Latest news with #Gript
Irish Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Ruth Coppinger seems to think free speech applies only to views she likes
A little over a week ago, a small phalanx of journalists gathered outside Leinster House for what is called a doorstep with the People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger. Ben Scallan, who works for the right-leaning publication Gript and was a candidate in the 2020 general election for the Irish Freedom Party, asked a question that amounted to a standard, 'What's your reaction?' The context was Jim O'Callaghan 's plan to speed up deportations of failed asylum seekers. It must be frustrating for politicians (and other journalists) to repeatedly hear representatives from the same outlet ask the same handful of questions over and over, particularly when almost every issue – as is the case with Gript – seems to be filtered through the prism of immigration. But politicians find lots of questions journalists put to them irritating, and they are generally adept at channelling implacable courtesy in the reporter's general direction, while saying precisely nothing. Coppinger did not do that. She pointedly refused to answer, saying 'Not for Gript, no.' READ MORE Politicians shirk tricky or unwelcome questions all the time. But they don't blacklist entire media organisations, which are members of the Press Council, because they object to their editorial line She and her colleague Paul Murphy later laid out their position in some detail, which boils down to a refusal to take questions from that outlet. Coppinger says taking this stand against Gript has resulted in two serious death threats by online posters, but it is her view that the trolling 'confirms we were right to not engage'. Several commentators who would probably describe themselves as liberal and left-leaning agreed with her, arguing that politicians have a right to refuse to deal with media outlets they don't like. The issue here isn't actually very complex, despite Coppinger's attempt to roll it up into everything from an ideological clash between right and left to her perception of the failings of individual journalists. (In a late-night tweet, she called two journalists who challenged her position on this 'very pathetic', for which she subsequently apologised – though not, it is fair to say, with gushing sincerity. She also claimed, without offering any evidence, that the same journalists would not have made an issue of a politician refusing to engage with a left-wing outlet. This isn't an issue of right or left, or about whether you like or detest Gript's editorial line or its goady approach to politicians, or Coppinger's own politics. It's whether you believe in freedom of the press and believe politicians should be accountable to the media, and by extension to the electorate. At a time when all sorts of values feel in flux, freedom of speech and by extension freedom of the press remain one on which it is refreshingly easy to tell where you stand. There's a simple test. Do you believe in free speech? Do you believe in it for views and people you loathe? Unless you answer 'yes' to both questions, you don't believe in it. If this all sounds like a story you've seen play out before, it's because you have. You've seen it before when Donald Trump excluded the Associated Press from pooled press events at the Oval Office and on Air Force One because they refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the 'Gulf of America'. You've seen it when the US president calls individual reporters or their questions 'stupid' or says they are 'animals' or 'some of the worst human beings you'll ever meet' or when he suggests, as he did recently, that CNN and MSNBC are 'illegal'. You don't have to look to Trump, Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin to see independent journalism under assault. Moderate, liberal politicians might baulk at playground insults but they contribute to undermining the media when they drag their heels on reforming libel laws , cut funding to public media, refuse to engage with freedom of information requests or do nothing as big tech cannibalises the work of journalists. Despite frequent accusations of chumminess, there is for the most part a healthy distance between politicians and the media in this country. Sometimes it's more like a gulf. Sinn Féin robustly denies that it has a policy of encouraging its representatives to pursue media outlets they feel wronged by, but if it's not an actual policy, the party's willingness to resort to legal writs is certainly a noteworthy trend. Still, few salvos aimed at the media from political parties in this part of the world have been quite as overt as this. Politicians shirk tricky or unwelcome questions all the time. But they don't blacklist entire media organisations, which are members of the Press Council, because they object to their editorial line. Murphy vociferously denied that the position taken by People Before Profit-Solidarity had echoes of Trump's attacks on the media. 'That's different,' he said, when the similarities to the move to exclude AP from Air Force One were pointed out. 'We don't have the power to do that to Gript,' he added, a retort several football pitches from the point. Coppinger claimed, with equally perplexing logic, that 'the comparison to Trump is just ludicrous. I'm not a sexual predator.' But it is not a stretch to make that comparison. And the reason why this matters beyond the relatively narrow spheres of influence of Gript and PBP-Solidarity is because we are living through what has been called a 'democratic recession'. In many countries, democratic norms are being eroded by politicians who, once elected, start chipping away at anything that makes them accountable: civil service, courts and the media. It never happens overnight, but starts gradually, with a conflation of issues that have nothing to do with each other, or the suggestion that certain rights and values may not be absolute, or with the mocking and deriding of journalists. As Noam Chomsky puts it: 'If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech. There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech. Now you can decide which position you want.'
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Celebrate Saint Patrick by chasing censors out of Ireland
With the arrival of Saint Patrick's Day, our nation's close affinity to Ireland was on full display in the White House as President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance hosted Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin. We are two countries joined by blood and tradition. Of course, there are tensions over trade conflicts with the European Union and Ireland, which quickly came to the surface in the meeting. In the end, however, we are likely to resolve those trade problems. The fact is that we need each other, both economically and culturally. Yet, there is one chasm between the two countries that not only remains wide but is widening: the gap between how each country handles free speech. And Martin would much prefer to talk about Irish socks than Irish censorship. Ironically, before he became associated with green beer and leprechauns, Saint Patrick was a symbol of freedom of speech. Although there is no evidence beyond pious legend that he chased snakes out of Ireland (there likely never were snakes in Ireland), he did chase slavery and human sacrifice out of the country, despite the initial unpopularity of his reforms. A former slave himself, St. Patrick's public statements against slavery, paganism and longstanding traditions were viewed as harmful to social tranquility and harmony. Does that sound familiar? Today, Ireland, like many of our European allies, is shredding free speech with laws criminalizing viewpoints and regulating speech by its content. 'Irish eyes [may be] smiling,' but Irish tongues are increasingly silent in the face of government investigations and prosecutions. The growing conflict between the U.S. and the Irish could not be more telling. Irish immigrants, including some of my relatives, came to this country to live freely, and many soon became lawyers fighting for individual rights. Just before Martin's arrival in Washington, his government was hammering Elon Musk and conservative sites in the latest crackdown on free speech. The most recent flashpoint was a small pro-life platform called Gript, a rallying point for many in his Catholic country who oppose abortion. The government demanded that X turn over Gript's data on sources and users. An Irish court on June 13, 2024, sought the data on private accounts as well as IP addresses and messages linked to Gript coverage of the April protests against Ireland's housing of documented migrants. The violence in those protests gave the Irish government another justification to curtail free speech. In yet another defining moment for Musk on free speech, he not only resisted but informed Irish citizens what the government was doing. That transparency and opposition sent the Irish government into a full-on rage. After the arrest of 34 people and extensive property damage in the anti-immigration protests, the government moved to expand on its already draconian anti-free-speech laws. A new bill was introduced criminalizing 'preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.' That includes any material concerning national or ethnic origin, as well as protected characteristics including 'transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.' The bill included crimes relating to 'xenophobia' and can be committed merely by the 'public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material.' Then-Prime Minister Leo Varadkar declared his intent to 'modernize laws against hatred' by criminalizing speech that his government decides is 'incitement.' He stated an intention to not only stop those engaged in violence but those who say things that might arouse their anger. The powerful Irish Green Party was all-in with censorship and speech prosecutions. As Green Party Sen. Pauline O'Reilly admitted, 'We are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good.' It is a familiar pattern. In my book, 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,' I discuss how 'rage rhetoric' is often exploited by governments as an excuse for 'state rage.' Citing false claims made in the protests, the government declared a new round of crackdowns on viewpoints it considers harmful or misleading. Ireland's national police, known as the Garda Síochána, ordered X to produce extensive data linked to Gript Media's official X account, @griptmedia. It wanted to see not just information identifying users but also private messages and addresses that would have revealed the media outlet's confidential sources and communications. Ireland reflects the free fall of free speech across Europe. Germany, France and the United Kingdom have followed the same path of the ever-expanding regulation and criminalization of free speech, including statements deemed by the government to be 'disinformation.' This week, I will be speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, Germany, on the anti-free speech movement, led in no small part by the European Union. Anti-free speech groups and figures are also gathering, particularly after Vance's historic speech recently in Munich criticizing our allies for their abandonment of free speech. After years of largely unimpeded growth, the anti-free speech movement is facing its first serious impediments following Musk's purchase of Twitter and the new American defense of free speech. Musk has borne the brunt of the counter campaign. By breaking away from the other social media companies, Musk's X defied the EU and its censor. He was threatened not only with financial ruin but also with actual arrest unless he restored the censorship system. The left in the U.S. and Europe targeted his companies and his revenue. Recently, Tesla dealerships and charging stations have been vandalized and even set on fire. In Ireland, Martin denounced Musk and objected to 'the degree to which, under the cover of free speech, it essentially is allowing … unacceptable material in terms of hate, bile and attacks, and so on.' Again raising the Dublin riots, he said changes have to be made to protect 'democracy and society.' In other words, free speech is endangering society. This has been the siren's call of censorship throughout history. Despite this history, there is reason to be optimistic. The Irish government was forced to withdraw its draconian legislation due to a groundswell of opposition from young voters, including within Martin's party. Free Speech Ireland celebrated the defeat by the two main parties, which 'miscalculated in what they think young people want.' It turns out that it is still difficult to get a free people to give up freedom. The defeat of the Irish legislation was perhaps only a temporary victory. But for the free speech community, it was a rare, positive moment in dark times. It raised the possibility, on this Saint Patrick's Day, that we just might be able to chase censorship, like slavery, from the Emerald Isle. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Celebrate Saint Patrick by chasing censors out of Ireland
With the arrival of Saint Patrick's Day, our nation's close affinity to Ireland was on full display in the White House as President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance hosted Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin. We are two countries joined by blood and tradition. Of course, there are tensions over trade conflicts with the European Union and Ireland, which quickly came to the surface in the meeting. In the end, however, we are likely to resolve those trade problems. The fact is that we need each other, both economically and culturally. Yet, there is one chasm between the two countries that not only remains wide but is widening: the gap between how each country handles free speech. And Martin would much prefer to talk about Irish socks than Irish censorship. Ironically, before he became associated with green beer and leprechauns, Saint Patrick was a symbol of freedom of speech. Although there is no evidence beyond pious legend that he chased snakes out of Ireland (there likely never were snakes in Ireland), he did chase slavery and human sacrifice out of the country, despite the initial unpopularity of his reforms. A former slave himself, St. Patrick's public statements against slavery, paganism and longstanding traditions were viewed as harmful to social tranquility and harmony. Does that sound familiar? Today, Ireland, like many of our European allies, is shredding free speech with laws criminalizing viewpoints and regulating speech by its content. 'Irish eyes [may be] smiling,' but Irish tongues are increasingly silent in the face of government investigations and prosecutions. The growing conflict between the U.S. and the Irish could not be more telling. Irish immigrants, including some of my relatives, came to this country to live freely, and many soon became lawyers fighting for individual rights. Just before Martin's arrival in Washington, his government was hammering Elon Musk and conservative sites in the latest crackdown on free speech. The most recent flashpoint was a small pro-life platform called Gript, a rallying point for many in his Catholic country who oppose abortion. The government demanded that X turn over Gript's data on sources and users. An Irish court on June 13, 2024, sought the data on private accounts as well as IP addresses and messages linked to Gript coverage of the April protests against Ireland's housing of documented migrants. The violence in those protests gave the Irish government another justification to curtail free speech. In yet another defining moment for Musk on free speech, he not only resisted but informed Irish citizens what the government was doing. That transparency and opposition sent the Irish government into a full-on rage. After the arrest of 34 people and extensive property damage in the anti-immigration protests, the government moved to expand on its already draconian anti-free-speech laws. A new bill was introduced criminalizing 'preparing or possessing material likely to incite violence or hatred against persons on account of their protected characteristics.' That includes any material concerning national or ethnic origin, as well as protected characteristics including 'transgender and a gender other than those of male and female.' The bill included crimes relating to 'xenophobia' and can be committed merely by the 'public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material.' Then- Prime Minister Leo Varadkar declared his intent to 'modernize laws against hatred' by criminalizing speech that his government decides is 'incitement.' He stated an intention to not only stop those engaged in violence but those who say things that might arouse their anger. The powerful Irish Green Party was all-in with censorship and speech prosecutions. As Green Party Sen. Pauline O'Reilly admitted, 'We are restricting freedom, but we're doing it for the common good.' It is a familiar pattern. In my book, ' The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, ' I discuss how 'rage rhetoric' is often exploited by governments as an excuse for 'state rage.' Citing false claims made in the protests, the government declared a new round of crackdowns on viewpoints it considers harmful or misleading. Ireland's national police, known as the Garda Síochána, ordered X to produce extensive data linked to Gript Media's official X account, @griptmedia. It wanted to see not just information identifying users but also private messages and addresses that would have revealed the media outlet's confidential sources and communications. Ireland reflects the free fall of free speech across Europe. Germany, France and the United Kingdom have followed the same path of the ever-expanding regulation and criminalization of free speech, including statements deemed by the government to be 'disinformation.' This week, I will be speaking at the World Forum in Berlin, Germany, on the anti-free speech movement, led in no small part by the European Union. Anti-free speech groups and figures are also gathering, particularly after Vance's historic speech recently in Munich criticizing our allies for their abandonment of free speech. After years of largely unimpeded growth, the anti-free speech movement is facing its first serious impediments following Musk's purchase of Twitter and the new American defense of free speech. Musk has borne the brunt of the counter campaign. By breaking away from the other social media companies, Musk's X defied the EU and its censor. He was threatened not only with financial ruin but also with actual arrest unless he restored the censorship system. The left in the U.S. and Europe targeted his companies and his revenue. Recently, Tesla dealerships and charging stations have been vandalized and even set on fire. In Ireland, Martin denounced Musk and objected to 'the degree to which, under the cover of free speech, it essentially is allowing … unacceptable material in terms of hate, bile and attacks, and so on.' Again raising the Dublin riots, he said changes have to be made to protect 'democracy and society.' In other words, free speech is endangering society. This has been the siren's call of censorship throughout history. Despite this history, there is reason to be optimistic. The Irish government was forced to withdraw its draconian legislation due to a groundswell of opposition from young voters, including within Martin's party. Free Speech Ireland celebrated the defeat by the two main parties, which 'miscalculated in what they think young people want.' It turns out that it is still difficult to get a free people to give up freedom. The defeat of the Irish legislation was perhaps only a temporary victory. But for the free speech community, it was a rare, positive moment in dark times. It raised the possibility, on this Saint Patrick's Day, that we just might be able to chase censorship, like slavery, from the Emerald Isle.
Al Jazeera
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Why an Irish news site has been drawn into JD Vance's attacks on Europe
A conservative media outlet in Ireland has become the latest lightning rod for populist concerns about free speech that have exposed stark divisions between Europe and the United States in the era of President Donald Trump. Gript, a news site known for its conservative stances on culture war issues such as mass immigration and political correctness, announced this week that Irish police last year obtained a court order to access private messages and IP addresses associated with its X account. Gript, which purports to cover the news without the 'liberal filter', called the move an 'intolerable' and 'egregious' attack on privacy and media freedom. Elon Musk's X, which said it successfully challenged the court order, shared Gript's statement, which was widely amplified by conservative, populist and far-right accounts on the platform in and outside Ireland. Gript's announcement came days after US Vice President JD Vance thrust the issues of free speech, censorship and immigration in Europe into the spotlight with a blistering speech that roiled transatlantic relations and energised the political right on the continent and beyond. What exactly happened? On Tuesday, Gript released a statement saying that police had sought access to its communications on X as part of investigations into violent protests that took place in April at the site of planned accommodation for asylum seekers. Gript, which also published what it said was a copy of the court order, had published footage of the protests in Newtownmountkennedy, a town about 40km (25 miles) south of Dublin, including scenes of violent clashes between police and demonstrators. Gript's footage of the protests, during which six people were arrested, included video appearing to show police using pepper spray against one of its journalists among other confrontations between officers and members of the public. Gript said that it was given no opportunity to challenge An Garda Siochana, the name of Ireland's police force, over its application to access its communications or the resulting court order. The outlet said it only learned that police had sought access to its communications after being informed by X. According to the court order published by Gript, a judge determined there were 'reasonable grounds' to believe footage published by the outlet on X contained evidence of criminal offences. In a follow-up video, Gript editor John McGuirk said police had used a law originally introduced to combat drug dealers and 'terrorists' to target his outlet on the 'very flimsy pretext' that it might have evidence 'connecting somebody somewhere' to crimes. 'In journalism, it is very important to defend your sources, to defend your readers and to defend the rights of those who work for you, up and until the point of going to prison, which I am prepared to do if necessary,' McGuirk said in his video statement. McGuirk said that the police ultimately dropped their bid without gaining access to his outlet's private messages and other data after X successfully challenged the move in court. Gript did not respond to a request for comment from Al Jazeera. What are the Irish police saying? In a statement to Al Jazeera, An Garda Siochana said it does not comment on the comments of third parties or ongoing investigations but acknowledged the court order. 'In order to vindicate the rights of potential victims of crime including Gardai [police officers] who have been verbally and physically assaulted, An Garda Siochana has a positive obligation to obtain all available evidence relating to particular incidents,' a spokesperson said. An Garda Siochana said the decision of whether or not to issue a court order is a matter for the independent judiciary and that it takes the 'protection of the right of journalists to report freely and in safety very seriously'. An Garda Siochana did not respond to a question about whether it had sought the communications of other media organisations or journalists. What is the connection with Vance's claims about free speech in Europe? Conservative and far-right figures in and outside Ireland have highlighted the case as an example of what Vance claimed was Europe's retreat from its 'fundamental values,' including free speech. Gript itself has sought to draw a link, with McGuirk saying his run-in with the authorities fit 'very well' into the themes of the US vice president's speech. 'I think it was timely that he made it just as the consequences of the very issues he was talking about were coming home for us,' McGuirk said in his video statement. Harry Browne, a journalism lecturer at Technological University Dublin, said that the case involving Gript raises legitimate concerns, but questioned the attempts to link it to Vance's criticisms of Europe's speech restrictions. 'It is concerning but not surprising that they used this particular 'back-door' tool of going through the platform, and it's likely Twitter [the former name for X] was not alone,' Browne told Al Jazeera, referring to the police's application to access private messages on X and suggesting other social media platforms may have been similarly targeted. 'It bears no relation whatsoever to the European digital censorship regime,' Browne said, arguing that, despite Vance's complaints, restrictions on speech in Europe are more likely to target figures on the political left, such as pro-Palestinian and antiwar activists, than those on the right. In his withering speech to the Munich Security Conference last Friday, Vance said that Europe was retreating from its 'most fundamental values' and faced a greater threat 'from within' than from China or Russia. 'I look to Brussels, where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest the moment they spot what they've judged to be, quote, 'hateful content',' Vance said. 'Or to this very country, where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of, quote, 'combating misogyny on the internet'.' Vance's speech received a cool response in Europe, whose governments have traditionally taken a more proactive role in cracking down on hate speech than the US. Unlike the US, where the First Amendment of the constitution limits legal restrictions on expression, the European Union has long criminalised hate speech related to characteristics such as race, colour, religion and national origin. Individual member states also have their own anti-hate speech laws. Under the EU's landmark Digital Services Act passed in 2022, the bloc also operates a code of conduct for platforms to counter hate speech online, which includes a commitment to 'undertake best efforts to review at least two-thirds' of content brought to their notice within 24 hours. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz took particular umbrage at Vance's suggestion that Germany's mainstream political parties should drop their opposition to the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) entering government. 'There can therefore be no reconciling a commitment to 'never again' with support for the AfD,' Scholz said, using a common slogan associated with the lessons of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. 'That is why we will not accept outside observers acting on behalf of this party, interfering with our democracy and our elections and influencing the democratic formation of opinions. That is bad manners – especially among friends and allies.' While Vance singled out a number of countries for castigation, including Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom – highlighting, among other cases, the prosecution of a British man who breached a 'safe access zone' to conduct a silent vigil outside an abortion clinic – he did not mention Ireland by name. Vance, however, has raised concern about free speech in Ireland specifically before. As a US Senator in 2023, Vance wrote to Ireland's ambassador to the US to express concern that a hate speech bill under consideration by the Irish parliament would 'chill important public debate'. The Irish government last year announced it would not go forward with the plans amid criticism from some opposition parties and a number of other prominent figures on the American right, including tech billionaire Musk and President Trump. Fergal Quinn, a lecturer in journalism at the University of Limerick, said that while he does not believe Vance has much credibility on free speech since the Trump administration appears to only be interested in protecting speech that serves its agenda, his criticisms contain a 'grain of truth'. 'The free speech versus hate speech debate has always been a tricky balance to get right,' Quinn told Al Jazeera. 'The law in this area is far from perfect and needs constant refinement, but the free-for-all on the likes of X that has resulted from Musk's relaxation of moderation is a catastrophic step backwards in terms of disinformation and polarisation in the public sphere.' What has the reaction been in Ireland? While An Garda Siochana's actions have been criticised in conservative circles, including in the US, the case has received relatively little mainstream attention in Ireland. Most of the Irish media – including national broadcaster RTE and leading newspapers The Irish Times and The Irish Independent – have not reported on the case even as it has attracted significant attention on conservative and far-right social media and media platforms. The National Union of Journalists, which advocates for media freedom in Ireland, has not released a statement and declined to comment when contacted by Al Jazeera. The muted reaction in Ireland may be due to Gript's polarising nature in a country where consensus-based politics is the norm and right-wing populist and far-right groups have made few inroads relative to other Western countries. Gript covers the news through an unabashedly conservative lens and has been strongly critical of the scale of the Irish government's intake of asylum seekers and its liberal positions on cultural issues such as abortion and transgender rights. On its website, it pitches itself as an alternative for readers concerned about the 'headlong rush to the most extreme forms of liberalism, facilitated by the stifling of any real debate.' Before entering journalism, McGuirk was involved in a number of centre-right political parties and helped lead campaigns opposing abortion and greater integration with the EU. The outlet has been criticised over the accuracy of some of its coverage. In 2023, it removed an article that erroneously linked an Algerian asylum seeker to a stabbing attack on three children and a teacher outside a Dublin school. The man, who was not named in the article but was identified on social media through details about his asylum history, is currently suing Gript for defamation. A 2023 study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a think tank that describes its mission as countering 'extremism, hate and disinformation', described Gript as a 'prominent entity within the Irish mis- and disinformation ecosystem' that had a record of failing to correct 'false and misleading content' about immigration. Gript has denied espousing far-right views and last year successfully argued in a complaint to the Press Council of Ireland that an article that accused the outlet of being 'racist' and 'stirring up hatred against immigrants' had failed to meet the industry code's standards of accuracy. 'Gript is an unpopular and problematic news organisation that has repeatedly skirted the line in terms of hate speech as it has sought – with limited success so far – to ride the wave of growth in right-wing politics across the world,' Quinn, from the University of Limerick, said. 'I would not say it is wrong about every issue it pushes, but I would say it is not credible.' Still, Quinn said it is concerning 'in principle' for police to target a media operation regardless of its credibility. 'There is a history in Ireland of Gardai using their powers excessively in these areas and in broad terms whereby freedom of speech is sometimes a principle that is grudgingly allowed rather than rigorously upheld,' he said. Tom Felle, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Galway, voiced similar concerns. 'Media freedom is a fundamental pillar of any democracy, and the threshold for breaching that freedom should be extremely high,' Felle told Al Jazeera. 'Such actions should only occur in the rarest of circumstances and when absolutely necessary in the public interest.'
