| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
BOMBAY, 6 August 2006 — In a country widely referred to as the world’s largest democracy, the Indian government has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels.
The Indian government’s ban on Arab television stations is in complete contrast to the friendship that Arab countries imagine exists with their neighbor across the Arabian Sea. It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories. Nabila Al-Bassam, a Saudi businesswoman on a trip to Bombay, told Arab News how she became exasperated at not being able to watch Arab channels at Bombay’s leading five-star Oberoi Hotel. When she took up the issue with the hotel manager, she was told that Arab television channels had been banned across India. A perplexed Al-Bassam then sent an SMS to Arab News Editor in Chief Khaled Almaeena to verify whether this was indeed the case. “Oberoi Hotel tells me that the government of India has banned all Arab TV channels. Why? I hate watching CNN and BBC,” she wrote to Almaeena. Talking to Arab News, Oberoi Hotel Manager Mohit Nirula did allude to the fact that a ban was in place. “The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has laid down certain rules. It is our duty to abide by and follow the rules of the country,” he told this correspondent. Minister of Information and Broadcasting Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi was busy in Parliament and was unavailable for comment on the issue. However, a ministry official explained why the Indian government decided to enforce the ban. The official highlighted that India enjoys close and cordial relations with Israel and the US more than any of the Arab governments. According to another source within the government, the ban is a clear sign to all governments in the Middle East that the Israeli, American and British governments carry far more influence in India than any of the Arab governments. Several senior Indian journalists explained that the ban was an indication that India had succumbed to Israeli pressure rather than American. “The whole exercise is to browbeat Arabs and show them as terrorists. The government is subscribing to the absurd argument that channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya promote hatred and encourage terrorism,” they said. Political analysts in India described the move as a game of double standard that India is playing. On the one hand India establishes friendship with the Arab world while simultaneously it joins with Israel and the US in defaming them. It seems that the pro-Israeli lobby wishes to drive a wedge between India and its time-tested Arab allies. The Indian government’s present stance is in stark contrast to the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s staunch support of the Palestinian cause. The banning of Arabic channels is a federal government decision, done under what senior Indian journalists claim to be intense pressure from the Israeli, American and British governments. The Indian government has been vocal in its condemnation of Israeli barbarity and has offered millions of rupees in aid to refugees in Lebanon. Arabs sympathetic to India have therefore met the news with surprise. Many Arabs draw inspiration from India’s heroic struggle against British imperialism and the Indian independence struggle is seen by Palestinians as a brilliant example of throwing out the yoke of imperialism. It is sad that 50 years after independence the world’s largest democracy unfairly suppresses alternative opinion and allows itself to be dictated to by foreign powers. The analysts believe the Indian government may have used a clause within the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, that certain channels or programs that can potentially cause damage to India’s friendly relations with foreign countries can be banned, a clear violation of democratic ideals such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech. The response to the ban by hotel administrations across Bombay has been dismal. Chad Alberico, JW Marriott’s customer care official in Washington, said: “We have reviewed your recent inquiries regarding the television offerings at our JW Marriott Bombay. We have phoned our colleagues at the hotel to discuss the matter at hand, but as it is the weekend, we will need additional time to form a complete response.” “I’m on my way home, it’s the weekend and I will respond on Monday,” said Shehnaz Ankelsaria from the Taj President Hotel. Annan Udeshi from The Hilton was unavailable and asked for a message to be left on her recorder. Khushnooma Kapadia of Marriott Hotel said she would get back later. Rafat Kazi from the Grand Central Sheraton said that she would answer after consulting her general manager. Puja Guleria of Sheraton Maratta said she needed time to deal with the questions. Firuza Mistry of Grand Hyatt said that she was not aware of the facts and would check and respond, and Priya Mathias of Hyatt Regency said that she would also need to check with her senior officials to comment. Source: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=75907&d=6&m=8&y=2006 MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Real nice MAIA
" It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories." What atrocities MAIA? Lieing liars telling lies. Or maybe they just don't want to succumb to the obvious propogandist lies that might just be the sum total of those "media" outlets (Yeah, "free" Arab press telling the truth. You funny.) And your source, arabnews.com, they are sooooo obviously non partisan. This doesn't even purport to be a news article, it's an editorial. Not one named source in the whole thing. If CNN and the BBC aren't adequate propogandists for the Arab lie machine to suit this woman she is obviously a plant. Staged man on the street interviews, anyone? Hysterical nitwittery and you bought it whole. And then you brought it here. For shame.
| |||||||
|
xBannedx ![]() Registered: 05/25/06 Posts: 1,410 Last seen: 17 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Oh, you know, the things that Sumner Redstone doesn't let Viacom show, dead babies and such. Of course, we all know that Hezbollah hides their Katyhsuhas inside young children, making them great targets for the cowardly heebs to fly over and carpet bomb them. Are you yourself Jewish, y any chance? Quote: So, you think that it's just fine, nothing untoward, about a Jewish lobby stopping the Arab side of the story from getting out? Most people just aren't smart enough to realize that the Arab side is bias. Fortunately, we've got enough zionist-owned media outlet to hear the real, unbias side of the story. -------------------- Unions are the bastions of the mediocre. - luvdemshrooms
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Israel-Lebanon fighting leads Arab media
CAIRO, Egypt — For Arab news media, the war between Israel and Hezbollah is a fresh chapter in a tale with strong emotional pull and well-defined enemies, and has pushed Iraq to the back of newscasts and off front pages. “Iraqi news has not been ignored by the Arab satellite channels’ newscast, it still exists, but has decreased sharply in the last two weeks,” said Sameeha Dahroug, the former head of Egypt’s Nile satellite channel. As with any breaking story, experts say, the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah is new and more compelling than the bloody but murky Iraq conflict. The Israeli-Hezbollah struggle also better strikes emotional and historical chords with the Arab audience than does Iraq, where Arabs are fighting each other as well as the United States. “In Lebanon, the case is completely different. We have a peaceful unarmed people, who are held close to every Arab heart, facing a destructive Israeli military machine - the first enemy of the Arabs - absolutely without pretext,” Dahroug said. More than 400 civilians, mostly Lebanese, have been killed in the fighting, the focus of much Arab media coverage. Unlike American television and newspapers, reports in Arab media - much of which is state-controlled - feature graphic photos of dead children, disemboweled bodies and severed limbs. The reports heighten the already anti-Israeli and anti-U.S. sentiment among Arabs. “The confrontation with Israel is always in the Arab mind,” said Abdel Bari Taher, a Yemeni political analyst at the Yemeni Center for Study and Research and also former head of the Journalists’ Syndicate there. And Arabs see Lebanon “as the beating heart of the region - the media, cultural and tourism center - anything that happens in Lebanon affects the larger Arab world automatically.” Abdul Khaleq Abdulla, a U.S.-educated political scientist at Emirates University in the United Arab Emirates, a U.S. ally in the Iraq war, said the news coverage of Lebanon is deepening Arab hatred of the United States. “People hold America morally and politically responsible for this. They hate America at this point, and it will last,” he said. “They see the destruction of Iraq and Palestine on a daily basis. And now they see destruction in Lebanon on a daily basis. The blame leads through Tel Aviv and straight to Washington.” The Arab media emphasize that Israel’s bombing of Lebanon is being carried out with U.S.-made F-16 and F-15 warplanes dropping U.S.-made guided bombs - paid for with American tax dollars. This week, front pages splashed reports that Washington was rushing an emergency shipment of “bunker buster” bombs to Israel’s air force. Some Arab regimes quietly share Israel’s low opinion of Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, and offered criticism at the time of the Hezbollah raid. But those opinions have been forced below the surface by Israel’s attacks on Lebanon. “Lebanon is very important for Arabs, and its significance comes from the large number of Arab tourists and investors in the country. Many Arabs have families living there,” said Nekhleh al-Haj, news director at the Al-Arabiya satellite news channel. Four Dubai-owned television stations said a Friday telethon raised $13.4 million for the Lebanese people, some 750,000 of whom have been left homeless. While Arabs still care about Iraq, “the horrors we see there today, regrettably, are commonplace,” al-Haj said, while the Lebanon story is fresh. “The sad thing is that the car bombs and other attacks have become as routine, not news for the audience.” Also, it is easier to cover Lebanon. “We have lots of reporters in place and so far they have not been targeted, unlike in Iraq, where it is so dangerous and reporters can’t move freely,” he said. Not that it is completely safe. At least one journalist has been killed. Meanwhile, the Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York, said it had asked Israel to investigate why its jets fired missiles near Arab television crews covering the effects of its bombardment in Khaim, Lebanon, on July 22. Israel denies targeting journalists. Jamal Dejani, director of Middle Eastern Affairs at the U.S. satellite network Link TV, gathers reports from across the Arabic media. He said the shift away from Iraq coverage, especially on independent networks, reflects a quest for ratings, much like American television. Al-Jazeera, the pan-Arab satellite channel, has labeled the current fighting in Israel and Lebanon “The Sixth War,” comparing it in history to the epic battles of the past in the Arab-Israel conflict. It’s “the saga that has gone on for decades. It reflects how people are seeing this war,” Dejani said. By comparison, “one more car bomb in Baghdad, another 100 killed … the sex appeal of it has weakened,” he said, not only on Arab television but in American media, too. “You have (CNN’s) Anderson Cooper parachuting into Beirut, all these superstars are heading into Lebanon. Even (CNN’s) Dr. (Sanjay) Gupta. “I was watching thinking that he’d tell me about my cholesterol, but he’s running around putting his face on the camera and giving his take on the hospitals there. If it’s good enough for Sanjay Gupta, it’s enough to kill (the) Iraq (story).” Associated Press reporters Jim Krane in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Tarek El-Tablawy in New York contributed to this report. © Associated Press (AP) Source: http://www.newswatch.in/?p=5437 MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Israel’s military censorship and war reporting in Lebanon
In managing media coverage from Israel of the war in Lebanon, Israeli officials are implementing military censorship guidelines which make specific provisions about general news coverage, coverage of activity leading to the ground operation and coverage of actual combat. For example, it is “strictly forbidden to show a picture of the full battle coverage, with an emphasis of identifying the location (long shot pictures)”. Another provision states: “There is a special emphasis on matters regarding the activity of special forces and the use of unique kinds of ammunition and weaponry.” IDF takes media into Lebanon International news agencies note that although the army has made available cockpit footage of attacks on Hezbollah positions, few photographs have emerged after fierce ground clashes in southern Lebanon. The daily briefings which IDF officers used to hold, which were on the record and sometimes live on air, were suspended earlier this week, Israeli newspaper Haaretz’s Arab affairs correspondent Yoav Stern told the BBC. But Israeli briefings to journalists from all media in closed forums have continued. The IDF does not have any “embedded” reporters with its units. But on 26 July Israeli forces took some reporters into Lebanon for a few hours. Israel’s Hebrew-language media are concentrating on the Israeli casualties from Katyusha rockets, the dead soldiers and the daily sirens and shelling in the Galilee. Haaretz newspaper on 28 July interviewed Israeli soldiers wounded in the battle for Bint Jubayl on 26 July. One corporal told the paper: “It was hell on earth.” And he added that Hezbollah fighters had demonstrated impressive combat capabilities. “They are strong fighters, not like us, but better than Hamas,” he said. Yoav Stern told the BBC: “In Haaretz we try to give a few items a day on what’s going on in Lebanon, not easy considering the fact that Lebanese and even foreigners in Lebanon are not very happy to talk to Israelis, to say the least. I think that you can find the numbers of Lebanese casualties in all media, but the question is how much space is given to this.” While some Israelis might look at Al-Jazeera “to get a glimpse about what the other side thinks, since Arabic is not very common here, I can’t say it’s a widespread phenomenon,” Stern added. Video cameras for IDF troops Israeli censorship is still strong when it comes to sensitive aspects of the military operations, such as how to show on TV the damage at sites where missiles have fallen. On 25 July Associated Press reported that the Israeli army had equipped its soldiers in Lebanon with video cameras, hoping they would return from the battlefield with footage of Hezbollah casualties and weapon stockpiles. “The move is Israel’s latest attempt to ward off criticism that it is restricting media access to the front despite daily media briefings by top generals. Israel has not allowed reporters to accompany the troops and its censors can delay the release of information,” Associated Press noted. © BBC Monitoring Source: http://www.newswatch.in/?p=5423 MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Indian govt gives in to media owners, defers Broadcast Bill
The controversial Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill 2006 will not be tabled in the ongoing Parliament session after all. The Union ministry of parliamentary affairs has listed ten Bills for introduction during the sesion; the Broadcast Bill is not among them. The government’s decision to pull the Bill off the list comes in the wake of the representations made by media owners to the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry during the month of July. NO STORM THIS SESSION: The Union ministry of parliamentary affairs has listed ten Bills for introduction during the ongoing Parliament sesion; the Broadcast Bill is not among them. The government’s decision to pull the Bill off the list comes in the wake of the representations made by media owners to the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry in July. I&B minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi is slated to meet top representatives from the media and entertainment industry in early August to ascertain their views on the Bill. “The minister will be meeting industry representatives in early August to address their concerns and apprehensions,” official sources in Delhi said last week. The government has already initiated steps to take stock of the industry’s views on the Bill after it came in for heavy flak over the draconian steps proposed in the draft Bill. I&B secretary SK Arora told the national media committee of the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) last week, “We are preparing a concept note on the Bill which will be circulated within the media industry before tabling the Bill in Parliament.” The CII committee was represented by Business Standard editor TN Ninan, Zee’s Jawahar Goel, star India CEO Peter Mukherjea, India Today Editor-in-Chief Aroon Purie, Tribune Editor-in-Chief HK Dua, apart from representatives from Reliance, BBC and NDTV. This was the third meeting in July where government officials met industry representatives. Earlier this month, representatives from the Indian Media Group (IMG) and the Indian Broadcasting Foundations had also met Arora and expressed their views on the proposed Bill. IMG is an association of 55 television, radio and publication companies, all Indian, while IBF is a grouping of all major broadcasters. The media owners, however, seemed to be more concerned about commercial effects of the Bill than freedom of expression. The Bill proposes to cap cross-media ownership at 20 per cent and restructure sharholding patterns. A broadcaster, therefore, cannot have more than 20 per cent stake in another broadcasting network, a cable network or DTH or a radio network. The Bill also says that a broadcaster/group cannot control more than 15 per cent of the total number of television channels in the country, nor can they have more than 15 per cent of total viewership. Though the proposed Bill had a number of clauses that were seen as dangerous for freedom of expression, it is actually commercial interests that have prevailed over the Union government to hold back the Broadcast Bill. In the last one month that big media owners kept the pressure on the government, there were no reports of journalists’ organisations or free expression / civil liberties groups doing likewise. At least, they did not make news. CONTENTIOUS: The Bill — which will effectively regulate private broadcasting — provides for punishment like revocation of licences and fines on those who violate the proposed broadcast guidelines, including the Content Code under preparation, if their service is considered “prejudicial to friendly relations with a foreign country, public order, communal harmony or security of the state,” which are not specifically defined. The only condemnation had come from the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ). “While IFJ supports any move to prevent monopolistic control of the media in the hands of a few corporations, journalists and unions must ensure that the proposed changes to the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill do not allow for the abuse or stretching of the law by the Indian government in any situation,” said IFJ President Christopher Warren. There is also concern that the Bill — which will effectively regulate private broadcasting — provides for punishment like revocation of licences and fines on those who violate the proposed broadcast guidelines, including the Content Code under preparation, if their service is considered “prejudicial to friendly relations with a foreign country, public order, communal harmony or security of the state,” which are not specifically defined. “IFJ, along with its affiliates in India, must monitor the establishment of the new Broadcasting Bill to ensure that press freedom isn’t restricted or violated, and that it does in fact benefit journalists and allows for free dissemination of news to communities,” Warren said. The National Union of Journalists (NUJ), the Indian Journalists’ Union (IJU), and the All-India Newspaper Employees Federation (AINEF) are affiliates of IFJ in India. Though Dasmunshi has repeatedly been insisting that he would be introducing an extremely media-friendly law, it is not clear whether this friendliness would have an affinity more towards media owners or media workers (read, freedom of expression advocates). One would have to wait for another session of Parliament for that. © Newswatch Source : http://www.newswatch.in/?p=5413 MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
... and last but not least:
India to go ahead with draconian broadcast Bill After a week of keeping critics on tenterhooks, the Indian government now seems determined to push through the draconian Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill 2006. Once made into an Act, it would be something that would even made Russian President Vladimir Putin blush. WHO’S TALKING? The Union minister for information and broadcasting Priyaranjan Dasmunshi attempted to lob the ball into the court of the mainstream English media, according to a Press Trust of India (PTI) report. “Do their journalists enjoy freedom in their own organisations and is their work not subjected to pressures from the management?” Dasmunshi questioned. On July 16, Union minister for information and broadcasting Priyaranjan Dasmunshi not only ruled out any discussion with the broadcasting industry, but went on to assert that the Bill would neither be “diluted” nor “polluted”. If that was not all, the minister promised to bring up the Bill in the ensuing monsoon session of Parliament. The monsoon session of Parliament will be held between July 24 and August 19. “I can say with responsibility that the Bill will be a media-friendly, progressive legislation not seen anywhere in the world,” Dasmunshi said at the one-day conference of the Indian Languages Newspaper Association in New Delhi. The minister, however, did not say why he repeatedly fails to condemn attacks on journalists in India. The minister attempted to lob the ball into the court of the mainstream English media, according to a Press Trust of India (PTI) report. “Do their journalists enjoy freedom in their own organisations and is their work not subjected to pressures from the management?” he questioned. Dasmunsi said the media was correct in highlighting the shortcomings of the government or its various schemes. “However, if you just report the negative and do not highlight the positive, it will not help anyone,” he said. That the government is adamant about pushing through the Bill unilaterally was evident from the response of the information and broadcasting secretrary SK Arora to a delegation of the Indian Media Group (IMG) which met the bureaucrat last week. He told them that drawing up the legislation was the prerogative of the government and it may or may not consult broadcasters at every stage. So far, it has not any any stage. The media owners, however, seemed to be more concerned about commercial effects of the Bill than freedom of expression. The Bill proposes to cap cross-media ownership at 20 per cent and restructure sharholding patterns. A broadcaster, therefore, cannot have more than 20 per cent stake in another broadcasting network, a cable network or DTH or a radio network. Just like FM Radio operators, television networks will not be allowed to own more than 15 per cent of the total number of channels. IMG is not a press freedom association, but one of domestic media and entertainment companies. GLASS HOUSE: The Sahara Samay office. The Bill proposes to cap cross-media ownership at 20 per cent and restructure sharholding patterns. A broadcaster, therefore, cannot have more than 20 per cent stake in another broadcasting network, a cable network or DTH or a radio network. Just like FM Radio operators, television networks will not be allowed to own more than 15 per cent of the total number of channels. (Sahara Samay) The dismissive attitude of the government over consultation with the media over the proposed Act comes days after reports that it was likely to take a relook at some of the contentious clauses of the Bill and was keen to take the media industry into confidence before getting on with the process of formulating laws for governing them. “The information and broadcasting secretary assured us that he will look into the contentious provisions of the draft bill and will do everything possible to involve the industry in the consultation process,” officials of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) told the Financial Express after a meeting with secretary Arora. Meanwhile, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has expressed concern over the Bill which also hints at strict content regulation for news channels. “While IFJ supports any move to prevent monopolistic control of the media in the hands of a few corporations, journalists and unions must ensure that the proposed changes to the Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill do not allow for the abuse or stretching of the law by the Indian government in any situation,” said IFJ President Christopher Warren. There is also concern that the Bill — which will effectively regulate private broadcasting —provides for punishment like revocation of licences and fines on those who violate the proposed broadcast guidelines, including the Content Code under preparation, if their service is considered “prejudicial to friendly relations with a foreign country, public order, communal harmony or security of the state,” which are not specifically defined. “IFJ, along with its affiliates in India, must monitor the establishment of the new Broadcasting Bill to ensure that press freedom isn’t restricted or violated, and that it does in fact benefit journalists and allows for free dissemination of news to communities,” Warren said. UNDER WATCH Every authorised BRAI officer shall have the power to prohibit any service provider from transmitting or retransmitting any programme or channel, “if it is not in conformity with the prescribed Content Code, or if it is likely to promote feelings of disharmony or of enmity, hatred or ill-will between religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb public tranquility.” The Broadcast Bill 1997 could never be enacted because of innumerable contentious issues that were embedded in the draft legislation. The new Bill codifies a framework of guidelines and proposes to set up a Broadcasting Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) with both a licensing and oversight function covering terrestrial as well as satellite services and cable networks, including DTH, conditional access systems, emerging digital/computer modes and community radio. Licensing would be mandatory. It is the attempts to control content which threatens freedom of expression. BRAI can refuse to register a channel or even cancel its registration, after due hearing, if its content “is likely to threaten the security and integrity of the State or threaten peace and harmony or public order in the whole or part of the country.” BRAI can also do the same if the name or logo or symbol of a channel is in any way obscene, similar to that of a terrorist organisation or the brand or symbol of any prohibited product, or similar to that of any well-known foreign channel. The phrase “likely to threaten” could permit subjective or vindictive judgements to prevail without redress other than petitioning the Supreme Court for exceeding “reasonable restrictions” as permitted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, wrote columnist and veteran journalist BG Verghese in Daily News & Analysis. “You can’t promise freedom with clauses and caveats. So, when the government says the Bill it is bringing to Parliament is not meant to curb the freedom of the media, but only to ensure your and my freedoms, you can be sure there’s serious doubletalk. This is not a space the State is supposed to enter, certainly not in a robust democracy as we claim ourselves to be,” filmmaker Pritish Nandy wrote in the Times of India. Every authorised BRAI officer shall have the power to prohibit any service provider from transmitting or retransmitting any programme or channel, “if it is not in conformity with the prescribed Content Code, or if it is likely to promote feelings of disharmony or of enmity, hatred or ill-will between religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb public tranquility.” According to the draft Bill, the government will have the power to make rules from time to time. GLASS HOUSE: A video grab shows Matunga Station in Mumbai after the blast July 11, 2006. It is the attempts to control content which threatens freedom of expression. BRAI can refuse to register a channel or even cancel its registration, after due hearing, if its content “is likely to threaten the security and integrity of the State or threaten peace and harmony or public order in the whole or part of the country.” (Reuters/CNN-IBN) Moreover, every authorised BRAI officer shall have the powers to inspect, search, seize equipment under Section 24 and prosecute on a written complaint by the concerned licensing authority, according to the draft Bill which has proposed setting up of a broadcast regulator, which would issue licences to cable operators. Apart from empowering government officials of the ranks of district magistrate, sub-divisional magistrate or police commissioner to barge into newsrooms are seize equipment, Section 37 makes it clear that the officials’ action cannot be challenged even in court. “No civil court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Authority or the Licensing Authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine,” the draft Bill says. “The State now wants to arrogate to itself the right to storm into any press, any broadcasting studio, any cyber cafe to stop news from reaching you and me. And, horror of horrors, it demands that the law cannot intervene. Even Idi Amin’s Uganda and Saddam’s Iraq would have been ashamed of such a Bill. How come India 2006 is even considering it?” Nandy wondered. “It has been the universal experience of nations that it is far too dangerous to entrust such sweeping powers of controlling content to the government. Such powers are bound to be misused by the government, which will eventually completely compromise the freedom of the media and reduce them to instruments of the government. These provisions will also violate of the fundamental right of free speech, which includes a free press, and should be struck down as being unconstitutional,” Supreme Court lawyer and rights activist Prashant Bhushan wrote in Outlook. One will have to wait till Parliament starts deliberations on the Bill. © Newswatch Source: http://www.newswatch.in/?p=5380 ... do you want me to go on ? Happy yet ? MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
I googled Nabila magilla and found this right off
"Across the border in Saudi Arabia, even the notion of a debate is anathema. Saudi Arabia has virtually no political culture. "We don't need democracy, we have our own 'desert democracy," explained Nabila al-Bassam, a Saudi woman who ran her own clothing and gift store in Dhahran. What she was referring to was an ancient desert tradition known as the majlis, weekly gatherings hosted by members of the ruling family, where any of their subjects were free to present petitions or air grievances. In fact, the majlis was an intensely feudal scene, with respectful subjects waiting humbly for a fefw seconds' opportunity to whisper in their prince's ear. Nabila told me of a friend who had recently petitioned King Fahd's wife to allow the legal import of hair-salon equipment. Technically, hairdressing salons were banned in Saudi Arabia, where the religious establishment frowned on anything that drew women from their houses. In fact, thriving salons owned by prominent Saudis and staffed by Filipina or Syrian beauticians did a roaring trade. "My friend is tired of having to run her business in secret," Nabila said. But so far she had received no response to her petition. "Petitions do work," said Nabila. "But in this society you have to do things on a friendly basis, like a family. You can ask for things, but you can't just reach out and take things as if it's your right." A rejected petitioner had no choice but to accept the al-Sauds' decision. With no free press and no way to mobilize public opinion, the al-Sauds ruled as they liked." http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/005798.html An aplogist for Islamofascism. Is this the kind of woman you want to be? Subservient to men? And this: "Al Bassam is in the capital these days as part of an 18-member delegation sent by the Saudi government on a PR exercise before King Abdullah’s state visit begins next week." http://www.dnaindia.com/sunreport.asp?Newsid=1008890 That is from 1/21/06 You know what's really good? She talks about Saudis having "our own 'desert democracy' (which isn't but that's neither here nor there) and the from the second link I learn this: "With her unveiled head and flourishing business, she’s hardly your typical Saudi woman. Yet, in many ways she is. As she freely admits, she’s got where she is today because of the men in her life. In the beginning, it was her father who educated her in India and then at the American University in Beirut." The woman is an Islamofascist shill who will do and say anything to protect her priveleged positon in Saudi society.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
So, because India has a cowardly gov't with no backbone, Israel is somehow to blame for this?
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't know what news you get, but I've seen lot's of pictures of dead babies. Lot's of the same ones too at lots of different times. Maybe Redstone thinks its in bad taste. But the MSM is loaded with dead baby pictures. Maybe its a TV thing. Or aren't you getting enough dead baby porn on your over the air networks? They actually are firing rockets from civilian areas and there is no carpetbombing. So, Helmut, howsabout linking to these "atrocities"? Lieing liars telling lies. No, Helmut, I am neither a Jew nor of Jewish descent. I am of as lily white European descent as your nazi self could possibly dream of Quote:Quote: I saw absolutely nothing in that editorial that led me to believe that anything stated there was accurate. Except Nabilla gorilla complained about something.
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
I don't really know what's your point besides going off topic with your post. Re read the main topic again. This is about India and the new bill on media freedom which directly affects the broadcast of arab tv on that country, not the saudi arabia and its lack of freedom. Is this your "objective" way to prove me wrong ?
One thing you managed to explain. Regardless of a country being fascist, communist or democratic, there're always means to control the media. MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS) Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,396 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 4 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Of course this subject is a complex one, and most probably Israel is not the only state lobbying with India. Still, some questions remain, like who has the biggest interest on censoring crippled and dead Lebanese on the media ? On the other hand, shifting the issue to India having a "cowardly gov't with no backbone", instead of dealing with the root of it - which is the fact that Israel does use its lobbying techniques to hide facts from the public - , won't help you deal objectively with this subject. MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Your first article is a series of Arab propoganda
"“In Lebanon, the case is completely different. We have a peaceful unarmed people, who are held close to every Arab heart, facing a destructive Israeli military machine - the first enemy of the Arabs - absolutely without pretext,” Dahroug said." Yep, aint no rockets or kidnappers in Lebanon. Second article concerned Israeli censorship of military operations. Well fucking duh, they're in a war. Three and four, although incredibly tedious and lengthy, at no point in either one did I see a mention of either arab media or an Israeli foreign hand lobbying to squelch them. Which was the whole point of your first lying piece of propoganda from arabnews, that Israel had successfully lobbied to get Arab news off the air in India. Is it dishonest to post an interminable article that doesn't in the least back up your premise in the hopes that nobody will actually read it? There is an awful lot of that going on here and yours is the latest example. So let's have it pal, some proof that Israel successfully managed to censor arab news in India. Or don't you have it?
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: My point, which you have entirely missed in your zeal to find some example of censorship, is that there is not a shred of credible evidence in that editorial. The only quoted person is Nabila and she is a Saudi shill. No Indian is quoted by name. Not one saying what the editorial purports as a fact. And neither of your other articles make that assertion at all.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: And we are breathlessly awaiting any evidence you may produce to show that Israel has lobbied the Indian Gov't to squelch Arab news. Now, deal objectively with that.
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 6 months, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
Israel's lobby is not the main offender here. Lobbyists do what furthers their cause; this should not be a suprise to you. India needs to do what they need to to show that they are a legitimate democracy. Guaranteeing freedom of press would be a good step in the right direction.
I disagree with you that the Israeli lobby is the root of the problem. I believe that a country who's sovereignty is pretty much a joke goes much deeper than this. Also, I don't know where you get off accusing everyone who disagrees with you of not being "objective". I don't see you being any more unbiased than anyone else posting their beliefs here.
| |||||||
|
xBannedx ![]() Registered: 05/25/06 Posts: 1,410 Last seen: 17 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Oh? What about Israeli kidnappers? Need I mention a wee little farm that Israel decided to take over and prevent family members from visiting? What, about ten thousand people there, right? But, of course, the lives of a thousand arabs aren't worth one Jew fingernail according to "our" media. Quote: And even when they aren't, they censor it. When they are out commiting terrorist acts in foreign countries,censor it! Cover it up! When they bomb a US ship, censor it, cover it up. -------------------- Unions are the bastions of the mediocre. - luvdemshrooms
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: What farm, Helmut? Shebaa? It aint even part of Lebanon. You keep bringing that up but never link to any info. How come? Territory won in a war and all. Or should we give Texas back to Mexico? And "our" media doesn't seem to be bending over backwards for the Israelis, in case you haven't noticed Quote:Quote: I guess you found out about that from your super secret Aryan (un)intelligence network.
| |||||||
|
Servent ofWisdom Registered: 02/10/06 Posts: 7,059 Loc: Crown and Heart Last seen: 12 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
The sustainable cease-fire that Condi Rice is aiming for includes some lineation of Shebaa Farms. Or is the U.S. State Department becoming stooges for those eeeevil Araaaabs?
-------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Well, let's fucking see it. Is that too much to ask?
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Israel-US Approved Ethnic Cleansing ( |
4,671 | 20 | 09/03/01 08:05 PM by zetek | ||
![]() |
Israel's Democracy Dilemma ( |
4,311 | 22 | 11/08/03 10:19 AM by Psilocybeingzz | ||
![]() |
Why is Israel a stable democracy and the Arab states aren't? ( |
4,145 | 103 | 08/24/06 07:25 PM by downforpot | ||
![]() |
Jew Banned from Israel for Supporting Palestinian Rights ( |
4,264 | 47 | 12/03/04 09:02 PM by Krishna | ||
![]() |
Arab Traitors | 998 | 16 | 08/30/04 08:51 PM by Zahid | ||
![]() |
ARE ARABS ANTI-AMERICAN? | 1,253 | 11 | 10/02/05 07:45 PM by Unagipie | ||
![]() |
California School District Bans Iron Cross | 1,690 | 14 | 03/09/04 02:42 AM by Johan Shultz | ||
![]() |
Arab Jews and the Borg ( |
3,875 | 25 | 10/09/05 09:05 AM by Los_Pepes |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 8,444 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||




