26 July 2007

Concern as Putin signs new law against extremism

Reporters Without Borders voiced "great concen" as President Vladimir Putin today signed into law amendments strengthening measures to crack down on "extremism" two weeks after parliament approved them.

"We deplore this move," the worldwide press freedom organisation said. "We hope the law will be changed and have appealed to the president to see this is done."

24.07.2007 Free expression under threat from law that would step up fight against "extremism"

Reporters Without Borders voiced concern today about parliament's adoption of a bill reinforcing efforts to combat "extremism" that was approved by parliament by its upper chamber on 11 July. The press freedom organisation has written to President Vladimir Putin urging him to oppose its promulgation in its present form although he urged legislators to be resolute in their fight against "extremism" in his most recent address to the nation before both houses of parliament on 26 April.

"The fight against extremism is necessary and legitimate but it should not limit the freedom of the media and the country's citizens," the press freedom organisation said.

The bill refers to 13 aspects of extremism but they are defined very vaguely. It would punish "financing" and "organising" extremist activity "including by means of printed matter (...) telephone connections and other informational means." It would also punish "public support," "help" and "appeals" for "extremism."

"It is vital that these concepts are defined more clearly in the run-up to the December 2007 legislative elections and the March 2008 presidential election or else a radio station, for example, could be closed down simply because a listener heard comments on the air that were deemed to have been extremist," Reporters Without Borders said.

"The intelligence services would also be free to tap the phone calls of persons suspected of extremism," the press freedom organisation continued. "It gives them a free hand to act, without concern for the right to privacy. The bill also bans the dissemination of news and information about NGOs and other groups whose activity is restricted under the July 2002 law on combatting extremism."

Last March, Reporters Without Borders condemned the use of the fight against extremism to harass independent news sites, some of which were censored by the security services for several days.

Originally from Reporters sans frontières - EUROPE on August 3, 2007, 5:01am


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

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.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.