![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 17th, 2010
Gabriel Preil entry on Wikipedia
Feb. 17th, 2010 02:31 pmI noticed today that Wikipedia had an inaccurate one line entry for the American Hebrew language poet Gabriel Preil, so I corrected and expanded it. I showed it to David Shapiro in a message exchange on Facebook, and he suggested I add a Preil poem to the entry; I added my translation of "like feathers" which Preil approved after several drafts a few years before he died.
Gabriel Preil entry on Wikipedia
Feb. 17th, 2010 02:31 pmI noticed today that Wikipedia had an inaccurate one line entry for the American Hebrew language poet Gabriel Preil, so I corrected and expanded it. I showed it to David Shapiro in a message exchange on Facebook, and he suggested I add a Preil poem to the entry; I added my translation of "like feathers" which Preil approved after several drafts a few years before he died.
Gay marriage opponents needed 60 percent of the House to send the proposed amendment to the Senate, which would have had to pass it by the same margin. They knew their chances of success were slim of passing either measure. Several said they will look to the November election in hopes voters will elect people who will repeal the law next session and put an anti-gay marriage amendment on a future ballot.
via boston.com
CONCORD, N.H.—Six weeks after New Hampshire legalized gay marriage, the House overwhelmingly defeated two measures Wednesday that would have taken away their right to marry. The House voted 210-109 to kill a bill to repeal the law. An hour earlier, the House voted 201-135 to kill a proposed constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Gay marriage opponents needed 60 percent of the House to send the proposed amendment to the Senate, which would have had to pass it by the same margin. They knew their chances of success were slim of passing either measure. Several said they will look to the November election in hopes voters will elect people who will repeal the law next session and put an anti-gay marriage amendment on a future ballot.
via boston.com
CONCORD, N.H.—Six weeks after New Hampshire legalized gay marriage, the House overwhelmingly defeated two measures Wednesday that would have taken away their right to marry. The House voted 210-109 to kill a bill to repeal the law. An hour earlier, the House voted 201-135 to kill a proposed constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
That seems to be the thinking behind the Israeli government's endorsement of legislation that will require human rights NGOs in Israel (e.g., B'Tselem, Machsomwatch, Breaking the Silence, Adalah, etc.) to publicize contributions from foreign governments, not only in an annual report (they all do that anyway), but every single time they host an event, have a meeting, publish a report, issue a news release, whether they have received outside funding for that particular occasion or not.
And what's particularly odious about the proposed legislation is that if these groups receive such funding, they groups will lose their tax status as public institutions, but will be defined as "political entities" that have to register and report to the Registrar of Political Parties.
Lest you think that I am exaggerating, I publish sections of the government-approved legislation below. And the Iran analogy is apt: the Iran regime requires all NGOs, including the civil society ones that Americans of all stripe support, to inform a government agency of every contribution they receive from foreign sources, except the United Nations. Read about it here Or read about how Egypt controls and harassess its civil society NGOs here (h/t to Dr. Marsha Cohen and Dan Sisken for these links, respectively.)
Of course, in Iran, the groups also have to ask the agency's permission to receive those grants; I expect that this will be the next step in the Israeli's governmental campaign against the human rights NGOs.
But hang on a second: What's wrong with requiring Israeli human rights organizations to report receiving money from foreign governments? In fact, why should they be allowed to receive such money at all? Isn't that gross interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state? And what's the big deal of simply announcing the truth. Transparency and full disclosure should accompany such organizations, no?
OK, so here are three answers to the stated purpose of the law, which is to balance freedom of speech with the right of the public to know who is behind these organizations.
( Read more... )Who says that Israel's government doesn't try to fit in with the other Middle East governments?
That seems to be the thinking behind the Israeli government's endorsement of legislation that will require human rights NGOs in Israel (e.g., B'Tselem, Machsomwatch, Breaking the Silence, Adalah, etc.) to publicize contributions from foreign governments, not only in an annual report (they all do that anyway), but every single time they host an event, have a meeting, publish a report, issue a news release, whether they have received outside funding for that particular occasion or not.
And what's particularly odious about the proposed legislation is that if these groups receive such funding, they groups will lose their tax status as public institutions, but will be defined as "political entities" that have to register and report to the Registrar of Political Parties.
Lest you think that I am exaggerating, I publish sections of the government-approved legislation below. And the Iran analogy is apt: the Iran regime requires all NGOs, including the civil society ones that Americans of all stripe support, to inform a government agency of every contribution they receive from foreign sources, except the United Nations. Read about it here Or read about how Egypt controls and harassess its civil society NGOs here (h/t to Dr. Marsha Cohen and Dan Sisken for these links, respectively.)
Of course, in Iran, the groups also have to ask the agency's permission to receive those grants; I expect that this will be the next step in the Israeli's governmental campaign against the human rights NGOs.
But hang on a second: What's wrong with requiring Israeli human rights organizations to report receiving money from foreign governments? In fact, why should they be allowed to receive such money at all? Isn't that gross interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state? And what's the big deal of simply announcing the truth. Transparency and full disclosure should accompany such organizations, no?
OK, so here are three answers to the stated purpose of the law, which is to balance freedom of speech with the right of the public to know who is behind these organizations.
( Read more... )Who says that Israel's government doesn't try to fit in with the other Middle East governments?