Twitter arbitrarily blocks South African newsweekly and several reporters over Covid vaccine story June 21, 2017 Coverage of former Presidents off-limits for Tanzania’s media TanzaniaAfrica Condemning abuses Judicial harassmentFreedom of expression The 2020 pandemic has challenged press freedom in Africa November 5, 2020 Find out more News to go further November 27, 2020 Find out more News February 4, 2021 Find out more Receive email alerts Tanzanian media unable to cover Covid-19 epidemic TanzaniaAfrica Condemning abuses Judicial harassmentFreedom of expression Tanzania’s newly elected president John Magufuli delivers a speech during the swearing in ceremony in Dar es Salaam, on November 5, 2015 © Daniel Hayduk / AFP RSF_en Reports Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns the two-year ban that the government has imposed on the privately-owned weekly Mawio after it ran a story linking two former presidents to massive tax fraud in the mining sector. RSF is also concerned about harassment of journalists who try to provide detailed coverage of the activities of mining companies in Tanzania. Follow the news on Tanzania Organisation News Help by sharing this information The 24-month ban was imposed by information minister Harrisson Mwakyembe on 16 June, since when Mawio editor Simon Mkina has been receiving anonymous telephone threats. The ban was prompted by a story linking former presidents Benjamin Mkapa and Jakaya Kikwete to large-scale tax fraud by mining companies. The Mawio story claimed that both Mkapa and Kikwete signed dubious contracts with companies that have allegedly cheated the Tanzanian state of massive sums since the 1990s. “This ban is totally excessive,” said Clea Kahn-Sriber, the head of RSF’s Africa desk. “This draconian measure contradicts presidential promises of democratic governance in Tanzania and sends an intimidatory message to all of the country’s media.” Mawio’s controversial story was published just days after a commission of enquiry appointed by the current president, John Magufuli, issued a report in which it estimated that the Tanzanian state had lost 75 billion euros as a result of tax evasion by mining companies since 1998. The report did not, however, mention either Mkapa or Kikwete in its conclusions and, referring to the two former presidents in comments delivered in the presidential palace on 14 June, Magufuli warned journalists that they would face severe measures if they did not “stop tarnishing their reputation.” According to Mawio’s editor, the newspaper’s latest issue with the controversial story had already been printed when Magufuli delivered this warning. Last March, information minister Nape Nnauye was summarily fired after calling for an investigation into a heavy-handed raid on a radio station by Dar es Salaam’s governor. Mining is a very sensitive subject. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) issued an alert on 25 April expressing concern about the harassment of Tanzanian media outlets that cover the activities of Acacia Mining, a company based in the northwest that is a subsidiary of Toronto-based Barrick Gold, the world’s largest gold mining company. The CJFE said the police had assisted the harassment in some cases. It also cited a case of a journalist who was warned that he would be accused of “acting against the interest of the nation” if he did not stop covering Acacia Mining. Tanzania is ranked 71st out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index.
Top Stories”Does One Become Christian Just By Attending Church Sermon?” AP HC Dismisses Plea Against CM Jagan Mohan Reddy For His Visit To Tirupati Temple ‘Being A Non-Hindu’ Nupur Thapliyal30 Dec 2020 6:20 PMShare This – xA Single Judge bench headed by Justice Battu Devanand of Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday dismissed writ petition of quo warranto against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Y S Jaganmohan Reddy and other Cabinet Ministers on their visit to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Temple despite being non Hindus and followers of a different religion. The petition was filed requiring the respondents…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA Single Judge bench headed by Justice Battu Devanand of Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday dismissed writ petition of quo warranto against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Y S Jaganmohan Reddy and other Cabinet Ministers on their visit to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Temple despite being non Hindus and followers of a different religion. The petition was filed requiring the respondents to show under what authority are they holding their respective official posts thereby seeking directions on appointment of other competent persons in their place. Alokam Sudhakar Babu, the petitioner in the case, is a social worker and a follower of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy. The genesis of the petition rests on Rule 136 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 which provides that a precondition of giving a declaration has to be fulfilled by every non Hindu while visiting the temple. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that Y S Jaganmohan Reddy, who is a Christian by religion, has entered the temple without furnishing the required declaration thereby violating the law of the State and he is not entitled to continue in the present post as he is holding. Arguments of the petitioner: According to the provisions of the Act, non Hindus belonging to a different religion are allowed inside the temple only after they furnish a declaration under Rule 136 and it is only after the permission is granted can they be allowed to enter inside the temple.Such condition was imposed on other than the Hindus is a reasonable restriction, and to maintain sanctity among the people who visits the century old temple. Y S Jaganmohan Reddy visits to the temple after being a Chief Minister has become controversy and effects the feelings and sentiments of people who belongs to Hindu religion and creating fear on them.The respondent who is supposed to be the first person to comply the State laws is not only violating them but also compelling other cabinet ministers to engage in violations.The act of the respondents to visit the temple without submitting the declaration gave an impression that they are not respecting the feelings of Hindu religion and hurting the sentiments of the Hindus and creating different feelings. Observation of the Court: On Right to Freedom of Religion and meaning of a Professing Christian The bench while interpreting a person’s right to freedom of religion under Art. 25 was of the view that “The individual right contained in Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order, health and morality. Therefore, it is clear that subject to the restrictions imposed in the Article 25, every person has a fundamental right under the constitution not merely to entertain such religious belief but to exhibit its belief and ideas as are enjoyed or sanctioned by this religion and further to propagate his religious views for the edification of the others.” Further, the bench interpreted the provisions of the Act dealing with Admission of Non-Hindus into the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Temples contained in Rule 136 of the Act. While doing so, the Court analyzed the meaning of “professing a religion” and who is a “Hindu”. The bench relied on the case of Punjabrao vs. Dr. D.P.Meshram & Ors. (1965) wherein the Supreme Court held that the word professing means to avow publicly; to make an open declaration, to declare one’s belief, to profess Christ and to accept into a religious order. On the point of the meaning of being a Hindu, the court relied on Sastri Yagnapurushadji & Ors. v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya (1966) where the Court examined the broad features of Hindu religion, after tracing the historical and etymological genesis of the word ‘Hindu’ to river Sindhu otherwise known Indus. After analyzing the decisions on the subject, the bench took note of the point that the Supreme Court has described the Hindu religion as a way of life based on certain basic concepts. While considering the meaning of “Professing Christian religion”, the bench referred to Sec. 3 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 which defines the meaning of Christian and Native Christians. “Any person professing the Christian religion is a Christian for the purpose of the said Act and Christian residence of Natives of India converted to Christianity as well as such converts are classified as Native Christians. Baptism is the sacrament by which a person is admitted into the Church of Christ and it is not only a sign and distinguished mark of the Christian profession.” The bench observed. On Entry of Respondents (Non Hindus) to the Temple The Court observed that the petitioner failed to show any material evidence on record which establishes that the Respondent (Y S Jaganmohan Reddy) is a professing Christian. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner were not entertained by the bench. The bench also noted that merely attending the Christian Gospel conventions and attending the prayers in Churches, one cannot be considered as a Christian. “Recently, the respondent has participated in the prayers in Gurudwara at Vijayawada. Can he be treated as professing the “Sikh” religion? Does one become a “Christian” just by having a biblical name or just by attending a Church sermon? Can one be called as a ‘Christian’ just because they read the Bible or have the Crucifix in their house? Admittedly, the answer will be negative.” The Court observed. Further, the Court also noted that there is a State tradition from years to invite the serving Chief Ministers for offering prayers to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams temples to present “Pattu Vastralu” during Brahmotsavam as per the procedure provided under “Kainkarya Patti”. “In the opinion of this Court, he entered into the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam’s temples, in the capacity of the Chief Minister of the State, as a representative of the people of the state, and as such, he need not submit a declaration as provided under Rule 136 of the Rules.” The court held. However, the bench clarified that if the respondent visits the temple in his personal capacity, it shall be mandatory for him to submit the declaration under the Rule. The Bench dismissed the petition and did not go into the allegations made by the petitioners due to the failure of producing any backing evidence. Case Name: Alokam Sudhakar Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. W.P. No. 17616 of 2020Next Story
On Friday, September 14th, New York-based soul-pop upstarts Lawrence celebrated the release of their sophomore LP, Living Room, with a sold-out hometown performance at Brooklyn Bowl. The performance came at the tail end of a busy week of promotion including intimate NYC performances at the Mercury Lounge and the Blue Note, live-streamed spots with Billboard and Paste, and more. Living Room was officially released on Friday, and by the time the show began at Brooklyn Bowl, the album was already rocketing to the top of new music and R&B/soul charts on streaming services, and album single “Make A Move” had been included on Spotify’s “New Music Friday” playlist.The album’s already-glowing reception was echoed by the Brooklyn Bowl crowd, who sang along to the new material like they’d known the music for years. As keyboardist/vocalist Clyde Lawrence remarked sincerely from the stage, “It’s the most amazing feeling after years of writing and thinking up these songs to come to the album release show and so many people are already singing along.”Led by the brother-sister duo of Clyde and Gracie Lawrence, Lawrence shows are always a family affair. That familial aspect was even stronger than usual on Friday, as friends and family of the band lined the crowd. In addition, as Clyde mentioned sincerely from the stage, the band was thrilled to have the producers of each of their releases in the house for the performance—Eli Crews (Living Room), Eric Krasno (Breakfast), and Adam Schlesinger (Clyde’s Homesick EP). Lawrence filled their set with material from all three releases, including a number of live debuts from the newly released Living Room, an encore-closing rendition of Breakfast standout “Do You Wanna Do Nothing With Me“, a cover of the theme song from classic Nickelodeon cartoon Hey Arnold! merged with the title song from Homesick, and much more. The band also welcomed their supporting artists, guitarist James VIII and vocalist Victoria Canal to the stage during their encore for a powerful rendition of “Natural Woman”, the Carole King-, Gerry Goffin-, and Jerry Wexler-penned Aretha Franklin anthem.Below, you can view a gallery of photos from Lawrence’s Living Room album release show at Brooklyn Bowl via photographer Andrew O’Brien and view a selection of videos from the performance including the Hey Arnold!/”Homesick” medley, the live debut of the album’s opening track, “More”, and the Aretha encore:Lawrence – Hey Arnold! Theme Song -> “Homesick” [Video: Andrew O’Brien]Lawrence – “More” [Live Debut][Video: Andrew O’Brien]Lawrence – “Natural Woman” [Aretha Franklin cover][Video: Andrew O’Brien]Lawrence’s Living Room is available to stream and download now via all major music platforms. In support of the new release, Lawrence is setting out on an extensive late-2018 world tour. Below, you can listen to Living Room in full and check out a list of the band’s upcoming tour stops. For more information, or to grab tickets to a Lawrence show near you, head to the band’s website.Lawrence – Living Room – Full Album Lawrence | Brooklyn Bowl | Brooklyn, NY | 9/14/18 | Photos: Andrew O’Brien Load remaining images
By Dialogo November 14, 2011 A Salvadoran court handed down a sentence of 66 years in prison for two gang members found guilty of killing 20 people who were traveling in a passenger vehicle to which they set fire in June 2010, the press office of the courts announced. “Specialized Trial Court ‘B’ sentenced Juan Antonio Borja Alvarado and Ever Alexis Martínez Méndez to 66 years and six months in prison” for aggravated homicide with multiple victims, the capital’s Judicial Center specified in a statement. In the same case, which provoked an emotional reaction across the country, the court sentenced Rafael Antonio García to three years in prison for “aiding and abetting,” because he was the one who “hid the weapons with which the offenses were committed,” according to the announcement. The fatal attack on the passenger microbus occurred on June 20, 2010, in the Roma neighborhood of the municipality of Mejicanos, on the northern outskirts of San Salvador. Seventeen of the victims burned to death there, and three others died later in hospitals due to the severity of their injuries. The Judicial Center specified that “witness testimony,” which included accounts by police officers who rescued some of the victims, was the basis for convicting the defendants. In addition, the court found credible the testimony of a witness granted anonymity, identified with the code name “Andrea,” who affirmed that it was the defendant Ever Alexis Martínez, a member of Mara 18, who planned and executed the burning of the microbus with people inside, as a response to the death of one of his fellow gang members at the hands of a rival gang. “The defendants planned the act at the deceased man’s wake the day before, since they knew that a fare collector on Route 47 was a member of Mara Salvatrucha,” the statement by the courts indicated. On the basis of witness testimony and other evidence, the court found that the victims were “burned to death.”
Spurs are looking for a replacement for the sacked Andre Villas-Boas and former England boss Hoddle’s name has been linked. The 56-year-old sat in the White Hart Lane dugout between 2001 and 2003 and is currently without a club, having last managed at Wolves in 2006. It remains to be seen if Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy wants to give Hoddle a second chance, but he is willing to take any opportunity there may be. Speaking on Sky Sports 1, he said: “Do I want the job? Well I’ve had the job there once. “Tottenham Hotspur, you know I supported them when I was eight years of age. I went there at 12, left there at 28. Went back and managed. It’s in my blood. It’s in my bones. “If I was offered the job, yes I would want to go back, even if it was for the sake of the club. (Interim manager) Tim (Sherwood) is in pole position here.” Sherwood was taking the side at Southampton in a caretaker capacity and also wants a permanent position with the club. Hoddle does not know if he will, and would even be willing to bridge the gap until the end of the season if asked. “If he gets a good win today, and he moves on, and the club decides that whatever is right for the football club, and if they felt that they wanted me to go in until the end of the season even, they wanted something else long term, I would be prepared to do that because I love the club,” he added. Hoddle insists he has not been contacted by Levy, and added that he would be willing to work for the man who sacked him a decade ago. Glenn Hoddle wants to take the Tottenham job for a second time. Press Association “They’ve not offered me the job, so it’s all speculation, it’s all a bit of media hype,” he said. “It’s a different club completely this time. I think I had a squad that was ageing at the time, we were bringing free transfers in, we brought Teddy Sheringham and Gus Poyet in on free transfers. “This isn’t the same scenario at this club at the moment. It’s a completely different scenario to that. I think there’s a way forward.”