What is happening to us in Fiji?

How did we get to this stage?

The brutal attack and senseless death of [35-year-old carpenter] Apakuki Tavodi in [a roadside stabbing] in Saweni, Lautoka, is a shocking reminder about how fragile life can be.

It is a reminder as well about the importance of life, and questions how much value we place on that.

Let’s face it.

There is grief, and there is bound to be fear in the community.

We must stand united in shock and sorrow as we mourn the loss of a young life.

As we grapple with the nature of this act, and the death of someone in this fashion, we must all demand for justice and action.

The brutality displayed cannot be ignored. Is this what is lurking beneath the face that we have of society?

We must not allow ourselves to become numb to such acts.

This young man’s life mattered to those who knew him, and those who loved him, and there has to be a thorough and swift investigation that brings those responsible to justice.

In saying that, we must also ask ourselves the difficult questions: how did we get here?

What factors have contributed to the erosion of safety and respect for human life in our community?

The answers may be complex, but they cannot be avoided.

Should we see this tragedy as an isolated incident?

Or do we consider it a symptom of a deeper malaise that needs to be addressed.

Let’s not wait for the police to act and try to solve this case. Let’s not sit back and hope that nothing like it happens again.

Let’s unite and talk about this.

Let’s talk about peace and reconciliation and work together for a society where violence is unacceptable.

It may not be easy, but it must be done, for everyone’s sake.

It must be done for the peace and security, and for our country.

That will need us to stand up for what is right.

There must be trust and confidence in the law, and those tasked to uphold them.

There must be hope in our systems, and processes, and we need confidence in the long arm of the law being there for everyone irrespective of who they are in society.

Let’s see this death as a wake-up call.

Let’s see it as a reminder for us that we cannot take our safety or our sense of community for granted.

We must work together to build a future that places peace and security on a very high plane.

As a community, we can choose to heal, to unite, and to build a society where violence is not an option.

This editorial was published in The Sunday Times under the title “Call for action” today, 21 January 2024.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

One of the key players in the restoration of peace in New Caledonia in the 1980s, Louis Le Pensec, died last week aged 87.

Le Pensec is regarded as one of the main actors in the negotiations that led to the signing of the Matignon-Oudinot Accords in 1988 which put an end to half a decade of a bloody civil war in the French Pacific territory.

He was then French Minister for Overseas Territories and was specifically tasked by French Prime Minister Michel Rocard to bring pro-France and pro-independence politicians and militants to a truce and an eventual agreement.

The first of the two agreements, the Matignon Accord, was signed between pro-French leader Jacques Lafleur and the charismatic pro-independence figure Jean-Marie Tjibaou under the auspices of Socialist PM Rocard.

Le Pensec took care of the second pact, the Oudinot Accord, signed a few weeks later in August 1988.

The set of agreements mostly enacted the return of civil peace in New Caledonia, but also paved the way for a possible self-determination future for New Caledonia.

Return to civil peace
Ten years later, in 1998, the Nouméa Accord paved the way for a series of pro-autonomy measures, including the creation of three provinces and their assemblies, a Congress and a local “collegial” government.

It also prescribed a series of three referendums on New Caledonia’s self-determination, which have now taken place between 2017 and 2021.

Tributes flowing from all sides
The announcement of Le Pensec’s passing was followed by emotional reactions in New Caledonia.

New Caledonia’s local government paid homage to the former minister, and the “essential role” he played in the 1980s negotiations to restore peace.

“He laid the foundation stones for a lasting peace and a pacific coexistence between our different communities,” a statement said.

“He contributed to the search for consensual solutions in order to lay the foundations of a constructive dialogue . . .  He opened the way to a period of social and political stability, thus allowing New Caledonia to progress serenely towards its destiny.

“May we keep following this peaceful and brotherly path that he has left us,” New Caledonia’s government concluded.

The local government also recalled Le Pensec explaining the context of the negotiations in the 1980s and how he was given the New Caledonian mission by French PM Rocard.

“He told me: ‘Louis, now for you it’s [New] Caledonia’. I was shocked because I knew how big a challenge that was.

And then (Rocard) told me: ‘You’ll see, a Breton [person from Brittany region, Western France] like you will get along fine with the Kanaks . . .  Later, I realised how true that was, how that Kanaks customs were in many ways similar to the customs of my Brittany,” he confided in 2018.

“During our meetings, we never went straight to the point, first we would talk for about two hours about non-essential things, like the weather . . .  and also there was this thing we had in common, the feeling of belonging to what you can call minority people”.

“So all this facilitated a mutual confidence, I do realise how lucky I have been to live that and above all to see that sometimes political talk can silence weapons”.

Le Pensec was France’s Minister for Overseas Territories between 1988 and 1993.

Some of the reactions coming from Paris included French Defence Minister Sébastien Lecornu, who recently held the Overseas portfolio.

“Through his participation to the building of the Matignon-Oudinot Accords, [Le Pensec] allowed the opening of a path of hope and peace for New Caledonia,” he messaged on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Pro-independence politician and current chair of New Caledonia’s Congress, Roch Wamytan, paid tribute to Le Pensec’s “humanity” and capacity to listen and foster fructuous dialogue, “as opposed to his present colleagues”.

Pro-independence demonstration in the streets of Nouméa
Coinciding with the ex-minister’s death announcement, in Nouméa, on Thursday, one of the components of the pro-independence umbrella FLNKS, the Union Calédonienne (UC), was demonstrating in front of the Congress to voice its opposition to what they described as the French government’s “forceful” manners in its plans to change New Caledonia’s electoral roll eligibility with a constitutional amendment.

The plan, announced after Christmas, is scheduled to set a vote in the French Congress (a special gathering of France’s two Houses, the National Assembly and the Senate) during the first quarter of 2024.

Brandishing banners denouncing the “people’s colonisation” on Thursday, protesting participants included UC members and sympathisers, but also close entities such as the USTKE trade union, as well as a UC-revived, self-styled “field action coordination cell”.

Other components of the FLNKS, such as the Kanak Liberation Party (PALIKA) and the Melanesian Progressist Union (UPM) are not taking part in those actions and have advised their members and supporters to refrain from doing so.

Since last year, the French government has been trying to bring back pro-France and pro-independence politicians to the table so that they can reflect and envisage a new agreement for New Caledonia’ s political and institutional future.

After more than 25 years of existence, the Nouméa Accord is deemed to have expired, but is now waiting for a new document to replace it.

Just before her resignation, a few days ago, then Prime minister Elisabeth Borne had given New Caledonia’s political players until 1 July 2024 to agree on a new consensus for New Caledonia.

She also announced France’s plan to “unfreeze” New Caledonia’s electoral roll (which was “frozen” under temporary restrictions for the implementation of the Nouméa Accord) so that French citizens who have resided in the territory for more than 10 years are eligible to vote for local elections.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Advocates warn that the the involvement of the Indonesian military (TNI) in a food estate programme initiated by the government last year may enable potential human rights violations.

“Military deployment will be followed by the act of securing land grabbing, for example,” said rights NGO Imparsial director Gufron Mabruri in an online discussion this week.

“There is the potential for human rights violations to occur, especially if the community resists and confronts the security forces.”

Such potential for human rights violations, Mabruri said, was confirmed by the absence of any accountable mechanism, Mabruri said.

The TNI has its own military court to prosecute members suspected of committing crimes.

However, the military court is closed to the public and is seen as a shield for impunity in many cases.

‘Separatist’ stigma a problem
Mabruri also warned that the stigma of Papuans as alleged “separatists” should be taken into consideration when putting the national soldiers on civil programmes.

“Moreover, armed groups in Papua are now labeled as terrorist organisations. This will make things escalate quickly when there is a conflict between the TNI and the community,” he said.

He suggested President Joko Widodo and the House of Representatives evaluate all military engagement practices in various sectors because it would weaken civil institutions.

Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) researcher M. Haripin also said that the involvement of the military in the food estate project was very problematic, as seen in past involvement.

“Some might think that this is too presumptuous because the military situation has changed. However, for me even now, the military is still very problematic and we cannot put aside our past history and our present concerns,” Haripin said.

Indeed, ever since it was launched last year until now, the food estate programme has been under heavy criticism, especially with the involvement of the military in its implementation.

“There is the risk of creating ‘khaki capital’, or the political economy of the military, in the TNI-supported food estate,” he said.

“Corporations earn profits while soldiers ensure that everything goes according to plan,” he said.

Arjuna Pademme is a Tabloid Jubi reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Terrorism, political extremism, Donald Trump, social media and the phenomenon of “cancel culture” are confronting journalists with a range of agonising free-speech dilemmas to which there are no easy answers.

Do they allow a president of the United States to use their platforms to falsely and provocatively claim the election he has just lost was stolen from him?

How do they cover the activities and rhetoric of political extremists without giving oxygen to race hate and civil insurrection?

How do they integrate news-making social media material into their own content, when it is also hateful or a threat to the civil peace?

Should journalists engage in, or take a stand against, “cancel culture”?

How should editors respond to the “assassin’s veto”, when extremists threaten to kill those who publish content that offends their culture or religion?

The West has experienced concrete examples of all these in recent years. In the US, many of them became pressing during the Trump presidency.

Lying and endangering civil peace
When five of the big US television networks cut away from former President Trump’s White House press conference on November 6 after he claimed the election had been stolen, they did so on the grounds that he was lying and endangering civil peace.

Silencing the president was an extraordinary step, since it is the job of the media to tell people what is going on, hold public officials to account, and uphold the right to free speech. It looked like an abandonment of their role in democratic life.

Against that, television’s acknowledged reach and power imposes a heavy duty not to provide a platform for dangerous speech.

Then on January 6 – two months later to the day – after yet more incitement from Trump, a violent mob laid siege to the Capitol and five people lost their lives. The networks’ decision looked prescient.

They had acted on the principle that a clear and present danger to civil peace, based on credible evidence, should be prioritised over commitments to informing the public, holding public officials to account and freedom of speech.

This case also raised a further dilemma. Even if the danger to peace did not exist, should journalists just go on reporting – or broadcasting – known lies, even when they come from the president of the United States?

Newspaper editors and producers of pre-recorded radio and television content have the time to report lies while simultaneously calling them out as lies. Live radio and television do not. The words are out and the damage is done.

So the medium, the nature and size of the risk, how the informational and accountability functions of journalism are prioritised against the risk, and the free-speech imperative all play into these decisions.

Similar considerations arise in respect of reporting political extremism.

The ABC’s Four Corners programme is about to embark on a story about the alt-right in the US. Having advertised this in a promotional tweet, the ABC received some social media blow-back raising the question of why it would give oxygen to these groups.

The influence of the alt-right on Western politics is a matter of real public interest because of the way it shapes political rhetoric and policy responses, particular on race and immigration.

To not report on this phenomenon because it pursues a morally reprehensible ideology would be to fail the ethical obligation of journalism to tell the community about the important things that are going on in the world.

It is not a question of whether to report, but how.

The Four Corners programme will not be live to air. There will be opportunity for judicious editing. Journalists are under no obligation to report everything they are told. In fact they almost never do.

Motive matters
Whether the decision to omit is censorship comes down to motive: is it censorship to omit hate speech or incitement to violence? No. Because the reporter doesn’t agree with it? Yes.

Integrating social media content into professional mass media news presents all these complexities and one more: what is called the news value of “virality”.

Does the fact something has gone viral on social media make it news? For the more responsible professional mass media, something more will usually be needed.

Does the subject matter affect large numbers of people? Is it inherently significant in some way? Does it involve some person who is in a position of authority or public trust?

Trump’s use of Twitter was an exploitation of these decision-rules, but did not invalidate them.

Social media is also the means by which “cancel culture” works. It enables large numbers of people to join a chorus of condemnation against someone for something they have said or done.

It also puts pressure on institutions such as universities or media outlets to shun them.

How voiceless can exert influence
It has become a means by which the otherwise powerless or voiceless can exert influence over people or organisations that would otherwise be beyond their reach.

There are those who are worried about the effects on free speech. In July 2020, Harper’s magazine published a letter of protest signed by 152 authors, academics, journalists, artists, poets, playwrights and critics.

While applauding the intentions behind “cancel culture” in advancing racial and social justice, they raised their voices against what they saw as a new set of moral attitudes that tended to favour ideological conformity.

In the aftermath of the police killings of black people in 2020 and the law-and-order response of the Trump administration, “cancel culture” began to affect journalism ethics. Some journalists on papers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times began taking public positions against the way their papers were reporting race issues.

It led to a lively debate in the profession about the extent to which moral preferences should shape news decisions. The riposte to those who argued that they should, was: whose moral preferences should prevail?

This was yet another illustration of the complexities surrounding free speech issues arising from the social media phenomenon, the Trump presidency and the combination of the two.

Terrorism added contribution
Terrorism has also added its contribution. Over the decade 2005-2015, what became known as the Danish cartoons confronted journalists and editors with life-and-death decisions.

In 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten (Jutland Post) published cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammed. It was a conscious act of defiance against “the assassin’s veto”, violent threats to free speech by Islamist-jihadis.

In 2009, a Danish-born professor of politics wrote a book, The Cartoons that Shook the World. Yale University Press, which published it, refused to re-publish the cartoons after having taken advice from counter-terrorism experts about the risks.

In November 2011, the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo published an issue called Charia Hebdo, satirically featuring the Prophet as editor. The real editor was placed on an Al-Qaeda hit list and in January 2015, two masked gunmen opened fire on the newspaper office, killing 12 people, including the editor.

The world’s media were confronted with the decision whether to re-publish the cartoons again in defiance of “the assassin’s veto”. Some did, but most – including Jyllands Posten – did not.

The necessary limits of free speech
Free speech is an indispensable civil right under assault from all these forces. But none of the philosophers whose names we immediately associate with free speech have claimed it to be absolute.

The social media platforms, having for years proclaimed themselves extreme libertarians, have in recent times begun to recognise this is indefensible, and strengthened their moderating procedures.

Some of Australia’s senior politicians seem baffled by the issue.

When Twitter shut down Trump’s account, acting Prime Minister Michael McCormack did not seem to know where he stood, saying in one breath it was a violation of free speech to shut down Trump while in the next that Twitter should also take down the false image of an Australian soldier slitting the throat of an Afghan child.

And he is a former country newspaper editor.

This was followed by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s remark that he was “uncomfortable” with the Twitter decision. He quoted Voltaire as saying something Voltaire never said: the famous line that while he disagreed with what someone said, he would defend to the death his right to say it. It was a fabrication put into Voltaire’s mouth by a biographer more than 100 years after his death.

Voltaire, Milton, Spinoza, Locke and Mill, to say nothing of the US Supreme Court, have not regarded free speech as an absolute right.

So while the media face some extremely difficult decisions in today’s operating environment, they do not need to burden themselves with the belief that every decision not to publish is the violation of an inviolable right.

By Dr Denis Muller, senior research fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz