The authors present a comparative evaluation of freedom of expression in Norway and Bangladesh. The article concludes that the media influence within both states has contributed to the quality of democracy. Furthermore, the authors contend that the concept ‘freedom of expression’ is broadly defined depending on the context.
As Scotland prepares to vote on independence, we bring the words from independence advocate and Scottish MP, John Finnie. He makes the case that Scotland, with its local values, smaller scale and valuable resources, is stronger alone.
Whilst the international media focuses on Israeli airstrikes and civilian casualties in Gaza, Koby Gur argues that few people stop to consider that many of these casualties are exactly what Hamas wants, and that Israeli casualties are only minimized through an elaborate and expensive anti-rocket system. For some Israeli’s, their response to Hamas is as proportionate as is possible, and demonstrates as much restraint as is practical in this kind of asymmetric war.
Rainer Ebert critically evaluates the French burqa ban and the European Court of Human Rights’ recent decision to uphold it. Ebert argues that these decisions are bad for woman, bad for Europe, and part of an emerging illiberal trend in Europe. In Ebert’s evaluation , “France now finds itself in the undesirable company of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other countries that force women to dress in a particular way.”
The Israeli cabinet may have approved Egypt’s now failed truce plan for Gaza but whether or not Hamas agreed is of little consequence for achieving peace writes Associate Professor of Griffith University Dr. Halim Rane.
The drone industry is booming as more and more nation-states begin research and development on these new age weapon’s platforms. Alcohonaa.com Editor Liam Maddrell explains the wide ranging impacts drones are having on the nation state currently deploying them more than anyone else; the United States, and how drone development threatens Democratic Peace and democracy.
The use of ‘advanced’ technology to suppress dissent can be seen as far back as Britain’s Licensing of the Press Act of 1662, specifically targeted at “frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Books and Pamphlets” or German Volksempfänger radios, designed only to receive those messages pre-approved by Goebbels. However, since the widespread adoption of the internet, and more recently the smartphone, repressive authorities have increasingly had the means not just to control the message, but to stymie any activists trying to promote one.