Local engineers have taken a decision to pull out from consultancy services from the southern expressway extension project for the Matara to Beliatta stretch (section I). This is because of the substandard constructions, the use of inferior quality raw material, waste of public money and the authoritarian conduct of the team leader from the Chinese consultancy firm.
The China Railway First Survey and Design Institute Group Co. Ltd. (FSDI) supervised the construction work. The team leader from that company is British national Colin Aspinall. This man has aided China’s CATIC company to make substandard constructions and to use inferior quality raw material in return for various privileges.
On 03 April, 15 Sri Lankan senior engineers in the project petitioned project director M.S. Nilawfer, pointing out 14 illegal acts committed by Aspinall to adversely affect the construction quality of the expressway stretch. Since no action was taken against the team leader, they sent a reminder on 30 May, asking for an inquiry and that a decision be taken with regard to him.
Meanwhile, Sri Lankan quantity surveyor D.D.J.A. Amarasena has immediately been removed from the project on the instructions of the RDA chairman and senior project director, but without approval by Nilawfer. A committee headed by the highways ministry’s additional secretary inquired into the matter on 05 June. At the inquiry, Aspinall did not answer the allegations against him, and only said he could not work with local engineers any longer.
The fundamental right to "the freedom of speech and expression including publication" in Article 14. (1) (a) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution, as well as the First Amendment to The United States Constitution, and other United Nations instruments, is being seriously undermined by the spate of hate speech prevalent in several countries including Sri Lanka. As a consequence, communities in these countries are being polarized on racial, religious and other distinctions causing tensions among communities to pointsthat could even threaten public security in these countries. The debate is whether unrestrained freedom of speech should be permitted or should it be sufficiently abridged legallyfor the sake of security that is central to the wellbeing of people everywhere.
What constitutes hate speech? Is it any speech that causes racial and or religious disharmony or distress among communities to the point of undermining their security and wellbeing? Or, is it speech that leads to violence? Another aspect is that while only the speaker is involved in the case of speech that results in undermining harmony among communities, in the case of speech that leads to violence, the speaker as well as those who act on them is involved. Therefore, the strategies needed to address the two forms of hate speech are different.
If the hate speech results in violence should not both speaker and those who take to violence as a result of the speech be held legally accountable? In such an event should violence be the litmus test for speech to be categorized as hate speech? On the other hand, if speech, however ugly and distasteful it may be, does not lead to violence but promotes racial and/or religious disharmony, should free speech be curtailed? If not, should the strategy be to publicly identify, shame and discredit the person responsible for such speech? These questions should be carefully debated before rushing in to introduce legislation to curb freedom of speech.
ABUSE of FREEDOM of SPEECH
The Media Secretary of the Sri Lanka Ramanna Maha Nikaya Ven. Omalpe Sobhitha Thera addressing a news conference, organized by the Sri Lanka Ramanna Maha Nikaya at Sri Bodhiraja Dharmayathanaya in Narahenpita, said that "vituperative attacks on Maha Sangha with racial undertones have been tolerated by Buddhists all along as they were very patient and compassionate". Continuing, he had stated: "The objective of those elements is to create racial and religious disharmony in the country and meet their political ends and as Maha Sangha we will not allow that,"(The Island, June 23, 2017).
The issue is how could free speech coexist with other forms of speech that undermine and disturb the sensibilities of groups and communities? If this question is not carefully considered with the deliberation it deserves it could undermine the right to freedom of speech to the detriment of a treasured value of a society.
The following approaches are presented with a view to exploring the options open to address concerns related to this issue:
1.To enact new legislation under provisions of Article 15 (2) of Sri Lanka’s Constitution that states: "The exercise and operation of the fundamental right declared and recognized by Article 14(1) (a) shall be subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed by law in the interests of racial and religious harmony or in relation to parliamentary privilege, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence".
2. To enforce existing provisions of the Penal Code if applicable, as suggested by Saliya Pieris P.C. in an article published in The Island of July 6, 2014.
3. Not to curtail freedom of speech however "vituperative" the attacks with "racial overtones" are, but to identify the persons concerned and to shame and discredit them in order to discourage them and any others from making derogatory comments that are sensitive to the sensibilities of a group or community.
4. Speech that could incite violence but however ugly, does not result in violence should not be categorized as hate speech, because in the case of such speech it is "difficult to prove that someone intended to incite violence" (Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, Colombo Telegraph, June 21, 2017. On the other hand, speech that leads to violence at some future date and could be directly identified as the source that inspired the violence, should be categorized as hate speech, just as it does with speech that calls for violence being followed by violence. Those responsible for such speech should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.
Thus, strategies should be developed that discourage speech which impacts on racial, religious and other sensibilities of communities while permitting freedom of speech with the greatest latitude. In the meantime, legal provisions should be developed to make those who resort to violence punishable under the full extent of the law. Such approaches would cause individuals to be held responsible for the content and nature of the speeches they make.
Any speech that has a negative impact on groups and communities should be addressed in an appropriate manner without curtailing their freedom of speech. Whether such individuals are self-motivated or are agents of external forces interested in fermenting discontent and discord, the individual(s) concerned should be shamed and discredited with regard to the content of the speech without resort to personal comment. It is only then that the bar for appropriate conduct of an enlightened society could be set.
OPINIONS in the US
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
Despite these constitutionally guaranteed freedoms on how to accommodate speech that is provocative and ugly, it has become a hot topic in the U.S. An article in The Washington Post of June 25, 2017 titled "No, hateful speech is not the same as violence" states: "Recent confrontations across the country reflect a growing tendency to answer speech with violence…But while there is a continuum of acceptable speech, language and violence should not be confused. The way to preserve our freedom of expression is to insist that speech, no matter how offensive, cannot justify violent reprisal".
"U.S. law disallows several categories of speech that edge close to violence. For instance, a direct rallying cry to attack can constitute incitement to imminent violence, rendering such speech unlawful. Verbal "true threats" to do physical harm to someone are also prohibited and punishable, as is systematic harassment. Yet a great deal of hateful speech – racial provocations, invective, supremacist sloganeering – is protected by the First Amendment".
LEGISLATIVE LIMITATION of FREE SPEECH
Speech that is acceptable and what is not, cannot be legislated because the distinction between the two is debatable and subjective. For instance, speech that conveys facts, opinions and ideas is acceptable provided the manner in which the speech is delivered is within limits of civility. On the other hand, the same facts, opinions and ideas could be delivered in a manner that is insulting and demeaning in which event it would be unacceptable. In the same vein, facts and opinions that may relate to a certain group/community or a religion could be presented in a professional manner in which event the only issue would be to challenge the accuracy of the material presented. If instead, the same facts and opinions are presented in an offensive manner with invective, it could strain relations between communities. Therefore, the content together with the manner in which a speech is delivered has more to do with harmony between communities than the content by itself. This underscores the difficulties associated with legislating speech that is uncivil and unacceptable.
Arresting individuals who indulge in speech unacceptable by norms of civility is not the solution because it amounts to stifling free speech. Furthermore, interpreting what constitutes unacceptable speech could be challenged. Therefore, it would be more productive for public figures and religious leaders to persuade perpetrators to refrain from uncivil speech because their conduct amounts to discrediting the community or the religion they belong to. In short, the strategy should be to bring pressure on the perpetrators to refrain from uncivil speech because it discredits the very community in whose name the adverse comments are made.
CONCLUSION
It is evident from the foregoing that it is not content, but the manner in which the content is vocalized that generates tensions among communities to a degree that could even threaten public security. The statement issued by the Mahanayake of the Asgiriya Chapter affirms this point of view when he says: "Although we do not approve the aggressive behavior and speech of Bhikku Galabodaatte Gnanasara the viewpoint expressed by him cannot be discarded. Insulting Bhikkus by various groups without inquiring into the veracity of the issues raised by him cannot be condoned" (http://www.lankadeepa.lk).
As stated in the foregoing, facts, ideas and opinions could be challenged and when doing so should be challenged in a manner that is civil. If the same facts, ideas and opinions are expressed in a manner that is ugly and provocative they would cause discord within the society. Therefore, every effort should be made to deter such conduct. Such effort should be spearheaded by influential members of the public and religious leaders coming forward, as the Mahanayake of the Asgiriya Chapter did, to warn the individuals concerned that their conduct discredits and dishonors the group they represent, and their society as a whole. What needs to be appreciated is that facts and opinions presented in a sober and measured manner gains more mileage than bombastic rhetoric. The bottom line is not to restrain free speech, but to restrain conduct relating to free speech.
In a strongly worded lengthy letter to the President, the Kotte Sri Kalyani Samagri Sangha Sabha opposed moves by certain political leaders and extremist organizations to criticize monks without a reason in a manner never seen in the history of the country, insult institutions of the Sangha and acquire property belonging to the Sasana.
The letter was handed over to President Maithripala Sirisena after a delegation comprising the Mahanayake of the Sangha Sabha Ven. Dr. Ittapene Dhammalankara thera and Anuanayakes Ven. Dr. Bellanwila Wimalaratana thera and Ven. Dr. Kotapitiye Rahula thera held discussions with the President on Wednesday (28).
The Sangha Sabha especially rejected in strong terms, ‘false’ statements made by former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga regarding the Sri Lankan Buddhist identity. “We feel these actions are aimed at fulfilling individual aspirations and does not contribute to the welfare of the wider society,” the statement said.
“It can be seen that some are engaged in a process to brand Buddhists as extremists who are sowing hatred among other religious communities. They are also engaged in condemning the 2500 year old Sri Lankan Buddhist culture. Therefore the Monks and the Buddhists of Sri Lanka are faced with a pathetic situation today regarding the protection of their culture that was safeguarded for thousands of years. We express our displeasure to the government for not probing and stating the truth about the statistics and statements on the wrongs that are perceived to have been done by the Buddhists of the country against other religions.
“We do not agree with alternate proposals and unnecessary discussions regarding the position bestowed in the constitution on Buddhism and the unitary state concept where all communities are living together in accordance with a Sri Lankan culture. Therefore the Sangha Sabha has put forward a set of proposals for the government regarding the present problematic situation. The Sangha Sabha proposes to establish a commission of acceptable learned persons who are devoid of extremist views to look into these matters. “
A resurgence of violations against Muslims and Christians in Sri Lanka justifiably has alarmed domestic and international observers. Religious violence in Sri Lanka is nothing new. There were similar concerns – particularly with respect to anti-Muslim incidents in 2014 – when the island nation’s previous president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, ruled. Ethnic Sinhalese – most of whom are Buddhist – are the overwhelming ethnic majority in Sri Lanka. Muslims make up about 10 percent of the population; Christians comprise approximately 8 percent of the population.
“There are undercurrents of anti-Muslim and anti-Christian sentiment amongst the larger Buddhist and Hindu populations,” notes Jehan Perera, executive director of the Colombo-based National Peace Council. “However, the recent violent attacks against Muslims is [sic] not by the larger community but appear to be deliberately planned and executed. This is why it is dangerous.”
During Rajapaksa’s tenure, there were widespread and well-founded concerns that anti-Muslim attacks had, to say the least, the tacit support of the state. And even though a new administration has come to power, there’s little indication that the government wants to challenge extremist Buddhist groups, or hold perpetrators accountable for their actions.
As has happened on previous occasions, Buddhist monks – particularly a hardline group known as the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS), led by General Secretary Galagoda Atte Gnanasara – are fueling the flames of conflict.
Gnanasara evaded arrest for nearly a month, but was eventually arrested after showing up at a police station to provide a statement. He’s currently out on bail.
Several weeks ago, a group of Colombo-based diplomats came out strongly against anti-Muslim violence. Other public figures and organizations have also spoken out.
A key feature of these attacks is widespread impunity, which only encourages more violence.
If President Maithripala Sirisena wants to turn things around – and it’s far from clear that he does – the president and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, among other senior government officials, should begin by explicitly denouncing the attacks on a regular basis. They could also emphasize the importance of initiating accountability processes for these transgressions and ensuring that perpetrators face justice. “The government needs to uphold law and order. Unless [this violence is] nipped in the bud, it is difficult for police to control mob action against minorities once it has been unleashed,” says Perera.
The recent upsurge in religious violence adds to worries about the trajectory of Sri Lankan politics during Sirisena’s (already disappointing) tenure. Now’s the time for Colombo to act swiftly and decisively – before things get any worse.
(Lanka-e-News - 29.June.2017, 5.45PM) During the indefinite strike staged by the GMOA recently , the chief of the Lindula district hospital , Talawakele , Nuwara eliya , Dr. monster ( of the same ilk of ruthless Padeniyas) Harsha Abeywardena who was discharging duties as the DMO committed a number of wicked , heartless and criminal offences punishable under the Penal code , based on reports reaching Lanka e news inside information division.
Any employee in service belonging to a trade union has a right to strike but he has absolutely no legal right to obstruct the service of another employee or act in a manner that sabotages the services rendered by him/her towards the institution by making threats in order to cripple the Institution . Neither the laws governing unions nor any other law permits such anti establishment activities . Yet this Dr. monster Harsha (belonging to the latest villainous breed of monster doctors in Sri Lanka in the category of Dr. monster Padeniyas) has committed those very wicked crimes most outrageously which even run counter to the sacred oath of Hippocrates the doctors are supposed to take on behalf of their noble profession.
Although Dr. monster Harsha , a member of the villainous GMOA took callous and crude measures to hold the poor suffering patients hostage at the LIndula hospital during the strike , and was trying to paralyze the hospital to the detriment of the entire national health services , thankfully the other doctors have not joined him in his atrocious and monstrous conduct . They have however continued to medically treat the suffering patients.
However Harsha the doctor monster of the villainous Padeniya clan on the contrary has taken heartless and ruthless measures after enlisting the watchers of the hospital to close the doors of the hospital obstructing the national health services to the public most ruthlessly and brutally unbecoming of a government medical doctor in spite of the fact their salaries are paid out of public funds.
This Doctor alias monster even after being informed by the GMOA leaders that the emergency services will be carried on , has even closed the doors of Lindula hospital intensive care unit. Much worse ! when the other doctors were trying to give medical attention , Harsha the doctor alias monster has been so venomous and vengeful that he has threatened them and disconnected the hospital’s electricity supply.
The other doctors have then informed the electricity board by phone to re connect the supply , and phoned the Lindula police station to complain against the dastardly incident involving a so called medical doctor who behaved worse than a terrorist. Anybody can inquire about this incident from the Lindula police station to get confirmation . Believe it or not ! this monstrous terrorist doctor Harsha of the GMOA has again turned off the lights as soon as the electricity board left after giving the power supply.
Unfortunately , at that moment a pregnant patient with labor pain had arrived at the hospital . Unbelievably when one of the doctors was trying to admit her to the hospital , Harsha the monster doctor has ordered the hospital staff not to admit the critical patient in labor pain , and to send her back home despite the fact the GMOA leaders repeatedly said , their strike will not affect pregnant mothers.
The poor helpless patient after being sent home had delivered the baby. Thereafter the mother and child were admitted to Nuwara eliya hospital .
It is very clear this monster Harsha who conducted himself most cruelly like a terrorist with no human feelings despite being a doctor can be charged under sections 327, 332, 341 and 344 of the Penal code for undue harassment and use of criminal force .
This complaint lodged with the Lindula police by the other doctors is still valid , and a number of doctors at the Lindula hospital are ready to give evidence in that regard.
The public that are wishing to live and not die at the hands of these traitorous ,treacherous, terrorist doctors , are hoping against hope that authorities will take action duly and swiftly against the cruelty and criminalities of the so called doctors so that it will serve as a deterrent to all doctors . It may seem incredible but it is true , these are doctors ( not monsters! ) who took the sacred oath of Hippocrates to serve the patients no matter the circumstances, subordinating all their other interests .
--------------------------- by (2017-06-29 13:32:32)
June 30, Colombo: The Sri Lanka government has decided to consult all stakeholders for proposals to expand the ownership of the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM) and to take over the Dr. Nevil Fernando Sri Lanka Russia Friendship Teaching Hospital affiliated with the Institute.
The Dr. Nevil Fernando Teaching Hospital in Malabe opened in 2013 with a capacity of 100 private rooms and general wards with 500 beds has been able to provide services to some 3,000 out patients and 100 resident patients per month.
However, due to the prevailing ant-SAITM situation, difficulties have arisen in admitting an adequate number of patients to the hospital for the training of medical students.
Considering the limited availability of tertiary health care facilities in the Colombo and the Dr. Nevil Fernando Teaching Hospital's close proximity to the expressway making it easier for outskirt patients to reach, the government has decided to take the ownership of the hospital which is valued at Rs. 3.55 billion by the government.
Once the loan obtained by SAITM from the Bank of Ceylon has been settled within 10 years, the government will fully take over the ownership of the hospital to the Government.
The government proposes to manage the hospital similar to the present management of the Sri Jayewardenepura Hospital by a Board of Governors appointed by the Ministry of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine, to provide services to the public free of charge.
The proposals made jointly by Minister of Health, Nutrition and Indigenous Medicine Dr. Rajitha Senaratne, and Minister of Higher Education and Highways Lakshman Kiriella have received the approval from the Cabinet of Ministers at the cabinet meeting held on 27 June.
Further, it has been also decided that alternative proposals should be submitted to all stakeholders on the expansion of the ownership rights of the South Asian Institute of Technology and Medicine (SAITM).
Making submissions to the Jaffna high court trial-at-bar that took up the murder of Pungudutivu schoolgirl Sivaloganathan Vidya yesterday (28), additional solicitor general Dappula de Livera said gang rapes were spreading like the plague in South India and other parts of South Asia. A market has been created in other countries, especially in the West, for videos of gang-rapes which can be viewed via the internet, he said.
Investigations have revealed that the mastermind of the crime, ‘Swiss Kumar’, had videoed the gang-rape of Vidya and intended to sell it overseas. He had given money for the rapists to drink, and had videoed the rape incident. When he was arrested, Swiss Kumar has told the CID officials that he could immediately give them Rs. 20 million if he was freed.
De Livera told the court that the police had impartially investigated the incident that had taken place in a remote and isolated islet in the Jaffna peninsula, without giving into any pressure, to ensure supremacy of the law and to show that all are given equal protection by the law. He said the crime committed in an unpoliced area has been taken up by a high court trial-at-bar as a matter of national importance in a landmark in criminal law history of Sri Lanka and to establish supremacy of the law.
He requested the judges to watch videos of the incident, saying that every attempt would be made to recover the data that had been deleted by Swiss Kumar. The case will be taken up for six days continually.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel promised to fight for free trade and press on with multilateral efforts to combat climate change at the G20 summit next week, challenging the "America First" policies of U.S. President Donald Trump.
In a defiant speech to parliament a week before she will host a summit of the world's top economic powers in Hamburg, the northern port city where she was born, Merkel did not mention Trump by name but said global problems could not be solved with protectionism and isolation.
Her remarks raised the prospect of an open clash with Trump at the summit. She later met with European G20 leaders who promised to present a united front in Hamburg, while making clear they preferred compromise to conflict.
"These will not be easy talks," Merkel said. "The differences are obvious and it would be wrong to pretend they aren't there. I simply won't do this."
The G20 summit will be held a little over a month after a G7 summit in Sicily exposed deep divisions between other western countries and Trump on climate change, trade and migration.
A short while later, Trump announced he was pulling the United States out of a landmark agreement to combat climate change reached in 2015 in Paris.
Ahead of the G20 summit, Trump's administration has threatened to take punitive trade measures against China, including introducing tariffs on steel imports.
This has made for an unusually tense atmosphere before the summit and German officials acknowledge they have little idea what the final communique will look like.
Asked about Merkel's comments, Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said the U.S. relationship with Germany was "as strong as ever" and played down the discord.
"Of course there are going to be differences in relations with any country, and we'll talk frankly about those differences. The president enjoys those conversations," McMaster told reporters.
The German hosts face a difficult challenge. Along with Trump, Russia's Vladimir Putin and Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan will be attending. All have strained relations with Merkel and other European leaders.
The summit, in a convention centre in the heart of Hamburg, could also be disrupted by tens of thousands of protesters expected to descend on the city of 1.7 million.
EXISTENTIAL CHALLENGE
Merkel said she was "more determined than ever" to make the Paris accord a success since Trump's decision to pull out, calling climate change an "existential challenge".
"We cannot wait until every last person on Earth has been convinced of the scientific proof," she said.
"Anybody who believes the problems of the world can be solved with isolationism and protectionism is making a big mistake," Merkel said.
Trump looks forward to discussing his economic rationale for quitting the deal during his G20 meetings, said Gary Cohn, his top economic adviser.
"He’s going to ask for a fair and level playing field. We cannot be in a position where the United States is cutting and cutting emissions while others continue to grow," Cohn told reporters.
French President Emmanuel Macron, in Berlin for the meeting of EU leaders, which included the prime ministers of Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Britain, said he hoped the United States would "return to reason" on climate. But he also stressed that it made little sense to try to isolate Trump in Hamburg.
"The relationship with the United States is a long-term one and it is deep," Macron said. "I believe we must continue an intense dialogue with the United States because of these ties which are historic and enduring."
At Macron's invitation, Trump will visit Paris a week after the July 7-8 G20 summit for Bastille Day celebrations. They spoke by phone on Tuesday and agreed to work together to respond to any new chemical attacks from the Syrian government.
Donald Tusk, the former Polish prime minister who chairs summits of EU leaders, said in Berlin that European countries would speak with one voice in Hamburg, defending the rules-based international order that Trump has called into question.
The deposed Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, has been confined to his palace in the Red Sea city of Jeddah, as his young successor seeks to consolidate his newfound power, two sources close to the royal family have confirmed.
Senior Saudi officials denied Bin Nayef was under house arrest, with one describing the claim – first reported in the New York Times – as “not true at all”. Another official, however, said: “It’s just in the changeover period. MBS [bin Salman] does not want to take any risks. It is not house arrest. Nothing like that at all.”
Bin Nayef had been the kingdom’s most influential security official over the past 15 years. He had maintained close intelligence connections with the US and UK and was seen by Saudi allies as an assured and trusted hand.
His ties to Saudi allies are far more extensive than those of his successor, a possible factor in the decision to keep him isolated while the power transition takes effect. The House of Saud had been determined to convey the image of a seamless handover, with a government video showing Bin Salman bowing and kissing the hand of his cousin after being named crown prince.
In the lead up to the change, however, a mutual rivalry has eroded trust. “It was never daggers drawn,” said the Saudi official. “It was that a younger man wanted the job and the older man didn’t like it. Things never broke down, but it became clear that the king’s son had the profile and status that the crown prince should have had. Everyone could see that.”
The New York Times reported that guards loyal to Bin Salman had replaced those of his predecessor outside the Jeddah palace to where the ousted royal had returned. It is understood that Bin Nayef and his close family members have been prevented from leaving the kingdom.
“If he is seen as benign, this will change quite quickly,” the official said. “I suspect they don’t want him jetting off to Washington in a bad mood and telling anyone, even our allies, the state secrets.
“There is too much risk in letting a disgruntled figure talk at a time like this.”
Bin Nayef’s insights into his own exit as well as political machinations within the opaque Saudi inner circle would be keenly sought by Riyadh’s allies and rivals and he would likely be welcomed in western capitals, should he leave the country.
The upheaval follows a dizzying series of moves from the usually cautious kingdom, which in recent weeks has recalibrated relations with Washington and opened a diplomatic offensive against Qatar, led by Bin Salman’s office, while pressing ahead with a war in Yemen and an ambitious economic and cultural overhaul at home.
Bin Salman has been central to the changes, which have helped his profile and powers grow rapidly under the tutelage of an 81-year-old monarch who has given him an almost free hand over most aspects of society. Central to his mandate is a plan to use capital from the partial privatisation of the world’s largest company, Aramco, to revitalise the Saudi economy.
However, cultural and societal reforms have also been flagged as paramount – in particular introducing a work ethic into a state where a large migrant labour force plays a disproportionate role in productivity. A senior official in Riyadh said that what is being envisaged is “cultural revolution, more than economic reform”.
Bin Nayef had not opposed the reform programme, but had been considered by the Royal Court – and Saudi allies – as a measured voice who had urged a more painstaking process, which had characterised past overhauls.
“He played the bad cop role,” said the Saudi official. “But that did not contribute to his downfall. He had to go because he was in the way. That’s all.”
(June 29, 2017, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) It is becoming increasingly obvious that China is suffering from sort of superiority obsession, imagining that it can dominate and conquer the world and it is adequately clever to do so. Several acts of China in the past prove such an approach which has been well noticed by the Asian nations, who now feel apprehensive about China’s aggressive postures on several counts and not knowing about the shape of things to come.
China’s aggressive postures too many:
China forcibly entered and occupied Tibet claiming the peaceful country as its own. Seeing that the world governments have simply reconciled themselves to the aggressive acts of China against Tibet, China has now become emboldened, taking the world opinion and reaction for granted.
The recent aggressive postures of China with regard to South China Sea has upset the neighbouring countries like Philippines. In the same way, China has caused deep anxieties to Japan and other countries by its aggressive stance with regard to Senkaku Island.
Of course, China’s hostility to India is well known, which clearly reflects China’s desire to cut India to its size, since India is one country that can challenge China on several fronts in future, if not now. China claims Arunachal Pradesh province in India as its own, just as it proclaimed Tibet as its own earlier.
China is so aggressive in its plans to dominate Asian countries and the world that it protests at any sort of support or recognition to the Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama, whom China drove out of Tibet, in any part of the world and is even protesting against the Dalai Lama visiting Arunachal Pradesh province in India. While China is not losing any opportunity to kick start issues with India, the latest is its decision to suspend the entry of Indian pilgrims undertaking the Kailash Mansarovar pilgrimage. It has gone to the extent of stating that India need to be taught lessons.
When Prime Minister Modi was received with warmth by US President Trump, China has expressed concern about this, fearing that close relationship between India and US could impact China’s future plans to dominate the world.
Calculated moves:
Apart from several aggressive militant postures against the Asian countries, China is also using its economic muscle power to have its way to achieve the objective of world domination.
One can clearly see that Chinese led Belt and Road initiative is a yet another attempt by China to get increased space for itself in the global sphere and get a stranglehold over international economic and industrial growth profile.
China’s close relationship with Pakistan and its huge and massive investment in Pakistan through the Economic Corridor Projects is part of China’s plans to get itself entrenched in Pakistan territory in a big way and permanently. China is now playing such an important role in industrial and economic development projects in Pakistan that it appears that there is no way that Pakistan can get rid of China from its territory , if Pakistan would so desire at any time in future. One can clearly see that Pakistan is now in the vice like grip of China, as Pakistan can never repay the huge loan that China is extending as part of the Economic Corridor Projects to Pakistan.
Similarity to Hitler’s Germany:
One can clearly see similarity in approach between Adolf Hitler in Germany before the World War II and the present Chinese government.
Hitler wanted to conquer entire Europe so that the world would be under his thumb. China’s acts clearly give an impression that it has the same policy and approach like that of Hitler, to dominate Asia so that it would emerge as the undisputed leader of all countries in the world. Like Hitler’s Germany, the present Chinese government has suppressed freedom and dissent in China and even Nobel laureate in China remains in prison, apart from many other Chinese citizens who were daring enough to assert freedom and liberty.
In the case of Hitler’s Germany and present Chinese government, no one in the country could question anything that would be done by the government. By this, Chinese government ensures that no one in China would question the aggressive postures of Chinese government with regard to Tibet and other countries as part of China’s ambitious expansionist targets. The approach is to prevent the sane voices in support of fairness and peace being heard.
Need to put China on notice:
Asian countries would be the most affected by China’s aggressive plans and priorities and they need to assert themselves before it would become late.
The writing on the wall is clear and the Asian countries should not hesitate to put China on notice, so that the Chinese government would be made to realize that it cannot have its own way without massive resistance.
THE AUSTRALIAN government has been spying on China’s embassy in the country and “harassing” Chinese people to provide intelligence, an influential state-run newspaper said on Thursday, citing a security source.
China and Australia have close business and economic ties, but Beijing is deeply suspicious of Canberra’s defence relationship with Washington.
Quoting an unidentified official with “China’s national security department”, the Global Times tabloid said the Australian government was spying on China and monitoring Chinese people in Australia.
“The national security department staffer said Australia’s agents in disguise would get close to Chinese people working or living overseas to collect information or even encourage them to subvert China,” the report said.
“Meanwhile, in the name of avoiding ‘Chinese spy threats’, Australian intelligence operatives are closely monitoring Chinese people and the Chinese Embassy in Australia,” it said.
The report said “many” Chinese people had been interviewed or harassed and were being required to give information about Chinese communities and the Chinese embassy.
“Some of the Chinese people were even sent back to China to gather information,” it said.
Chinese authorities have found “many eavesdropping devices at the embassy”, which had forced the government to renovate it, the employee told the newspaper, which is published by the official People’s Daily.
It was not possible to reach China’s Ministry of State Security for comment as the ministry has no publicly available telephone number or website.
Neither the Australian foreign minister’s office nor the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade responded immediately to a request for comment about the Global Times article. – Reuters
Human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor, now in an Emirates prison, was targeted with Israeli-made malware in 2016. (Martin Ennals Award)
Carmen Aristegui, one of Mexico’s most prominent journalists, was targeted with sophisticated Israeli-made malware designed to turn her smartphone effectively into a weapon against her. (Eneas De Troya)
Mexican investigative journalists and human rights defenders were the targets of sophisticated attempts to spy on them by hacking their smartphones, an investigation by the press freedom group Article 19 and internet security researchers revealed earlier this month.
The system used in the attack is called Pegasus and it is made by a secretive Israeli company called NSO Group.
It works like this: the target receives a text message that appears personal or might contain an urgent message about a family member. It is accompanied by a link. If the target clicks on the link, the system installs malware – harmful software that operates undetected – on their device that effectively turns it into a weapon against them and those near them.
A digital security expert has told The Electronic Intifada that activists and journalists involved in work in and about Palestine should understand the dangers and take steps to make themselves less vulnerable.
Once infected by the malware, a smartphone can send a frightening amount of data back to those doing the spying, including tracking the person’s movements and location. The malware can take screenshots and turn on the phone’s camera and microphone, retrieve emails, WhatsApp messages and passwords.
Sexual taunts and threats
The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab documented that the targets in the Mexican case – including 10 journalists and human rights defenders, one child and a US citizen – received text messages with the malware links “paired with troubling personal and sexual taunts, messages impersonating official communications” as well as “warnings of kidnappings and other threats.”
They also included “more mundane tactics, such as messages sending fake bills for phone services and sex lines.”
Carmen Aristegui, one of the most prominent investigative journalists in Mexico, was targeted with messages impersonating the US embassy, instructing her to click on a link to resolve a visa issue. But when repeated messages failed to entice her to click on the links, the operators began targeting her 16-year-old son.
“The only reason they could be going after my son is in the hopes of finding something against me, to damage me,” Aristegui told The New York Times.
Juan E. Pardinas, an activist for anti-corruption legislation, received an upsetting message with a link attached: “My father died at dawn, we are devastated, I’m sending you the details of the wake, I hope you can come.” Suspicious about it, he decided not to click on the link, he told The New York Times.
Israeli “cyberarms”
According to Citizen Lab, the sender of the text messages cannot be positively identified, however, “circumstantial evidence” suggests that one or more of NSO’s government customers in Mexico “are the likely operators.”
Since 2011, according to The New York Times, Mexican government agencies “have purchased about $80 million worth of spyware created by an Israeli cyberarms manufacturer” – NSO Group.
NSO Group claims that it only sells its services to government clients for legitimate purposes, such as combating organized crime and “terrorism.”
As part of their sales pitch, company executives reportedly claim that the Mexican government used their spyware to catch notorious drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, a claim technology website CyberScoop sayscould not be independently verified.
But Citizen Lab says it has “repeatedly uncovered abuses of NSO’s spyware, demonstrating a failure to control the end-uses of their products.”
“The misuse of NSO’s products is part of a larger problem,” Citizen Lab states, “abuse of government-exclusive spyware to target individuals and organizations who are neither criminal, nor terrorists, but members of civil society.”
Used by the UAE
Human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor, now in an Emirates prison, was targeted with Israeli-made malware in 2016. (Martin Ennals Award) In August 2016, the United Arab Emirates-based human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor received text messageson his iPhone promising “new secrets” about prisoners tortured in the UAE if he clicked on an included link.
Mansoor forwarded the message to Citizen Lab, which discovered that he had been targeted using NSO Group’s Pegasus malware. Apple released patches for the particular security vulnerabilities identified by Citizen Lab’s investigation into the attempt to hack Mansoor.
He was previously arrested and sentenced in 2011 after what Amnesty International calls an “unfair trial.” Amnesty now says Mansoor is a “prisoner of conscience” and is demanding his immediate release.
Who is NSO?
NSO Group is part of a web of Israeli companies, many founded by former spies and military personnel, that sells technologies to break into communications.
According to Forbes, its founders Omri Lavie and Shalev Hulio are likely former members of Unit 8200, the Israeli military’s notorious cyberwarfare branch.
The company, based in Herzliya in present-day Israel, is highly secretive; its founders rarely speak to media and former employees have refused to divulge information about its activities, citing fear of reprisals.
In 2014, NSO Group was purchased by US private equity firm Francisco Partners for $120 million, though its headquarters and “intellectual property rights” were to remain in Israel, according to Haaretz.
Francisco Partners is now putting the company up for sale with a reported price tag of $1 billion. A previous attempt to sell it in 2015 apparently found no buyer.
Are Palestine activists threatened?
Israel has declared an all-out war on the Palestine solidarity movement – especially the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign – an assault that involves black ops and covert action targeting activists.
Given this reality, what do the revelations about NSO Group’s malware mean for the Palestine solidarity movement?
“I think it’s extremely unlikely that Palestine solidarity activists will be targeted by the NSO Group’s products,” she told The Electronic Intifada, “but they will be targeted by exactly the same kinds of products made directly by the Israeli government.”
“Activists should be aware of state-sponsored malware,” she said.
Galperin notes that Palestinians living in territories under Israeli control – especially the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip – live in a situation where all the internet and communications infrastructure is also under full Israeli control.
“They can intercept your traffic and even push fake traffic to you,” Galperin said, “so this kind of targeting is not even necessary.”
This means that Israel is capable of freely spying on the communications of individuals in the territory it controls without the need to use malware similar to that made by NSO Group.
There is some evidence this is already happening: in 2014, dozens of veterans and reservists of Israel’s Unit 8200 cyberwarfare division revealed that the unit deploys its capabilities to collect intimate personal information on Palestinian civilians living under occupation that is “used for political persecution and to create divisions within Palestinian society by recruiting collaborators and driving parts of Palestinian society against itself.”
According to Galperin, Israel would be more likely to try to use malware “outside of Israel or Palestine, where they don’t control the infrastructure.”
But it is very difficult to tell if it is already happening and to what extent.
“We do not catch them very often,” Galperin said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is rare.”
So far Pegasus, which targets iPhones, has only been detected in the Mexico and United Arab Emirates cases.
Chyrsaor, a similar malware thought to be made by NSO Group to target phones using Google’s Android operating system, has, according to Google, only been found on about three dozen devices worldwide – out of 1.4 billion.
The NSO Group’s system does not come cheap: it is reportedly priced at tens of thousands of dollars per target, on top of a hefty “installation fee” of $500,000 dollars, according to The New York Times.
Galperin said she suspects that the Israeli government does not frequently find it necessary to use malware because the government has so many other options to keep track of people – including monitoring social media or using informants.
Other types of cyberwarfare against the movement have included DDoS (distributed denial of service) attacks that take down websites, and which have been tied to Israel.
Practice good security
There is no way to protect yourself 100 percent, Galperin warns. “If they have decided that you specifically are a target and they are willing to devote serious manpower to you, then the advice I’m giving is woefully insufficient,” she said. “But you can make yourself a harder target.”
Her advice:
Always immediately install security updates on all your devices. Most malware exploits known security flaws that remain open because people don’t install security updates.
Use two-factor authentication for your sensitive accounts. This is a way to let a user identify themselves to a service provider by requiring a combination of two different authentication methods. SMS text messages are frequently used as the second mode of authentication, but the Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that SMS may not be secure and advises on other methods such as a small hardware device called Yubikey.
In general, journalists and activists need to always practice good digital security, not just with smartphones but with all their devices and online activities.
Jun 30, 2017
