News x 24 hours .. Health: 338 new positive cases of Corona were recorded .. and 12 deaths on the seventh day.
New Delhi: A Kanpur district attorney, Abdul Hannan, has been charged with sedition for retweeting a video of Prime Minister Adtan Pradesh, Adityanath, while calling him a “terrorist”.
The original tweet from state media adviser Shalabh Mani Tripathi had a video of Adityanath speaking at the state assembly. He was advocating the charge of lathi against protesters against citizenship (amendment).
“Tum kagaz nahi dikhaoge, aur danga bhi failaoge, to hum lathi bhi chalvayenge, gharbaar bhi bikvayenge… aur haan poster bhi lagwayenge (You will not show the documents and also participate in the riots, then we will charge the lathi, auction your houses and put up posters), “Tripathi said as he tweeted the video. The “posters” to which it refers are Lucknow’s controversial hoardings with names, photographs and addresses of the anti-CAA protesters that the administration has set up.
तुम काग़ज़ नहीं दिखाओगे, और दंगा भी फैलाओगे, तो हम लाठी भी चलवाएँगे, घरबार भी बिकवाएंगे, और हाँ… पोस्टर भी लगवाएँगे 😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/9HZh58158j
– Shalabh Mani Tripathi (@shalabhmani) March 13, 2020
Hannan shared this tweet critically, calling the prime minister a terrorist.
In a separate tweet, the attorney stated that he would provide free legal assistance to the demonstrators and appealed to all “Constitution lovers” to share his tweet.
“We filed a FIR against the person. He was arrested and sent to prison after being produced in front of the court, “said Ajay Seth, an officer at the Kalyanpur police station station, Indian Express.
This is not the first time that the sedition law against social media posts has been invoked, although the Supreme Court has stated that this amounts to misuse.
Like The cable previously reported, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that sedition consists of written or spoken words that “have the effect of bringing contempt or dissatisfaction or the idea of subverting the government by violent means”. In Kedar Nath Singh against State of Bihar, the top court said that if comments, however strongly formulated, do not tend to incite violence, they cannot be treated as sedition.
The court also ruled Balwant Singh against State of Punjab that raising the pro-Khalistan slogans cannot mean sedition as it has not prompted any response from other members of the community.
The 21st Law Commission also noted in a working document that criticizing the government is not tantamount to sedition and that “people have the right to express dissent and criticize the government”. He said that a higher threshold should be set for prosecuting people because of the sedition law. “Sedition as an attempt to destabilize the government should only be invoked in cases where there is a real threat or effective use of violent means to overthrow the democratically elected government,” says the report.
March 6 (UPI) – A donation of approximately $ 10 million from the religious group held responsible for the growing number of coronavirus cases in South Korea has been declined.
The Church of Jesus Shincheonji, the Temple of the Tabernacle of Testimony, made the donation on Friday and sent a statement to local reporters about the offer, according to reports from the South Korean television network KBS.
The Community Chest of Korea, a government-sanctioned charity organization, later said it was returning the funds to Shincheonji, citing public opinion.
South Koreans are angry at the church for not having fully cooperated with the authorities on virus testing and government requests for a full list of its members. Reportedly, a member of the church, patient no. 31 of South Korea, was a super-spreader who participated in the services while he was ill. There are now over 6,500 confirmed cases in Korea.
According to Community Chest, the group never discussed donations with Shincheonji.
“The [$10 million] it was deposited into accounts without prior consultation, “said the group.
The Community Chest also said that further attention will be given to donation in the future, depending on the outcome of the investigation into the religious sect.
According to Shincheonji, the donations were made separately to several Community Chest offices. About $ 8.4 million was sent to the Daegu charity chapter and another $ 1.6 million was delivered to headquarters.
South Korean officials expressed concern about donations during the outbreak.
Daegu Mayor Kwon Young-jin said on Friday that the problem is not money.
“What Shincheonji has to do is actively cooperate with the government and the city of Deagu,” said Kwon, according to Hankyoreh.
Shincheonji is estimated to have around 200,000 members in South Korea.
Celebrating his 50th year as a member of the Lycoming Law Association, a local lawyer helped expand the adoption rights of children before Supreme Court judges in the 1980s.
Charles F. Greevy III can trace his family’s legal legacy for more than 120 years in Lycoming County, starting with his grandfather, who started practicing in 1900 and was a district attorney from 1916 to 1919.
Greevy’s father was elected as one of two county judges in 1951, and under him Greevy was accepted into the Lycoming Law Association in 1969.
He started in his uncle’s office, practicing general law at 29 W. Fourth St.
The office soon took over the county legal services and Greevy worked as a child and youth attorney, a position he would hold for 40 years.
He also worked for the county planning commission and the mental health department.
In 1976, during the first year of working with the county, the Pennsylvania Adoption Act was ratified.
“Previously, these were just cases of abandonment, in which if you left your child for six months, the rights of biological parents could be resolved”, He said.
With the move, the court would be able to find that for various reasons remove a biological parent’s right to their child.
“I was involved in what is called a termination of parental rights, in which three young people were in foster care for seven years. And the agency for children and young people decided that their mother would never be able. to take care of all three directly, especially when they grew up, and we went to court, “ said Greevy.
The children, then 7, 11 and 13 years old, had been out of their parents’ home for six years and both the adoptive parents and the children wanted to proceed with the adoption. With parental rights still valid, the children would be held in limbo until the court made its decision.
President Judge Thomas Charles Raup sided with the agency in 1978, however parents appealed to a higher court, claiming that the state adoption law was unconstitutional.
“That decision was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which established that Judge Raup’s decision was correct and that the boys were to be admitted for adoption,” He said.
The case was again appealed to the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeal in Philadelphia, which only deals with about 5% of the cases sent to them.
“I have had several other cases that have been brought before the United States Supreme Court, but this has been my opportunity for my career. It has been the only time I have really been before them to discuss my case.” said Greevy. “It was really a milestone in my long law practice was the ability to be there and do it.”
There the judge found that the parents had no legal right or right to argue on behalf of his three children, he said.
Throughout the process it lasted four years, the older boy was unable to be adopted at 17, but the two younger boys, aged 15 and 11, were adopted by their adoptive parents.
Several years later, Greevy said he believed state legislatures had taken note of and imposed time restrictions in which parents had to comply with court requests within 15 months to maintain their parental rights.
“I think it was definitely a factor that showed them why there were a large number of children kept in foster care because the parents could not respond as they should have” He said.
All the hearings leading to the conclusion are about helping parents find services to help with a variety of problems that prevent them from getting their children back.
Supporting children has taken on a personal tone throughout much of Greevy’s life as he worked to help children and young people find the best place for children, he said.
“I think one of my rewards in law practice was the many children I worked with especially in children” He said. “My main thing was to make sure they could go back to their natural or biological parents. This is the best. “
If that wasn’t an option, then it was his imperative to move the children into a permanent situation as soon as possible to make sure they found an education and an opportunity to become good citizens, he said.
Another reward for working on so many cases is seeing people who have been helped to be active in their lives, he said.
“They will come to me and say that you were there for my case and thanks for what you did” He said. “It’s nice to see a young man enter a permanent home and a permanent environment in which they can grow and mature the way they want.”
Greevy retired from the solicitation of Children and Youth in 2016 and in the coming years, he would like to slow down his private study and enjoy his grandchildren, he said.