Persistence wins day for Dockers’ Memorial

first_imgNewsLocal NewsPersistence wins day for Dockers’ MemorialBy admin – August 17, 2009 590 Advertisement Previous articleGardaí investigate sexual assaultNext articleSpiritStore admin Facebook Linkedin Printcenter_img Email Twitter WhatsApp WORK on a bronze monument to commemorate the thousands of Limerick dockers, is to commence shortly.Two years ago, Limerick City Council agreed to finance the project and a special committee, chaired by Cllr Jim Long, was set up to oversee the project.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up There was a very positive response to the invitation for design submissions for the work and an appropriate riverside location was agreed on.,“However, the project ran into some trouble when funding was cut back and we had to delay it, but I’m now absolutely thrilled that our persistence to have a fitting monument erected to the generations of men who worked under very harsh conditions for very little pay, is now about to be delivered,” Cllr Long told the Limerick Post.  “The original funding has had to be reduced, due to the current economic climate – we have 77,000 euro but are fairly confident of getting some additional private investment. I’m absolutely delighted that our promise to the families and descendants of the men who worked in the docks, can now be fulfilled.“Work will commence shortly on the monument, which has been commissioned, and we are very hopeful for completion before Christmas”.The site on which it will be erected is on the riverside quay, opposite the former ESB offices, on Honan’s Quay.Cllr Long confirmed that the committee will also proceed with producing memorial scrolls on velum, recording the name and employment periods of former dockers, which will be presented to their descendants.A spokesperson for City Hall said that the Limerick sculptor, Michael Duhan, originally from Wolfe Tone Street, whose father worked in the docks, has been commissioned to execute the work, and she also confirmed their optimism for private investment.last_img read more

“TV Anchors Like Peddling Hate To Further Ruling Government’s Narrative”: Dr. Kota Neelima & Sangeeta Tyagi Seeks To Intervene In Sudarshan TV Case

first_imgTop Stories”TV Anchors Like Peddling Hate To Further Ruling Government’s Narrative”: Dr. Kota Neelima & Sangeeta Tyagi Seeks To Intervene In Sudarshan TV Case Sanya Talwar24 Sep 2020 3:23 AMShare This – xDr. Kota Neelima, a renowned author and researcher and Sangeeta Tyagi, wife of Late Shri Rajiv Tyagi (National Spokesperson on Congress) have intervened in the Supreme Court, in the ongoing case against Sudarshan TV for the telecast of its show, with the tagline UPSC Jihad, based on the alleged infiltration of muslims in the Civil Services.The application filed by Advocate Sunil…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginDr. Kota Neelima, a renowned author and researcher and Sangeeta Tyagi, wife of Late Shri Rajiv Tyagi (National Spokesperson on Congress) have intervened in the Supreme Court, in the ongoing case against Sudarshan TV for the telecast of its show, with the tagline UPSC Jihad, based on the alleged infiltration of muslims in the Civil Services.The application filed by Advocate Sunil Fernandes  states that the show by Sudarshan TV, hosted by its Editor in Chief Suresh Chavhanke is “emblematic of a larger, insidious malady” which has infected the electronic media of TV anchors in the country, i.e. to shamelessly indulge in hate speeches on “prime time” news.Elaborating on the above, the plea opens its averments on the following note,”The situation of the Electronic Media in our Country, in the most respectful submission of the Applicants, bears unhappy and undesirable parallels with Nazi Germany, at least with regards to “Hate Speeches” in the Electronic Media, and therefore, the Applicants verily believe that they shall fail in their constitutional duty if they do not approach this Hon’ble Court with the instant Application”The applicants state that Late Shri Rajiv Tyagi was an unfortunate victim of a ‘Hate Speech’ during a TV Debate on Aaj Tak New Channel on 12.08.2020 at 5 p.m. when during a discussion of violence in Bengaluru, he was repeatedly vilified as “Jaichand” (a pejorative metaphor used these days to demonize somebody from the Hindu faith who does not subscribe to the right wing fundamentalist ideology). Consequently, the Late Shri Rajiv Tyagi suffered a fatal heart attack on the same day immediately after the debate from which he could not recover and passed away soon thereafter. Thus, the Applicant No. 2 has witnessed and suffered the irredeemable consequences of “Hate Speech” , the plea states.Next, the intervenors state that none of the existing laws in India define the term “Hate Speech”, even though the United Nations in its “Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech”, has defined the term “Hate Speech” as “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.” The plea states that there is a steady and almost irreversible trend clearly visible these days, whereby the TV Anchors and TV Debates have debased and degenerated themselves into blatant purveyors of “Hate Speech”. The reasons for this are manifold, the plea reads, adding that the “remote control” of these TV debates is in the hands of the political class in power so as to effectuate a narrative that would suit their “electoral and ideological objectives” and “discredit, demonize and vilify their political and ideological opponents”.Plea reads that Dr. Kota Neelima has endeavoured to research and study this “malady”& has developed an independent, factual and an objective research-based study of the Television News Debates known as Rate The Debate (“RTD”), aim of the study being, to highlight “the colonization of democratic deliberative space on media by vested interests”. “It is a platform which analyses debates conducted on leading mainstream Television News Channels, by examining quantitative and qualitative metrics, and evaluating the content of the debate, and conduct of the anchor and panelists….” – Excerpt of pleaIn this backdrop, the applicant states that it found that Topic of discussion, the opening remarks and the ‘flow’ of the “News Debates” conducted by TV Anchors like Amish Devgan, Arnab Goswami, Anjana Om Kashyap and Ananad Narsimhan is to support the Government’s narrative and discredit, demonize and vilify the voices of the opposition or dissenters.”The obliteration of the basic concepts i.e. distinction between the Nation and the Government of the day is complete. These TV Anchors make a priori assumption that everything done by the Central Government is in the best interest of the nation and anyone who speaks a contrarian voice, is a fortiori, an “anti-national”.”Apropos these trends, the applicants have prayed the top court to take judicial notice of those TV Debates/ TV Anchors peddling “Hate Speeches” under the garb of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate directions under Articles 32, 141, 142, 144 of the Constitution of India to combat this over-arching menace till such time that a suitable law is enacted by the Legislature. “A committee can be constituted for the time being which will be aimed to develop norms for mandatory discussions on chosen topics that reflect the concerns in the Constitution of India in order to establish a healthy atmosphere in the Country. It shall strive to develop a mechanism which will have a rating system for the TV Anchors and News Debates, so as to ensure that News Debates are democratic and fair, and do not pander to divisive agenda” – Excerpt of plea Next Storylast_img read more