Comment:

• Protecting your right to free speech - as long as you're 'one of us' that is.
• Jordan Peterson's intellectual complexity makes journalistic incompetence all the more obvious
• Jordan Peterson announces creation of free speech platform 'Thinkspot'
• Jordan Peterson - a real professor who is standing up for free speech
• Tolerance cuts both ways: Freedom of speech means freedom for people to say the things we hate to hear
• Limiting Free Speech leads to Limiting Knowledge and Limiting Choices

Comment: Rather interesting that Google is going this route. What they are essentially arguing is that they are a publisher, not a utility, meaning they can pick and choose what is published on their platforms (as opposed to a utility, like the phone company, who have no say on how their service is used by the public). However, if they're claiming publisher status, this means that they are putting themselves in the position of being responsible for everything that is put onto their platform by users, in the same way that a newspaper would be held responsible for what they publish. It's a rather precarious position to put themselves in and could only make their job as content police more difficult. It also means that the future of YouTube, Google and other social media platforms will likely be more censorious than it currently is.

See also:

• Report: Docs reveal two Google blacklists that remove alternative news & op-eds from special search results
• Google deploys squads to destroy offensive books, videos, websites
• Anti-trust investigation coming? Facebook, Google regulatory woes erode $137 billion from FANG stocks
• Irish regulator opens first privacy probe into Google
• Google 'disables' Press TV's YouTube account
• Leaked Google 'news blacklist' documents show manual manipulation of special search results is policy

Comment: See also:

• Daesh brides have to be isolated at Syrian refugee camp for assaulting 'infidels'
• No 'housewife': UK 'jihadi bride' Shamima Begum was a gun-toting member of Daesh's morality police

Comment:

The Big Picture - TRIPLE TALAQ Bill

Arguments favouring the bill:

• Bill is needed so that even Muslim women also get equality on par with other Muslim men.
• Triple talaq adversely impact rights of women to a life of dignity and is against constitutional principles such as gender equality, secularism, international laws etc.
• The penal measure acts as a "necessary deterrent"
• It significantly empowers Muslim women.
• The practice of triple talaq has continued despite the Supreme Court order terming it void.
• The practice is arbitrary and, therefore, unconstitutional
• The law is about justice and respect for women and is not about any religion or community
• It protects the rights of Muslim women against arbitrary divorce
• Instant triple talaq is viewed as sinful and improper by a large section of the community itself.
• The fine amount could be awarded as maintenance or subsistence.

Arguments opposing the bill:

• It is well established that criminalising something does not have any deterrent effect on its practice.
• Since marriage is a civil contract, the procedures to be followed on its breakdown should also be of civil nature only.
• Civil redress mechanisms must ensure that Muslim women are able to negotiate for their rights both within and outside of the marriage
• The harsh punishment defies the doctrine of proportionality.
• Three years in prison of the convicted husband will end up penalising the already aggrieved wife and children too.
• The punishment will aggravate the insecurity and alienation of the Indian Muslim community
• In the recent Supreme Court judgement, it never said that triple talaq is to be criminally punished.
• Invoke a secular law that already exists: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005.
• Parliament should have passed a law stating that the utterance of the words "talaq, talaq, talaq" would amount to "domestic violence" as defined in the PWDVA.
• The PWDVA was conceived as a law that ensures speedy relief - ideally within three months - to an aggrieved woman
• While PWDVA is civil in nature, it has a reasonably stringent penal provision built into it

Concerns:

• It could be just a piece of legislation rather than a kind than a kind of relief to the women.
• Some representatives have given it a political and religious color.
• Some Muslim women's groups raised concerns about "maintenance" if the husband is sent to jail.
• The mutual divorce provision is missing in the proposed law and needs to be debated.

Time has come to put an end to the suffering of Muslim women who have been at the receiving end of instant talaq for several years. More than 20 Islamic countries have already banned the practice.

Comment: See also:

• Pepe Escobar: The hardcore is yet to come for US & China
• Are Rare Earth Metals China's Ultimate Weapon?

Comment:

• Boeing is screwed: EU and India follow China's lead in banning 737 Max planes from their airspace - UPDATE: Trump grounds all US 737 Max aircraft
• Boeing whistleblowers report more 737 Max problems to FAA
• Two US probes scrutinize how Boeing 737 MAX 8 with 'flawed flight system' got the green light
• Boeing gets ZERO new orders on its troubled 737 Max airliner after being grounded worldwide
• Flawed analysis, failed oversight, greed: How Boeing & FAA certified faulty 737 MAX

Comment:

• Antifa surround home of Tucker Carlson, calling him 'racist scumbag' and threaten him - 'We know where you live'
• Disgusting: Leading editor at Vox defends Antifa siege of Tucker Carlson - then deletes all tweets
• DC authorities investigating Antifa protest at Tucker Carlson's home as possible hate crime
• Journalists from major news publications found to have working relationships with Antifa