Universities...

Universities are the main form of higher learning institutions in the 21^st century; however universities have drastically changed and essentially become what we are accustomed to. Universities throughout history have been a place where individuals have come to learn but the conditions and characteristic of these learning institutions have morphed since its’ conception. Every individual has a different experience at university but the theme of knowledge and self-betterment is something that all students have in common.

My experiences of university life, like the development of universities, has changed drastically. When I first attended university, I was very different but its not hard for me to make friends as i am quite a friendly person . When I became actively involved in academics, I soon found a wide range of individuals that share similar interests and formed bonds. It is ultimately the facilitation of these relationships that allowed my university experience to be enhanced. The memories and experiences that we have shared collectively is something that I will treasure forever and reminisce on in my later life.

 The advancement and development of universities over the past centuries is something that is rather spectacular. It has changed from an institution discriminatory based on gender and religious bias to an institution focused on higher education, equality and social interaction. My experiences at university are different from others, but they are unique moments that I will cherish forever. The universities may have changed along with the students experiences, but their purpose derived from Latin origin will still continue, and that is a collection of teachers and students gathered together on the basis of broadening their knowledge and insight.

Euthanasia

This topic is rather controversial and although there are mainly two opposing views on the matter, however the reasons for believing so are different. The definition for this notion, euthanasia is assisted suicide or murder by the aid of either drugs or the unplugging of any life support mechanisms.

One way of looking at the topic is that assisting a person to die is justified, however it is not enough support to legalise euthanasia. In this it suggests that euthanasia is not morally neutral so therefore it can be assessed as euthanasia is either morally right or wrong which is essentially the purpose of this paper. The main reasons for euthanasia being morally justified are that: the patient’s condition is extreme and cannot outweigh any benefits, pain management is not sufficient, a physician is capable of bringing relief and the patient makes an informed request. The downfall in this argument is that who is a person to decide whether or not the pain can outweigh the benefits? Another issue with this argument is that, can a patient actually make an informed request when he/she is in a position of distress and is this request actually valid? There are however other arguments in support of moral euthanasia, that is where the patient has a rational desire to die, once again the problematic issue with this claim is from a religious point of view in that God has given life so how can one decide to take something that is essentially not theirs to begin with but rather bestowed upon them?

The argument against euthanasia is essentially based on a religious principal, but also draws inspiration from critical engagement. The critical engagement area is mainly challenging the afore mentioned points in favour and is based on the fact that it is difficult in order to determine whether someone has actually given voluntary consent and that they is always a chance that the diagnosis was incorrect which could subsequently mean that there would actually be an unjustified killing. The religious notion is based on one of biblical references that God refrains one from killing so how can he then condone euthanasia. The three main principals is that since everything loves itself, then suicide goes against nature, since every person is part of a community if he commits suicide it will have a negative effect on society and the last point is that God gifted life to man and when one takes that away their life they go against God. The faults in these arguments are that: since not everyone follows a particular religion is it fair that they should they be bound by the same principals? Also that because God had given life to them don’t they deserve to live it the way they want and act in their best interests of avoiding pain?

I am of the opinion that euthanasia is morally unacceptable as in the Quraan God strictly forbids suicide and euthanasia is based on the same principal. Also the fact that God punishes for sin while people are still on earth so in fact this disease could be a test that we must overcome. I am also of the opinion that ones body is entrusted to them and are ordered by God to look after it until they die, naturally. The problem with my view is similar to the one above and that is since not every person is not Muslim they should not be held to the same standard. I suppose that my argument is rather hypocritical in that if I had been put in a position where I was going through a lot of pain, I cannot say that I would not take advantage of euthanasia.

Do we have an obligation to the global poor?

Poverty and famine is something that has plagued some countries around the world where the lifestyle of the poor are deteriorating constantly. The moral question that has been raised from this matter is, whether or not we as a society have an obligation to help this essentially neglected segment of society.

The first set of reasoning that is in support of the aforementioned question is one of human nature. This argument is based on morality, in that human beings, who are moral creatures, have an innate sense of what is right or wrong. Because they are aware of right and wrong, guilt will not allow them to neglect the poor and their morality will motivate them to help the poor get out of the situation that they currently find themselves in. Although this argument may seem as if it adequately addresses the question, however the problem that comes about as a result of this argument is that not all people abide to a moral code. Everyone acts differently and according to their own models therefore this argument does not apply to all people so thus it cannot be entirely true. Another argument offered in support of the questions is that of equality. In an ideal society where there is equality reigns supreme, the population all have a similar amount of wealth and financial standing. This idea of equality will ultimately be motivation for people to help the poor, however there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning. Most countries today are based on political ideologies which poses a problem, this reasoning is fine for countries that promote a communist ideology which promote equality, but for countries that promote capitalism, which is based on exploitation, this reasoning is totally contradictory and will essentially pose a great problem in implementation.

The view that is in opposition to the empowerment of the poor is that of self-empowerment. Many people are of the belief that the poor being in a disadvantaged should help themselves out of the situation that they are in. The rather selfish reasoning of the argument suggests that everyone only owes a duty to themselves and no one else based on constitutional principles. The obvious problem with this argument and reasoning is that how are the poor supposed to empower themselves without resources that are often provided by others? This would also mean that all people who received some sort of financial backing by parents should forfeit this, as it was not provided by themselves which poses a great problem.

My view on the matter is that we do, based on a religious perspective. Islam commands that those with an excess of wealth must give a certain portion of it to the needy if they qualify. This is the reasoning for fasting in that fasting gives people the understanding of what the poor face every day to motivate them to help the poor. The flaw in this argument is that simply, everyone is not Muslim and cannot be subjected to the beliefs that a particular religion vindicates.

*Week 6*

As a requirement for this weeks blogger we had to find an article about freedom of Expression.. in this article it shows how the government is using criminal law and violence to silence journalists.  click here to view Article Azerbaijan: Journalists Facing Violence and Prosecution  

i have also come across a news report on the matter "Human Rights Watch says Azerbaijani journalists face violence and prosecution" which gives us more insight to what the reporter think and how they feel about their right to freedom of expression please click here to view The report, entitled "Beaten, Blacklisted, and Behind Bars: The Vanishing Space for Freedom of Expression in Azerbaijan," 

**WEEK 5 **

HOW DO I FEEL IN LECTURES AND WHAT DO I THINK ABOUT THE COURSE INTERNET STUDIES IN THE MEDIA SOCIETY?

To be honest I did not really know much about the course i over heard a friend saying how much fun he had doing this course and he had told me a little about it and i seemed to like it so i signed up for the course. i have been attending lectures and always end up sitting right at the front for some odd reason i have made a few friends who have done internet studies in the first semester so at times i feel blonde when we talking about something because they knew how to go about things and i didn't. i found that this subject is quite diverse and surprising i have learned a lot of things that i did not exactly think i would be learning in this subject. At first it was hard for me to get use to the internet studies LAN because it is very different to the other LANs and i was not as familiar with the settings as everyone else but gradually i got use to it... 

lectures were quite interesting i was alert it made me think differently especially when it comes to media and how media can be dramatic etc. i felt that the readings were a lot and a little too long and it was very hard to remember and answer the quizzes in our tutorials as the articles are confusing when there is too many at the same time. over all everything was pretty articulated and my tutor is always willing to help when and wherever needed :) 

Article 1 for the News Portal:Freedom From A - Zuma

Author/s: Sabah Ismail and Nazia Mohammed

FREEDOM FROM ‘A to Zuma’:
The African National Congress (ANC) strikes us today as one of the most controversial parties within our country. Since the supremacy of Jacob Zuma in 2009, the ANC organisation was presented with problematic alliances from the beginning till date. Zuma had been an ingredient of the Schabir Sheik trials of corruption, rape charges and marital affairs, BUT, the apex of all the allegations in Zuma’s Presidency, was the Media VS Jacob Zuma.
He sued many media outlets such as ‘The Star’, ‘Rapport’, and Highveld Stereo and ‘The Citizen’ – all for publishing material that targeted and resulted in elements of defamation of Jacob Zuma’s character public profile through the use of; cartoons and radio commentaries. The media fought back and accused Zuma of challenging their freedom of speech.
Not only did the media fight back, but all parties such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) were involved, with the other members of parliament. Our two focuses are the DA and the ANCYL and the contradictory roles they portray ‘against’ and ‘for’ this new Media Tribunal.
According to Times Live, the ANCYL is in full support of the Media tribunal. Being an extension of the ANC we might not raise an eyebrow or two to this agreement of the ANCYL. They stand in full confidence of the media tribunal saying that its mission is merely to: “Nurture spiteful agendas which undermine the integrity of our organisations such as the SANEF (South African National Editor’s Forum), the useless media monitoring and evaluation, attack from news material such as The City Press, Sunday Times, Mail & Guardian, most Afrikaans media – Die Burger and Rapport that undermine the ANC’s integrity, also, all the listed newspapers of opposition parties explains why ANC and its structures are under continuous attack.” – According to Christopher Szabo’s article.
Helen Zille, leader of the DA, stands in opposition to the ANC and the ANCYL. She claims that there is a common-thread between the proposed legislation and the Media Tribunal to the methods of a pre-historic South Africa, a pre-democratic South Africa and the resemblance of the Apartheid era. According to Szabo’s article, Helen Zille’s campaign house (DA) reviews this proposal as “the gravest legislative threat to our constitution since 1994.”
Hence, our country is at a battle of time periods – a question of transitioning our country back to the ‘dark’ days or to a future with oppressed journalism talents? Freedom of speech is an element of our democratic state, something that was fought for many years ago, why defeat that purpose?
Have ANC progressed from liberation politics to democracy?
In the liberation struggle era the ANC used friendly media to its advantage, while coming down hard on those who opposed it in any way.
During this liberation struggle black journalists who criticized the ANC’s liberation-before-education strategy the “necklace” killing of people accused by street mobs of being “sell-outs”. In the eighties were terrorized by the ANC’s supporters in the burning of townships. Many of the more senior cadres in the ANC of today, and indeed in the SA Communist Party (SACP) which has given its support for the clampdown on press freedom, grew up politically within the ideological confines where the media and information were seen as a tool to be tightly controlled by the state and used as far as possible to its own advantage.
In sharp contrast to what the ANC has proposed, a Cosatu document indicates that the labour federation wants a tribunal that cannot be manipulated or abused by the state and will not lead to pre-publication self-censorship by newspapers. That could still prove to be a very important distinction. With the proposed Protection of Information Bill, the ANC has been less successful in obtaining universal support from its allies and in its own ranks. The campaign for muzzling and controlling the media has been led by high-visibility, populist leaders like President Jacob Zuma, SACP leader Blade Nzimande and ANC Youth League president Julius Malema.
At the same time the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) has said it will privately get ANC members of parliament to vote against the Protection of Information Bill and oppose the media tribunal. Media freedom in South Africa, for now remains finely balanced on a very thin knife’s edge.
Ombudsman VS Media Tribunal:
In South Africa, after the vicious years of Apartheid, 1994 marked our freedom. This was the year of all freedoms. In 1996 our Constitution developed and represented each and every individual that lived in South Africa. Within the Constitution there were specific clauses that signify certain rights to one’s life.
During the years after Apartheid, along with other systems, a system began known to enable the public to submit complaints to a panel about media behaviour – complaints of newspapers and journalists specifically. This system was famously known as the Ombudsman.
Raymond Louw (Chairman of the Press Council) from his article: ‘Press Ombudsman system vs. ANC’s proposed Media Appeals Tribunal presented’ mentions that the Press Council has a vision that uphold the “basic principle that the freedom of the press rests on, is the public’s fundamental right to receive and disseminate opinions.’ This statement implies that the Media are obliged to comply with all the laws set out in the constitution just as any other individual does so.
The goal of the Ombudsman is to “enable complaints to achieve a speedier outcome.” There have been a total of 43 complaints from Cabinet members, ANC and the ANCYL. The results were: 3 apologies from the newspaper. There were also record of 33 complaints from government institutions “where 19 were closed and dismissed.” Within the complaints 16 in total were ministers (3 from the president and 2 from the deputy president) and others from various senior officials.
Raymond Louw also mentions a detailed explanation of the constitutions clause 9 which states the freedom of expression and how it may not be contravened. Lastly, he says that media will become a “political organisation” as it will demand and destroy press freedom and “seek to control the flow of information to the public” which we all have gathered, from this article and our own opinions that this Media Tribunal serves no purpose but to restrict the media.

**Week 4 **

I am in Tutorial group 7 and the topic given to my group is about "The Media Tribunal" in South Africa. the media tribunal is all about suppressing the freedom of the media.

lindiwe Mazibuko, the DA's national spokesperson insisted: "This is a false choice, as the ANC would in either scenario be dictating media regulation. This has severe implications for media freedom and freedom of expression in South Africa."A basic tenet of democracy is a free media and the freedom of citizens to receive and impart information, as guaranteed to South Africans in our Bill of Rights. With the exception of the two constitutional limitations on this right, the government should never seek to interfere with the execution of these freedoms.  

"The ANC has used every excuse in the book to justify the establishment of a MAT - from 'protecting the poor' to 'preventing inaccurate reporting'. With local and international pressure to abandon these plans, the governing party is now attempting to use threats to dictate the terms upon which the press must regulate itself."- I-Net Bridge (News24)

That's just a little incite as to what the media tribunal uproar is all about. Essentially what the new bill entails,  if it is passed the  government would have he final say as to what is published in the media. 

My team consist of just two people initially it was four people but due to the lack of contribution from our team mates we split the group up . My colleague Sabah Ismail and  and myself have divided the Media tribunal topic  for our Draft into a sub topic of how the ANC ( African National Congress), DA( Democratic Alliance) and the ANCYL (African National Congress Youth League) all react to this amendment. After a lot of hard work and reading Sabah and myself have managed to write our draft.