Elon Musk Rejects WSJ Report, Denies Pledging $45 Million a Month to Pro-Trump Support Group

The Wall Street Journal report came days after the billionarie openly endorsed Trump in his presidential bid, following the assassination attempt at the former president.

New Delhi: Billionarie Elon Musk has rejected a Wall Street Journal‘s report which claimed that he had pledged $45 million a month to a pro-Trump support group to help boost Donald Trump’s chances in his presidential bid.

Taking to X (formerly Twitter), Musk, in a sarcastic post, put out a picture of two gnus (wildebeest) having human limbs and captioned it “Fake GNUS” and shared WSJ’s report with the post. It was Musk’s way of denouncing the report as ‘fake news’.

The WSJ report came days after the billionarie openly endorsed Trump in his presidential bid, following the assassination attempt at the former president. Citing people familiar with the matter, the WSJ report said Musk pledged his monetary support to the America Political Action Committee, as is the pro-Trump support group is called.

However, a Reuters report said that Musk was not listed on a Monday filing by the group, which showed that it had raised more than $8 million.

In other news, the billionarie announced the relocation of his two businesses, SpaceX and X.

While SpaceX will move its headquarters from Hawthorne, California, to its Starbase facility in Boca Chica, Texas, the headoffice of X will be relocated from San Francisco to Austin, Texas.

The decision of Musk is in protest against a new California law designed to protect transgender children. The New York Times reports that the law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, bans school districts from requiring teachers to notify parents if their children change their gender identification.

Musk criticised the law as “attacking both families and companies,” calling it the “final straw” and noting that he had previously warned the California governor of such consequences.

Musk’s recent business relocations and political endorsement are being perceived as his shift towards right-wing politics. Shortly after Trump was shot in the ear during a rally, Musk publicly endorsed him, providing a significant boost just as Trump was officially nominated by the Republican Party, with Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate.

Scotland Caught up in Heated Debate Over New Hate Speech Law

A change in the law from April 1 aims to better protect people in Scotland against hate crimes. But days after its introduction, the new law remains controversial. Opponents fear for their right to freedom of speech.

Insults, hostility, and hate speech are a major problem in public spaces and on social networks. Governments around the world are seeking to take firmer legal action against these phenomena.

Germany, for example, introduced the Network Enforcement Act in 2017. The European Parliament has called for a more forceful prosecution of hate crimes throughout the EU. Initially, then, it appeared to be a good thing that the Scottish government had decided to tighten the existing regulations.

What are the rules in Scotland?

The new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act came into force on April 1. It extends existing regulations, in that racially motivated acts and incitements to hatred are no longer the only such activities to be deemed a criminal offence.

A law to combat these has been in place across the UK since the 1980s. Now, anyone in Scotland who incites hatred on the basis of age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or transgender identity is also guilty of an offense and could face up to seven years in prison.

Victim support organizations and LGBTQ+ activists have welcomed the introduction of the law. Siobhian Brown, Scotland’s minister for victims and community safety, said it would contribute toward “building safer communities that live free from hatred and prejudice.”

Brown explained that “the impact on those on the receiving end of physical, verbal or online attacks can be traumatic and life-changing” and described the law as “an essential element of our wider approach to tackling that harm.”

More than 400 reporting centers have been established across Scotland for people to report hate crimes, and in some they can do so anonymously. These include police stations and the website of the Scottish police, but also town halls, cafes, universities and some civil society organizations.

“Police Scotland treats all hate crimes seriously,” the police website says. “We want you to report it.”

Surge in reporting of hate crimes

Many Scots have already responded to the invitation. Police received around 4,000 complaints in the first two days after the law came into force, according to reports in British media.

Critics of the law fear police may not be able to cope with the surge. Every complaint has to be carefully scrutinized – but the Scottish Police Federation has said its officers have so far only received a single two-hour online training session on evaluating incoming reports.

It’s only just over a month since Police Scotland announced a pilot project, according to which minor offenses such as shoplifting, burglary and vandalism would not always be prosecuted. The aim was to prevent their officers from becoming overburdened. All this has prompted David Kennedy, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, to warn that the hate speech law could “cause havoc with trust in police in Scotland.”

Provocative statement or hate speech?

Over the past few weeks, numerous opposition politicians and celebrities have been vocal in their opposition to the new law. They say the most serious problem is that there is no clarity as to when exactly a comment crosses the line from “provocative statement” to prosecutable hate speech.

The Police Scotland website says the legal definition of hate crime is “any crime which is understood by the victim or any other person as being motivated (wholly or partly) by malice or ill will towards a social group.”

However, not even Scottish lawmakers seem to be clear on how, in legal terms, this should be implemented. A memorandum from the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh says: “There is no single accepted definition of hate crime.”

Scottish minister Brown also caused a stir in a BBC interview in late March, when she said incidents of so-called misgendering – deliberately assigning to a transgender person a gender that does not correspond to their chosen identity – could be investigated under the law, and it would be up to the police to decide whether it constituted a criminal offense.

This legal uncertainty is one of the reasons critics of the law fear curtailment of their right to freedom of speech. These critics include strictly religious Christians and Muslims, who hold conservative views on women, transgender people or homosexuality.

Separate law planned to combat misogyny 

A particularly bitter row has been raging on the internet between a group of gender-critical feminists and some transgender activists. The feminists have refuted the right of people who were assigned male at birth to define themselves as women, and warn that an expansion of transgender rights could undermine the provision of safe spaces for women.

They have also criticized the fact that women are not named as one of the groups protected by the new law. The Scottish government has previously announced that it plans to introduce a separate law to combat misogyny.

Author J. K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has become a prominent spokesperson for these feminists. In recent years, Rowling has repeatedly come under fire for making transphobic statements. She has said she’s afraid the new law will have a “silencing effect” – that people with dissenting opinions will not express them out of fear that doing so may make them liable for punishment.

On April 1, Rowling published a long thread on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, that strongly criticized both the new law and a number of transgender people. She said she looked forward to being arrested for the post upon her return to Scotland.

‘Very high threshold’ for criminality

Members of the Scottish government have visibly been trying to pour oil on troubled waters. Brown said there had been “a lot of misinformation and hysteria regarding this bill being introduced,” while First Minister Humza Yousaf said the “threshold of criminality in terms of the new offenses is very, very high indeed.”

The new hate crime act has already passed its first stress test. A spokesperson for Police Scotland said on Tuesday that Rowling’s comments “are not assessed to be criminal and no further action will be taken.”

This article was originally published on DW.

Rwanda Marks 30 Years Since 1994 Genocide of Tutsis

April 7 marks 30 years since the start of a genocide that would see nearly 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus murdered in Rwanda. Scars on survivors’ bodies remind Rwandans of the killings. A deep trauma remains even as efforts at reconciliation continue.

Rwanda is commemorating the 30th anniversary of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

More than 1 million people – mostly from the Tutsi minority ethnic group, but also moderates from the Hutu majority who tried to protect Tutsis – were systematically murdered by Hutu extremists during a 100-day killing spree that started on April 7, 1994.

The United Nations is holding events to remember the victims and honor the survivors.

“We will never forget the victims of this genocide,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in a statement earlier this week. “Nor will we ever forget the bravery and resilience of those who survived.”

‘I could hear my siblings’ screams’

Freddy Mutanguha, a Tutsi, is one of the survivors.

Mutanguha was 18 years old at the time of the genocide and on a school break in his home village of Mushubati in Kibuye, a city around 130 kilometers (80 miles) from Rwanda’s capital, Kigali.

Hutu extremists had been hunting down young men they suspected of sympathizing with the Rwandan Patriotic Front, a mainly Tutsi rebel group led by Paul Kagame, now Rwanda’s president.

Fearing the worst for her son, Mutanguha’s mother advised him to hide in the house of a Hutu former classmate.

While Mutanguha was safe with his school friend, his family — who were at a nearby location — stayed alive by bribing a group of Hutu extremists with money and alcohol.

But on April 14, the family ran out of money, and the extremists murdered Mutanguha’s parents and four of his sisters. Only his sister, Rosette, managed to escape.

“I could hear my siblings’ screams as they were mercilessly killed,” Mutanguha told DW. “They begged their attackers to spare their lives, promising never to be Tutsi again, but in vain.

“They threw my sisters in a nearby pit. Some were still alive and they finished them off with rocks. My parents were killed by machetes.”

Mutanguha remained in his hiding place because the killers were also looking for him.

“It would be suicidal if I left my hideout,” Mutanguha told DW, adding that his sisters were only 4, 6, 11 and 13 years old when they were killed.

Apart from losing his parents and four sisters, more than 80 members of Mutanguha’s extended family were murdered in the genocide.

Some of the people who killed Mutanguha’s loved ones were released as part of a plea deal that allowed perpetrators to serve half of their sentences in exchange for providing vital information to prosecutors about suspects and where victims’ bodies had been dumped. The ringleaders, however, remain in prison.

Mutanguha, who served as a vice president of IBUKA, a group for Rwandan genocide survivors, is now the director of the Kigali Genocide Memorial, where some 250,000 remains of genocide victims are buried.

Difficult healing process for survivors

Despite Rwanda’s efforts to push for reconciliation between survivors and those who perpetrated the genocide, the journey to healing has been a bumpy road for survivors like Mutanguha and his sister.

“Perpetrators don’t often tell the whole truth, which is a setback to reconciliation efforts and which is disturbing for survivors,” said Mutanguha, explaining that one of the killers of his family withheld considerable information.

“He was released after serving 15 years of the 25 he had been sentenced to, just for the little information he shared with the prosecutors,” he said. “We have to live with it. After all, our loved ones will never come back.”

However, Mutanguha acknowledged that Rwanda has made significant progress in reconciliation. That’s a sentiment he shares with Phil Clark, a professor of international politics at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, who has researched developments in Rwanda for the last 20 years.

“Rwanda has made enormous strides in terms of post-genocide reconciliation when you consider that hundreds of thousands of convicted genocide perpetrators are today back living in the same communities where they committed crimes, side-by-side with genocide survivors,” said Clark.

“Most of these communities are peaceful, stable and productive, and the progress that Rwanda has made is clear,” he added.

“Many commentators predicted Rwanda would go through further cycles of violence after the genocide, as is the case in most of the neighboring countries,” he added. “It warrants a deeper understanding that Rwanda has managed to avoid that fate.”

How social media hinders reconciliation 

Genocide survivors have had to process their feelings and work together with perpetrators, according to Mutanguha. However, the Rwandan diaspora remains the main stumbling block to the unity of Rwandans.

“They [diaspora] are notorious for spreading divisive information on social media platforms and to their families back home which hinders reconciliatory efforts, especially among the youth who know little about what happened 30 years ago,” he said.

Decades of interethnic tensions and violence had already resulted in several waves of migration before the 1994 genocide. Many of the expats never returned to Rwanda.

Clark agreed that the Rwandan diaspora is the greatest challenge for reconciliation — the people who did not participate in the reconciliation processes in their homeland.

“The most destructive interethnic dynamics are currently among Rwandan populations in North America, Western Europe, and other parts of Africa which flow back to Rwanda itself,” he said. “The next crucial phase of reconciliation needs to happen in those communities outside Rwanda.”

Reconciliation process poses serious security threat 

President Kagame’s most prominent critic, opposition leader Victoire Ingabire, called reconciliation a far-fetched dream and said to achieve it, all Rwandan refugees would need to be repatriated.

“There are still many Rwandan refugees especially in neighboring countries that must be repatriated for genuine reconciliation to happen,” Ingabire said in a New Year’s message on her party’s YouTube channel.

“We live in peace, but reconciliation is still low, and there is a deep mistrust among Rwandans,” said Ingabire. “The Rwandan government is also concerned about refugees in neighboring countries who chose to take up arms and fight it. This problem will never end unless we who are inside the country unite and reconcile first.”

Ingabire was referring to rebels from the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), an ethnic Hutu rebel group.

Kagame has long viewed the FDLR as an existential threat to Rwanda. The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.

The FDLR’s ongoing existence, allegedly being tolerated by the government in neighboring Congo, has led to accusations that Rwanda supports competing rebel groups like the M23 movement. Rwanda has denied supporting the M23.

The recent uptick in fighting has created serious tensions between Rwanda and Congo — including threats of going to war by Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi — which suggests that the gaps in the reconciliation process pose a serious security threat to the entire region, even 30 years after the genocide.

Rebuilding lives, restoring hopes

There have been a multitude of efforts — by the government, civil society and everyday citizens — to move beyond a genocide ideology, but not everyone has had the change of heart needed for a rapprochement.

Weekly dialogue clubs and associations at the community level, where people discuss past and present conflicts, have  been essential in helping Rwandans heal and move forward positively.

Clark said the situation is much more positive today than five or 10 years ago. But, he added, “Most Rwandans I speak to say there’s still a long way to go.”

Mutanguha indicated it was important that the Rwandan genocide be commemorated around the globe.

“Remembering what happened in Rwanda 30 years ago should not be a thing for the Tutsis who survived the genocide — but for the whole world to learn from it because it was a crime against humanity,” he said.

This article was originally published on DW.

Jim Hines, First to Run 100 Metres in Under 10 Seconds, Dies

His record stood for 15 years until it was finally broken by another American, Calvin Smith, in 1983 with 9.93 seconds.

US sprinter Jim Hines, the first man to break the 10-second barrier for 100 metres, died at the age of 76, the association World Athletics said on Monday.

“World Athletics is deeply saddened to hear that legendary US sprinter Jim Hines died on Saturday,” the governing body said in a statement.

At the 1968 US Championships in Sacramento, Hines became the first man to officially go below 10 seconds for 100 metres, running a hand-timed 9.9 seconds.

A record that lasted 15 years

Later that year, in winning the 1968 Olympic 100 metres gold medal at altitude in Mexico City, Hines lowered the world record to an electronic-timed run of 9.95 seconds.

His record stood for 15 years until it was finally broken by another American, Calvin Smith, in 1983 with 9.93 seconds.

Hines also won another Olympic gold medal — and world record — when he anchored the USA to gold in the 4×100 metre relay.

Soon after the Olympics, burglars broke into his home in Houston and stole his gold medals. But after placing an advert in his local newspaper appealing for the medals to be returned, they were posted back to him in a plain brown envelope.

From sprinter to footballer

Hines, the son of a construction worker, was born in Dumas, Arkansas, in September 1946, but was raised in Oakland, California.

His early passion was for baseball but athletics coach Jim Coleman spotted his talent for sprinting and by the time Hines was 17, he already ranked among the top 20 in the world over 100 yards.

Shortly after the 1968 Olympics, however, Hines ended his sprint career to try his hand at the NFL professional football league. There Hines played for the Miami Dolphins and the Kansas City Chiefs. However, he could not translate his speed into success in a new discipline, and only had the ball in his hands a few times in his brief NFL career, earning the locker room nickname “Oops” during his year with the Dolphins

This article was originally published on DW. 

US House Passes Debt Ceiling Bill to Avert Default

The vote came just five days before the deadline to avoid a crippling default. The bipartisan agreement will now go to the Senate before President Joe Biden can sign it into law.

The US House of Representatives has passed a bipartisan Bill raising the government’s $31.4 trillion (€29.4 trillion) debt ceiling.

The vote was a crucial step in preventing a destabilising default.

“This agreement is good news for the American people and the American economy,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.

The Fiscal Responsibility Act needed a simple majority to clear the 435-member Republican-controlled House before advancing to the Senate.

The agreement between Republicans and Democrats allows more borrowing and ensures the country doesn’t miss loan repayments, which would send the US and global economies into a potentially ruinous nosedive.

“It does what is responsible for our children, what is possible in divided government, and what is required by our principles and promises,” Republican speaker Kevin McCarthy said.

Bipartisan negotiations

Ahead of the vote, Biden and McCarthy sounded upbeat as they assembled a coalition of centrist Democratic and Republican representatives opposed to the conservative backlash and progressive dissent.

The two politicians drafted a compromise Bill after weeks of negotiations.

Overall, the 99-page Bill restricts spending for the next two years, suspends the debt ceiling into January 2025 and changes policies, including new work requirements for older Americans receiving food aid and greenlighting an Appalachian natural gas line that many Democrats oppose.

The Bill passed 314-117, surviving a rebellion from 71 conservative Republicans who voted no and argued the cuts did not go far enough.

What happens now?

The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, said he expected the debt ceiling Bill to come to the Senate as soon as Thursday.

It would then need to be signed into law by President Biden.

Progressive independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats, already announced he would not because of the gas pipeline included in the Bill, among other reasons.

“I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the debt ceiling deal,” he said.

Some Republican senators have also demanded an opportunity to make their own amendments to the Bill, but Democrats have played down the possibility of this happening.

“We cannot send anything back to the House, plain and simple. We must avoid default,” Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said.

This article was originally published on DW.


Brazil’s Lula Proposes South American Currency

Heads of state from 12 South American countries have gathered in the Brazilian capital to discuss regional integration at a summit and revive the Unasur bloc.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has proposed creating a regional trade currency for South America at a summit of regional leaders in Brasilia.

Lula urged state banks across the continent to work together to reduce dependence on “extra-regional currencies” for trade, without mentioning the US dollar by name.

Amid a renewed left-wing tide in the region, the Brazilian leader organized the South America Summit to help revive the Unasur bloc, which had largely become defunct after it was shunned by right-wing leaders in recent years.

“As long as we’re not united, we won’t make South America a developed continent in all its potential,” Lula said.

South American leaders call for unity

The summit was attended by 12 South American leaders in an attempt to foster closer integration between neighbours.

“Latin America must play a united role and have a united voice,” Colombian President Gustavo Petro told journalists as he arrived at the gathering.

The only South American head of state not to attend was Dina Boluarte of Peru, who is unable to leave the country as she faces criminal charges.

Peruvian Prime Minister Alberto Otarola attended in her absence.

Venezuela welcomed back into the fold

Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro was also in attendance, after years of isolation by right-wing leaders like Brazil’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro, who labelled the socialist leader a “dictator.”

Lula criticized US sanctions against Venezuela and said claims that its government is authoritarian are a “narrative” pushed by Western countries.

He said it is up to Maduro to “make Venezuela a sovereign country once again. And our opponents will have to apologize for the damage they’ve done.”

Argentinian President Alberto Fernandez also expressed support for Venezuela to return to international bodies.

Chile’s Gabriel Boric said he disagreed with some of Lula’s remarks on Venezuela, adding that the region needs to respect human rights. However, he nevertheless welcomed the resumption of multilateral talks involving Maduro.

This story was originally published on DW. 


Uganda Signs Anti-LGBTQ Bill Into Law

The new law contains a provision that would punish “aggravated homosexuality” with a death penalty. The legislation has met with broad international condemnation.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed the new anti-LGBTQ legislation on Monday.

Museveni “has assented to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2023. It now becomes the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023,” the Ugandan presidency said on Twitter.

Uganda’s ‘Anti-Homosexuality Act’

Uganda’s head of state had called on lawmakers to amend the Bill, and a new draft of the legislation was presented earlier this month.

The amended version clarifies that merely identifying as gay would not be cause for imprisonment.

Museveni had also advised lawmakers to remove a provision that made “aggravated homosexuality” subject to capital punishment, but Uganda’s parliament rejected this suggestion. The provision pertains to repeat offenders and those found to have had sex while HIV-positive.

Uganda has not carried out capital punishment in many years.

Same-sex relations were already illegal in Uganda under a law that dates back to the British colonial period.

The new law introduces a 20-year sentence for “promoting” homosexuality.

“With a lot of humility, I thank my colleagues the Members of Parliament for withstanding all the pressure from bullies and doomsday conspiracy theorists in the interest of our country,” Parliament speaker Anita Among said.

However, Ugandan LGBT rights activist Clare Byarugaba said it was “a very dark and sad day for Uganda.”

“We shall continue to fight this atrocious legislation through the judiciary until human rights for all are upheld,” she said.

“We shall win, because as Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, the moral arc of the universe always bends towards justice.”

Law draws international condemnation

The new law has been widely condemned by rights groups and Western countries.

US President Joe Biden slammed the new legislation, branding it a “tragic violation of universal human rights.” He threatened to cut US aid and investment in Uganda, calling for the law’s immediate repeal.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the UN’s HIV/AIDS program and the US AIDS relief program all expressed concern over the harmful impact of the newly signed law.

Amnesty International said that the law “flagrantly violates the human rights of LGBTI people in Uganda, including the right to a private life, protection against discrimination and the right to equal protection before the law.”

The British Foreign Office said it was “appalled” by the new law, while Canada’s foreign minister called it “abhorrent, cruel and unjust.”

International partnerships under threat

The new law has also jeopardized Uganda’s international standing.

“This law is contrary to international human rights law and to Uganda’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, including commitments on dignity and non-discrimination, and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment,” EU foreign policy chief Josip Borrell said in a statement.

“The Ugandan government has an obligation to protect all of its citizens and uphold their basic rights. Failure to do so will undermine relationships with international partners.”

When Museveni signed a less restrictive anti-LGBTQ law in 2014, Western governments suspended some aid, reduced security cooperation with Uganda and imposed stronger visa restrictions on its citizens.

This article was originally published on DW. 

RSF, Amnesty Ask Pakistan to Find Pro-Khan Anchor Imran Riaz

The prominent journalist and supporter of ex-PM Imran Khan was detained by the Pakistani police, but the authorities then failed to present him in court.

Imran Riaz, a well-known TV anchor and YouTuber, was among the thousands of Imran Khan supporters who were detained following the former premier’s arrest and violent protests in Pakistan earlier this month. The journalist was reportedly taken into custody from the airport at the eastern city of Sialkot on May 11th on suspicion of inciting violence. He was due to appear before the court in Lahore this Monday.

But then, the story took an unusual turn — authorities failed to present Riaz during the hearing. Punjab police chief Usman Anwar told the court he was “clueless” about his whereabouts.

The Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court warned the authorities that “no one will be spared if anything happened” to the 47-year-old reporter.

Riaz’s wife, Arbab Imran, told DW she is worried for her husband’s safety.

“The arrest of my husband is deeply troubling. He raised voices for the vulnerable people and for the truth. My four children are concerned about him, and we don’t know the whereabouts of him. He was taken off air many times, and I demand from authorities for his immediate release,” she said.

RSF points to Pakistan’s military intelligence

Pakistan is going through a deep political crisis marked by a power struggle between Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party and the current government led by Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, with the military and the judiciary also being affected. Khan has recently stepped up his attacks on the military, accusing it of working against him. Riaz is a well-known media figure among Khan’s supporters.

Founder and Leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, Imran Khan.
Photo: Screengrab via YouTube/PTI

On Tuesday, Reporters Without Border (RSF) representative Daniel Bastard said it was “clearly Pakistan’s military intelligence agencies that abducted Imran Riaz,” after the Punjabi inspector spoke of unspecified “agencies” during the court hearing.

“According to confidential diplomatic sources consulted by RSF, the government’s silence about the TV anchor’s fate suggests that he may have fared badly since his abduction and may even have died in detention,” the watchdog organisation said.

Separately, Amnesty International called for Riaz’s immediate recovery.

“On 22 May, the police told the Lahore high court that there is no trace of him in any police department in the province.”

The organisation said the events amount to “an enforced disappearance” under international law.


“Punishing dissenting voices using enforced disappearance has been a worrying trend in Pakistan for many years and must be ended,” Amnesty said.

Riaz missing, Sharif killed in exile

Riaz’s lawyer Azhar Siddique says that the arrest is a “blatant violation of freedom of expression.”

Riaz decried Imran Khan’s ouster from power in April last year, linking it to “regime change” and amplifying Khan’s claims that the military was involved in ending his government. The anchor was already arrested twice, in July 2022 and February 2023. The latter saw Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency suspect him of hate speech and criticism of the military.

The disappearance of Riaz prompted some in Pakistan to draw parallels with the killing of veteran reporter Arshad Sharif last October. Sharif was well-known for criticising the Pakistani military, forcing him to flee Pakistan in August 2022 to avoid arrest. He was killed in Kenya in what a team of Pakistani investigators described to be a “targeted assassination.” The background of the murder remains unclear.

Bad optics for freedom of speech?

With the country on edge, a disappearance of a prominent journalist is sure to chill other reporters in the country. Journalist Javeria Siddique, the widow of the late Sharif, told DW that Riaz’s arrest was “really alarming and a bad optic for freedom of speech in Pakistan.”

“The government is arresting journalists over their stories and being vocal,” she said, pointing to her husband’s killing in Kenya. “Then we have seen the same pattern for Imran Riaz,” she added.

“I am requesting from the authorities that they should immediately and unconditionally release the journalist Imran Riaz Khan. Criticising the ruling elite of Pakistan is not something which falls in hate speech,” Siddique added.

Osama Malik, a legal expert, notes that the freedom of information and the freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Pakistani Constitution.

“Imran Riaz’s brand of journalism may not be palatable to everyone, but that is certainly not a reason for the state to spirit him away,” he told DW. “It is highly condemnable that despite the province’s highest court asking about his whereabouts, the law enforcement agencies are unable or unwilling to present Imran Riaz in court or divulge his location.”

This article was originally published on DW.


Germany Charges Executives for Selling Spyware to Turkey

Four former executives have been charged with illegally selling software to Turkey’s secret services so it could spy on the country’s opposition. The suspects are from the Munich-based FinFisher which develops spyware.

German authorities have filed charges against four suspects from a firm over allegations that they sold surveillance software to Turkey’s intelligence services, Munich prosecutors said on Monday.

Prosecutors say the suspects intentionally violated licensing requirements for dual-use goods by selling surveillance software to non-EU countries.

The accused belonging to the Bavarian-based FinFisher have been charged with commercial violations of the German Trade and Payments Act in three separate cases.

FinSpy software at the centre of the probe

According to the prosecutors in southern Germany, the firm struck a deal worth over €5 million ($5.4 million) in 2015 to sell monitoring software to Ankara intelligence, along with training and support.

The spyware allows those who deploy it to acquire control of computers and smartphones with the ability to follow communications.

Prosecutors said the Finspy software was provided to a Turkish opposition movement in 2017 to download from a fraudulent website “under false pretences, in order to spy on them”.

The probe was sparked after four non-governmental organisations the Society for Civil Liberties, Reporters Without Borders, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) and Netzpolitik.org. – all filed complaints.

This story was originally published on DW.

EC Freezes Shiv Sena Party Symbol, Name, Asks Rival Factions to Pick New Ones

The interim order said that the adjudication of the matter pertaining to opposing claims by Thackeray and Shinde factions should not come in the way of the Andheri East bypoll, which will be held on November 3.

New Delhi: Amid the ongoing tussle between Shinde and Thackeray factions over Shiv Sena, the Election Commission on Saturday, October 8, passed an interim order refraining both sides from using the name and the party symbol of ‘bow and arrow’ in the upcoming boll by-poll in Andheri East on November 3.

While stressing that it is an ‘interim order’ – given that nominations for the upcoming byelection are due on October 14 – the poll body instructed the warring factions to suggest by Monday, October 10, three different name choices and also as many free symbols for allocation to their respective groups.

“Neither of the two groups shall also be permitted to use the symbol ‘Bow & Arrow’ reserved for ‘Shivsena’. Both the groups shall be known by such names as they may choose for their respective groups, including, if they so desire, linkage with their parent party ‘Shivsena’,” the order said.

The poll body said adjudication of the matter, which will continue, should not come in the way of the upcoming election in Andheri East. “The Commission is duty bound to ensure that all electoral steps of the bye-election are free of any confusion and contradiction and thus its next step is necessarily agnostic to the possibility of either of the faction participating in the poll,” the interim order said.

“Both the groups shall also be allotted such different symbols as they may choose from the list of free symbols notified by the Election Commission for the purposes of the current bye-elections,” the order further added.

The Commission said the interim order is to place both the rival groups “on an even keel and to protect their rights and interests” Going by the “precedence”, the commission said neither of the two groups be permitted to use the party name, Shiv Sena.

Citing sources in the Election Commission, NDTV reported that the Thackeray faction had already submitted its list of three choices for the name. While ‘Shiv Sena Balasaheb Thackeray’ is the first choice for the name and ‘Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray’ is the second pick.

The rival factions had approached the Commission after the split in the Shiv Sena ranks in June, claiming to be the ‘real Shiv Sena’.

The Commission had earlier asked the rival groups to submit documentary proof on legislative and organisational support by August 8 to back their claims. The deadline was extended to October 7 after the request of the Thackeray faction.

On October 4, the Shinde faction had moved the Election Commission seeking the allocation of the ‘bow and arrow’ poll symbol in view of the Andheri East assembly by-election, which was notified on October 3, Friday.

Maharashtra CM Eknath Shinde with rebel Shiv Sena MLAs during the Special session of Maharashtra Assembly, at Vidhan Bhavan in Mumbai, Monday, July 4, 2022. Photo: PTI/Kunal Patil

The Thackeray faction had submitted its response to the claim on Saturday and had sought four more weeks to carefully understand the documentation submitted by the rival faction.

The fresh claim to the ‘bow and arrow’ election symbol by the Shinde faction is seen as an attempt to deny its use by the Thackeray group which has decided to field Rutuja Latke, the widow of MLA Ramesh Latke, for the bypoll.

The BJP, an ally of the Shinde faction, has decided to field Murji Patel, a corporator in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, for the bypoll necessitated due to the death of Ramesh Latke.

The Congress and the NCP have decided to support the candidate of the Thackeray faction of the Shiv Sena, their coalition partner in the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA).

Also read: ‘Shinde Can’t Claim Sena Symbol Since He Voluntarily Quit the Party’: Thackeray Tells EC

Hours before the poll body’s interim order on Saturday, the Thackeray faction had urged the EC “to maintain status quo and not hurry the proceedings”. It had said there was “no urgency” given that the Shinde faction was not fielding a candidate in the bypoll, adding it was only “acting as a proxy for the BJP”, according to Indian Express.

‘Injustice,’ says the Thackeray faction

The Thackeray camp termed the order as “injustice” meted out to it while the opposing faction hailed it as an “appropriate” move by the poll body.

“The poll body should have holistically taken a decision rather than passing an interim decision for the bypoll,” said Ambadas Danve, Leader of the Opposition in Maharashtra Legislative Council, a Thackeray loyalist.

“This is injustice,” he told PTI.

Shiv Sena leader and former minister Aaditya Thackeray on Saturday lashed out at the rebel Sena leaders after the EC order.

“‘Khokewale’ traitors committed this shameless and vile act of freezing the name Shiv Sena and symbol”, he tweeted, adding that the people of Maharashtra would not tolerate it. “We will fight and win. We are on the side of the truth. Satyamev Jayate!” he said in the Marathi tweet.

Shinde had raised a banner of revolt against Thackeray, accusing him of entering into an “unnatural alliance” with Congress and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). Over 40 of the Shiv Sena’s 55 MLAs had supported Shinde, forcing the resignation of Thackeray from the post of Maharashtra Chief Minister.

Twelve of the 18 Lok Sabha members of the Shiv Sena also came out in support of Shinde, who later claimed to be the leader of the original Shiv Sena.

The Andheri East bypoll is the first after Shinde and the BJP unseated the Maha Vikas Aghadi government in June, and is considered by political analysts as a precursor to settling of claims by Shinde and Thackeray to be the “real Shiv Sena”.

(With PTI inputs)