Your Opinion Is Not Necessarily Fact Nor My Reality, writes Andrea Moignard

No, "we" did not invent a crisis; free speech censorship is real and is affecting every aspect of our lives. The relatively new phenomenom that is 'cancel culture' is now confronting journalism and worryingly brings into question the ability of the media to exist in a society which increasingly disarms the principle of freedom of the press. The ability to communicate through various media including printed and electronic means, especially published material, should be considered a right to be exercised freely.

Cancel culture seems to have originated on social media and the gathering storm of unbridled, unsolicited outrage for nothing more than having the right to hold a differing opinion, has rained down on us ever since. The reality is, your brand and reputation can be destroyed in the matter of a few social media posts. Make no mistake, it is an effective bullying tool used to close down - often popular - conversation that merely questions or opposes a particular narrative. Moreover, it sends out the clear message your opinion is wrong, unwelcome, and once a firm foothold of repugnant outrage has been established, support for your public takedown quickly ensues, in much the same way as vultures attack their weakened prey.

It is school playground tactics, that has far-reaching consequences.

Who should we be holding to account for such appallingly destructive behaviour? Behaviour that can cost jobs, livelihoods, relationships and affect mental health and wellbeing. The 'Cancel Clan' I hear you say, but the true perpetrators of this crime are the facilitators; Big Tech who act as Judge, Jury and Firing Squad and who exercise far too much control over our lives, just because they can, and invariably, because they share the views of the attacking bullies. They quite simply have too much power. Didn't these tech giants once say that it was not their responsibility to be online moral arbiters, and that they were platforms and not acting as publishers?

The United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers. No-one could have forseen the challenges this would present in the dawn of the internet age, where public figures like Donald Trump and J.K. Rowling could be cut off for having the 'wrong' viewpoint.

When the US Government has no control over the cancelling of its President on Twitter, is it not time to question the power these tech giants yield? Until there is more competition in the digital sector, Big Tech will continue to act in its biased, divisive and unjust manner. Surely, the threat of losing customers should be a concern for any company? Perhaps the companies are now so big, they no longer care.

Whatever the way forward, stay true to yourself and never allow anyone to cancel your perfectly reasonable beliefs and points of view.

I will always remind you that your opinion is not necessarily fact nor is it my reality, and I absolutely maintain the right to say so without fear of falling victim to the absurd cancel culture that is blighting our lives.

Prince Philip's funeral: 13.6 million people watch the ceremony in the UK

On Saturday, Huw Edwards, Sophie Raworth and JJ Chalmers presented the BBC's live coverage of the funeral from Windsor, alongside expert guests and those who knew the 99-year-old duke.

They included Sir David Attenborough, who praised the duke's conservation work, saying: "He spoke with the passion of a man who both cared about it, and knew about it, knew about it a lot."

Coverage included a full military procession and showed members of the Royal Family accompanying the coffin, as it made a final journey from Windsor Castle to St George's Chapel.

ITV's special programme, Prince Philip - a Royal Funeral, was anchored by Tom Bradby and Julie Etchingham, with contributions from Mary Nightingale and Nina Hossain.

Dermot Murnaghan led Sky News' coverage from the castle grounds.

The service saw the Queen mourn her husband of 73 years with dignity and stoicism during an event that bore Prince Philip's touch and celebrated his life, military service, and legacy.

Senior members of the Royal Family, including the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex - who returned from the US - were also in attendance.

BBC

Biden’s Withdrawal Plan Sets the Clock Ticking in Afghanistan

With troops to depart on Sept. 11, the next five months are critical for any chance of peace.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11 shouldn’t come as a surprise. Since he took office in January, Biden has telegraphed his intention to leave Afghanistan sooner rather than later, formally bringing an end to the 20-year war. In a Tuesday briefing, the administration indicated its plans to end military operations while keeping a focus on the ongoing Afghan peace process.

In reality, the new withdrawal plan complicates U.S. efforts to broker peace between the Afghan government and the Taliban. But if there is any chance of peace in Afghanistan, the five months before the completion of the withdrawal will be critical. Peace prospects will hinge on how the Taliban react to two key dates: May 1, the previously agreed deadline for U.S. withdrawal, and Sept. 11, or whenever the last U.S. soldier has departed.

Biden’s withdrawal decision should, in theory, advance the peace process: An agreement between Washington and the Taliban reached in Doha in 2020 called for all U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan and ended Taliban attacks on U.S. forces. But the Doha accord stipulated that U.S. troops leave by May 1, and the Taliban have repeated that all U.S. soldiers still must be out by that date. Moreover, the Taliban will enjoy a battlefield advantage when the withdrawal is complete that gives the group little incentive to remain committed to peace talks.

The Taliban have already insisted on a strict interpretation of the May 1 withdrawal clause. The worst-case scenario is Taliban members conclude the United States has violated the Doha deal by staying past the deadline and tear up the agreement, relaunching attacks on U.S. forces and rejecting the Afghan peace process. In an indication of the Taliban’s fixation on U.S. withdrawal, the group’s spokesperson tweeted hours after news of Biden’s plan broke that the Taliban will not participate in any Afghanistan conference “until all foreign forces completely withdraw from our homeland.”

The Biden administration hopes to avoid this scenario by pointing to the fact that its withdrawal will begin before May 1 and will be done by Sept. 11. It hopes the Taliban will find this brief extension with a specific end date more palatable than an open-ended one. Washington is also banking on the fact that the Doha deal has given the Taliban the global legitimacy it seeks by locking the insurgents into an internationally recognized agreement. If Taliban leaders rip up the accord and relaunch attacks on U.S. forces, the group risks losing that legitimacy.

Afghan security forces conduct a military operation in Kandahar’s Arghandab district, Afghanistan, on April 4

The Taliban have given little indication of their plans, though a former Taliban minister told the Daily Beast that by extending its presence, the United States “has shattered the Taliban’s trust.” On Wednesday, a Taliban spokesperson tweeted, “if the agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit our country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those whom failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable.” At a Tuesday briefing, a senior Biden administration official said if the Taliban do attack U.S. forces, “we will hit back hard, and … we will hold them accountable for that.”

But come September, U.S. firepower will no longer be an option to deploy against the Taliban. Once the United States has withdrawn, the Taliban have a strong incentive to focus their full attention on the battlefield. Turning their back on the peace process would give the insurgents an opportunity to finish off a war they have long seen as theirs to win. The withdrawal will eliminate the threat of U.S. airpower, a potent tool preventing Taliban forces from advancing into cities. The departure of the 7,000 remaining majority-NATO forces in coordination with the U.S. drawdown will deliver another blow to Afghan troops, who will no longer receive U.S. training and advice. The beleaguered forces, already reeling from record-level fatalities, will face a major challenge to morale.

From the Taliban’s perspective, the appeal of turning their full attention to the fight against the government after U.S. withdrawal is only enhanced by a peace process that appears set up to fail. The Afghan government and the Taliban are worlds apart on so many issues, from how to prioritize the negotiating agenda to their preferred post-war political system.

As currently envisioned, the peace process aims to produce a power-sharing agreement that ends the war. But Taliban leaders reject democratic elections and the principles of civil and human rights enshrined in the Afghan constitution and favor draconian interpretations of Islamic law. The insurgents already seem to threaten the voices deemed unwelcome in their preferred political system. In recent months, a horrific campaign of targeted killings against civil society has convulsed Afghanistan, with election activists, female judges, and media workers targeted. No group has claimed responsibility, but a NATO official recently estimated in a private briefing that the Taliban is behind around 80 percent of them.

The Taliban could easily decide they are better off fighting for complete power than negotiating for partial power within a system that they repudiate. The Taliban have already rejected the peace plan advanced by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, and they have declined to endorse one proposed by the Biden administration.

The United States has five months to keep the sputtering Afghan peace process alive. Securing a comprehensive cease-fire is an important first step. Washington should refuse to fulfill its remaining obligations to the Taliban under the Doha deal, including the release of Taliban prisoners and the removal of the Taliban from United Nations sanctions lists, until the Taliban agrees to a cease-fire. It should enlist regional governments and the broader international community in this effort. The United States needs to deliver a strong message: If the Taliban reject a global consensus supporting a cease-fire, they jeopardize their own legitimacy.

Another key step is setting up an interim government to oversee the peace process. Ghani rejects this proposal, likely because it would end his presidency. But the Taliban are more likely to agree to an extended cease-fire with a transitional government in place—and one that does not include Ghani, who they refuse to work with. Washington should threaten to reduce future financial assistance to Kabul if Ghani doesn’t agree to one, reiterating that peace—not concerns about political survival—is in Afghanistan’s national interest.

None of this will be easy. The Biden administration acknowledges as much: An annual assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released on April 9 concludes the prospects for peace “will remain low during the next year.”

Afghanistan’s fate will ultimately be left in the hands of Afghans. But Washington owes it to them to do its best over the next few months to ensure it doesn’t leave them high and dry on Sept. 11. The United States will soon wrap up its longest foreign war. For Afghans, the war has lasted twice as long, and most of them don’t have the luxury of escaping it.

Source: FP