Missing for three days, Pakistani journalist found in police custody

first_img News August 20, 2019 Missing for three days, Pakistani journalist found in police custody Pakistani TV anchor censored after denouncing violence against journalists January 28, 2021 Find out more Organisation June 2, 2021 Find out more News It was only after days of constantly questioning different authorities that Isbah Muneeb discovered that her husband is being held at Madina police station in Karachi, where the charges against him are still reportedly being investigated. RSF_en Pakistani journalist critical of the military wounded by gunfire PakistanAsia – Pacific Protecting journalistsProtecting sources Freedom of expressionJudicial harassment Receive email alerts Help by sharing this information Follow the news on Pakistan She added that her husband has been accused of extortion. He publishes and edits the local Urdu-language daily Piyara Watan and had been covering police corruption and organized crime. PakistanAsia – Pacific Protecting journalistsProtecting sources Freedom of expressionJudicial harassment to go further News Pakistani paramilitary rangers in Karachi are deployed in case of security emergency, as here on 22 August 2016. (Photo: RIZWAN TABASSUM / AFP) Reporters Without Borders (RSF) calls for Pakistani local newspaper editor Ahmed Muneeb’s immediate release and condemns the way the police in the southern city of Karachi held him incommunicado for nearly 72 hours after his arrest on 10 August with the clear aim of intimidating local journalists. News “Abducting journalists and holding them incommunicado seems to be becoming a tradition in Karachi,” RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk said. “Everything indicates that the proceedings against Ahmed Muneeb are just a new attempt to intimidate journalists and get them to censor themselves. We call on the authorities to free this journalist and to operate in a transparent manner.” Ahmed Muneeb’s wife, Isbah Muneeb, told RSF that the family took nearly three days to locate him after soldiers and police arrived at their home at around 4 a.m. on 10 August and took him away. April 21, 2021 Find out more Pakistani supreme court acquits main suspect in Daniel Pearl murder Pakistan is ranked 142nd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index. Muneeb’s wife told RSF that the police had threatened him prior to his arrest. “My husband told me that Irfan Bahadar, [a police officer] in Malir district, called him on 5 August to warn him that he would be killed if he ever crossed swords with the police.”last_img read more

Critics look down on shorter 250 Water Street

first_img Share via Shortlink Howard Hughes Corporation CEO David O’Reilly and 250 Water Street (The Howard Hughes Corporation/SOM)UPDATED April 7, 2020, 7:11 a.m.: Howard Hughes Corporation returned to the Landmarks Preservation Commission Tuesday with a shorter, less bulky design for a mixed-use tower at 250 Water Street.But the reviews from community members and civic leaders were the same as to the developer’s first plan, which was summarily dismissed by the commission as out of scale with the South Street Seaport historic district. Supporters remained supporters and opponents remained opponents, with the exception of the nonprofit New York Landmarks Conservancy, which reversed its position and is now in favor of the plan.The revised proposal eschews the initial two-tower design atop a podium structure for four interlocking towers set back above a low-rise street wall.Presented by architect Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, the revision includes a street wall that varies in height and has metalwork on the facade and narrower windows to match other buildings in the district.ADVERTISEMENTBut it is still bigger than they are.The developer has reduced the project’s size by about 27 percent, to 550,000 square feet from 757,000, cut the number of residential units to 270 from 360, and removed 30 of the original 100 affordable housing units in an effort to gain Landmarks’ blessing.Proponents of the project, including Margaret Chin, the New York City Council member who would determine its fate should it be approved by Landmarks, pleaded for the affordable housing and economic development they claimed the project would provide. They noted that the parking lot on which the development would be built has contributed nothing to the character of the neighborhood for decades.The same arguments were made in January to no discernible effect on the commission, which focused solely on the project’s appropriateness for the historic district.Read moreHoward Hughes hopes smaller Seaport project will work this time Howard Hughes’ Seaport project dealt major blow Howard Hughes’ Seaport project gets surprise backing from Gale Brewer Email Address* “This is a rare opportunity to do something special and preserve the [South Street] Seaport museum,” said local City Council member Margaret Chin, referring to the $50 million endowment the long-struggling museum would receive from the developer.“Without the museum there will be no historical district,” she added.The revised proposal also enjoys the support of Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who has sided against high-rise developments in the past.Jessica Lappin of the Alliance for Downtown New York said Howard Hughes’s revision was “vastly different” from its first proposal and “integrates community feedback.”Opponents, however, were unmoved.Despite Howard Hughes’ reducing the height of the proposed building to 345 feet from 470 and doubling setbacks along Beekman and Water streets, critics blasted what they saw as minor changes.“The new proposal is more sleight of hand than an attempt to integrate community feedback,” Assembly member Yuh-Line Niou said in a statement, noting that the plans still exceed the 120-foot height limit.“This developer has never proposed a project within the height limits of the district,” said Niou, who suggested that approval of the design would be unfair to developers who had worked within the neighborhood’s zoning, which prioritizes low-rise street walls.But those projects did not provide the affordable units and museum subsidy that this one would — and there’s the rub.Critics reminded the commission that its duty is to consider the appropriateness of the design regardless of any affordable housing or museum funding that the development would unlock.Joanne Gorman, co-founder of Friends of South Street Seaport, disputed even that.“The community is being played,” she said. “The sale of city-owned development rights would go to the museum, so the people of New York [and not the developer] will be saving the museum,” Gorman said.Detractors objected to the transfer of air rights from Pier 17, located within the historic district, to another location in the district, preferring that air rights be transferred out of the neighborhood.The divide between some community residents and business advocates was drawn in sharp relief during Tuesday’s testimony.Manhattan Chamber of Commerce CEO Jessica Walker said the pandemic revealed the vulnerability of office-heavy districts, including most of Midtown, emphasizing that residential buildings provide economic stability to surrounding businesses.Madeleine McGrory, a policy analyst for REBNY, echoed that sentiment, saying housing would help guard the South Street Seaport district from the vicissitudes of tourism, which has been hammered by the pandemic.Howard Hughes has said if denied approval, it would build a 160-foot-tall structure — 120 feet as-of-right plus an additional 40 feet permitted in a flood zone. That smaller project would not come with any affordable units or museum subsidy. The commission is expected to issue its decision in the coming weeks.Contact Orion Jones Message* Full Name* Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Tags DevelopmentLandmarks Preservation CommissionSouth Street Seaportlast_img read more

Ndubuoke Faults NFF on Choice of Cities

first_imgIt raises doubt on fairness, equity and sincerity of purpose in the entire bidding exercise given the fact that one zone alone, out of the six geo-political zones in the country, was alloted three cities namely Benin, Uyo and Asaba while the South West was given two slots (venues) in Lagos alone.Agreed that some parts of the country may not be favourably disposed towards female participation in sports, the South East is certainly a home for women football.That such a zone was not considered by the NFF and the Bid Committee is unacceptable. That the South East which has been the nation’s feeding/recruitment ground for female footballers in the country since the commencement of the women game was suspiciously omitted in the provisional choice of cities to host the proposed FIFA Women World Cup is unfair and unjustifiable.The South East, over the years, has produced more than 70% of national team players in all tiers of the female national football teams. Same goes with clubs in the women domestic league in the country. It therefore becomes very surprising if not shocking to observe that the zone with five states and world class football stadia and solid sporting facilities was exempted in the provision of cities for the global sporting fiesta.Moreover, the South Eastern governors have shown immense commitment towards sporting excellence in the country. These are factors that should have been considered while this decision of national importance is being contemplated.Recently, Imo State governor, Emeka Ihedioha voted millions of naira for the rehabilitation of the Dan Anyiam Stadium to prove his commitment towards taking sports to the next level in the state in particular and the nation at large. Ihedioha made it clear during his campaigns before his election into office that sports will be giving a paramount place in his administration to engage our youths gainfully and take them off the streets. This will further act as catalysts to curbing crime. With less than 100 days in office, the former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives has lived upto his pledges, promises and campaign vows. He is fast turning Imo State into the sporting centre of the entire South East.“It is expected that these should have been considered by the bid team constituted by the NFF while coming up with its decision or choice of host cities for the proposed sporting event.“On these premises, one can only call on the NFF and its bid team/committee to do a rethink, beat a fast retreat and make a bold u-turn in this unfair decision to exempt the South East from this “developmental project”. You don’t deny the hen that lays the golden egg her honour of feeding, even if you decide not to give her more food than others!”concludes Ndubuoke.Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegram Former board member of the nation’s soccer governing body, NFF, Chief Fan Ndubuoke has faulted the NFF on the choice of cities chosen to host next year’s FIFA U-20 Women’s World Cup, should Nigeria get the nod of the world soccer governing body.Ndubuoke in a statement yesterday, noted that the NFF erred by ignoringcities in the South East zone, even as he called for a rethink.The statement by Ndubuoke: “The decision of the nation’s football governing body, NFF to ignore and exempt the South East among the cities selected across the geo-political zones in the country considered to host the proposed FIFA U -20 Women World Cup next year is to say the least most unfortunate, unacceptable, very questionable and above all, insensitive.last_img read more