text:
Port of Spain Explores Spaces for Public Art After Controversial Crackdown · Global Voices
Flora Thomas

High Dynamic Range image of the northern side of the Queen's Park Savannah. Photo by Georgia Popplewell, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
The Queen's Park Savannah in Trinidad's capital, Port of Spain, is the city's biggest green space. Bordered by a running track, it is a popular destination for runners and other fitness enthusiasts. At Carnival time, the Savannah serves as the cultural centre for everything from the annual Panorama steel band competition to the Parade of the Bands. Adding to the local colour and charm of the Savannah are vendors, most of whom sell fresh coconut water and are a welcome sight for joggers who have just run a few laps (one complete Savannah is about 2.2 miles, or 3.5 kilometers).
Recently, a new vendor joined the group — artist Damian Agostini, a craftsman who works with wood (usually sourced from discarded trees). Much of his work is typical (stools, chairs, walking sticks) but he also constructs animals (horses, dogs, lions) that are quite whimsical. Agostini quickly became a regular fixture at the Savannah, so when, on April 20, 2017, the Port of Spain City Corporation seized and destroyed his sculptures because he had no legal right to display them there, social media rose up in his defence.
While most Internet users acknowledged that the artist was wrong for setting up shop without the proper permission, they also felt that the government's measures to remove him from the Savannah were too punitive. This evolved into a broader discussion of how the city could better accommodate artisans looking to ply their trade.
Twitter user Judy Raymond wrote:
There must be a way to help Damian Agostini Savannah Art & not just grumble on FB about how he was treated
— Judy Raymond (@heyjudeTT) April 21, 2017
Between Twitter, Facebook, and a Change.org petition, the online outcry was soon so intense that the city's new mayor apologised for the way the incident was handled, and promised to organise compensation for the destruction of Agostini's art.
Raymond confirmed this on Twitter:
Damian Agostini's number is being passed on to the mayor and the corporation is seeking a permanent solution for him.
— Judy Raymond (@heyjudeTT) April 21, 2017
This need for a “permanent solution” is not a new discussion. Wired868 reposted an article by journalist Sunity Maharaj, which she had written more than a year ago. In it, she called the then showdown between the Port of Spain City Corporation and food vendors at the Queen’s Park Savannah “the latest episode in the epic contestation between power and people that keeps the economy tied to its colonial past”:
If we are to give real meaning to such borrowed concepts as SMEs and make productive use of the millions spent on encouraging the micro and small business sector, we must rise to the unexpected, often difficult challenges posed by the unplanned, spontaneous emergence of business.
At the Savannah, there was a business opportunity which the micro business sector spotted and seized upon, triggering a series of challenges for the city and other agencies of the state.
If we believe what we’ve been saying for years — that small business is the route to developing a sustainable economy — then this moment, right here, right now, presents one important opportunity.
Of course, there were social media users for whom the issue was much more clear cut — for example, Facebook user Taran Rampersad declared:
I now classify my vehicle as art, and if anyone tows it when I park illegally, I expect all of you to rise up. After all, it's how I make my livelihood. I promise to cry.
In contrast, the Facebook page The Penal Poet, which provides quick commentary on an array of topics, didn't quite know what to make of the whole public official versus public art scenario:
Two days after Agostini's art was seized, fellow artists gathered at the Queen's Park Savannah to promote the message that art is critical for the development of society, and that spaces must be created to facilitate this. Agostini was subsequently able to retrieve at least four of the 15 pieces that were seized and there have been calls to give artists a dedicated space to display and sell their work in the capital city.
On Facebook, artist Darren Trinity Cheewah came up with an interesting idea:
i want to create art made of old refrigerators and display it at Queens park west since the police throwing away art here lets make art out of things that we have trouble throwing away like tires, used microwaves, galvanize etc.
For his part, Agostini is grateful for the outpouring of support. The whole experience even inspired him to set up his own Twitter account:
feeling great after all the love today thank u to stall, thank u all. thanks Daniel, Jesse and thank u Mayor
— damian agostini (@damianagostini1) April 22, 2017

author: Flora Thomas


text:
Russian Authorities Want Easy Access to Online Dating Logs · Global Voices
Kevin Rothrock

Image: Pixabay, edited by Kevin Rothrock
Do you hope to find love in Russia? If so, and you’re planning to use the Internet to meet people, the pursuit could be less private than you maybe hoped.
The Badoo dating network will soon be added to Russia's federal list of “information disseminators,” according to the website Roskomsvoboda, which monitors Internet freedom in Russia. This means that the dating site will be required to keep servers in Russia, where all Russian users’ data will be stored, so that the Federal Security Service and local law enforcement can have easier access to user data and communications logs.
If the company refuses to comply, they risk being added to Russia’s Internet blacklist and banned nationwide.
This may present a challenge for Badoo. Although the 11-year-old company was founded by Russian entrepreneur Andrey Andreev, the business is registered in Cyprus and headquartered in London.
Badoo is in good company. Other sites on the list, which is 73 strong, include email services Mail.ru and Yandex and social networks Moi Mir and Vkontakte.
Badoo is not the first dating network to land on Russia’s list of “information disseminators.” In September 2014, Roskomnadzor added “Mamba,” a “social discovery” website that Internet users outside the former USSR typically encounter by mistake, when looking for information about the fruit-flavored chews by the same name, manufactured by the Storck company.
Russian regulations on “information disseminators”, which are administrated and enforced by Russia’s state censor, Roskomnadzor, can extend to websites, apps, messengers, and anything virtual that collects “user data.”
The first Web resource that refused to obey the requirements of being an “information distributor” in Russia was the U.S.-based messenger Zello, which led to the push-to-talk mobile phone app being placed on Russia's Internet blacklist.
In a blog post on Zello’s website on April 8, founder Alexey Gavrilov said Russia’s legal demands “aren’t just absurd from a technical standpoint, but contradict Zello’s principles, which is why we won’t fulfill them.”
Days later, Roskomnadzor banned six different Web addresses linking to Zello’s website. It is unclear how many Russians have actually lost access to Zello, however. The company has advised users to keep the latest version of the app on their mobile devices, save their contacts offline, mirror their Zello channel subscriptions to other apps, and learn how to use the Opera Free VPN app.

source: news-globalvoices

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Kevin Rothrock


text:
How the United States Has Become a Problem for Indians · Global Voices
Vishal Yashoda Manve

A sign protesting xenophobic attacks in the US. Image from Flickr by Roscoe Myrick (www.shotboxer.com). CC BY 2.0
Equality and the American dream seem to be increasingly out of reach for many Indians in the U.S., since President Donald Trump took office. The past several months have worried many people across the world, and Indians were especially alarmed to learn about the apparently racially motivated murder of Indian engineer Srinivas Kuchibhotla. Meanwhile, the White House continues to push a controversial “Muslim ban,” battling the U.S. court system.
As a result, more and more people in India have reportedly begun advising their friends and relatives against visiting the United States, whether for work or study.
Kuchibhotla was shot to death in a Kansas bar this February, and subsequent attacks on other Indians followed in what the website Socialistworker.org has called a “wave of violence against South Asians.”
Trump's critics say his rhetoric is partly responsible for energizing hate groups who then target Latin Americans, Muslims, African Americans, and the LGBT community.
On Feb. 28, Kuchibhotla's widow, Sunayana Dumala, published an emotional letter on Facebook about her husband's death, stating her desire to remain in the U.S. and continue his dreams:
We built our dream home, which he painted, and installed the garage door. Doing any kind of work on his home gave him immense joy. This was the home that he had built […] for us and any kids we would have. [It was] our first step to starting our family. It's so unfortunate that this dream of ours is now shattered.
Throughout February and March, Indian Twitter users responded to Dumala's message and her husband's murder.
Some sought strong action to save Indians from the government:
India should very forcefully intervene for 2 Indians with Indian passport and let US deal with the plight of other 2 who are Americans. https://t.co/lRYhvBth82
— কাঞ্চন গুপ্ত (@KanchanGupta) March 6, 2017
Others questioned the irony of a U.S travel warning to India:
Shouldn't this travel advisory for US visitors to India be the other way around?
https://t.co/e22Bucw4iM
— Suhasini Haidar (@suhasinih) March 7, 2017
Time to stand against the Racial attacks on Indians in US. Fail to understand, why Indians are attacked in the name of !!
— Keshav P. Kumar (@KeshavPKumar) March 7, 2017
Indians are attacked and killed in US. Cant see any actions for govt or amy protests from other political parties. Is US the reason?
— Sharon (/) Vishnu (@OhMG_Me) March 6, 2017
Some experts weighed in on India's non-reaction to the wave of attacks:
If Indians with American passports are attacked, Indian govt has right to worry about copycat crimes affecting its own citizens in US 2/n
— Ashok Malik (@MalikAshok) March 6, 2017
Prominent Indian journalist Barkha Dutt highlighted this trend:
Hope Indians who thought Trump would be “good for us” can see see how this US political environment encouraged hate crimes against our own
— barkha dutt (@BDUTT) February 25, 2017
And many Indians are simply genuinely worried:
Nonsense, Indians have been racially attacked earlier in the USA under various govts. A few years back US cops crippled a Indian grandfather https://t.co/nHP9U8dG7s
— Shankara (@Sshankara) February 26, 2017
To learn more about the lives of Indians in Donald Trump's America, Global Voices spoke to two Indian young men about their aborted plans to study in the United States.
Nimanniyu Sharma. Image via Linkedin
Global Voices: What do you do and what have you studied?
Nimanniyu Sharma (NS): I'm a practicing advocate working with the Dispute Resolution [litigation] wing of a law firm in New Delhi. I've graduated from the University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh.
Global Voices: Where did you wish to study in the U.S.?
NS: I was targeting various universities for pursuing an LL.M. in the U.S. Some of my top choices would have been Northwestern, UPenn, NYU, Columbia, etc.
Reasons to pursue the same were that the U.S. used to be a very welcoming environment, especially for my industry, in terms of getting jobs and joining the academia. Compared to other markets, it has a voluminous business which inherently increased the number of transaction to work on and therefore the country was more viable for survival because of the booming business. In the past few years, it had also come to be known for its receptivity for immigrants, which sadly isn't the case anymore.
Global Voices: What keeps you from going to U.S. now?
NS: The recent state of affairs has been extremely detrimental to my plans of pursuing further education and seeking a job opportunity in the U.S. Even though the geographical locations of the universities of my choice are extremely progressive cities that are minimally affected to date, I still strongly believe that this is only the beginning of a downhill path under the leadership governing the U.S. currently. I'd never risk my life for a shot at a successful career.
Global Voices: What do you think about the recent attacks on Indians in the U.S.?
NS: I've been deeply saddened, but the one incident closest to me, which has rather “scared” me, is one that happened to a cousin of mine.
Only a few days after Mr. Trump took office, while awaiting a (white) friend's arrival at a bar in Philadelphia, my cousin was made to feel extremely unwanted at the premises by the bartender. He refused to serve her despite multiple reminders and requests from her. As soon as her (white) friend arrived, the bartender, unaware of the fact that he was friends with my cousin, offered him another seat at the bar in case he wanted to sit away from the “browns.” I had never imagined this happening to a person whom I know and I'm close to. It suddenly made the issue “real” for me. After this, all the other incidents of verbal and physical attacks on Indians in the U.S. have been further strengthening my decision to not go to the U.S. anymore.
I pray for my fellow [countrymen] residing in that country — for their safety and solidarity.
What other options are you exploring now?
(NS): Since the U.S. was never the “only” destination that I was planning for further education, I am now prioritizing European, Canadian, and Asian law schools.
Shadab Nazmi. Image via Twitter
Global Voices: How was your first experience in the U.S.?
Shadab Nazmi (SN): I was 16 when I first visited the U.S.  It was beautiful, people were friendly, and [they] always stepped forward in case [to offer] any help. But that was way back in 2007 and I was living in a very small town called Westport in Indiana.
Global Voices: What happened at your visa interview?
SN: The first interview went smoothly when I went on a U.S.-State-Department-sponsored scholarship program in 2007. I was immediately given J1- exchange visitor visa after a few questions, such as how long would I be there? Where was I going to stay? Who was sponsoring my trip? But in 2011, when I decided to visit my host family, my visa was rejected twice. I was told that [U.S. officials] see me as a potential immigrant, and I didn't have enough social ties [in India], which would prove my [likeliness] to return.
Global Voices: Will you go to the U.S. again?
SN: Yes, definitely. I hold the B1/B2 visa which is valid till 2022. I get a little scared when I think of the immigration check because every time I landed in the U.S. — be it Chicago, Newark, or Dulles — I'm detained every time and cross-questioned by three different officers about the purpose of my trip.
Global Voices: What do you think about the xenophobic rhetoric and speech against Muslims and the LGBT community by many of Trump's supporters?
SN: Xenophobia and racism started to emerge even before Trump was elected. I have two friends who were trying to pursue PhDs at Princeton, but have now switched to Osaka University in Japan. […] And their parents were really concerned after the shooting […] in Kansas.
Global Voices: Would you advise others to visit the U.S. today?
SN: Only if you are going to visit for just a few days. With an F1 visa, you can definitely study in a university, but there is a high chance that you might not get an H1-B, because American employers aren't willing to pay more than $35,000 a year for an entry level job.
Global Voices: Did you face racism on your last trip to the U.S.?
SN: I was often told jokingly “Thank you, come again,” referring to the Indian character “Appu” from The Simpsons. But there were a couple of times in high school when I was called “7-11” [after the convenience store chain, run largely by members of the Indian diaspora in the U.S.], instead of my name.
As the United States explores new curbs on H-1B visas and Australia reforms its visa regime, many Asians, including both Chinese people and Indians, will likely find it harder to emigrate for economic opportunities, complicating trends in globalization that have shaped recent generations.

author: Vishal Yashoda Manve


text:
Kyrgyz Kickboxer Claims Racism After Publicly Contesting a Loss in Russia · Global Voices
Akhal-Tech Collective

A referee threatens Kyrgyz fighter Dastan Sharsheyev with deportation after he refused to concede his quarter final tie against Anton Kalinin. Screenshot from YouTube video posted by TAT Neft Arena's official YouTube channel.
Dastan Sharsheyev: proud upholder of Kyrgyz national dignity or rude violator of the international spirit of sportsmanship?
Sharsheyev, a Kyrgyz kickboxer, appeared to have his opponent Anton Kalinin on the back foot during an April 21 contest in the city of Kazan, which is the capital of the Russian federal republic of Tatarstan. He knocked him down several times and seemed to have emerged as the stronger of the pair during the second half of a toughly contested match. Nevertheless, the Russian judges gave the fight to Kalinin.
The story might have ended there, but it didn't. Sharsheyev refused to accept the decision and leave the ring, disrespecting both the judges and his opponent.
Over the course of heated exchanges with officials, the fight referee threatened Sharsheyev with deportation:
Тебя сейчас просто депортируют и обратно не пустят в страну. Или же закроют. Смысл какой?
You'll just get deported and not let back into the country. Or even jailed. Where is your common sense?
But Sharsheyev remained in the ring, dramatically grabbing a microphone to address the crowd:
Добрый вечер, дорогой Татарстан! Я здесь уже во второй раз, люди здесь очень добрые. Я хочу сказать, что вы все видели, я выиграл. TNA – турнир, в котором все должно быть справедливо, в котором должны быть справедливые судьи, справедливый главный судья. А сегодня разве было справедливо? [Зрители отвечают «Нет!»] Так задайте себе вопрос: где в этом мире справедливость? Где она? Или имеет значение цвет моей кожи? Спасибо вам всем, что болели. С вами был Дастан!
Good evening, dear Tatarstan! I'm here for the second time, the people here are very kind. I want to say what you all saw; I won. TNA [fighting] is a tournament in which everything should be fair, in which there should be fair judges, a fair chief judge. And was it really fair today? [The audience responds “No!”] So ask yourself: where is justice in this world? Where is it? Or does the colour of my skin make a difference? Thank you all for supporting me. Dastan is with you!
Sharsheyev's address won him broad support on Kyrgyz social networks. One post on the topic was shared over 1,300 times.
The fight came at a time when around a million Kyrgyzstani migrants in Russia are under even heavier scrutiny than usual following the bombing of the metro in St Petersburg, which killed 16 people and was attributed to a Kyrgyzstan-born holder of Russian citizenship Akborjon Akilov. The fact the fight took place in Tatarstan, a Russian republic where at least half of the population identifies as Muslim and speaks a language, which, like Kyrgyz, has Turkic roots, made the scandal even more resonant.
At the end of his explosive address in Russian, Sharsheyev, who sported a Kyrgyz kalpak hat, said “Alga Kyrgyzstan”, translating as “Forward Kyrgyzstan” in several Turkic languages including Kyrgyz and Tatar.
The debacle triggered comment wars between Russians and Kyrgyz on YouTube that featured the usual battery of ethnic slurs, although several Russian YouTubers rose above the fray and conceded Sharsheyev should have been awarded the fight.
The organisers of the tournament have said that they are considering excluding the Kyrgyz fighter from future tournaments in Russia.
No announcements, however, have been made so far about the future of the bout's referee, who openly assumed the powers of Russian migration and penitentiary officials in the out-of-line comments he made to Sharsheyev.

author: Akhal-Tech Collective


text:
Romania’s Anti-Corruption Protests and the Burden of Shame · Global Voices
Guest Contributor

Protest against corruption – Bucharest 2017 – Piata Victoriei. PHOTO: Mihai Petre (CC BY-SA 4.0) via Wikimedia Commons.
By Ana-Maria Dima
“We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made of us.”
– Jean Paul Sartre, in his preface to Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth
In the European Union, corruption seems to be Romania’s designated signature. Historically, the country, and indeed the wider region, have battled deeply ingrained practices, often illegal or borderline, designed to influence political and economic outcomes or gain benefits or favours. In the 10 years since Romania joined the EU, in fact, few other words have been as consistently and as repeatedly associated with Romania’s performance and political class. This was the case before the accession as well, when the special Cooperation and Verification Mechanism was set up by the European Commission for Bulgaria and Romania. This measure, which was without precedent in EU integration, was devised to reduce the level of corruption across the board, from the judiciary to high-level politics, but it was also meant to “tackle corruption on all fronts” as progress reports on the mechanism have highlighted.
Anyone living, studying or doing business in Romania—a society where the political class and the administrative apparatus, including nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers, are widely considered corrupt—would find it hard not to develop a mindset dominated by corruption, which is by nature all-pervasive. The need for changes of a “systemic dimension”, as the European Commission’s reports noted early on, have been an issue in Romania for decades now. But the prevalence of the idea of a deeply corrupt society begs some hard questions: are we, as citizens, by association just as corrupt as the “system” surrounding us? Can one escape corruption while being “surrounded” by it?
Romania’s current government was elected less than six months ago. The eruption of street protests in February contesting the Government’s decision to adopt an Emergency Ordinance were viewed largely as a reaction to corruption. The Ordinance, among other measures, decriminalised certain types of official misconduct and would have, at least in the eyes of the public, watered down existing anti-graft legislation. But these protests, the largest since the fall of the Communist regime in 1989, leave behind many questions, especially in a country that has been “tackling corruption on all fronts” for over a decade under governments formed by the National Liberal Party, the Social Democrats, the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania, the Liberal Democrats and others.
Corruption comes in many shapes and forms, including tax evasion, abuse of power, bribes, conflict of interest, money laundering. It hides poverty and dysfunctionality, while concomitantly—and ironically—bringing them to light. But it also carries with it the idea of a tacit, yet omnipresent, complicity, notably in the case of citizens who may lack the understanding or knowledge of other ways to approach state authorities. So it is also a form of induced powerlessness. Anyone who has lived in Romania could be considered tainted as a consequence, for the image of widespread corruption in a country must encompass its citizenry, irrespective of how much they might wish to claim innocence.
So the narrative of corruption has become deeply embedded in our mindset, if not in our practices. The members of Romania’s educated middle class who took to the streets in February seemed  weighed down by an odd sense of shame, the kind of shame typically experienced in countries where the citizens are so fixated on imagining places utterly different from their own, that they end up despising themselves and each other in a process of constant wonder. It is the shame of Romanian guest labourers working in the EU, who might be abused in their host countries, but for “better”, if not outright “fairer” pay. And in any case, who is to say that abuse outside of your country is necessarily worse than abuse back home? And do workers whose livelihoods depend on their employers genuinely have a choice between the two?
There’s the bribe one instinctively prepares to offer nurses in hospitals in return for respectful treatment; the expectation that something extra will be demanded from those who want to correctly and fairly do business with the state or at times to receive some basic service; the “small act of attention,” as Romanians call it, needed to expedite a process, or facilitate the issuing of something like a driving licence to someone who passes the exam. But corruption goes beyond conditioning and the desire to influence the actions of public authorities: it becomes a reflex and a metric—if not the metric—against which most things are measured. And in the process we have come to believe that our society is indeed deeply dysfunctional compared to the rest of the EU, a belief that is corroding our sense of trust.
The protests in February brought out the shame deeply ingrained in our perception of ourselves, in a large-scale “go-out into the street and shout your lungs out” or “don’t just sit there, do something about it” kind of way. Our collective inferiority complex is deeply affected by corruption barometers and poverty indexes. We know we rank high on corruption and low on quality of life. We rank high on child poverty rates, highest on intra-EU migration. Poor deals in privatizing state-owned companies, the selling off of large swaths of the country’s arable land in the past ten years (currently half of Romania’s arable land is controlled by non-Romanians), mass migration and high rates of poverty are hardly the result of successful governing mandates. We know too, that we are a “source of cheap labour” for Europe. This lingering sense of inadequacy, this aspirational sense of the Other, living in places that are fair and just and “corruption-free”, these benchmarks which are only to be found far away from home, have permeated our collective imagination.
Yet in this scenario other questions come to light: if we are so profoundly corrupt, how do we handle things? Do we denounce each other? Can it be that the government is not the only corrupt entity, merely the one that is most scrutinized? How have major global companies entering the Romanian market dealt with the corruption, and in turn, how corrupt are they? Who is more corrupt, the government or the business sector? Can we escape the cycle of corruption in ways that do not seek political vindication, but—insofar as such a thing is possible—are still just? And if a system is so intrinsically corrupt, will the old corrupt figures not simply be replaced by others with similar values? The fight against corruption runs the risk of becoming an “eye for an eye” fight if such questions are not at the top of the agenda.
Yet, to have been seen and held in high esteem for protesting against corruption, even if only for a few days, has inspired a sense of pride and unity in Romania. A sense of togetherness that would not be quite so easily marred by shame, if it were not for the practices that occur daily in hospitals, perhaps in schools as well, or in town halls and local councils, where political and administrative leaders can still behave as God-given gifts to the world.
This knowledge no longer manifests only as discontent with our inability to “pull ourselves together”. Expressions such as “vreau o țară ca afară”—literally, to “want a country like countries abroad”—allude to an idealized western space and an imagined life where our sense of inadequacy would no longer haunt us. Romania was for a few days an inspirational place for many, where people took to the streets fiercely, yet peacefully, in order to demand that the corrupt should not be left unpunished, and also to acknowledge that the lingering weight of corruption exists well beyond the political figures who embody it.
We know this all too well, but somehow cannot rid ourselves of the shame of it, a shame that is imposed on us from many fronts, or perhaps one that we acquiesce to living with too lightly.
Ana Maria Dima is a Romanian working in the field of international development. Follow her on Twitter at @AnaMariaDima.

author: Guest Contributor


text:
Russian Protest Movement Says It Will Press On, Despite Federal Ban · Global Voices
Kevin Rothrock

Maria Baronova (left), Mikhail Khodorkovsky (bottom right), and the Open Russia team. Photo: Maria Baronova / Instagram
Despite being outlawed today by the Attorney General, opposition movement “Open Russia” says it’s continuing all operations, including plans for nationwide anti-Putin protests this Saturday. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the movement’s founder, wrote on Twitter that he’s “proud” to see his brainchild in the government’s crosshairs.
In fact, officials didn’t just ban Open Russia — they blacklisted it as an “undesirable organization,” perhaps the harshest way the Kremlin can outlaw a group, short of labeling it a terrorist or extremist faction. Citing Open Russia’s promotion of political demonstrations, the Attorney General said the organization threatens Russia’s “constitutional foundations” and “the security of the state.”
Khodorkovsky and several Open Russia representatives say the Attorney General’s decision applies only to the organization’s registered entities in Great Britain, and not to the “social online movement Open Russia,” which organizes protests, events, and manages a news media outlet.
“[The movement] doesn’t in any way interact with the legal entities named in this decision,” Alexander Solovyov, Open Russia’s new project coordinator, told the website Meduza. “An online movement operates in Russia in accordance with Federal Law 82 ‘On Public Organizations,’ which implies that a movement is not required to register as a legal entity.”
Maria Baronova's Open Russia ID card. Photo: Instagram
Maria Baronova, another coordinator for Open Russia (and perhaps the movement’s most visible member, after Khodorkovsky), insisted to Meduza that her group’s activities remain legal, despite today’s news.
“We are a movement without any legal entity — a collection of individuals who agreed that they want to make the Russian state more European and democratic. And now the Attorney General is trying to tell me that I — a citizen of the Russian Federation — am undesirable,” Baronova said.
In a public statement published online, Open Russia declared that it is distinct from the British-based outfit blacklisted by the Attorney General. “Open Russia, which you’re reading now, is a purely Russian organization and therefore it cannot be labeled undesirable,” the statement read.
Open Russia is pinning its hopes on the fact that the law against “undesirable organizations” applies only to “foreign and international NGOs.” This might not be enough to spare the movement, however, given that it extends to any Russian subsidiaries.
Things get tricky here, as money comes into play. Open Russia has paid staff (including Solovyov and Baronova), and the source of the movement’s funds is still presumably Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who emigrated from Russia as soon as he got out of prison on a presidential pardon in 2013. After more than a decade behind bars, Khodorkovsky’s net worth is still estimated at roughly $500 million.
If Open Russia is a “purely Russian organization,” how does it transfer Khodorkovsky’s money to the movement’s paid staff? If any of that money originates outside Russia, the movement presumably loses its claim to pure Russianness. If any of the money passes through the legal entities blacklisted by the Attorney General, Open Russia staff could be charged with cooperating with an “undesirable organization” — a crime punishable by up to six years in prison.
Russian banks and financial institutions are also forbidden from doing any business with “undesirables,” meaning that Open Russia — however it defends itself to the press — might soon find itself unable to pay its employees, rent meeting space, print leaflets, and so on.
Baronova refused to tell Meduza how Open Russia actually funds its operations. “We’re not going to reveal that kind of information in an authoritarian state,” she explained, insisting that the movement’s staff have nothing to fear.
This Saturday, April 29, Open Russia plans to stage protests across the country against a possible fourth presidential term for Vladimir Putin, who is widely expected to run for re-election next March. The group has managed to obtain demonstration permits in 11 large cities, but officials in nine (including Moscow and St. Petersburg) have threatened to take police action, if Open Russia goes ahead with its protest plans.
And that was before there was any talk of “undesirable organizations.”


text:
Some Hong Kongers Insist on Blaming the Woman, Not the Man, in Viral Fist Fight Over Going Dutch · Global Voices
Oiwan Lam

“Woman: Let’s go Dutch. Man: You think I can't afford the dinner?!” A panel from the comic “Is But Brother.” See the full comic below. Republished on Global Voices with permission.
A news story went viral in Hong Kong on April 24 about a man and woman who were were arrested by police officers for a fist fight in a restaurant over the dinner bill of HK$2,200, approximately US$300.
Online reports suggested that the fight was triggered by the woman’s refusal to “go Dutch” and share the bill. Many commenters were quick to accuse the woman of taking advantage of her gender and pressuring the man to pay the bill.
However, a few hours later, the restaurant owner clarified that the fight was triggered by the woman’s insistence on going Dutch. The man reportedly refused, tore up the money and got physical.
Though the truth turned out to be completely opposite of what had been imagined, some netizens still continued to present the scenario that blamed the woman for the fight.
Below are some typical reactions from the popular Golden Forum site after the news first circulated online:
條女睇個樣應該都係死港女,覺得男人比埋應份.
分分鐘係個男既諗住比但條港女食7咁食本來300一個變左一千一個,條佬帶得700蚊出街點比?
Judging from her appearance, the woman is most likely the god-damned typical Hong Kong girl who thinks that guy should always pay the bill.
Most likely, the guy was prepared to pay but the Hong Kong girl ordered so much that a HK$300-per-person-budget meal turned into HK$1,100 per person. But the guy only had HK$700 in his pocket, how could he pay?
Another netizen put his assumption that the woman was at fault in “mathematical” terms:
99% = 女既要人請,男人要AA
0.9% = 女既要AA,男人堅持要請
0.1% = 女既要AA,男既要人請
99% = woman wants someone else to pay the bill and the man wants to go Dutch.
0.9% = woman wants to go Dutch and the man insisted on paying the bill
0.1% = woman wants to go Dutch and the man wanted someone else to pay.
Some even suggested that the woman was a “part-time girlfriend” (call girl) who seduced the man to get dinner out of him, and then refused to give him sexual favors in exchange.
Even after the restaurant owner clarified the story to reporters, many still insisted the woman was the source of trouble:
當男方示意俾曬
女方不能提出 AA 制
因為十分不尊重男方，女方只能提出回請對方食甜品、睇戲之類
If the guy says he wants to pay the bill,
the woman should not suggest going Dutch
Because the suggestion is disrespectful of the man. The woman should suggest returning the favor, like paying for dessert or a movie ticket.
男人自動提出比錢,條女唔肯,即係唔受溝,好明顯
If the guy says he wants to pay the bill, and the chick refuses the arrangement, it implies that she doesn’t want to further the relationship. That’s obvious.
Artist Ar Chu illustrated all three possible scenarios in a comic to make the point that regardless of the woman’s decision in settling the bill, she would always be the one to be blamed because of the stereotypical image of Hong Kong women, or “Gong Nui,” as being narcissistic, arrogant, proud and shallow. The term has been widely used on online forums since 2005 to criticize and label negative behavior from women.
Comic from Facebook page “Is But Brother”. Republished on Global Voices with permission.
Scenario one: Woman: Let me pay the bill. Man: Are you looking down on me?!
Scenario two: Woman: OK, I will let you pay the bill. Man: Why should I treat you to dinner?
Scenario three: Woman: Let’s go Dutch. Man: You think I can't afford the dinner?!

author: Oiwan Lam


text:
It’s a Small World After All: Into the Deep Podcast · Global Voices
L. Finch

When you first encounter people who come from countries or who speak languages that aren't your own, you might think that your differences are greater than your similarities. But spend a little time together, and you'll start to see that you have more in common than you first thought.
These global connections are important because they challenge our beliefs, they broaden our perspective, and they remind us that it might just be a small world after all.
In this edition of Into the Deep, the Global Voices podcast where we take a closer look at one topic that isn’t getting the media coverage it deserves, we are digging deep into global connections.
We speak with five Global Voices contributors who recall a moment in which they felt connected to someone across borders and across language. Veroniki Krikoni talks about the similarities between Greek and Turkish; Tori Egherman explains how a hiking trip cemented her affection for Iranian culture; Violeta Camarasa remembers how a love of music overcame a lack of a shared language while traveling in rural China; Adriana Macias speaks about her time working with people from around the world in London; and Joey Ayoub looks back on his experience living in a small village in Madagascar.
A special shout-out to Kat Batuigas, who helped us produce this episode.
In this episode, we featured Creative Commons licensed music from the Free Music Archive, including Bir Demet Yasemen by Turku, Nomads of the Silk Road (CC BY 4.0); the songs Ray Gun – FasterFasterBrighter (CC BY-NC 4.0) and Discovery Harbor by Blue Dot Sessions (CC BY-NC 4.0); Rite of Passage by Kevin MacLeod (CC BY 3.0); Make a Life (Instrumental) by Nick Jaina (CC BY-NC 3.0); Terminal Two by Cory Gray (CC BY-NC 3.0); and Pieces of the Present by Scott Gratton (CC BY-NC 4.0).
The SoundCloud thumbnail image is by Flickr user Jonas Bengtsson, CC BY 2.0.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | RSS

author: L. Finch


text:
Jailed Emirati Academic Endures Hunger Strike to Protest Ten-Year Jail Sentence · Global Voices
Afef Abrougui

Nasser Bin Ghaith during a panel discussion on the “geopolitical significance of the Arab Gulf Region” in December 2014. Screenshot from YouTube video posted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies.
UAE academic and economist Nasser Bin Ghaith has been on hunger strike since 2 April to protest his sentencing to ten years in jail for online posts that were deemed “offensive” to the state. Bin Ghaith announced his strike in a open letter, which was widely shared by human rights groups.
Bin Ghaith was arrested in August 2015. Following his arrest, UAE authorities held him incommunicado for nine months. During a first court appearance on 4 April last year, he told the judge that he was beaten and deprived of sleep while in detention.
On 29 March 2017, the Federal Appeal Court in Abu Dhabi convicted him on a number of charges that include publishing online posts that were “offensive to the state’s symbols and values, its internal and foreign policies and its relations with an Arab state” and sentenced him to ten years in jail. These posts included tweets in which Bin Ghaith sharply criticized Egyptian authorities for their 2013 crackdown on protesters gathering at Rabaa square against the military's removal of elected president Muhammad Morsi. The crackdown resulted in more than 800 civilian casualties, according to Human Rights Watch.
Bin Ghaith was also convicted of “publishing false information” for stating on Twitter that he had not been granted a fair trial in a previous case known as the “UAE 5″ in which he and four other activists were arrested and jailed for calling for democratic reforms in the UAE. The activists spent nearly nine months in jail before they were released in late November 2011, after receiving a presidential pardon.
Though he can appeal his sentence within 30 days before the State Security Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court, Bin Ghaith has decided not to do so. Appealing the verdict “will change nothing but to give legitimacy to the court’s political order,” he stated in his letter from prison. Instead, Bin Ghaith has gone on hunger strike to demand his unconditional release.
I insist on my innocence and I deny all the charges against me. I feel really sad and depressed of the fact of being unfairly tried by my own people and in my own country which is proclaimed to be the land of tolerance and happiness.
Despite his health problems, Nasser bin Ghaith continues his #HungerStrike for 22 days running protesting his unfair imprisonment in #UAE pic.twitter.com/FUTDl1h4zQ
— ICFUAE (@ICFUAE) April 24, 2017
Bin Gaith's health was already at risk before he began his hunger strike. Earlier this year, several human rights groups including the Gulf Center for Human Rights (GC4HR), the International Campaign for Freedom in the UAE, the International Centre for Justice and Human Rights, and the Emirates Center for Human Rights expressed concerns about his deteriorating health situation. According to the GC4HR, Emirati authorities were not doing enough to provide him with needed medical treatment. It took weeks before Bin Ghaith had access to a doctor to examine pain in his teeth, and the prison's authorities have not been consistent in providing him with medicine for his blood pressure. But for Bin Ghaith: “I have no choice but to go on hunger strike to restore my stolen freedom”.
The graphic below, created by Visualizing Impact, outlines the experience of a person on hunger strike over time, drawing on research from Forensic Science International, the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Medical Journal.

author: Afef Abrougui


text:
Netizen Report: Censorship Spikes in India, Subsides in Cameroon · Global Voices
Netizen Report Team

Banner for a 2010 Barcamp tech workshop in Kashmir. Photo by Ehsan Quddusi via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Authorities in Indian-administered Kashmir have blocked 22 social media applications, including Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter.
An official state circular issued on April 26 said the social media services were “being misused by anti-national and anti-social elements” in the Kashmir Valley to disturb “peace and tranquility” and could be blocked for up to 30 days. Other banned sites include QQ, Baidu, WeChat, Google Plus, Skype, Pinterest, Snapchat, YouTube and Flickr.
The move comes in the face of increasing unrest in Kashmir. Student protests, both in person and on social media, have intensified in recent days, in opposition to the heavy-handed tactics deployed under India's Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which significantly expands military power in regions considered to be “disturbed”.
Writing for EZine Dailyo.in, Angshukanta Chakraborty suspected that social media was targeted in Kashmir because it showed a different narrative than that portrayed by Indian authorities:
By presenting the other side to the Kashmir storyline, the locals once again were able to own for a while what constitutes the highly complex and conflicted Kashmir narrative, something that made the government extremely uncomfortable, and it was left without a moral high ground.
The blocking has also hit businesses hard, leaving the local IT sector of approximately 15,000 workers with little capacity to do their jobs, and putting e-commerce and Internet-dependent businesses in limbo.
Meanwhile, in the Indian city of Kendrapara, provincial officials blocked Internet connectivity for 48 hours to prevent the circulation of an “objectionable” video that witnesses said was insulting to the Prophet Mohammad. With the suspension, it appears authorities were seeking to preclude the level of public unrest that broke out in early April, when a social media posting that contained derogatory messages about Hindu gods sparked an outcry in the nearby city of Bhadrak.
In better news, Cameroon’s government finally restored Internet access in the country’s English-speaking regions after shutting it down for 94 days. The blackout followed protests by North est and South est regions over the imposition of the French language in schools and courts and other disparities between francophone and anglophone populations in the provision of public services. Anglophone Cameroon makes up about 20% of the total population. The government accompanied the restoration of access with  a threat to reinstate the shutdown if they felt the Internet was becoming “a tool to stoke hatred and division among Cameroonians.”
Maldives blogger and activist Yameen Rasheed was stabbed to death in the early morning hours of April 23, 2017. An outspoken critic of the government and radical religion-based politics, Rasheed had previously reported to police that he received death threats via text message and social media. Maldivians are demanding an international probe into the cause of his death. The Stock Exchange office where Rasheed worked as an IT technician closed for a day in his honor.
Saudi internet activist Naima Al-Matrood is facing trial one year after being arrested on accusations that she participated in anti-state demonstrations and had violated public order by creating two social media accounts to demand the release of other human rights defenders who had been detained in the kingdom. The Gulf Center for Human Rights is demanding the immediate release of Al-Matrood and all other detained human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia.
Indonesian military chief General Gatot Nurmantyo reported independent news website Tirto.id to Indonesia’s Press Council for translating and publishing an investigative report by another news website. The report alleged that certain army officers were involved in a plot to oust President Joko Widodo, and suggested that the officers had ties to ISIS.
Originally published by the US-based cyber security and civil liberties-focused news site The Intercept, the report stated that General Nurmantyo was involved in the plot.
House Commission III member Ahmad Sahroni praised the move by the General Nurmantyo, saying “The TNI chief has taken a good step as I believe he would not like to be trapped into a cycle that could lead to destruction.”
According to a report on the VICE media tech blog Motherboard, a London police officer purchased the targeted surveillance software FlexiSpy, which enables the user to install malware on mobile phones and computers, allowing them to intercept phone calls, remotely turn on microphones and take photos with the infected device’s camera. It is unclear whether the officer purchased the software for personal or official use.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CTRC) issued a new regulatory framework that strongly favors net neutrality, which is the principle that telecommunications providers should treat all content and materials on the Internet equally, rather than giving certain materials faster delivery to customers. It also issued a decision against the practice of zero-rating, or providing free access to selected Internet services. Zero-rating schemes represent an unequal treatment of internet content, as they allow service providers to hand-pick which content their customers can most easily access.
Mahsa Alimardani, Ellery Roberts Biddle, Vishal Manve, Inji Pennu, Carolina Rumuat, Nevin Thompson, Laura Vidal  and Sarah Myers West contributed to this report.

author: Netizen Report Team


text:
Taiwan Tops Asia While Hong Kong Falls Four Places in Freedom of Press Index · Global Voices
Hong Kong Free Press

Image from Reporter without Borders 2017 Index.
This post was written by Kris Cheng and originally published on Hong Kong Free Press on April 26, 2017. The version below is published on Global Voices under a partnership agreement.
International press freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders has lowered Hong Kong’s press freedom ranking by four places in this year’s global index.
The 2017 ranking table examines 180 countries and regions. Hong Kong came in at 73, with China ranked at 176. Taiwan, however, rose six places to be 45 – the highest ranking among all Asian countries.
The group questioned whether Hong Kong was facing the “beginning of the end of ‘one country, two systems’,” a principle China designed to guarantee autonomy for the city.
Benjamin Ismaïl, head of the Asia-Pacific desk at the NGO, said there was no shortage of examples demonstrating the erosion of press freedom in 2016. He told Hong Kong Free Press:
Many free speech and human rights groups have condemned the broadcasting by several outlets of the forced confessions of Hong Kong booksellers arrested in China.
He said observers have also pointed out changes in the editorial line of some outlets like the English-language South China Morning Post, which was acquired by Chinese internet giant Alibaba. He added:
Several Hong Kong citizens contacted us to inform us of censorship of their comments on the media’s website and the absence of [a] clear explanation.
He also noted that the government had limited the access of digital media outlets to government press conferences and events:
The fact that digital media, such as Hong Kong Free Press, are considered ‘2nd class media’ and face discrimination in terms of accreditation also shows the difficulties for independent journalists to work freely.
A protest urging the protection of press freedom in 2016. File Photo: Hong Kong Free Press.
The Reporters Without Borders ranking is compiled partly by using a questionnaire, which is targeted at media professionals, lawyers and sociologists. The questionnaire focuses on indicators such as pluralism, media independence, the overall environment and self-censorship, legislative frameworks, transparency and infrastructure.
The Paris-based group highlighted incidents wherein outspoken journalists in Hong Kong, such as those working for the tabloid Apple Daily, were exposed to violence by who they describe as “the Chinese Communist Party’s henchmen.”
Ismaïl said:
Self-censorship is also rampant, and the index is also a reflection of the perception of press freedom by local journalists […] A majority have expressed an increasing pressure which results in deliberate self-censorship.
Reporters Without Borders earlier in April decided to open its first Asia office in Taiwan, after rejecting Hong Kong over concerns that China poses the “biggest threat” to press freedom.
Cedric Alviani, director of the Taipei bureau, said the new office could offer greater support for Hong Kong’s fight for press freedom. He explained the group's decision to Hong Kong Free Press:
In Hong Kong, we might be under surveillance, we might have pressure on the staff. […] Nobody is 100 per cent safe… But for our central office that is covering seven countries… it wouldn’t be a safe choice to have chosen Hong Kong.
We think we can bring more support by not [being] directly exposed.
Alviani also said Taiwan’s high ranking may not be because of improvements in the region recently, but rather a global decline in press freedom that may have indirectly kept Taiwan relatively free.
He also pointed out:
Taiwan also has problems of government officials trying to interfere with the work of the state-owned media […] Taiwan also has the problem of mainland China interfering more and more into the editorial line of some of the private [corporate] media.
He nevertheless described Taiwan’s recent improvements as being “beautiful.”

author: Hong Kong Free Press


text:
Three Ways the Russian Government Is Trying to Control the Internet · Global Voices
Guest Contributor

Top tweets in the Russian twittersphere. Images mixed by Kevin Rothrock.
The following is a translation of an article written by Russian journalist Darya Luganskaya. The post has been edited for clarity and length, and reprinted with the author's permission. You can read the original text here.
“The Internet was created as a special project by the CIA, and is developing as such,” Vladimir Putin announced three years ago last week. Since then, Russian authorities’ faith in the Internet has declined even further.
Despite this negative reputation among officials, the commercial side of the Russian Internet plays an important part of the country’s economy, accounting for around 1.35 trillion rubles ($23.7 billion), or 2.4 percent of Russian GDP in 2015, according to statistics from the Russian Association for Electronic Communications (RAEC). If officials are seriously thinking about “bringing order” to the Internet, as they say they want to, it’ll be a very costly endeavor. OpenEconomy has learned of three potential ways the authorities might begin to “restore order” to the Internet in the coming years.
On July 1, 2018, the second part of the so-called “Yarovaya packet,” a set of anti-terror laws prepared by State Duma MP Irina Yarovaya that advances a new way of storing and decoding Internet traffic, will come into force. Service providers including MTS, MegaFon, Beeline, and Rostelecom, will be obligated to store phone call records and user messages, as well as all Internet traffic data (information about who visits which sites, and when) within six months.  This information must be turned over to the security services upon request.
Storing this information is very expensive: TMT Consulting estimates that it will cost the Russian telecommunications market nearly $1.7 trillion rubles ($29.8 billion) in 2016. The Ministry of Communications is talking with the security services about ways to reduce storage tenfold, but the costs will still be enormous.
Participants at the 2014 Internet Entrepreneurship in Russia Forum. Source: Kremlin.ru
Under the rules, Internet services are also obligated to turn over encryption keys to the FSB (the Federal Security Service) upon request or risk being fined, though it's unclear precisely which keys they've requested and from whom. And Kommersant reported in September that the FSB is trying to find a way to decrypt all internet traffic in Russia using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI), despite the fact that it is less effective when sites use the https security protocol, which many major Russian sites do.
Beginning in September 2015, all this personal information was ordered to be stored on Russian soil, forcing foreign companies question whether they wanted to continue operating in Russia. Adding additional servers isn’t cheap, and the political implications of such a move could be costly for their users and their reputations around the world.
In November 2016, LinkedIn was blocked in Russia for violating this order. But this could change — according to Andrei Soldatov, the co-author of “The Fight for the RuNet,” LinkedIn parent company Microsoft has been known to cooperate with Russian authorities. For example, Windows reportedly handed over source code to Russian authorities so that the government would continue to use its products. This appears to have increased the odds that LinkedIn will be unblocked in Russia at some point.
The end of LinkedIn in Russia?
Twitter has long refused to comply with this data localization law, though the company has said that it is reviewing relevant policies for Russian users, and that it may reconsider “where it stores the data of Russian users who have a commercial relationship as advertisers on the platform.” The messaging system Viber and the ride-share app Uber have made similar announcements.
Soldatov belives that Facebook and Google will not hand over users’ personal information to the authorities. Roskomnadzor, the main RuNet regulator, has not yet threatened to block them. And, Soldatov says, they won’t be added to the list of companies that are up for compliance checks anytime soon.
Other countries are taking similar measures to control the internet, Rose Dlougatch, a senior research associate at Freedom House, which releases an annual ranking of Internet freedom around the world, told Open Economy. “In Turkey, PayPal lost its license for violating data localization laws. The Iranian authorities have indicated that communication services will soon have to store data within Iran. At the beginning of 2016, an analogous data localization law was adopted in Kazakhstan. Citizens’ information is thereby made accessible to the authorities and foreign platforms are pushed out of the local market,” Dlougatch explained.
In 2012, Russian authorities began thinking about a mechanism by which they could control the Internet—a “black list” of websites. Landing on the government’s register of forbidden sites for violating one of the many laws governing Internet content (like those prohibiting propagandizing suicide and drugs, or those banning calls to extremism or terrorism), websites are blocked, often without court review. By the middle of April 2017, free expression news site Roskomsvoboda counted more than 4 million sites that had been blocked in this manner.
Roskomnadzor has repeatedly threatened to block major websites like YouTube, Reddit, Vimeo, and Wikipedia (and access to these sites has been cut for hours at a time). But these warnings are not about the websites as a whole, but rather about specific pages that, according to authorities, violate one law or another. If a site uses the https security protocol, service providers aren’t able to block only a single page, meaning they have to shut down an entire site until the owner decides to remove the content in question.
It’s possible to access blocked sites by using anonymizers like VPN services that mask the location of your IP address, making it look like you are visiting websites from, say, Britain, rather than Russia. And Russians actively use these anonymizers. For example, only Americans use the well-known anonymizer Tor more than Russians, and nearly 12 percent of Tor’s clients are located in Russia.
At the end of April 2017, Vedomosti reported on a Roskomnadzor project aimed at blocking access to tools that allow users to visit blocked websites. Services can avoid being blocked, however, if they voluntarily cut users’ access to sites on Roskomnadzor’s “black list.” Proposed legislation also obligates search engines to prevent blocked websites from appearing in their search results. They could be fined up to 700,000 rubles if they do not comply.
Image: Pixabay and Kremlin Press Service, edited by Kevin Rothrock.
The goal of this initiative is to make it illegal to circumvent blocks and to block major anonymizers. Still, anonymizers aren’t going away.
Vedomosti also reported that rather than blocking specific sites, measures could be taken that make it difficult for users to access sites, including slowing them down. But this would be very difficult and costly to accomplish. According to the Institute for Internet Research, limiting traffic at the subscriber level would require special equipment that could cost as much as $5 billion to develop and implement.
Finally, Russia is trying to regulate the so-called “critical infrastructure” of the RuNet—Internet exchange points with other countries and the .ru and .рф domain names.
Two years ago at a meeting of the Russian Security Council, Putin instructed state organs to think up ways to maintain the stability of the RuNet if it were to be cut off from the outside world. And at the end of last year, the Ministry of Communications and the FSB discussed legislation on this very topic.
The Ministry proposes bringing traffic onto a single Government Information System, which Vedomosti has reported would be necessary to localize Internet activity. It also proposes moving Internet exchange points under the administrative control of Russian companies, exclusively. Finally, the Ministry wants to introduce a rule mandating that the administrator of a national domain name system is a Russian legal entity and an executive body with power over communications—that is, the Ministry itself.
The FSB, meanwhile, is proposing changes to the Criminal Code for causing damage to or threatening the nation’s critical information infrastructure—with punishments running up to 6 years in prison.
Both proposals have faced loud criticism. Microsoft and Cisco have come out against the FSB’s plan, and the Ministry of Communication’s proposal has not yet been approved by RAEC or expert committees in the government. Neither proposal has become law.


text:
High-Profile Chinese Blogger Arrested for Online Comments, After Years of Police Harassment · Global Voices
Oiwan Lam

Wu Bin uploaded this photo to Twitter on April 26.
Well-known Chinese blogger and Twitter commenter Wu Bin (@xuicai1911 @秀才江湖) was arrested by Shenzhen national security police on 27 April for making online comments, according to a report from Canyu, a news site focusing on Chinese civic rights.
Wu’s friend Wang Aizhong sounded the alarm on Twitter shortly thereafter:
秀才江湖@xiucai1911 刚才打电话来，深圳国保，警察正在他家门口，要进屋带他走，理由只是他在网上发表的言论，关注秀才吴斌。 pic.twitter.com/Re0Uk4GAyc
— 王爱忠 (@wangaizhong) April 27, 2017
@xiucai1911 just called and said that Shenzhen national security police and public security police were outside his apartment and they were about to arrest him. The reason was related to his online speech. Please pay attention to Xiucai Wu Bin.
Later, Wu Bin’s wife Huang Meijuan wrote on WeChat (via Canyu):
警察国保来了七八个，领头的便衣，估计是国保，说因为小孩子马上放学，不在家里谈话，我说进来一个谈可以，他们不同意。最后秀才同意跟他们去布吉派出所，没有开书面传唤证。美娟～我说没有传唤证不要去，秀才开门跟着走了，出门后他的电话就打不通了。深圳布吉派出所电话:0755-28872922 大家帮忙打派出所电话问问情况，拜托各位。
There were about seven to eight police officers. The team leader was in plain clothes and I guess he is a national security police. They said as the kids would return home soon from school, it was better not to have the conversation at home. I said it was okay to have one police officer talking inside the apartment. They refused. In the end, Xuicai agreed to go to Buji police station. Since they did not provide any written document for the summons, I bid him not to go with them. But Xiucai opened the door and followed the police. After he left, his phone line did not work. The phone number of Buji police station is 0755-28872922, please make the call and ask what happened.
Huang went to the police station the next day to obtain her husband's summons record. She believes that his detention will last for at least a few days.
Wu Bin has been a target for “stability control” and has been subjected to police harassment on multiple occasions in recent years. In September 2013, he was detained for 10 days by Hanzhou police for “picking quarrels” online. In May 2014, he was illegally detained along with several other dissidents before the anniversary of 1989 Tiananmen Pro-democracy Protest.
On 14 November 2015, Wu Bin was arrested by a national and public security policy in Shenzhen after participating in a public gathering concerning the “unnatural death” of Guangzhou citizen Zhang Liumao while he was in police detention. On 13 December of the same year, Wu Bin was taken away by Shenzhen police who said that they had arranged for him to travel out of town for a few days.
On 16 September 2016, Wu Bin was summoned by police accusing him of spreading rumors about protests in Wukan village. His wife was also detained at the time, for forwarding news about the same Wukan protests. She has since filed a lawsuit against the Long Gang Police Station in Shenzhen for her 10-day illegal detention. Hearings in the law suit begin today, 28 April.
Wukan, a fishing village in Guangdong, has been in dispute over land seizure since 2011 and several mass demonstrations have taken place. Villagers began marching in protest daily since mid-June 2016 after the arrest of protest leader Lin Zulian (formerly known as Lin Zuluan), an elected leader of the village.
It remains unknown what exactly triggered Wu Bin’s arrest. But on 26 April he mentioned that his friend Wang Yingguo was detained for several hours after they met a friend coming from the U.S. He also posted a comment on Twitter about his wife’s court case against the police on 28 April.
Under these “stability control” measures, it is increasingly common for netizens who are critical of the government to be summoned or detained by police. Many of the arrests and detentions are unreported and in most cases, netizens keep silent and stop making online comments. Wu Bin and his wife are in the minority who continue to raise their voices despite the risks.


text:
Indian Government Bans 22 Social Media Platforms in Kashmir including Facebook, WhatsApp · Global Voices
Vishal Yashoda Manve

Social media ban. Images mixed by Rezwan.
Authorities in Indian-administered Kashmir have blocked 22 social media applications including Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter.
An official state circular issued on Wednesday, April 26 and obtained by Global Voices said the social media services were “being misused by anti-national and anti-social elements” in the Valley to disturb “peace and tranquility” and could be blocked for up to 30 days. An excerpt reads:
The government hereby directs all internet service providers that any message … through the following social networking sites shall not be transmitted in Kashmir Valley with immediate effect for a period of one month or till further orders, whichever is earlier.
The move comes in the face of increasing unrest in the region, particularly since last week, when India's military was broadly condemned for strapping a Kashmiri man onto the front of an army jeep and parading him through several villages (see Global Voices report).
Many Kashmiri citizens and Indians are openly opposing the web ban, arguing that they go against the basic tenet of free expression, which is guaranteed by India's constitution. They have taken to social media to protest these bans. Journalist Gowhar Geelani tweeted:
Frustrated by pro-Aazadi protests led by girls & boys across Kashmir Valley, the PDP-BJP Govt suspends 22 social networking sites 4 a month.
— Gowhar Geelani (@gowhargeelani) April 26, 2017
World's ‘largest democracy’ is so scared of truth coming out of Kashmir that it has to block social media for a month. Hiding war crimes!
— Gowhar Geelani (@gowhargeelani) April 26, 2017
The move comes in the face of increasing unrest in Kashmir. Student protests, both in person and on social media, have intensified in recent days, in opposition to the heavy-handed tactics deployed under India's Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which significantly expands military power in regions considered to be “disturbed”. The policy gives officers broad legal immunity for actions taken in zones under this designation. The state of Jammu and Kashmir has been under the AFSPA since 1992, and currently has more than 700,000 troops deployed, making it the most militarized zone in the world.
As recently as April 9, separatist leaders called for boycotting elections in the state, which led to major protests and clashes. This resulted in the deaths of nine people (see Global Voices report).
Writing for EZine Dailyo.in, Angshukanta Chakraborty suspected that social media was targeted in Kashmir because it showed a different narrative than what Indian authorities hope to portray:
By presenting the other side to the Kashmir storyline, the locals once again were able to own for a while what constitutes the highly complex and conflicted Kashmir narrative, something that made the government extremely uncomfortable, and it was left without a moral high ground.
Though the Indian government has censored the Internet and discrete web platforms in the Kashmir valley with some frequency in the past, it is unusual for them to block social media platforms at such a large scale to quell protests. The Indian government has very often used the “anti-national” rhetoric to question critics of its policy, be it filmmakers, activists, or NGOs.
In addition to WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter, the ban also targets Chinese-owned platforms such as QQ, Baidu, and WeChat from the Valley. QZone, Google Plus, Skype, Pinterest, Snapchat, YouTube, Vine, and Flickr are also banned.
Here is a copy of the order issued by the government, blocking Facebook, WhatsApp, twitter and other apps in #Kashmir. pic.twitter.com/zneL9Fg4uk
— Ieshan Wani (@Ieshan_W) April 26, 2017
According to information from Bangalore-based Software Freedom Law Centre, Jammu and Kashmir have witnessed 28 internet shutdowns since 2012, the highest in any Indian state. The government blocked Internet signals for five months in 2016 after uproar over the killing of Burhan Wani, and pro-independence militant leader whose death resulted in major protests across the Himalayan region.
A crowd-sourced definition of Internet shutdowns, developed by Internet policy experts and coordinated by digital rights NGO Access Now, defines them as follows:
An internet shutdown is an intentional disruption of internet or electronic communications, rendering them inaccessible or effectively unusable, for a specific population or within a location, often to exert control over the flow of information.
The move presents a clear violation of India's commitments to human rights, both domestically and as a member of the UN Human Rights Council. In a resolution adopted in July 2016, the UN Human Rights Council explicitly condemned Internet shutdowns. Resolution 32/13, Article 10 reads:
[The Human Rights Council] condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law, and calls upon all States to refrain from and cease such measures.
Indian digital privacy and media law expert Pranesh Prakash explained why the ban is illegal in a series of tweets:
3/ I'd argue this is illegal: (1) s.5(2) of Telegraph Act may not be used for blocking of Internet services when s.69A of IT Act exists.
— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) April 26, 2017
4/ I'd argue this is unconstitutional: (2) Blocking 22 widely-used platforms cannot be held to be a “reasonable restriction” u/Art 19(2).
— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) April 26, 2017
5/ It violates intl law: (3) This order violates Art.19 of ICCPR: Not provided by Telegraph Act, no legitimate aim, no proven necessity.
— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) April 26, 2017
Some say that the ban will not stop the resistance:
Bans are temporary. Resistance is permanent.
— Kaiser Majeed (@iKaicer) April 27, 2017
A screenshot of the mobile screen of a #Kashmir activist after the social media ban. pic.twitter.com/LVcWp1IlNh
— faysal (@_Faysal) April 27, 2017
The ban also has inspired new waves of activism online:
Cmon guys let's make a hashtaq for internet ban in #Kashmir Let world know darkness we r reeling under Tweet using #KashmirwithoutInternet
— Kashmirinternetban (@umermystic) April 26, 2017
Indian govt ban internet in Kashmir. now you can read our posts on walls of Kashmir now each & every corner of Kashmir will be our timeline
— Irshad Nabi (@kashmir_rise) April 26, 2017
Last year they imposed curfew.We were without food & other stuff. Barring internet is not a big deal. We will sustain our struggle. #Kashmir
— Haziq Qadri (@haziq_qadri) April 26, 2017
E-curfew in Kashmir. Social media banned. What next? Ban on TV channels, so no news can come out of the Valley?
— Harinder Baweja (@shammybaweja) April 27, 2017
Others see no point in the ban:
The Resistance in #kashmir Was there when There was no #Internet so Banning Social Media Will not Change Anything
We resist We Exist
— Musa Kashmiri (@Musa_Kashmiri) April 26, 2017
You're entitled to your opinion. So are we. To justify banning social media is not okay, and playing the victim even more. https://t.co/4I17CMUzwb
— faysal (@_Faysal) April 27, 2017
Mir Laieeq writes in a Facebook post:
It hardly matters that they call such raw courage and political clarity as a simplistic expression of “anger” or “recklessness”. More than anything else it has always been the people on the streets who have valiantly decimated the obfuscations weaved by the media wing of the Indian military occupation in Kashmir and this resistance will continue till the dawn of Azaadi (freedom), soon, Inshallah (God Willing)!
The sweeping censorship of social media under the pretext of ‘maintaining peace and order’ will bring neither peace nor order. Such broad censorship clearly violates the democratic ideals and human rights India purports to uphold.”
A report in scroll.in reads:
There might be a legitimate security reason to turn off the internet, but it needs to be vigorously debated in public, with an examination of costs and benefits. Did the SMS ban in its time really reduce stone-pelting? Won’t those who use data services to organise simply move to another platform, leaving those who have adopted the government’s digital India approach helpless? Is this simply authoritarian laziness from a government that has been unable to deliver its promises?


text:
Kashmiri Man Who Was Tied to an Indian Military Jeep as a Human Shield Says He Now Lives in Fear · Global Voices
VideoVolunteers

Screenshot from YouTube video
This post was written by Madhura Chakraborty and originally appeared on Video Volunteers, an award-winning international community media organization based in India. An edited version is published below as part of a content-sharing agreement.
This is a horrid tale of a 26-year-old shawl weaver from the Indian-administered territory of Kashmir, who was tied to the hood of an Indian military vehicle as it patrolled villages on a recent voting day. The video showing Farooq Ahmad Dar being used as a “human shield” against demonstrators pelting stones went viral and drew outrage from local and international quarters (see Global Voices report).
Video volunteer community journalist Rafiqa Bano interviewed Farooq a week after his painful ordeal. He said:
My mother wants me to go see a doctor. But I am afraid of going to a hospital. I’m afraid they will find me and kill me…I haven’t stepped outside my house in the last eight days.
Watch the full interview below:
On April 9, 2017, a by-poll election for a vacant seat in the lower house of the Indian Parliament Lok Sabha was held amidst fierce protests from civilians and a heavy presence of armed security forces. Farooq, who lives with his mother in a village in the Budgam district of the valley, left his home at 8 a.m. to go cast his vote. On his way back from the polling booth, he intended to visit a relative’s home. But he would instead return home late that evening, traumatized and with injuries. He had become one more casualty of the impunity that the armed forces enjoy in Kashmir.
Farooq was stopped by armed personnel from the 53 Battalion of the Rashtriya Rifles, a part of the Indian Army. He said he showed them his finger, marked with the indelible ink – certain proof of his having cast a vote. Despite this, Farooq said they beat him up brutally. But this was only the beginning of his ordeal. Following this, he was tied to the front of the army jeep and paraded through multiple villages for almost 30 kilometres.
“They treated me like a football. I am a human being, not a toy,” he asserted in his interview. A bystander shot a video which went viral on social media. In the shakily shot mobile footage, one can clearly hear the military personnel announcing over a megaphone “This is what will happen to stone pelters,” apparently trying to make an example out of him.
Only, Farooq said he was no stone pelter. He was just one of the 6.5% of the electorate in the state that turned up to vote on April 9 – a day marked by deadly protests, in which eight demonstrators were killed when the army opened fire. He’s part of the minuscule population of Kashmiris who still choose to place their faith in democratic processes, despite the fact that fundamental rights protected by the Indian constitution such as the right to life and equality before law and freedom from arbitrary arrests have been routinely violated over the last 27 years.
This is not the only such video to have emerged in the last month or so from Kashmir. Several videos of armed forces reprortedly beating or torturing Kashmiri youth are circulating on social media, some of them apparently shot by army personnel themselves. The cyber crime cell of the Jammu and Kashmir State Police in Srinagar was in the process of identifying and banning users who uploaded such videos. Mobile high-speed internet was blocked in the valley on April 17. Since 2012, the state has cut off the internet for citizens for an astounding 28 times. Social media, especially Facebook, is widely used by Kashmiri youth as a means of expressing dissent and presenting an alternate view to mainstream media depictions of their lives.
Kashmir is infamous as the largest militarized zone in the world. The rise of a separatist movement in Kashmir in the late 1980s resulted in Indian authorities heavily deploying military and paramilitary forces since the early 1990s. Those personnel are enabled further by laws like the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act (1990) and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (1978). The former empowers armed personnel to “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death” in a case of perceived contravention of law and order. The Public Safety Act has provisions for arresting and jailing a person without trial for two years on suspicion that he or she may disrupt public order or act against the security of the state.
Between July and October 2016, over 7,000 Kashmiris, most of them young boys, were jailed under this law. Even minors as young as 13 were not spared. Rights groups documenting human rights abuses in the valley estimate that in the last 27 years over 70,000 have been killed, over 8,000 people have suffered forced disappearance and there are over 6,000 unknown, unmarked and mass graves.
Farooq is poor and cannot afford to pursue a case against the personnel of the Rashtriya Rifles. The outrage over the incident has ensured that the state police lodged a First Information Report against those responsible for the incident. At the same time, however, officials of the central government and the army have come out with various explanations to justify the actions. An army probe into the incident concluded that “the commanding officer took the decision reluctantly and as the last resort” when he realised that his unit had to pass an area where people had gathered to protest. Others like Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi have been more outspoken in extending their support to the battilion's actions:
The recent report about a stone pelter tied to an Army vehicle, it helped contain stone pelters and saved the poll officials. Why so much noise…Every day people are dying. It’s a surcharged atmosphere. The Army is dealing with terrorists, not with protestors, so they will have to be dealt with…everyone should look at the Army with pride, they are doing a great job…Sitting in AC rooms you can’t criticize army. Please put yourself in army position.
Currently, a more in-depth probe into the incident has been ordered by the Army’s Court of Inquiry, which has to reach a decision by May 15. It is important to note that according to the Section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, army personnel guilty of human rights violations cannot be prosecuted in civil courts without permission from the central government. According to an Amnesty International report in 2015, the Ministry of Defense and Home Affairs refused to reveal the number of requests for prosecution of army personnel they had received, and so far no army personnel has been tried or convicted in civil courts of justice, even for cases of mass sexual assaults.
Given this history and the current political climate in the country, where criticizing the army’s actions is immediately seen as an “unpatriotic” act, it is hard to hold out hope for justice. Meanwhile, Farooq and his mother continue to live in insecurity. Farooq’s brother was allegedly killed by the army in the 1990s. The politicians, army and media will move onto the next big issue. But what will happen to this traumatized and humiliated young shawl weaver in a forgotten corner of Kashmir?

author: VideoVolunteers


text:
Kyrgyzstan Bolsters Protections Against Domestic Violence · Global Voices
Eurasianet

Domestic violence. Wikimedia commons image.
The following is a partner post from EurasiaNet.org written by Nurjamal Djanibekova. Republished with permission.
Kyrgyzstan has in a landmark decision adopted legislation designed to provide greater protections for victims of domestic abuse.
Kyrgyzstan already has laws in place criminalizing violence in the home, but the legislation approved by President Almazbek Atambayev on April 28 constitutes a substantial and important revision.
One fresh provision will require police to respond to every reported instance of domestic violence. This means that any member of the public can file complaints, even if they are only witnesses not direct parties to the violence.
Under the previous law, police were unable to initiate an investigation and press criminal charges until the victim had filed a report. Many victims of violent spouses are understandably afraid to pursue police action for fear of sustaining more mistreatment. Even in cases where acts of abuse had been captured on camera, police as a rule declined to take action.
“Considering that policemen are more often than not men, the victims of violence do not file reports, and when they do, they often withdraw them the following day,” Zulfiya Kochorbayeva, an expert on gender issues who was involved in drawing up the legislation, told EurasiaNet.org.
According to Kochorbayeva, it is particularly important that every woman that has been subjected domestic abuse will now receive a protection order. This document will ensure protection for the victim of reported violence and help prevent intimidatory reprisals from either the offender or their relatives for a minimum of three days. In the event of a victim feeling in danger after the three-day period has elapsed, they can inform the police and have the order extended to one month.
“Up until now, in order to get a protection order, women had to prove in court that the domestic violence had occurred. We have simplified the procedure as much as possible and lifted the burden from the victim. This is so the relatives of the husband cannot pressure the victim into withdrawing her complaint. They will know that this is the law,” said Kochorbayeva.
Kochorbayeva said the protection order will be issued to police officers immediately following a complained being filed and that the period of time between the initial report and court hearings will be kept as short as possible.
The new law will also protect the relatives of victims by specifically criminalizing any attempt at intimidation them.
Underage children suffering abuse in the home will now be eligible for more swift referral to child welfare specialists. And if doctors, for example, detect evidence of physical mistreatment while doing medical check-ups at schools, they are now required to immediately report their suspicions. Previously, such referrals would have to be subject to approval from the parents, which was an absurd arrangement, since no parent was ever likely to report themselves to the authorities.
The legislation even incorporates the concept of “economic violence,” whereby the abuser exploits their dominant role in a conjugal arrangement to deprive their partner from finding work and forces them to remain at home against their will.
Parents forcing their children to beg or miss school for any reason will also fall foul of the law. According to UNICEF research, among 2,000 children polled, around 70 percent said that they have at some stage been victims of mistreatment or neglect by their parents.
The problem of violence in the family is deep-set in Kyrgyzstan. According to official figures, every fourth woman that has ever been married has been subjected to violent abuse. In 98 percent of cases, the violence is meted out by a husband or former spouse.
This overhaul of the law has been long in coming. Human rights activists were pushing for changes back in 2009, but the initiative was marooned amid the political chaos that ensued during and after the 2010 overthrow of the government.
It was only in 2016 that parliament again returned to the issue and passing the revised law.
As Human Rights Watch has painstakingly documented, however, the problem with laws and their lack of implementation have traditionally be compounded by social indifference and a shortage of resources for the victims of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.
In 2003, following a sustained signature-gathering campaign, Kyrgyzstan adopted a law against violence in the family. According to a United Nations assessment, the legislation marked a considerable improvement in the protection of rights and freedoms for women. It enabled victims to file complaints, request protection orders of up to 15 days and appeal to local elders’ courts.
But the obstacles in the way to actually filing a complaint — which activists now hope have been largely lifted — made the legislation ineffective.

author: Eurasianet


text:
Rafael Braga Vieira: Symbol of Institutionalized Racism and Criminalized Poverty in Brazilian Justice · Global Voices
Mariana Parra

A banner at a demonstration in support of Rafael Braga Vieira in 2014. Photo: Mídia Ninja/Flickr, CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0
Rafael Braga Vieira was sentenced to five years in prison after police arrested him at a large demonstration in Rio de Janeiro on June 20, 2013. Just 25 years old at the time, Braga was homeless and collecting recyclables to survive. He says he was completely unaware that a mass protest was even taking place. When police found on his person bottles of disinfectant and bleach, they charged him with carrying explosives, and he was sentenced before the end of the year.
Braga was the only person sent to prison in connection with the June 2013 protests, but his case was just the beginning of a darker saga that activists and legal experts today say symbolizes the institutionalized racism of Brazil's judicial system and the country's criminalization of poverty.
Braga remained in jail until December 2015, when a court allowed him to serve out the rest of his term at his mother's home in Rio, wearing an electronic anklet. A month later, however, police arrested him again for carrying 0.6 grams of marijuana and a firework (the kind used by drug traffickers to alert gangs when police enter the community).
On April 20, 2017, Braga was convicted of drug trafficking, and this time a court sentenced him to 11 years and three months in prison, despite an intense campaign (now in its third year) carried out by activists who have repeatedly pointed out the contradictions and irregularities in Braga's two trials.
The judge in his first trial in 2013 seems to have ignored a technical report by Rio de Janeiro state's bomb squad, which concluded that the cleaning products Braga was carrying had “minimum explosive capacity,” partly because the bottles were made of plastic, while Molotov cocktails are normally made using glass bottles.
Braga denied the charges that lead to his second arrest in 2016, accusing officers of assaulting him and forging evidence — something not uncommon in Brazilian policing, where suspects are often beaten into denouncing drug traffickers.
In the second trial, the court threw out the one witness called in Braga's defense (a neighbor who corroborated his version of events) on the grounds that the neighbor had a “family relationship” with Braga. The prosecution's five witnesses were all police officers with conflicting testimonies. For example, one officer said Braga was transported to the police station in the trunk of a patrol car, while another said he was placed in the backseat.
Remarkably, the judge also refused to review video surveillance footage from cameras in the area where Braga was arrested, ruling that it was “unnecessary to the conclusion of the case.”
Many legal experts have also criticized the sentence, arguing that more than 11 years in prison is a wildly severe punishment for possessing a small amount of marijuana. Ponte Jornalismo, an independent media outlet that closely covered both trials, cited similar cases that resulted in far weaker penalties — like when police arrested an 18-year-old man in 2007 for carrying 25 grams of marijuana. That suspect spent just a day in jail, before a judge dismissed the drug trafficking charges. According to the website G1, the defendant later admitted that he got help from his well-connected father, who was friends with another judge.
Brazil's controversial laws on drugs allow the courts to treat defendants in enormously different ways. While drug use has been decriminalized, the law does not offer clear definitions of what differentiates “use” and “trafficking,” leaving the decision to police officers and judges on a case-by-case basis. Some legal experts argue that the vague language found in these laws actually reinforces racist prejudices in Brazil's justice system, where poorer people of color are far more likely to be convicted of drug trafficking.
David Miranda, Rio de Janeiro's city councillor from the leftist party Socialism and Freedom, compared Braga's trial to another infamous case in Brazil from 2013, when police found 450 kilograms of cocaine paste on a helicopter owned by state deputy and businessman Gerais Gustavo Perrella (the son of senator Zezé Perella). Police arrested the helicopter pilot (an employee of the Perrella family) and charged him with drug trafficking, while prosecutors ignored the Perrellas.
- pinho sol = 11 anos de prisão
- 450 kg de cocaína num helicóptero = processo arquivado#LiberdadeparaRafaelBraga
— David Miranda (@davidmirandario) April 22, 2017
- pinho sol (cleaning product) = 11 years in prison
– 450 kg of cocaine in a helicopter = legal suit archived # FreedomforRafaelBraga
Rafael Braga V. ao lado de uma pichação “Se você só olha da esquerda p/ direita o estado te esmaga de cima p/ baixo” pic.twitter.com/dPgTLzoq66
— Roger Cury (@semfimlucrativo) January 2, 2016
Rafael Braga V. standing beside graffiti reading, “You only look from the left to the right, the state crushes you top-down” [This photo was widely shared on social media. It was taken on November 20, 2014, when Braga was in semi-open regime, as he was returning to prison after a day's work. He was punished for the stunt with 10 days in solitary confinement].
Over the past week, many Internet users reacted angrily to Braga's new conviction, including lawyer and professor Antônio Pedro Melchior:
In a country whose history of human rights violations by the police institution is immense, where the overwhelming majority of the population says they do not trust the police, condemnations based solely on the police officer's word cannot be admitted.
Federal deputy and human rights activist Jean Wyllys also wrote on Facebook:
A script was fulfilled. The judge merely acted as expected.
He gave Rafael a verdict. And so did all of us. In summing up all the disgrace of such typical extreme Brazilian poverty in the condemnation of one more black man, the judge wrote to whom the laws in Brazil serve.
Amnesty International, on Twitter, condemned the verdict:
“Nenhum de nós pode se calar diante da perspectiva que ele pague por crimes que não cometeu” @juremawerneck #LiberdadeParaRafaelBraga pic.twitter.com/GoeGpahcZP
— AnistiaInternacional (@anistiabrasil) April 24, 2017
“None of us can be silent at the prospect that he pays for crimes he did not commit”
Several demonstrations in support of Braga took place in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and even in Uruguay. On April 24, hundreds of people also joined a vigil in São Paulo to protest the new prison sentence.
Demonstration in São Paulo for the release of Rafael Braga. Photo by Daniel Arroyo and Ponte Jornalismo, used with permission.
You can find photos from the demonstration in São Paulo at Ponte Jornalismo's website and the Mães de Maio Facebook page. Also, a couple of videos of the demonstration were posted on Alma Preta's Facebook page. On Facebook, the Pela Liberdade de Rafael Braga Vieira's (For the Freedom of Rafael Braga Vieira) posted a complete timeline (in Portuguese) depicting Rafael's saga, beginning with his first arrest in 2013 and ending with his sentencing this month.

author: Mariana Parra


text:
The Last Time This Many People Went on Strike in Brazil It Was 1996 · Global Voices
Taisa Sganzerla

The largest gathering was at Largo da Batata in central São Paulo. Photo: Ricardo Stuckert, published with permission.
Millions of workers are striking in Brazil against reforms set to weaken labour and pension laws pushed by the conservative government of Michel Temer, who replaced Dilma Rousseff as Brazil's president a year ago after a controversial impeachment process.
Public transportation has been partially shut down in most state capitals, including the country's largest, São Paulo. Bankers, oil industry workers, teachers and civil servants are among the main laborers that stopped working for 24 hours, starting midnight, Friday, April 28. They are led by social movement activists and trade union organizers, who are also staging public demonstrations.
Unlike the protests that have repeatedly occurred in Brazil over the past three years, these demonstrations are also taking place in smaller towns and the big cities’ poorer suburbs. Protesters have blocked some of the country's major interstate roads, bridges, airports and bus terminals since the early hours of the morning. Many people have reported that the day feels like a Sunday or a holiday.
The last time Brazil witnessed a general strike of comparable proportions was in 1996 when Brazil was governed by another pro-austerity president. On Twitter, the hashtags #GreveGeral #BrasilEmGreve trended all day on Friday.
Protesters in Belo Horizonte, Brazil's 4th largest city. Photo: Mídia Ninja CC BY-SA 2.0
Last week, Brazil's Chamber of Deputies approved labour reforms that would increase the workweek from 44 to 48 hours, water-down penalties for companies that fire employees, and make it more difficult for workers to sue their former employers.
The bill is part of a series of reforms hastily pushed by Temer, who enjoys a substantial legislative majority, as well as support from Brazil's business sector, despite his own sinking political popularity. A poll by Ipsos released last week puts his approval rating at a measly 4 percent. Other bills passed into law in the past year include a freeze on increases in public spending and legislation that lifts restrictions on outsourcing. In the coming weeks, the Congress is also expected to vote on major pension reforms.
The government says the reforms are necessary to counter Brazil's massive public deficit and were first announced in late 2015 by the centrist political party PMDB in a document titled “Bridge to the Future.” The plan was released shortly before the party ended its 12-year-old alliance with the Worker's Party — a crucial break that allowed Congress to impeach Dilma Rousseff easily in April 2016. Rousseff was elected with 54 percent of the votes in October 2014 with a very different platform, raising questions about the legitimacy of the government's new reforms.
An ever-unfolding corruption scandal, with new pleas in the past weeks implicating major party leaders and Temer himself, has also increased public discontent and puts the country in a state of uncertainty until the 2018 general elections. Temer himself will likely be prohibited from running in the elections, as he was convicted of violating electoral laws in 2014, leading critics to point out that he is now virtually unaccountable to future voters, as he pushes largely unpopular state policies.
A demonstration in São Paulo South Zone in the early hours of the morning. Photo: Mídia Ninja CC BY-SA 2.0
Many are not in favour of the general strike today. Conservative groups like Movimento Brasil Livre and Vem pra Rua, which were at the forefront of the pro-impeachment protests in 2015 and 2016 and support the austerity reforms, say the protests are merely a political platform for the Worker's Party. Both have started campaigns on social media calling on people to cross picket lines and go to work, while the Free Brazil Movement, which generally favors more aggressive rhetoric, has branded protestors “terrorists.”
A protester in São Paulo. Photo: Mídia Ninja CC BY-SA 2.0
Police have dispersed some crowds with tear gas and rubber bullets, leaving other large demonstration groups untouched. In São Paulo, police detained 16 activists from Brazil's Homeless Workers’ Movement, which advocates social housing and is arguably Brazil's largest social movement today, reportedly charging them with “criminal association.”
In Rio de Janeiro, police dispersed a large crowd of protesters in the early evening.
Pelotão de choque da PM avança em direção aos manifestantes no Centro do Rio. #grevegeral #Brasilemgreve pic.twitter.com/eG192BseXj
— The Intercept Brasil (@TheInterceptBr) April 28, 2017
While most demonstrations so far have been scattered, the largest gathering is happened on Friday evening in downtown São Paulo and protesters marched towards Michel Temer's house nearby.
A protest in the city of Salvador. Photo Mídia Ninja CC BY-SA 2.0
Smaller demonstrations in support of Brazil's protesters also took place in some European capitals, including Berlin.
Brazilian diaspora demonstration in Berlin in support of the national strike #brasilemgreve pic.twitter.com/6ATXjS6SJN
— Luiza Prado (@luizaprado) April 28, 2017

author: Taisa Sganzerla