Here in peaceful and progressive Canada, it is so easy to feel smug towards larger countries that get their hands dirty in the world arena. Especially that one country built on the conquest and near eradication of its peaceful natives who have received hardly any compensation or even an apology. You know, the one founded on belligerent exceptionalism and manifest superiority over other cultures that was turned into a national religion that has historically led to imperialist conquest and mass slaughter. This country still has an actual federal law that requires all foreigners to carry their papers with them at all times, or risk being deported by any policeman who can, simply on a whim, question and detain them. The country so primitive and barbaric that it actively uses the death penalty, shrugging off international protests about it just as coldly as it does in important environmental issues. Its provincial masses bitterly cling to their traditional values while their media feeds them a constant diet of mindless pap and actively hushes up embarrassing facts. They rarely travel abroad, being not just obsessed with ethnic purity and deeply suspicious, even afraid, of anything foreign, but also unapologetically sexist and classist, especially towards this one minority they consider dirty, criminal and less evolved. We can only sigh in relief that sun is finally setting on the once so unstoppable economic juggernaut… of Japan.
Ilkka, “The elephant in the living world”, The Fourth Checkraise, 2011-01-20
January 26, 2011
QotD: The elephant in the living world
Is Julian Assange a modern Senator Joe McCarthy?
Jim Goad asks if the actions of WikiLeaks are the modern-day equivalent of Senator Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade:
Upon superficial inspection, still-living superstar hacker Julian Assange and long-dead commie-stalker Joseph McCarthy seem like natural-born enemies and political polar opposites. Technically, the Arctic and Antarctica are polar opposites, too, but are they really that different?
Comparing anyone to infamous anti-communist zealot Joseph McCarthy, as he is popularly understood in pop culture, is to accuse them of being a torch-carrying megalomaniac with a sociopathic disregard for the damage wrought by their ruthless, Spanish Inquisition-style paranoid purges, persecutions, pogroms, and perennial pickin’ on people. “McCarthyism” is considered a smear because we all must admit it was a shameful moment in American history when some upstart cheesehead Senator dared to suggest the American government was being infiltrated with communist sympathizers. Blot from your minds forever the fact that certain Soviet “cables” decrypted after McCarthy’s death seem to have at least partially vindicated him, and let us never teach in our public schools that communist governments murdered at least a hundred million human beings.
H/T to Ilkka for the link.
December 10, 2010
The Economist: “America … should learn from its mistakes in the past decade and stick to its own rules”
A very good column in The Economist seems to cover the issues quite well:
BIG crimes deserve tough responses. In any country the theft and publication of 250,000 secret government documents would deserve punishment. If the leak costs lives, let alone the careers and trust that have already perished amid the WikiLeaks disclosures, the case for action is even stronger.
[. . .]
For the American government, prosecution, not persecution, offers the best chance of limiting the damage and deterring future thefts. The blustering calls for the assassination of Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder now in custody in London awaiting extradition to Sweden on faintly mysterious charges of sexual assault, look both weak and repellent. If Mr Assange has broken American law, it is there that he should stand trial, just like Bradley Manning, the alleged source of the stolen documents. If not, it may be some consolation that the cables so far reveal a largely flattering picture of America’s diplomats: conscientious, cool-headed, well-informed, perceptive and on occasion eloquent.
[. . .]
If America sticks to those standards now it will display a strength and sanity that contrasts with the shrill absolutism and cyber-vandalism of the WikiLeaks partisans. Calling Mr Assange a terrorist, for example, is deeply counterproductive. His cyber-troops do not fly planes into buildings, throw acid at schoolgirls or murder apostates. Indeed, the few genuine similarities between WikiLeaks and the Taliban — its elusiveness and its wide base of support — argue against ill-judged attacks that merely broaden that support. After a week of clumsy American-inspired attempts to shut WikiLeaks down, it is now hosted on more than 700 servers around the world.
The big danger is that America is provoked into bending or breaking its own rules, straining alliances, eroding credibility and — because it will not be able to muzzle WikiLeaks — ultimately seeming impotent. In recent years America has promoted the internet as a menace to foreign censorship. That sounds tinny now. So did its joy of hosting next year’s World Press Freedom Day this week. Chinese and Russian glee at American discomfort are a sure sign of such missteps.
H/T to John Perry Barlow for the link.
Update: This certainly matches what I expected Julian Assange’s personality to be like:
Defectors include Daniel Domscheit-Berg, otherwise known as Daniel Schmitt, who made a high-profile exit from WikiLeaks in September, and Herbert Snorrason, an Icelandic student. Both resigned in September. Snorrason is quoted as telling Assange, in an online chat log acquired by WiReD:
And you’re not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now. A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself. You are doing the exact opposite. You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader.
Snorrason’s departure was fomented by this declaration from Assange:
I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off.
And he did.
October 23, 2010
Has Molly Norris become an un-person to the Society for Professional Journalists?
Matt Welch sees little positive effort and much bitchiness from one of the organizations that should have been front-and-centre to help Molly Norris:
On Sept. 15, it was announced that Molly Norris, the Seattle-based alt-weekly cartoonist who suggested, then eventually backed away from and repudiated, the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” protest against Comedy Central censoring bits of a South Park episode, had gone into hiding with the FBI’s assistance so as to hopefully avoid being murdered by Islamic assassins. It was a dark, dark day for American journalism and the freedom of expression. On Sept. 20, the Washington Examiner newspaper wrote an editorial criticizing the professional journalism/free speech community for its comparative silence on the issue.
[. . .]
I don’t expect journalism organizations to share my priorities. But I do expect them to do more than raise an eyebrow when a cartoonist goes into hiding after being threatened with death, then act all bitchy when someone calls them out on it.
September 10, 2010
Clarifying the clarification
It’s going to scroll off the front page soon, so I thought I’d better put in a link to this post about the ongoing confusion in Britain over photography and the right of the police to confiscate images or recordings in certain circumstances. I’ve updated the post twice with more information from The Register.
September 8, 2010
New Police policy: photography not illegal, but we’ll safeguard it for you
British police forces may be starting to accept that photography is legal in public spaces, but the Sussex police have come up with a new and sneaky way to get between photographers and their equipment:
According to a statement by Sussex Police: “Under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [1984], an officer policing the event seized a video tape from a member of the public. Section 23 of the Act states that this can take place in ‘any place’, providing the officer is lawfully there and has reasonable grounds to believe it provides evidence of a criminal offence.
“The officer reasonably believed the tape contained evidence of a protester being assaulted by someone taking part in the march. It has been seized temporarily to ensure that evidence cannot be inadvertently lost or altered and will be returned, intact, to the owner as soon as possible.”
See, the very worst people to leave in charge of the camera or the storage media are the photographers: those people always take photos just to delete them, out of spite. The plod are totally within their rights to confiscate safeguard it, just to preserve the evidence.
Good luck on getting it back in working order, of course.
Update, 9 September: Jane Fae Ozimek updates the original story with a bit of additional information:
The police officer taking the film claimed legal justification under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which permits the police to seize film or memory sticks discovered “under lawful search” and where there are reasonable grounds to believe they provide evidence of a criminal offence.
So far, so straightforward. However, under s.14 of the same legislation, police may not remove “special procedure material” of a journalistic nature without a warrant. The question therefore arises whether Williams’ filming efforts, even though he does not describe himself as “a journalist”, is nonetheless of a journalistic nature.
The waters are further muddied by a letter sent out just four days earlier by Andy Trotter, Chair of ACPO’s Media Advisory Group to all Chief Constables. In it, Mr Trotter reminds police chiefs that there are no powers to prevent the public from taking photographs in a public place. Significantly, he goes on: “We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life.”
“Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.”
Update, 10 September: Clarifying the clarification to the declaration, or something. The Register is still on the case:
It would appear that at this point alarm bells started ringing at ACPO HQ, and late yesterday afternoon we received a further communication from ACPO. A spokeswoman told us: “We have clarified our guidance note to forces, however, as this does not affect the legal right of officers to seize photographic equipment in certain circumstances, such as during the course of a criminal investigation.
“While it is the job of police officers to be vigilant, to keep an eye out for any suspicious behavior and to act accordingly, we have been very clear in expressing our view that the taking of photographs is not normally a cause for concern. Whether s.19 PACE was used appropriately in the case in question would ultimately be a matter for Sussex.”
More to the point, Trotter’s freshly updated advice has been re-issued and now reads: “Once an image has been recorded the police have no power to delete it without a court order; this does not however restrict an officer’s power to seize items where they believe they contain evidence of criminal activity.”
For those readers too busy to play compare and contrast, the original guidance stated that the police have no power to confiscate recorded images, whereas the clarified guidance explains that they have. Clear?
June 26, 2010
G20 arrests not considered “major enough” to release details
Siri Agrell notes the inconsistency of Toronto police over the (32 at time of writing) arrests made around the G20 area:
When asked for details of the arrest of a deaf man at Friday night’s demonstration, Burrows [of the Integrated Security Unit] said he had neither a name or the charges.
“Very rarely do we ever release information unless it’s a major arrest, major charges, big investigation or something like that,” he said. “That’s our standard practice. This guy was arrested last night, there’s nothing major about it. we’d never put a release out about that.”
And yet, the police regularly release information about minor incidents, ranging from lost property to suspicious behaviour. Surely, the arrest of Toronto citizens exercising their right to protest during a major international event warrents some transparency?
Yet another example of the police taking advantage of the situation to expand their practical reach?
So teenagers sending sext messages, a lost urn and some guy trying to pick up Toronto women are worthy of police updates, but details of arrests made during the G20, when police have been given huge powers, aren’t worth releasing?
In a nutshell, yes.
May 1, 2010
January 7, 2010
Tracking the effectiveness of bloggers by arrests
2009 was a tough year for journalists, with at least 76 killed and arrests and physical assaults increased over last year. In a back-handed way, the effectiveness of bloggers and other informal journalists could be measured by the ways in which they get harassed, intimidated, or otherwise interfered with as they tried to report on the news:
Meanwhile, the spotlight is increasingly falling on bloggers, as 2009 was the first year that more than 100 bloggers and cyber-dissidents were imprisoned.
In a number of countries online dissent is now a criminal offence: authorities have responded to the internet as pro-democracy tool with new laws and crackdowns. A pair of Azerbaijani bloggers were sentenced to two years in prison for making a film mocking the political elite.
China was still the leading Internet censor in 2009. However, Iran, Tunisia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan have all also made extensive use website blocking and online surveillance to monitor and control dissent. The Turkmen Internet remains under total state control. Egyptian blogger Kareem Amer remains in jail, while well-known Burmese comedian Zarganar has a further 34 years of his prison sentence to serve.
However, the Report also notes that democratic countries have not lagged far behind, instancing the various steps taken by European countries to control the internet under the guise of protection against child porn and illegal downloading. It also notes that Australia intends to put in place a compulsory filtering system that poses a threat to freedom of expression.
December 11, 2009
Changes coming to England’s over-generous libel laws?
For the aggrieved, suing in London has been the way to go, due to English laws which strongly favour the plaintiff. This may change, as the laws are being reviewed:
England has long been a mecca for aggrieved people from around the world who want to sue for libel. Russian oligarchs, Saudi businessmen, multinational corporations, American celebrities — all have made their way to London’s courts, where jurisdiction is easy to obtain and libel laws are heavily weighted in favor of complainants.
Embarrassed by London’s reputation as “a town called sue” and by unusually stinging criticisms in American courts and legislatures, British lawmakers are seriously considering rewriting England’s 19th-century libel laws.
A member of the House of Lords is preparing a bill that would, among other things, require foreigners to demonstrate that they have suffered actual harm in England before they can sue here.
November 19, 2009
October 21, 2009
Canadian press freedoms slip a few notches
Reporters Without Borders (known by their French initials, RSF) show Canada’s press is less free this year, compared to other countries:
Canada fell to 19th place this year from 13th last year on Reporters Without Borders’ index of freedom of the press. The analysis covers print, broadcast and online journalism in 175 countries.
The Paris-based group, also known by its French acronym RSF, says court challenges to journalists’ rights to protect their sources precipitated Canada’s drop six spots from last year’s ranking.
Lawsuits intended to silence critics under the weight of the hefty cost of a legal defence — known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits — also factored into the drop, said Dennis Trudeau, a spokesman for Reporters Without Borders’ Canadian chapter.
“There are issues like real protection of sources,” he said.
“Where a reporter could theoretically face jail or a fine for not revealing his sources is in our view, especially when we’re dealing with public issues, a unreasonable restriction on freedom of the press.”
October 20, 2009
FTC guidelines require me to inform you that . . .
. . . I have received no free materials, no payment, and no promised service in exchange for blogging. Others, like Daniel Kalder may end up having to splash nonsense like the start of this post across all their book reviews posted online:
In a fascinating interview conducted with Richard Cleland of the FTC, books blogger Edward Champion exposed the manifold incoherencies in the guidelines. Read the whole thing, for yea verily, it abounds in absurdity. What leapt out at me was the blanket assertion made by Cleland that “when a publisher sends a book to a blogger, there is the expectation of a good review”.
To which Champion replies: “I informed him that this was not always the case and observed that some bloggers often receive 20 to 50 books a week. In such cases, the publisher hopes for a review, good or bad. Cleland didn’t see it that way.”
“If a blogger received enough books,” said Cleland, “he could open up a used bookstore.”
Got that? Good Lord, the man’s a genius! I never realised this criticism lark could be so lucrative! Yes indeed, in Cleland’s brave new world a review copy is compensation, and a review from a blogger is a priori an endorsement, even if negative. Mysteriously the FTC does not require newspapers to disclose how they come by the books they review, or any other freebies their journalists might receive. And yet to pick one obvious example, almost all travel journalism actually is built on the kind of payola/payback system Cleland ascribes to book reviewing, so I can’t see why not.
August 28, 2009
Chilling the news, Toronto style
Matt Gurney risks being sued by taking a stand against Toronto city government’s latest brain fart:
Setting aside the oddity of Toronto’s politicians suing their cheerleaders at the Star, there are serious issues at play here. Despite having recently voted down a proposal that would have let city councillors sue citizens on the taxpayers’ dime, it is still permissible for the city to fund lawsuits approved by various officials at city hall. What could be more chilling to free speech than a thin-skinned politician or bureaucrat with a taxpayer-financed legal team? Remember, folks — even asking reasonable, fair, and completely valid questions might bankrupt you, if you can’t afford to pay for your defence.
Beyond that issue is a more philosophical one. When does criticism of a government program become an attack on those running it? Depending on how broad an interpretation the courts choose to settle upon, opinion journalism and political reporting in this country could grind to a halt. Is a criticism of Ottawa’s handling of the isotope shortage an attack on the bureaucrats involved? Imagine a reporter discovering that a department was blowing millions or billions of dollars on a program with almost no practical benefit (Think long-gun registry). Would that reporter dare report it, and risk a ruinous lawsuit filed by the people running the program? Where does political commentary end and defamation begin? I don’t know, but the Toronto city government seems determined to find out.
These worrisome legal and philosophical issues might pale in comparison to the sheer logistics of such a regime. If the Toronto government, or any other, can go after anyone who criticizes it, how long until there is an entire cadre of bureaucrats whose job it is to seek out and bankrupt critics? It might sound paranoid, but remember this is government we’re talking about.
H/T to Elizabeth for the link.
