debate surrounding C-18. So we cant speculate about whether some may still be considering working with Google or not.

Millar said, there is no current proposal being considered that we are aware of.

Google argues that by requiring digital platforms to compensate news publishers for linking to their content, the bill would violate critical principles of the internet. The ability to link freely between websites is fundamental to how the internet works, Google said in a blog post last month, which also argued the bill gives the CRTC too much power over the news industry and that C-18 could create a lower standard for journalism in Canada.

Google had some conversations about supporting smaller publishers efforts on the bill, according to the company, but there was no formal offer from Google to the coalition and the company isnt currently providing any support to the coalition.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Originally posted here:
Google offered to fund lobbyist for small publishers unhappy with Liberals' online news bill - National Post

As the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, liberals are left wondering what more could have been done to protect it, with some questioning whether its easier to get Democrats to fight for a particular constitutional right or policy change than to defend one.

Activists are experienced at advocating for policies they believe are crucial to improving Americans quality of life, from universal health care to student loan relief and affordable housing. Many have pushed to advance those items with support from a vocal bloc of liberal lawmakers.

But when it comes to defending a womans right to choose a court assurance that has been on the books since the early 1970s the party has struggled to make traction before the draft majority decision leaked last month exposed a major threat.

In general, progressives embrace aspirational policy because they come from communities with long-running inequities and disparities, said one Democratic aide who advises left-wing members of Congress.

As a politician, if you defend the status quo, when the people you represent feel left behind by status quo policy, then youre likely going to be outflanked.

A closely watched congressional primary runoff in Texas this week was a good case study. The last standing House Democrat opposed to abortion, Rep. Henry Cuellar, declared victory by fewer than 200 votes against progressive attorney Jessica Cisneros, who hasnt yet conceded due to outstanding ballots.

Cuellars anti-abortion rights stance was not enough for Democratic voters to resoundingly reject him. Moreover, he has the full support of House leadership, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) making calls on his behalf.

In the end, the issue doesnt appear to have been a massive factor in the race.

Some behavioral scholars, however, say that the fear of having something taken away can be a driving force in peoples decision making.

In general, psychological research suggests that human beings are prone to negativity bias that is, we react more strongly to negative developments than to positive developments of the same intensity, said Christopher Federico, a psychology and political science professor at the University of Minnesota. Even when a negative event and positive event are of the same magnitude, the negative event will affect our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors more strongly than the positive event.

Federico said that phenomenon is evident regarding abortion.

The threat of disliked policy changes is more politically motivating than the prospective of liked policy changes,hesaid. This would lead us to predict that the looming threat to abortion rights will eventually motivate more political involvement than the other issues where the focus is on obtaining a policy gain over and above the status quo.

A similar scenario played out just a few years back. When Republicans were working to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA),activists led the fighton keeping it intact, including activating a new base of supporters.

Defending the ACA from being gutted was a big part of our early history as a movement, said Emily Phelps, national press secretary at Indivisible, a grassroots organization that came of age during that time.

Some priorities, however, are easier to champion than others.

After back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y. and Uvalde, Texas, advocates and Democrats on Capitol Hill again called for measures to restrict the harm caused by firearms. But its unclear if anything can pass the 50-50 Senate. A pair of moderate senators remain opposed to ending the filibuster, leaving some to feel already defeated.

In the Cuellar race, leadership supported the candidate with an A rating from the NRA, further muddying the issue.

There is a chasm between what Democrats say they will fight for and what theyll do, said Angelo Greco, a progressive communications operative. Gun reform, abortion, minimum wage.

On the one hand you have leadership saying we must do everything possible to protect a womans right to choose, yet they were doing robocalls for an anti-choice, pro-NRA Democrat in Texas.

Republicans, on the flip side, have long used their bases enthusiasm for gun rights to notch electoral gains.

Theres arguably no perfect parallel to an issue that inspires Democrats as strongly. They have, however, seen signs of traction on desired policy changes.

The push to partially cancel student loan debt has been a focus for many on the left who believe it can be achieved before November. They say that Biden has the authority to forgive at least some federal loans for borrowers by using his executive action authority, rather than relying on Congress.

As recently asthis week, White House officials said they are looking carefully into what can be done from the Oval Office. If some cancellation happens, progressives are expected to take a victory lap.

And other wishful fights also inspire the partys base.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) first rose to national prominence by campaigning on a progressive platform that included Medicare for All and raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. While neither has materialized, they remain critical to the discussion about Democrats direction and ideology, and progressives see them as helping move the party left. While Biden never pushed for universal health care, he ran as the Democratic presidential nominee on a $15 minimum wage, a policy that some believe helped him edge out Trump.

Democrats have also seen success on unions. Biden pledged to be staunchly pro-union in office, and under his administration a variety of aligned organizations such as the Democratic National Committee and the DemocraticCongressional Campaign Committeehave unionized. Pelosi says she supports congressional staffers long-stated desire to form a union.

The fight to protect abortion has been much murkier.

Voters are just waking up to the fact that the Republican campaign to end legal abortion was not just campaign rhetoric,Cecile Richards, the former president of Planned Parenthood who co-chairs the Democratic firm American Bridge, told The Hill.

Voters have their own personal feelings about abortion and dont believe it is right for government and politicians to intervene in personal decisions about pregnancy, she said.That is true across geography, party and background.

Polling suggests the leak has not dramatically changed public opinion. A majority of Americans are in favor of Democrats attitudes over abortion, according to a new Reuters/Ipsospollreleased this week.

But when considering how likely the issue is to move voters, especially ahead of the midterms, some Democrats are more skeptical.

Is it easy? In rhetoric, yes, said Greco. But whos actually putting it all on the line for the policy fights?

Continue reading here:
Liberals find it can be easier to fight for causes than defend them - The Hill

Former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour, second from right, releases the final report of an independent review into sexual misconduct in the Canadian military, in Ottawa on May 30, 2022. Also in attendance is Minister of National Defence Anita Anand, Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre and Deputy Minister of National Defence Bill Matthews.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

The story Louise Arbour tells about the militarys handling of sexual misconduct is a tale of an insular organization so resistant to change and outside ideas that it needs external actors to monitor its behaviour on many levels.

That goes beyond moving the prosecution of criminal sexual offences to the civilian justice system to having the Canadian Human Rights Commission handle cases of sexual harassment in the military, appointing an external monitor to review progress in the Canadian Armed Forces, and maybe even scrapping Canadas military colleges.

Thats needed, Ms. Arbour tells us, because the military has a long history of responding to reports and recommendations with a flurry of activity that ticks off boxes to claim things are being done, while little real change occurs. That happened after the Somalia inquiry in the 1990s, the former Supreme Court justice reported, and that happened after former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps delivered a shocking report on sexual misconduct in the military in 2015.

Yet this tale still leaves one wondering about the folks who were supposed to be providing external oversight to the military all along, but didnt: the government. In particular, that means Justin Trudeaus Liberal government and his defence minister from 2015 to 2021, Harjit Sajjan.

Now, it is a good thing Mr. Trudeau seemed to recognize this failing, albeit under the duress of political controversy. His government appointed Ms. Arbour. A new minister, Anita Anand, was tasked with delivering reform.

Better late than never. Maybe.

The problem now is that Mr. Trudeau and his ministers still dont seem to have found the guts to oversee the military. You know beyond rhetoric. It is a basic duty of the government of the day to ensure civilian control of the military, but the Liberals have been too distracted, and too scared, to exert control.

They feared digging into the details of military matters Mr. Sajjan didnt even seem to think it was his job and stirring up disputes with generals that promised more political headaches than rewards. But by now, after a mountain of allegations of sexual misconduct against high-ranking officers, youd think there isnt much choice.

On Monday, it wasnt clear the fear is gone. Or that the pattern that Ms. Arbour decried the military responding with a flurry of activity, and bodies, and paper directives that dont really change much wont be repeated.

Ms. Anand said she accepted all the recommendations in Ms. Arbours report, but she deployed a significant amount of bafflegab to cloud the fact she wasnt actually committing to implement all of them.

She said she would immediately adopt about a third of them, 17, including appointing an external monitor. She said shed ask senior officers and officials for a plan on whether and when the rest can be put into practice. It turns out accepting isnt the same thing as doing.

Handing over complaints of non-criminal sexual harassment in the military to the Human Rights Commission? The brass wont be keen. Ms. Anand didnt commit. Will the government really consider closing the Kingston, Ont., and Saint-Jean, Que., military colleges? General Wayne Eyre, the Chief of the Defence Staff, suggested the brass is aligned with Ms. Arbours report on that. What does that mean? Theyll study it.

Governments dont have to accept every recommendation, of course. But the obfuscation, and vapid claims of alignment, are unsettling signs.

Luckily, Ms. Arbour, sitting beside Ms. Anand and Gen. Eyre at Mondays news conference, made a point of warning against the oft-repeated pattern of delay, deflect and dodge.

One of her recommendations is that Ms. Anand formally declare which recommendations she wont pursue. If something is not going to happen, lets just say it, Ms. Arbour said. She added that she is wary of recommending more oversight bodies because it detracts from the political responsibility of people like Ms. Anand.

That is the crucial element. And at this point, we still have to doubt the political will.

Ms. Anand delivered a seize-the-moment admonition that if things dont change in the Canadian Armed Forces now, Canada might end up with a military that cant fulfill its mission. But thats a warning that she should deliver to her fellow cabinet ministers, and Mr. Trudeau. After all, theyre supposed to be in charge.

For subscribers: Get exclusive political news and analysis by signing up for the Politics Briefing.

Read more from the original source:
Will the Liberals finally find the guts to oversee the military? - The Globe and Mail

OTTAWA An outspoken critic of the Liberal government's online streaming bill received funding from two of the biggest digital platforms in the world.

Scott Benzie, founder of Digital First Canada, told a parliamentary committee on Monday that his organization, which advocates for online creators, is partly funded by YouTube and TikTok.

The revelation prompted Liberal MP Chris Bittle, parliamentary secretary to Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez, to accuse Benzie of having an "extreme conflict of interest."

The MP said representing digital first creators while taking money from the platforms was "almost like starting a union and taking money from management."

Bittle also accused Benzie of concealing that he was funded by the platforms when he appeared before the committee previously.

Benzie, also the executive director of Digital First Canada, told the committee he had informed the Heritage Department he had received funding from platforms.

In an interview on Tuesday, Benzie said he had not tried to conceal that his organization received private funding. He said the money came from a store and the two platforms and totalled "less than $100,000."

"Mr Bittle took that time to attack the organization for something that he already knew and wasn't a secret," Benzie said in an interview. "It's not something that we were trying to hide."

He argued that the MP could have spent the time asking about the content of the bill instead.

Benzie said he set up Digital First Canada before receiving funding earlier this year from the platforms and was "going to do it anyway" and would be "doing this without them."

The advocate has been one of the most vocal critics of Bill C-11, which aims to modernize the Canadian Broadcasting Act to include streaming platforms such as Netflix and YouTube.

He has expressed concerns that the bill and its predecessor, known as C-10 and which failed to pass before the 2021 election, could apply to user-generated content, such as amateur videos posted on YouTube.

His opinions have been cited in the House of Commons by MPs, and the issue of user-generated content has become a central issue in debates about the bill, including in the heritage committee, which is currently scrutinizing C-11.

Benzie is registered to lobby the Heritage Department on legislation that would affect online content creators.

Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said Canada's online creators are "incredibly talented."

"Most of them are self-employed independent workers. Sadly, their livelihoods are in the hands of tech giants, who can deplatform, demonetize, demote or censor their content at will."

Benzie told the committee that most of the advocacy group's funding comes from the Toronto-based Buffer Festival, an annual event showcasing online video creators.

He said he disagreed with tech giants on various issues, including on the topic of more transparency of platforms' algorithms.

Both YouTube and TikTok said Digital First Canada has given a voice to online content creators.

"In both the C-11 and C-10 debate, digital creator voices were barely consulted or considered. Digital First Canada provided a forum to defend and raise their voices," said Lauren Skelly, YouTube spokesperson. "We support their efforts in defending Canadian creators during this critical time."

A spokesperson for TikTok said: "We're proud to support Digital First Canada's advocacy on behalf of independent online creators whose interests aren't otherwise represented by existing guilds or associations."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 31, 2022.

Marie Woolf, The Canadian Press

View post:
Vocal critic of Liberals' online streaming bill partly funded by YouTube and TikTok - Rocky Mountain Outlook - Bow Valley News