Showing posts with label retuers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retuers. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Amid More UN Rape Charges in CAR, Reuters Omits Ladsous on "R&R"


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, November 11 -- With alleged rapes in the Central African Republic by "peacekeepers" from France and the UN still UNacted on, the UN mission MINUSCA on November 11 issued thispress release:
"Additional allegations against our troops of misconduct, sexual exploitation and abuse, and fraternization with the local population have come to MINUSCA’s attention today.

"In response, MINUSCA on Thursday will dispatch a multifunctional team to the location to gather the facts, sensitize the troops involved, and to take immediate preventive and disciplinary measures; and more broadly to take corrective action against misconduct behavior throughout the mission."
  Immediate action? As Inner City Press asked about and reported on earlier this week once again delayed its report into its response to the French Sangaris troops' alleged rapes, including UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous trying to get fired the whistleblower Anders Kompass, as stated in two UN Dispute Tribunal rulings.
  The MINUSCA press release responded to a partial report by Reuters -- partial because it did not mention, among other things, that the head of UN Peacekeeping has linked the CAR peacekeepers' rapes to the lack of “R&R,” right in the UN briefing room. How can that be air-brushed from the story? Unlike Reuters, Inner City Press has no problem crediting a story. (Reuters not only pilfers stories, its leadership when repeatedly asked refused to disclose any policy for crediting others -- making its reporter IN CAPITAL repeated tweeting of EXCLUSIVE a bit ironic.) But how is it that Ladsous and his comments are left out of Reuters' reports on peacekeepers' rapes, and peacekeeping generally? We'll have more on this.
On September 28, 2015, the day of the UN Peacekeeping summit at the UN, Inner City Press managed to ask French President Francois Hollande about alleged rapes by French troops in the Central African Republic (CAR) and about French head of UN Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous having linked rapes to “recreation” and R&R. Video here.
  Hollande replied that when French troops are charged -- as they have been, in CAR -- France pushes for prosecutions, but also due process. Does that explain the one-year delay in the Sangaris CAR case?  The question was not taken.

  Later on September 28, Inner City Press went to cover the High Level Meeting on Peacekeeping, and found Ladsous slouched in his hair, wanly applauding pledges then glaring up at the photographers booth where Inner City Press was. Something is very wrong at the top of UN Peacekeeping - until it is addressed, the various commitments ring hollow.
A year after French President Francois Hollande tried to privatize the UN Press Briefing Room by having non-French journalists removed, his team on September 27, 2015 adopted a different strategy for the same result. At 8:40 am the UN said there would be a press conference by Hollande in just five minutes, at 8:45 am. Call it innovation.
  Apparently in his press conference, Hollande had many of the seats in the front of the UN Press Briefing Room “reserved” - because Brazil cited this as a precedent for their 11:30 am press conference by Dilma Rousseff (that's another story).  France, returning with Hollande for a session scheduled for 2:15 pm, again tried to control spaces in the front rows, as did the old UN Correspondents Association, which ejected a visiting journalist from “its” seat.
 And the question for Hollande? For Inner City Press, it would be what actions have been taken on the French soldiers alleged to have raped children in the Central African Republic. Watch this site.
Update: After Hollande came in, two people who had sat next to Inner City Press through the entire Japanese briefing from 1:30 pm got up, to give their seat to Laurent Fabuis and Royale. Then a lady approached Inner City Press, in full view of UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, and told Inner City Press to move, she's a "minister." Inner City Press for the Free UN Coalition for Access said Non, je suis journaliste, je veux poser ma question.
Meanwhile Ban Ki-moon said Peru's President Humala regretted not being present. But he WAS present, next to Hollande. Inner City Press asked Humala about the Trans Pacific Partnership on September 27: watch this site.
Back on September 23, 2014 the entourage of French President Francois Hollande repeatedly ordered the UN accredited Press to leave the UN's Press Briefing Room.
  A briefing by Hollande had been scheduled for 11 am, then was canceled. But at 10:55 am as a previous briefing about climate change was ending, Inner City Press was told to leave the room.
  The question, On whose orders? was not answered. Instead a woman in the French delegation said the room was "reserved." 
   This is not a restaurant, Inner City Press replied, now on behalf of the new Free UN Coalition for Access, which advocates for the rights of journalists and for a Freedom of Information Act covering the UN.
  Another member of the French delegation said loudly, "They'll take away his accreditation." It was not necessarily an idle threat: the UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric had looked into the room as this happened. 
   Inner City Press said, if UN Media Accreditation -- or UN Security -- tell me to leave, I will. But not before. Video here.
  Meanwhile the representative of the old UN Correspondents Alliance meekly left; previously, UNCA did nothing when previous French Permanent Representative Gerard Araud in this room told a Lebanese reporter, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."
  After a time, the woman from Hollande's entourage said that the chief of UN Media Accreditation, whom she made a point of saying she knows well, was not answering the phone. A French security guard told Inner City Press to leave. But this is not their role, in the UN briefing room.
  Finally the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius and the new Permanent Representative to the UN came and sat in the front room with Inner City Press and FUNCA.  Hollande appeared from the doorway Spokesman Dujarric had looked out of.
  Hollande said he had come mostly about climate change, but that a French citizen had been taken hostage in Algeria by a group linked with ISIL or "Da'ech," as he called the group. He said arms deliveries would continue; he noted the previous night's air strikes, by others, on Syria.

  Hollande said he would meet in the afternoon with the Syrian Opposition Coalition's Hadi al Bahra, who he called the only legitimate leader of Syria. Then he left without taking questions.

  The day before, UNCA hosted al Bahra (as they had his predecessor Ahmad Jarba) in the clubhouse the UN gives this group, publicized only to those which pay it dues. Given that UNCA did nothing when Araud told the Lebanese reporter "you are not a journalist, you are an agent," why didn't Hollande hold his press conference in the club of UNCA, the UN's Censorship Alliance?

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

NAFTA Hearing in DC Promotes TPP, Would Globalize DMCA Copyright Abuse Like Reuters Censorship Complaint to Google


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 15 -- On Capitol Hill on January 15, Fast Track for the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership was promoted in the guise of a twenty-year review of NAFTA. 

  The US Chamber of Commerce, Carla Hills and former Congressman David Dreier were among the pro Fast Track for TPP witnesses before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. 
  As Chairman Salman's introduction put it, "NAFTA has been the impetus for the regional bilateral trade agreements reached since then, and has provided important lessons as the U.S. seeks to build closer ties to trade and investment partners through the much anticipated Trans Pacific Partnership."
  After some perfunctory praise of NAFTA, and some unanswered questions about free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea, things quickly turned to promotion of the TPP. The bill was introduced in Congress on January 9; it has been protested including in Harlem on January 4, here. 
  The Senate Finance Committee press release is here, the bill is here, their summary here. It would globalize schemes like the pro-corporate Digital Millennium Copyright Act, misused by Reuters UN bureau chief to get a leaked document banned from Google's search.
 Google's "Global Head of Free Expression" Ross LaJeunesse met at the UN on January 7 with Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson. See UN notice, saved here.
  It was ironic: most recently regarding the UN, Google allowed a censorship-related leaked document to be blocked from its Search, based on a bad faith complaint by Reuters bureau chief under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
  So what was LaJeunesse at the UN to discuss: more censorship? 
 (Inner City Press asked for a read-out but so far none has been given.)
  There are further ironies. Prior to lobbying for Google, LaJeunesse worked for California's then-Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, who 13 months ago was given an award by the United Nations Correspondents Association. This is the group which tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN for its reporting on Sri Lanka -- a topic on which Eliasson now leads up the UN's post-failure "Rights Upfront" initiative. 
   While free press protections are in some ways advanced in the United States, as the Free UN Coalition for Access has begun highlighting, the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act can be and has been used as an end-run attack on freedom of the press.
(Another irony: from UN transcripts of Eliasson's press conference, the "Free UN Coalition for Access" introductionwas omitted, while the UN's Censorship Alliance was left in, click here for that.)
    Bigger picture, as exemplified by an August 14, 2013 bad faith complaint to Google by Reuters' UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, DMCA's provisions for "take-down" or blocking of information with no prior judicial review allow for abuse.

   Leaked documents used in an investigative story can be blocked, as the Reuters' complaint to Google blocked from Google's search its bureau chief's e-mail to the UN seeking to get Inner City Press thrown out. This is a perversion of the concept of copyright (as well as a contradictory argument for Reuters or anyone in journalism to be making, that such documents should be taken down or blocked.)
   In Chile, for example, any such take-down requires the requester to get a court order. But DMCA provides, and Google allowed, blocking based on a non-reviewed, bad faith complaint.

  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry told Inner City Press about the case:

"Unfortunately, it is all too easy for a copyright holder (assuming that the person that sent this notice actually held copyright in the email) to abuse the DMCA to take down content and stifle legitimate speech. As countries outside the US consider adopting DMCA-like procedures, they must make sure they include strong protections for free speech, such as significant penalties for takedown abuse."

  Along with other pro-corporate provisions, TPP would internationalize this abuse of copyright to undermine freedom of the press.  
 If this remains precedent, what else could come down?
  Why not an email from Iran, for example, to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency? Why not a sanctions filing by a country? Here is Reuters logic, accepted if only automatically by Google:
The copyrighted material is a private email I wrote in April 2012 and for which I never gave permission to be published. It has been published on a blog and appears in on the first page of search results for my name and the firm I work for, Reuters. It can be seen here: http://www.innercitypress.com/reutersLC3unmalu.pdf
  But this is true of ANY leaked document: it can be said that the entity or person exposed "never gave permission [for it] to be published." Does that mean Google can or should block search access to it?
  Can a complaint to a Media Accreditation official against a competitor legitimately be considered "private"? In any event, the DMCA is not about protecting privacy.
  Iran or North Korea could say a filing or status report they make with the IAEA is "private" and was not intended to be published. Would Google, receiving a DMCA filing, block access to the information on, say, Reuters.com?
  Charbonneau's bad-faith argument says his complaint to the UN was "published on a blog." Is THAT what Reuters claims makes it different that publication in some other media?
  The logic of Reuters' and Charbonneau's August 14, 2013 filing with Google, put online via the ChillingEffects.org project, is profoundly anti free press.
  The fact that Google accepts or didn't check, to remain in the DMCA Safe Harbor, the filing makes it even worse. The request to take-down wasn't made to InnerCityPress.com or its server -- it would have been rejected. But banning a page from Search has the same censoring effect.
  The US has a regime to protect freedom of the press, and against prior restraint. But this is a loophole, exploited cynically by Reuters. What if a media conducted a long investigation of a mayor, fueled by a leaked email. When the story was published, could the Mayor make a Reuters-like filing with Google and get it blocked?
  Here is the text of Charbonneau's communication to the UN's top Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit official Stephane Dujarric and MALU's manager, to which he claimed "copyright" and for now has banned from Google's Search:
Hi Isabelle and Stephane,
I just wanted to pass on for the record that I was just confronted by Matt Lee in the DHL auditorium in very hostile fashion a short while ago (there were several witnesses, including Giampaolo). He's obviously gotten wind that there's a movement afoot to expel him from the UNCA executive committee, though he doesn't know the details yet. But he was going out of his way to be as intimidating and aggressive as possible towards me, told me I "disgust" him, etc.
In all my 20+ years of reporting I've never been approached like that by a follow journalist in any press corps, no matter how stressful things got. He's become someone who's making it very hard for me and others in the UN press to do our jobs. His harassment of fellow reporters is reaching a new fever pitch.
I just thought you should know this.
Cheers,
Lou
Louis Charbonneau
Bureau Chief. United Nations
Reuters News Thomson Reuters reuters. com
This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company.
"UNCA" in the for-now banned e-mail is the United Nations Correspondents Association. The story developed here, as to Sri Lanka; here is a sample pick-up

Friday, January 10, 2014

At UN, Ban Ki-moon 2014 Press Conference Has No DR Congo, Haiti or Even Latin America or Asia, After Sri Lanka Sanitized: Censors' Circle


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 10 -- As the UN under Secretary General Ban Ki-moon gets pushed to the margins of issues like Israel - Palestine, the nuclear "files" on Iran and North Korea, and even on the Central African Republic, out in the world there is mounting criticism of the UN.


  In places where the UN actually is relevant, just for example, many in Haiti remain outraged at the UN bringing cholera then refusing to even accept court papers. 

  The UN's inaction and worse as tens of thousands were slaughtered in 2009, now sanitized into the "Rights Up Front agenda, has not led to any accountability. One of the perpetrators became an adviser to the UN and to Ban -- on Peacekeeping.

  Ban's UN, including in the way it manages the mostly compliant media, manages to keep such questions out, or at least keep them away from Ban Ki-moon.

  On January 10 Ban Ki-moon held his beginning of the year press conference. He brought up "Rights Up Front," twice -- but none of the questions taken were on it. Rather, Ban's acting deputy spokesman automatically gave the first of only eight questions to the United Nations Correspondents Association, a group which became in Ban's time the UN's Censorship Alliance, seeking to get the investigative Press expelled citing its reporting on Sri Lanka and conflict of interest at the UN.

(Haq gave a question to a state media which took the lead in asking for the "review" of Inner City Press' accreditation, click here for that request and e-mail saying Reuters, AFPand, yes, "UNCA" supported it. There have been no reforms since; the Free UN Coalition for Access has been formed.Reuters went on to file a bad faith Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint to ban access to a similar communication to the UN from Google's search, click here for that.)

  In Ban's January 10 press conference there followed a series of predictable questions on Syria. Amazingly, the entire continents of Latin America (much less the UN's impunity for bringing cholera to Haiti) and even Asia, did not come up in the questions that Haq selected.

  Haq appears to view his job as making Ban, or perhaps the wider UN, look good. While that's one way to view the spokesperson's role, at least twice Haq has mis- or under-spoken then not gone back to correct it. He told Inner City Press in a briefing that the UN *does* screen deploying peacekeepers for cholera. 
  Haq never corrected it, but when Inner City Press raised it a second time having found that this was false, Haq acknowledged that what he'd said was not, in fact, the case. But the false claim or assurance remains, even on January 10, 2013, online for example here. This is the UN.
  Even this week, after Haq declined to confirm UN layoff letters Inner City Press asked about, having seen, only when Inner City Press asked again the next day did Haq read out a statement about Ban's "digital" UN. Then in yesterday'sclosed door Town Hall meeting, Ban was described as "heartbroken" as he signed the layoff ordered on December 31. Secret heartbreak, apparently.
  While there are many UN staff working hard, the UN will not improve while it shields itself from questions and buys the compliant media. Even this morning, many in the Great Lakes are looking for the UN to explain and take action on the photographed and videoed participation of UN vehicles in Goma celebrations of the false rumor of Rwanda's Paul Kagame's death. 
 The UN should have to answer these question -- but the UN won't even take the questions. Watch this site.

 
  

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Today's Fast Track for TPP Would Globalize DMCA Copyright Abuse Like Reuters Complaint to Google, Banning Leaked Document


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 9 -- The Fast Track for Trans Pacific Partnership bill was introduced in Congress an hour ago, as predicted and protested including in Harlem on January 4, here. 

  The Senate Finance Committee press release is here, the bill is here, their summary here. It would globalize schemes like the pro-corporate Digital Millennium Copyright Act, misused by Reuters UN bureau chief to get a leaked document banned from Google's search.

 Google's "Global Head of Free Expression" Ross LaJeunesse met at the UN on January 7 with Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson. See UN notice, saved here.

  It was ironic: most recently regarding the UN, Google allowed a censorship-related leaked document to be blocked from its Search, based on a bad faith complaint by Reuters bureau chief under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

  So what is LaJeunesse at the UN to discuss: more censorship? 
 (Inner City Press has asked for a read-out but so far none has been given.)

  There are further ironies. Prior to lobbying for Google, LaJeunesse worked for California's then-Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, who 13 months ago was given an award by the United Nations Correspondents Association. This is the group which tried to get the investigative Press thrown out of the UN for its reporting on Sri Lanka -- a topic on which Eliasson now leads up the UN's post-failure "Rights Upfront" initiative. 

   While free press protections are in some ways advanced in the United States, as the Free UN Coalition for Access has begun highlighting, the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act can be and has been used as an end-run attack on freedom of the press.
(Another irony: from UN transcripts of Eliasson's press conference, the "Free UN Coalition for Access" introductionwas omitted, while the UN's Censorship Alliance was left in, click here for that.)
    Bigger picture, as exemplified by an August 14, 2013 bad faith complaint to Google by Reuters' UN bureau chief Louis Charbonneau, DMCA's provisions for "take-down" or blocking of information with no prior judicial review allow for abuse.
   Leaked documents used in an investigative story can be blocked, as the Reuters' complaint to Google blocked from Google's search its bureau chief's e-mail to the UN seeking to get Inner City Press thrown out. This is a perversion of the concept of copyright (as well as a contradictory argument for Reuters or anyone in journalism to be making, that such documents should be taken down or blocked.)
   In Chile, for example, any such take-down requires the requester to get a court order. But DMCA provides, and Google allowed, blocking based on a non-reviewed, bad faith complaint.
  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry told Inner City Press about the case:
"Unfortunately, it is all too easy for a copyright holder (assuming that the person that sent this notice actually held copyright in the email) to abuse the DMCA to take down content and stifle legitimate speech. As countries outside the US consider adopting DMCA-like procedures, they must make sure they include strong protections for free speech, such as significant penalties for takedown abuse."
  Along with other pro-corporate provisions, TPP would internationalize this abuse of copyright to undermine freedom of the press.  
 If this remains precedent, what else could come down?
  Why not an email from Iran, for example, to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency? Why not a sanctions filing by a country? Here is Reuters logic, accepted if only automatically by Google:
The copyrighted material is a private email I wrote in April 2012 and for which I never gave permission to be published. It has been published on a blog and appears in on the first page of search results for my name and the firm I work for, Reuters. It can be seen here: http://www.innercitypress.com/reutersLC3unmalu.pdf
  But this is true of ANY leaked document: it can be said that the entity or person exposed "never gave permission [for it] to be published." Does that mean Google can or should block search access to it?
  Can a complaint to a Media Accreditation official against a competitor legitimately be considered "private"? In any event, the DMCA is not about protecting privacy.
  Iran or North Korea could say a filing or status report they make with the IAEA is "private" and was not intended to be published. Would Google, receiving a DMCA filing, block access to the information on, say, Reuters.com?
  Charbonneau's bad-faith argument says his complaint to the UN was "published on a blog." Is THAT what Reuters claims makes it different that publication in some other media?
  The logic of Reuters' and Charbonneau's August 14, 2013 filing with Google, put online via the ChillingEffects.org project, is profoundly anti free press.
  The fact that Google accepts or didn't check, to remain in the DMCA Safe Harbor, the filing makes it even worse. The request to take-down wasn't made to InnerCityPress.com or its server -- it would have been rejected. But banning a page from Search has the same censoring effect.
  The US has a regime to protect freedom of the press, and against prior restraint. But this is a loophole, exploited cynically by Reuters. What if a media conducted a long investigation of a mayor, fueled by a leaked email. When the story was published, could the Mayor make a Reuters-like filing with Google and get it blocked?
  Here is the text of Charbonneau's communication to the UN's top Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit official Stephane Dujarric and MALU's manager, to which he claimed "copyright" and for now has banned from Google's Search:
Hi Isabelle and Stephane,
I just wanted to pass on for the record that I was just confronted by Matt Lee in the DHL auditorium in very hostile fashion a short while ago (there were several witnesses, including Giampaolo). He's obviously gotten wind that there's a movement afoot to expel him from the UNCA executive committee, though he doesn't know the details yet. But he was going out of his way to be as intimidating and aggressive as possible towards me, told me I "disgust" him, etc.
In all my 20+ years of reporting I've never been approached like that by a follow journalist in any press corps, no matter how stressful things got. He's become someone who's making it very hard for me and others in the UN press to do our jobs. His harassment of fellow reporters is reaching a new fever pitch.
I just thought you should know this.
Cheers,
Lou
Louis Charbonneau
Bureau Chief. United Nations
Reuters News Thomson Reuters reuters. com
This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company.
"UNCA" in the for-now banned e-mail is the United Nations Correspondents Association. The story developed here, as to Sri Lanka; here is a sample pick-up this past weekend in Italian, to which we link. Watch this site.