At least 31,000 civilians from southeastern Ukraine's besieged port city of Mariupol were forcibly taken to Russia, according to the mayor on Friday.

Vadim Boychenko told local television that civilians from Mariupol were forcibly taken to Russia or the so-called "Donetsk People's Republic" by Russian forces and officials have a verified list of residents forcibly relocated from their homes.

Noting that residents were subjected to various humiliations, Boychenko said Russian authorities treated them harshly, took fingerprints and forced them to sign various documents.

He said only the Berdyansk-Zaporizhzhia humanitarian corridor currently operates in the Mariupol region and residents are evacuated to safe areas via that route.

Boychenko noted that 95,000 civilians from Mariupol have been taken to Zaporizhzhia through the corridor.

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry wrote earlier on Twitter that 90% of buildings in Mariupol have been destroyed.

"The city is in a state of humanitarian catastrophe: the dead are buried in mass graves, there is a lack of water, food, no communications," it wrote.

Russia began its war against Ukraine on Feb. 24. It has drawn international outrage, with the EU, US, and the UK, among others, implementing tough financial sanctions on Moscow.

At least 1,626 civilians have been killed and 2,267 injured in Ukraine, according to UN estimates, with the true figure feared to be far higher.

More than 4.3 million Ukrainians have fled to other countries, with over 7 million more internally displaced, according to the UN refugee agency./aa

Stray bullets killed a teen girl and wounded two other students Friday after a gunman discharged a firearm during a dispute in New York City, according to police.

The victims -- two females aged 16 and a male, 17 -- were caught in the crossfire from an apparent dispute around 1.42 pm Eastern Time near South Bronx High School.

One female, who police said was shot in the chest, died at a hospital.

"It is quite early in our investigation, it appears that the brazen criminals opened fire during a dispute," Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell said at a news conference.

"What I can say with confidence is that NYPD detectives will work tirelessly to bring those responsible for this to justice," she added.

Police believe the victims were coming from school and heading home.

Mayor Eric Adams offered sympathy for the victims.

"We lost a 16 year old baby in the Bronx today. We pray for this young girl, for her family, and for the other two victims in the hospital. It's a tragedy. It's unacceptable. It's why we can't abandon our streets to gun violence," he said in a tweet.

A manhunt is underway to catch the suspects./aa

Two mosques in northern France have been closed allegedly on grounds that the mosque buildings were not safe for hosting the prayer congregation, local media reported.

The mosques were closed by the Tourcoing city administration.

A security commission inspected the buildings of the Salman al-Farisi Mosque and the Clinquet Mosque belonging to the Read in the Name of Your Lord Foundation and issued a report noting that the two mosques were not suitable for hosting the congregation, according to La Voix du Nord daily.

Based on the report, Mayor Doriane Becue ruled to close two of the five mosques in the city until further notice.

Eric Denoeud, deputy mayor of Tourcoing and in charge of security affairs in the municipality, claimed that during the checks carried out in the mosques, some deficiencies in terms of security were detected in the buildings.

He noted that the two places of worship will remain closed until necessary renovations are done.

The decision was taken despite the insistence of the local Muslim community that it would not be appropriate to close mosques during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

In August 2021, France’s highest constitutional authority approved a controversial “anti-separatism” law that has been criticized for singling out Muslims, striking down just two of its articles.

The bill was passed by the National Assembly in July, despite strong opposition from both rightist and leftist lawmakers.

The government claims that the law is intended to strengthen France's secular system, but critics believe that it restricts religious freedom and marginalizes Muslims.

The law has been criticized for targeting France's Muslim community – the largest in Europe, with 3.35 million members – and imposing restrictions on many aspects of their lives.

It allows officials to intervene in mosques and associations responsible for their administration as well as control the finances of Muslim-affiliated associations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It also restricts the educational choices of Muslims by making homeschooling subject to official permission.

Under the law, patients are also prohibited from choosing their doctors based on gender for religious or other reasons.

France has been criticized by international organizations and NGOs, especially the UN, for targeting and marginalizing Muslims with the law.

Since Feb. 2018, France has controlled nearly 25,000 mosques, schools, associations, and workplaces and closed 718 of them, including over 20 mosques, according to a report published on March 2./aa

Amid the war in Ukraine and the Russia-backed war coverage and disinformation campaigns, the European Union and the United Kingdom banned Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik from broadcasting in their zones. YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, which formerly declared their reluctance to intervene in the spread of disinformation in various conflicts, also adopted some measures to block RT and reduce its visibility. Google was forced to block RT from its search engine. This development directly raised questions about the freedom of press and the severity of disinformation campaigns.

Considering the Middle East, this situation also revealed Europe's partiality when it comes to reacting to wars. The European partiality was already clear in the immediate sanctions against Russia. However, the censorship of media was relatively surprising as the continent is known for its idle role in the Middle Eastern conflicts. Naturally, the question arises: Did Europe ban any media channel during the Middle Eastern conflicts, or is the RT ban something new?

RT’s disinformation campaigns

RT is known as a Russian state-controlled and funded media channel that actively engages in Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns for the benefit of Moscow and spreads anti-Western conspiracy theories. It is famously blamed for its active engagement in support of Brexit and attempt to defame Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. After its involvement in the election campaigns, RT was also banned from campaign events during the 2017 French elections. Amid election rumors in 2017, Twitter banned RT from advertising on social networks and started classifying it among “state-affiliated media” organizations. Apart from the country-based reactions, there have not been any collective and large-scale bans. Except for certain cases, including the Russian invasion of Crimea and the fear of RT’s possible involvement in Europe’s domestic politics, RT’s disinformation campaigns have not received a substantial reaction.

‘Is social media arbiter of truth?’

Even though Twitter initiated some fact-checking, especially for the posts of former U.S. President Donald Trump, it was a relatively late attempt. Besides, the willingness of social media companies to fight against the spread of disinformation or misinformation depends not on their own agenda but on those of certain actors.

In reaction to Twitter’s recent fact-checking arrangements and the pressure from the U.S. government, American media magnate Mark Zuckerberg famously said: “Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” There is also the infamous data scandal case between Zuckerberg’s Facebook and the consulting company Cambridge Analytica, where Facebook previously shared the data of its online users with Cambridge Analytica, which was claimed to have a close relationship with a Russian oil company that led to the pro-Brexit and pro-Trump political advertising.

As claimed, Facebook’s content-moderation rules and hate speech actions are arbitrarily imposed at the expense of minorities and weaker actors in most cases. Minor actors, journalists and activists, for example in Palestinian territories, Kashmir or Crimea, are disproportionately censored for the benefit of powerful actors, elites and governments. The very hypocrisy brings to mind the possibility of power relations controlling the media and freedom of speech.

Debates on freedom of media

First, Europe’s sanctions on RT contribute to the already decreasing trust on the continent. They show that the “European identity” is still alive, and the “whiteness” and the so-called imagined “Europeanness” are still a major component of it. It can be observed that it is easy for the bloc to bypass the EU laws and conventions and act quickly for the benefit of the oppressed.

Secondly, the decision leads to a crucial debate concerning the right to freedom of expression in the media. According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the fight against disinformation should not violate freedom of expression. Censoring must avoid arbitrariness in decisions and should be based on legal and objective elements. For example, in the case between the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (TASZ) and Hungary’s Constitutional Court, the ECtHR underlined the danger of the involvement of public figures in censoring the press and public debate. In this regard, it might be said that while censoring, it is necessary to avoid arbitrariness, interference from public figures, and harming freedom of expression and to guarantee the rule of law in consideration of precedent cases.

In addition to these key principles, it is significant to know how the limits of freedom of expression are defined by the European Convention on Human Rights. While the freedom of expression is broadly defined, the exceptions justifying interference in it are narrowly defined. It is interesting that the right to freedom of expression is even extended to the share and spread of potentially untruthful information according to Article 10. The only exception to it might be if false information causes harm to personal rights. If the interference is lawful and necessary in a democratic society and has legitimate aims, it might be acceptable.

This also brings us to the debate questioning whether media regulation falls within the jurisdiction of the EU, especially when it comes to reviewing broadcasting licenses. According to some arguments, the decision to ban any media outlet should have been taken by independent TV regulators present in each state. Since governments are involved, the decision introduces political implications to the debate and defies democratic values. Also, the decision is not exactly based on a precedent since it is the first time in the history of Western Europe that a media organization has been banned in a whole regional zone.

Identities are still relevant

This act may be justified by some, but there are some dilemmas related to the arbitrariness of the decision and the rushed bypassing of the law. The differential treatment of the Ukrainian case compared to any other case in the Middle East in many respects, even with regards to media regulation, remains an important departure point to discuss. Lastly, it might be said that the main factor leading to actions aiming to deter aggressiveness and to fight any disinformation campaigns is political will, not the capabilities of the governments and that the reason behind inaction has not been the limitations imposed by the union or laws. Beyond the interest-based and institutional explanations, how identities still shape the way countries behave might be understood well in this case. Collective action might be a matter of these imagined identities that are still relevant in today’s world, maybe more so than in the past./DS

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait announced Thursday that they would return their respective ambassadors to Lebanon after being withdrawn late last year due to critical remarks of Riyadh by a former Lebanese minister.

Saudi Arabia’s foreign ministry said the move was made in response to appeals from Lebanese politicians and after Prime Minister Najib Mikati said his government was committed to taking the needed measures to enhance ties with Riyadh and the Gulf.

These measures include stopping political, military and security actions impacting Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Saudi Foreign Ministry said.

“The Kingdom stresses the importance of the return of Lebanon to its Arab depth, represented by its national institutions and apparatuses, for Lebanon to prevail in peace and security, and for its people to enjoy stability and security in their homeland,” the statement read.

After the Saudi announcement, Mikati said Lebanon appreciated the decision. “We affirm that Lebanon is proud of its Arab belonging and wants the best ties with Gulf countries that always was and will remain supportive,” he said in a tweet.

Mikati’s office later announced that Kuwait had informed Beirut they would return their envoy before the end of the week. The Lebanese premier thanked Kuwait’s foreign minister for his work to restore Lebanese-Gulf relations.

Strained ties with Gulf

Ties between Beirut and its once close backers in the Gulf soured since the outbreak of the Syrian war and Hezbollah’s increased grip on the country and its institutions.

The Iran-backed group openly admitted to sending fighters to Syria to prop up the Assad regime and they have been accused of advising militias in Iraq and Yemen.

Saudi Arabia pulled their ambassador from Beirut, and several other Gulf nations followed suit last year after Lebanon’s information minister George Kordahi voiced support for the Houthis and criticized Saudi Arabia.

After Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah’s comments after Gulf countries pulled their diplomats last year, Mikati released a rare statement criticizing Hezbollah.

“For God’s sake, have mercy on Lebanon and the Lebanese people and stop [fueling] political and sectarian hatred,” Najib Mikati said in a series of tweets, adding that Nasrallah’s stance was not that of the Lebanese government./agencies