Hundreds of books removed from stores, libraries and universities in Afghanistan
A committee involving four Taliban ministries has been formed to review books and refer any "suspicious content" to clerics for further scrutiny.
Hundreds of titles, including classic literature, historical works, and books on women's rights or secular governance, have already been pulled from circulation.
The Taliban justify the ban by claiming these books are "against national interests," "anti-Islam," or aim to "mislead and corrupt society," conflicting with Islamic and traditional Afghan values.
Publishers report that the censorship process is often arbitrary, leading to a collapse in the publishing industry and restrictions on book imports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Taiwan has a stronger claim to statehood than Palestine. Will Starmer recognise it?
Now that Sir Keir Starmer has declared his intention to recognise the imaginary state of Palestine, perhaps he might want to consider affording similar status to one that does actually exist: Taiwan. Starmer's decision to recognise Palestine at the UN next month might have helped to appease his restless backbenchers, who champion the Palestinian cause without having the faintest notion what they are talking about. But recognising a state that does not exist, is incapable of holding democratic elections and where a decent proportion of the population are in thrall to Islamist-inspired terrorism is hardly a blueprint for success. Taiwan, by contrast, is a self-proclaimed independent territory that regularly holds free and fair democratic elections – despite the malign efforts of China's Communist rulers to disrupt the process – where the overwhelming majority continue to uphold their right of self-determination. Apart from being a fully functioning democracy, Taiwan is also a valued trading partner, with total trade between the UK and Taipei currently averaging around £9.3bn. And yet, despite his willingness to offer full recognition to Palestine, an area that has no formal borders, a non-functioning administration and meagre trading options, our prime minister appears strangely reticent on the subject of upgrading our diplomatic ties with a democratic and prosperous ally such as Taiwan. This aversion to addressing the issue is all the more remarkable given that the official policy is to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression, a position that means the Royal Navy regularly conducts freedom of navigation exercises in the region – including through the Taiwan Strait – to demonstrate Britain's solidarity. The extent of the UK's military support for Taiwan is evident from the participation of HMS Prince of Wales, the Royal Navy's new 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, in the Talisman Sabre exercises currently taking place in the Asia-Pacific region. The British warship is part of a 35,000-strong multi-national force conducting military exercises aimed at deterring China from launching an attack against Taiwan. Indeed, Defence Secretary John Healey was at his most bullish when asked about the UK's commitment to defend the region from Chinese aggression, commenting, 'If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together, and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.' It is unlikely that we would ever see Healey, or any other Labour minister, making such robust comments about defending a future Palestine state – assuming, that is, that one ever materialises. The Starmer Government's desire to steer clear of any serious military entanglements in the Middle East was evident during the recent confrontation between the US and Iran. While the US deployed its aircraft carrier groups to the Gulf in anticipation of war with Tehran, the Prince of Wales, which was sailing through the region at the time, continued on its passage to Australia, out of harm's way. If the Government is so determined to defend Taiwan's right to exist, even risking the prospect of war with China by doing so, then it begs the question: why, having recognised a non-state like Palestine, will it not make the same commitment to Taipei? Ever since the leadership of the original Republic of China fled from the mainland to Taiwan in 1949, successive British governments have sought to adopt a neutral position in its dealing with the territory. While the UK is perfectly willing to maintain lucrative trade ties, as well as providing declarations of military support, ministers have been reluctant to upgrade Taiwan's diplomatic status for fear of causing offence to China, its more powerful and prosperous neighbour. Since 1972, when London eventually recognised the People's Republic as the sole government of China, the view in Whitehall has been that the future status of Taiwan should be a matter for the Chinese to decide. A number of recent factors have made this compromise appear less satisfactory, not least Chinese President Xi Jinping's pronounced determination to reclaim Taiwan as Chinese sovereign territory. Having declared that the ' reunification' of China with Taiwan is a cornerstone of his aim of achieving the Chinese dream of nation rejuvenation by 2049, Xi has authorised the Chinese military to engage in a massive build up, with some Western military analysts predicting a Chinese invasion could take place by 2027. The gathering storm clouds over China's territorial ambitions towards Taiwan have already resulted in significant changes to British policy to the region, most notably the 2021 Integrated Review that proposed an Indo-Pacific 'tilt' in our military and security outlook. Apart from sending an aircraft carrier to participate in joint naval exercises, the Royal Navy is also committed to upgrading its 'persistent presence' in the region to include the rotational deployment of nuclear submarines from 2027 as part of the recent Aukus agreement signed between the UK, US and Australia. If the UK is preparing to defend Taiwan's sovereignty, it makes sense for Starmer to give serious consideration to offering the Taiwanese people the same level of recognition that he is prepared to give to the Palestinians. Otherwise the UK could one day find itself in the invidious position of fighting for a people whose sovereignty it does not even acknowledge.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Palestine Action ban coupled with Online Safety Act ‘a threat to public debate'
The Online Safety Act together with the proscription of Palestine Action could result in platforms censoring Palestinian-related content, human rights organisations have warned. Open Rights Group, Index on Censorship and others have written to Ofcom calling on it to provide clear guidance to platforms on distinguishing lawful expression from content deemed to be in support of terrorism. They say failure to act by the regulator act risks misidentification – including through algorithms – of support for Palestine as support for Palestine Action, which on 5 July became the first direct action protest group to be banned under UK anti-terrorism laws. It also runs the risk of misidentifying objections to Palestine Action's proscription as unlawful support for the group, the signatories claim. Sara Chitseko, a pre-crime programme manager at Open Rights Group, said: 'Crucial public debate about Gaza is being threatened by vague, overly broad laws that could lead to content about Palestine being removed or hidden online. There's also a real danger that people will start self-censoring, worried they might be breaking the law just by sharing or liking posts related to Palestine and non-violent direct action. 'This is a serious attack on freedom of expression and the right to protest in the UK. We need to ensure that people can share content about Palestine online with being afraid that they will be characterised as supportive of terrorism.' The organisations' concerns are exacerbated by Ofcom's advice that platforms can avoid worrying about their duties under the Online Safety Act (OSA) if they ensure they are more censorious than the act requires. 'This approach risks encouraging automated moderation that disproportionately affects political speech, particularly from marginalised communities, including Palestinian voices,' the letter says. Unlike in the EU, there is no independent mechanism for people in the UK to challenge content they feel has been wrongly taken down. The signatories want platforms – the letter has also been sent to Meta, Alphabet, X and ByteDance – to commit to an independent dispute mechanism, if evidence emerges of lawful speech being suppressed. The letter, also signed by Electronic Frontier Foundation in the US and organisations from eight European countries, as well as experts and academics, says: 'We are concerned that the proscription of Palestine Action may result in an escalation of platforms removing content, using algorithms to hide Palestine solidarity posts and leave individuals and those reporting on events vulnerable to surveillance or even criminalisation for simply sharing or liking content that references non-violent direct action. 'We are also concerned about what platforms understand by their legal duties regarding expressions of 'support' for Palestine Action.' The letter comes a week after the OSA's age-gating for 'adult' material came into effect, prompting fears about access to Palestine-related content. For example, Reddit users in the UK have to verify their age to access the Reddit sub r/israelexposed. Ella Jakubowska, the head of policy at EDRi in Brussels, said there would inevitably be suppression of 'critical voices, journalism and social movements around the world. The problem is worsened by automated content moderation systems, well known for over-removing content from Palestinian creators, in support of Black Lives Matter, about LGBTQI+ issues and more. 'It is very likely that in trying to comply with these requirements, platforms would unjustly remove content from people in the EU and other regions.' She said that would contravene laws such as the EU Digital Services Act, designed to strike a balance between keeping people safe online and freedom of expression. An Ofcom spokesperson said: 'We have provided detailed guidance to platforms about how to identify the particular types of illegal and harmful material prohibited or restricted by the act, including how to determine whether content may have been posted by a proscribed organisation. 'There is no requirement on companies to restrict legal content for adult users. In fact, they must carefully consider how they protect users' rights to freedom of expression while keeping people safe.' Meta, Alphabet, X and ByteDance were all approached for comment.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
India to still buy oil from Russia despite Trump threats, say officials
Indian oil refineries will continue to buy oil from Russia, officials have said, before threatened US sanctions next week against Moscow's trading partners over the war in Ukraine. Media reports on Friday had suggested India, a big energy importer, would stop buying cheap Russian oil. Trump told reporters on Friday that such a move would be 'a good step' if true. 'I understand that India is no longer going to be buying oil from Russia,' he said. 'That's what I heard. I don't know if that's right or not. That is a good step. We will see what happens.' However, official sources in India, quoted by the news agency ANI, rebutted Trump's claim, saying Indian oil companies had not paused Russian imports and that supply decisions were based on 'price, grade of crude, inventories, logistics and other economic factors'. Trump's remarks came a day after the White House announced tariffs of 25% on all Indian goods, along with a penalty for buying arms and energy from Russia amid the war in Ukraine. Trump has given an 8 August deadline for Vladimir Putin to stop the war or risk further sanctions on tariffs on countries that import Russian oil. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Indian state-owned refineries had suspended Russian oil purchases amid the tariff threats and narrowing price discounts. But on Saturday the New York Times cited two unnamed senior Indian officials who said there had been no change in Indian government policy related to importing Russian oil. One said the government had 'not given any direction to oil companies' to cease buying oil from Russia. 'These are long-term oil contracts,' one of the sources said. 'It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight.' The sources cited by ANI said Indian oil refineries operated in full compliance with international norms, and that Russian oil had never been directly sanctioned by the US or EU. 'Instead, it was subjected to a G7-EU price-cap mechanism designed to limit revenue while ensuring global supplies continued to flow.' They added: 'India's purchases have remained fully legitimate and within the framework of international norms.' The sources also noted that if India had not 'absorbed discounted Russian crude combined with Opec+ production cuts of 5.8 mb/d [millions of barrels a day], global oil prices could have surged well beyond the March 2022 peak of US$137/bbl [a barrel], intensifying inflationary pressures worldwide'. Sign up to First Thing Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Russia is the top oil supplier to India, responsible for about 35% of the country's supplies. India says that as a major energy importer it must find the cheapest supplies to protect its population against rising costs. On Friday India's foreign ministry spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, said: 'We look at what is available in the markets, what is on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances.' Jaiswal added that India had a 'steady and time-tested partnership' with Russia. This partnership has been a point of contention for the White House, with Trump posting on Truth Social on 30 July that while India was 'our friend', it had always bought most of its military equipment from Russia and was 'Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE – ALL THINGS NOT GOOD!' In a second post, Trump added: 'I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.' Ukraine's military said on Saturday it had hit oil facilities inside Russia, including a refinery in Ryazan, causing a fire on its premises. The strike also hit an oil storage facility, a military airfield for drones and an electronics factory.
