Jon Stewart rips into Fox!

I normally can't stand American current affairs news coverage, but the following clip I think is outstanding:

Rape isn't rape if the rapist is a popular famous person or a Hero...

One thing I was certain of, until recently was that rape is bad - and everyone thinks this.  It would appear that I must have been mistaken.  It seems that actually if two different women accuse you of rape it's fine not to face those charges, well it's fine at least if you are internationally famous for being a good person - highlighting problems other people have faced and showing the world the corruption of governments.  How could I have got it so wrong?

Before I say anything else, I've got to add that I love the work that WikiLeaks does, corruption should be brought into the open and transparency is always something that should be strived for - as long as it's disclosure does not endanger lives (when it's non-disclosure does not).  All Governments should be held into account for their actions so it is great that there is an organisation out there promoting that.

However, doing good work does not give you free reign to break the law.  I'm not presuming guilt here, that is for a court of law to decide (so any crime I mention is alleged) but skipping bail is not exactly the best way to convince of innocence.  People point to the fact that he hasn't actually been charged, but as David Allen Green excellently points out he is wanted in Sweden for arrest.  Anyone who has time should definitely read his post in the New Statesmen, it excellently debunks many myths that are currently floating around regarding the case, as actually:

1. The allegations would still be classified as rape in the UK.
2. It would actually be harder for him to be extradited from Sweden than the UK (as that would require both countries approval).
3. It's not legally possible for Sweden to give a guarantee about any future extradition.
4. Assange is wanted for arrest so there is no reason for the Swedes to just question him in London.
5. Ecuador does not have particularly free press, and they have a history of extraditing people (particularly recently a blogger) to a country where they could face the death penalty.

. 
Yet it has been on excellent posts like this that I've seen some of the strangest comments.  The worst of which though have come in other formats from prominent people:

"Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape. At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this... 'Woman A' invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him. Claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know," 

"I mean, not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them."

This quote comes from the podcast made by ever controversial MP George Galloway.  'Woman A' of course refers to the case where she claims to have had consensual protected sex with Assange, fallen asleep and then later woke to find him attempting sex without a condom nor her consent.  Apparently Mr Galloway and many others believe that a person only needs to have consent for one act to then subsequently perform more when they aren't even conscious... maybe not everyone needs to be asked each time, but one would have thought that they should at least be able in a position to remove consent before the action takes place.  For once I was genuinely pleased reading the Metro's letters section as the readers took him to task - particularly the Anonymous girl who'd had a similar awful experience, my heart goes out to her.   With people making the sort of comments Mr Galloway is making it's no wonder George Potter is considering himself a feminist (an excellent post).

It seems to me that people are trying to make Julian Assage out to be a martyr for his cause, at the moment he isn't, he's just someone who doesn't want to get arrested for rape and attempted rape.  If he gets extradited to the US and put on trial for supposed crimes that WikiLeaks have done I'll be protesting with the rest but until then he should stop using his website as a shield for his own alleged personal misdemeanors.  The real martyr for WikiLeaks is of course Bradley Manning, but people don't seem anywhere near as concerned about him as they should be, nor are they as concerned as they should be about the women involved.  They are nobodies, so why should they have rights - Julian Assange is famous and good, he can't possibly have raped them, why should he face these charges?  Is it me, or are the people supporting Mr Assange becoming what they would usually claim to hate?

If you don't like Gay Marriages - then don't get one!

Yesterday was a good day, great in fact for supporters of equality everywhere.  The leader of the Free World, the President of the World's most influential country (for now) came out in full support of gay marriage.  Take a bow Barack Obama.  I assumed he'd sidestep the issue until at least after the next election, (or just positioning himself as slightly more liberal than his oponant - which isn't hard) but he didn't and for this he should be applauded.  BBC reports:

"The interview with ABC News was apparently hastily arranged as Mr Obama came under mounting pressure to clarify his position on the issue.

"At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Mr Obama told ABC.

"I've stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community. I hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought civil unions would be sufficient," Mr Obama said."

Hesitation or not it is still very brave of him to say so in the run up to an election, it may swing some voters against him though I really hope it doesn't.

Over in the UK I'm disappointed by the sheer amount of idiotic negative arguments I hear.  The worst of all is of course that there 'should be other priorities'.  I mean come on, do you really think George Osborne is sat in Number 11 looking at the finer details of equal marriage legislation?  Of course he isn't!  Will he give it a small amount of consideration and then vote on the issue, I'm sure he will.   The excellent Lynne Featherstone also commented on this issue: 

"I couldn’t help but notice a few naysayers popping up in the media and uttering dire warnings about a government that needs to concentrate on core issues rather than same sex civil marriage.

For goodness sake – it’s not either / or.

The economy is clearly the No 1 priority – but the Coalition can multi-task!"

There has been some talk lately that perhaps the plans are getting shelved since they weren't in the Queen's speech, however Mark Pack rightly points out (when is he ever not right?  I certainly haven't seen it!) this was never supposed to be in the Queen's Speech!

At the end of the day, my opinion is that marriage is celebrating the love two people have for one another.  Who is one person to say that two people's love for each other is less worthy than two others?  Anyone who feels that their own marriage will be devalued by more people getting married, well then perhaps they got married for the wrong reasons?  Perhaps if they really dislike them that much then they should just not get one themselves or not go to any ceremonies - would their lives be any different?  

Anyway, a few pictures I've found online that I enjoyed/I think illustrate how ridiculous it is that this is even being argued about:

Who is bullying whom?

I wrote a little while ago that "If I lived in Iran I'd possibly think that they needed nukes...", one of the main arguments for this was

"Iran is basically encircled by either the US's allies, countries the US are currently occupying/have a strong military force, or nuclear armed countries."

Yesterday, one of my friends posted the following picture on Facebook, if this is correct then I think it emphasises the point even more.

So now remind me again - which country is the more aggressive toward the other?  If you put someone in a corner, do you not expect them to try and fight back?

Xenophobia - the way to win elections?

I don't like much political advertising, it is usually filled with half truths or sometimes blatant lies.  I dislike America's style even more where so much is just aimed at damaging the opponent's reputation rather than focusing on any issues that matter.


I don't think I'm often shocked when it comes to such political adverts - but I was really amazed and almost enraged when I was linked to Pete Hoekstra's ad where he is running for a place in the Senate - this ad was apparently ran during the Super bowl for maximum exposure.  Here it is for those of you who haven't seen it:

The ad is so clearly racist/xenophobic that even some Republicans have spoken out against it.  This ad is a clear attempt to play onto people's fears of other cultures and the major potential fear that China will over take them as the world's primary super power.  Hoekstra's team have a bizarre explanation:

“You have a Chinese girl speaking English - I want to hit on the education system, essentially. The fact that a Chinese girl is speaking English is a testament to how they can compete with us, when an American boy of the same age speaking Mandarin is absolutely insane, or unthinkable right now. It exhibits another way in which China is competing with us globally.”

Apparently the girl is "100% Chinese", however the ad was filmed in California so to me this is dubious - one would have thought she'd at least had some American education if this was the case, given how difficult a Green Card is to obtain.  Even so, the advert itself doesn't even mention education and surely if you were wanting to improve education in order for American boys to be speaking Mandarin you would be going for some sort of slogan that encouraged education spending, not just running on a platform of spending less.


I really can't believe that he doesn't see that this has at least racist undertones or could be seen as racist and hasn't come out and apologised for that - rather than just claim that 'the liberals' are over reacting.  The problem is however, that attacking Hoekstra over this racism is probably unlikely to effect his popularity as I'd wager that his supporters wont care one bit.

---

On a side note - I hate how all people on the left are deemed "Liberals" in America - this offends me to be labelled with some people who have absolutely no convictions that meet the definition of Liberalism.

Terrorism is terrorism whoever's doing it.

One news story has deeply worried me is the recent death of an Iranian scientist.  What worries me is the lack of outrage and coverage it seems to be getting.  Most of the headlines I've seen on the issue implicate at least Israel in the death - if that read the other way round I'm sure there would be outrage in western nations should Iran have been implicated in the killing of a foreign scientist.


Reading around this I became more worried as this is just one of a series of incidents that I hadn't heard about at the time.  The full timeline can be read here.  I make that about 29 deaths in mysterious circumstances in two years


Reading about this lead me to an excellent article by Glenn Greenwald.  The post looks back to 2007 when apparently a right wing blogger named Glenn Reynolds advocated doing just what appears to be happening.  Under the impression that George W. wasn't doing enough to protect American interests he was recommending a stealth attack effectively picking off Iranian scientists and religions leaders.  This apparently, rightly, lead to a furious reaction amongst bloggers and the like who were keen to point out in particular that as the US was not at war with Iran what he was suggesting was nothing short of murder and illegal - it could even be classed as such if the US was at war.


Glenn Greenwald's post then goes on to despair at the lack of outrage now the suggestion is actually appearing to be becoming a reality.  It doesn't take a genius to work out that someone is targeting Iranian scientists for murder, admittedly the US is denying involvement and I haven't seen a serious article linking them to it so as such there is less reason for people to be up in arms in the US but you would still expect more of an outcry.

"In general, the American covert war against Iran is extraordinarily dangerous and probably illegal (it’s certainly unauthorized), but in particular, the assassination of Iran’s scientists is just reprehensible. Now that it’s actually happening, one wishes the reaction to it were even partially as aggressive as it was when a right-wing blogger suggested it."

I can understand why people would see the deaths as a good thing, but at the end of the day whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon is not going to be down to a couple of scientists here and there, there would be a whole infrastructure working towards this.  Nobody would say that Iran developing nuclear weaponry would be a good thing for world security, however as I've said before that even though I hope they don't obtain the technology I can empathise with why they may feel the need for one.  


We can't be morally outraged by car bombs going off in Iraq or terrorist tactics used against us and then support the same tactics just because they are used by "our side".  The West's hypocritical stance on this (as well as torture) is something that really annoys me and I hope more people speak out against it!

Update


Since I drafted this post last week there does appear to be a bit more of a negative reaction around (including this good piece by Jeff Sparrow)

If I lived in Iran I'd possibly think that they needed nukes...

There is an excellent, thought provoking piece on the Guardian's website by Mehdi Hasan "If you lived in Iran, wouldn't you want the nuclear bomb?"

Mehdi makes a very logical case, Iran is basically encircled by either the US's allies, countries the US are currently occupying/have a strong military force, or nuclear armed countries.  Also there is the potential nuclear power Israel just a missile launch away.  If you back someone into a corner then they are likely to want to fight back or at least have the ability to if pressed.  


He makes the valid point that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc have faced military intervention from the West over recent years, yet North Korea who have small nuclear capability have not (now I'm not saying that this is the sole reason why not but it may be a contributing factor).  By obtaining nuclear weapons Iran would have a real deterrent against any action from a foreign country.  There has been so much heated talk between themselves and Israel that I doubt anyone in that region feels that peace between the two countries should be taken for granted.


Personally I am massively against nuclear weapons.  If it were up to me the first thing that would have been scrapped in the comprehensive spending review last year would have been Trident.  One of the reasons for having it is apparently to stop blackmail from nuclear armed states as we would have the ability to retaliate.  Surely this could therefore be applied to Iran, a state much more likely to face pressures from nuclear armed states.


I think it is massively hypocritical for countries who have nuclear warheads to then turn around to other countries and say that we need these to protect ourselves but you can't have them.  As such it is perfectly understandable that they would feel threatened by this and would want similar capabilities themselves should a situation come up where they require them.


Unfortunately we can't uninvent the nuclear bomb so we should accept the fact that other countries are going to want their own nuclear capabilities to go alongside those of the USA, Russia, UK, France and China as well as India, Pakistan, North Korea (?) and Israel (?).  At the end of the day though, there aren't too many conflicts as bad as India and Pakistan have been and they have both got the weapons without it ending up in a catastrophe.  It is a sad day whenever any country obtains the ability to slaughter large numbers of innocent people on mass, but when faced with the prospect that it could happen to them it is only logical and natural that they would want their own deterrent. 

Herman Cain uses the default political response when in trouble...

I haven't been totally following the race for Republican nomination but this video is kind of telling about politics in general.

The reason I say it's rather telling is regarding the stock answers he jumps to when he's struggling. 

Q: "Do you agree with President Obama on Libya or not?"

...(after struggling & trying to clarify things that happened) 

A: "I do not agree with the way he followed it for the following reasons, no that's a different one" ...

..."I would have done a better job of determining who our opposition is"...

Basically he was struggling to think about what went on so jumped straight into assuming that his opponent was wrong.  In my opinion it is quite clear that he didn't have an informed opinion on the conflict so decided the only way out of the question was to criticise Obama without knowing what he was talking about.


He alludes later to the fact that the President of the United States of America is privy to information that other people aren't, and once in possession of this knowledge a person's opinion may change.  This is a very sensible point, but the rest of this was handled terribly.  I wonder if his other controversies are having an affect on his performance.  Irrespective of this and whether or not it makes him fit to be President, surely the President of the USA needs to have at least a grip on current foreign policy matters?  Apparently this clip has "gone viral" one can only assume that it will damage his chances.

Blog posts I've been meaning to write...

I've had a rather busy October and as such my time blogging has been rather on the light side, so here's a short version of my take on a few things I wanted to write about but didn't get round to (each of which deserved their own post):

Col Gaddafi 

Probably the biggest piece of news I failed to comment on was the capture and death of Col Muammar Gaddafi.  Mark Cole is spot on when he says that it is easy for us to judge sitting in our "comfy sofas" thousands of miles away but I can't help the fact I side with George Potter in the opinion that he didn't deserve to die like that. In particular the quote from Martin Luther King:

"I mourn the death of thousands of precious lives, I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy"

I've always loved that quote and found it quite inspiring.  Anyone who knows me knows I am against the death penalty and believe firmly in human rights.  No-one can deny Col Gaddafi did terrible, terrible things and the people of Libya had great and valid reasons to want revenge, however human rights have to be universal - he should have had a fair trial, then he should have been locked away for the rest of his days.  Human rights can't only apply when we think they should otherwise it gives too much scope for states to abuse their citizens.  


I found the media coverage particularly distasteful, many of the scenes/pictures I saw should not have been viewed outside of the watershed - and definitely not put on the front pages of newspapers.  I realise that this is seen as a victory, I have not shed a tear for Gaddafi's passing, but neither have I raised a smile.  


My main thoughts are with the Libyan people.  I hope that they manage to rebuild their country and turn into a fully functioning democracy.

European Union In/Out? 

I am unashamedly pro European.  I believe it is in the best interests of the UK to be as closely aligned to our neighbours as possible.  The world's population will hit 7 billion next week yet the UK's population is under 70 million - that's less than 1% and therefore not much influence .  However when combined with our neighbours that grows to over half a billion and is therefore in a much better position to be influential on the world stage.  There is also the trade benefits of no taxes and yes it may cost us some money, things like the Common Agricultural Policy has always been contentious and there appears to be too much bureaucracy and waste in the system itself but for me that means that improvements need to be made within rather than renegotiating our position within it.


I admit I wanted us to join the Euro and hindsight being the wonderful thing it is I can say that I was wrong.  However, my long run position is that we should join it, I am now just looking into the very long run, if it is ever settled, stable and the countries in it have fully adjusted to monetary union, making our entry smoother - admittedly this day may never come.  


All of that said however, I probably agree with Simon McGrath - our MPs should have voted for a referendum, not because it's right (any referendum would have far too much xenophobia flying around and too many people would not realise the full implications) but because it's what we said we'd do - and no get out clause of precise wording regarding "change" can change that, it's all about perception.  At very least I would have wanted them to be allowed a free vote - it's not as if we were bound by the coalition agreement and plenty of Tories were going to defy the whip.  Saying that, I would have been with Tim Farron and voting no - although I'd rather be doing it in defiance of the whip which should stick to the parties position.  Lets face it we aren't doing well economically so to give people the chance to put a great big wedge between us and our major trading partners would be ridiculously foolish.  I fear many would look at the ongoing catastrophe that Greek/Italy/Spain/Portugal debt situation and think that if we withdraw from the EU that would magically stop the problem effecting us - well it wouldn't!  (Notice by the way I didn't mention Ireland in there - they call for a single post dedicated to their recovery).  I also think that it is insulting to the other members of the EU for us to be talking in such a self centred way about this.

University applications for 2012 down 9% 

Woah!  That's a scary headline... have tuition fees increasing meant that 9% fewer 17/18 year olds have applied to university - if so this is worrying, lets step back and think these figures through.  Reading through the article it gets worse at one point, when they say that this includes an increase from overseas applicants, the actual figure from UK applicants is down 12%.  That is scary that tuition fees have had such an effect... hang on a minute though, applications from Scotland are also down 12% and their fee levels next year will be £0... something doesn't add up.  


Step forward Mark Pack with his excellent analysis on the real figures and his five questions.  


Intuitively there are reasons behind it, firstly, these are just preliminary figures (based on the fact that a minority of courses have a deadline of 15 October to apply), it may be that many are taking their time as this is such a big decision that has gotten even bigger.


The vast majority of the decline has come from mature students, this in itself is intuitive.  They were in a position to change their plans and advance their studies/might have decided against it.  


When it actually comes down to it there has been a 2.4% like for like drop on expected levels (based on 2009 figures) of 18 year olds applying to University... however in the school year in which they were born there was a 2.3% decrease in birth rate.  In other words, it is just a 0.1% drop in those feared to be most affected by the fees that can't be explained by birth rates.  


The true picture will emerge in January when the deadline passes, so for now we shouldn't be passing judgement - merely educating the potential students that they will probably be better off financially, not worse as the scaremongering is doing.  


Andrew Emmerson does a great comparison in his excellent blog, which is possibly one of the best I've read on the subject of tuition fees, suggesting that the new policy will save him circa £15k over his lifetime - I think most people would admit that that is progressive.  

Vince Cable

(Taken from the Evening Standard)

One story that has really disappointed me is that Vince Cable has landed himself a penalty for late payment of VAT.  I agree that this is most likely an oversight.  I don't think there is anywhere near enough knowledge in the country about VAT and I'm sure it catches out a lot of people who've started their own businesses.  


That said it is incredibly foolish  for the Business Secretary (granted he wasn't in that role when the earnings were made) to get caught out in such a way.  He should know the rules and he should abide by them.  Yes he rectified the mistake as soon as it appears that it came to his attention but it shouldn't have ever come to this.  It's not like he's not knowledgeable, he really shouldn't have gotten caught out in this way.  Fortunately though, it has mainly just been embarrassing and even Labour haven't been twisting the knife:

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing 

I was really dismayed to read in the Guardian that Ministry of justice is planning on extending mandatory sentencing.  I am against any sort of prescriptive punishment that takes away from a judge the ability to apply the facts of a case to the guidelines that they have upon sentencing.  Whilst it can be in no doubt that the sorts of crimes being discussed are serious I believe that each case should be looked at in it's own right with consideration of guidelines as well as president.  


One hope is that by introducing minimum sentencing for knife crime by 16 and 17 year olds is that it would reduce the number of knives on the streets.  I seriously doubt sentencing has any impact on this.  Of those who would carry knives I wonder if any would even be aware of the change.  The only way to tackle an issue with this is preventative measures and rehabilitative punishments if found guilty, I personally can't see locking youngsters up for four months will do anything to change the trajectory of their lives.


One good thing said by Mr Clarke is that he wants:

"to replace the "failed" IPP sentences with a more certain regime, adding: "We've got 6,000 people languishing in prison, 3,000 of whom have gone beyond the tariff set by the judge, and we haven't the faintest idea when, if ever, they are going to get out."

It can never be right or fair for a person to be incarcerated for longer than their sentence without committing another offence, this goes against their fundamental rights irrespective of their original crime.  

Occupy

I guess since it is happening all over, including now in Bath I can't not comment on the Occupy movement.  Firstly I would like to point out that no matter how much I disagree with someone I will defend their right to protest and to voice their opinion (as long as it isn't hateful towards another person).  


I'll also start by defending them, lots of criticism has been aimed at the people for purchasing Starbucks or using their iPads whilst they are occupying as an anti-capitalist movement, however they are still living under the current rules that they wish to change so they will be living within it's boundaries.  You didn't see proponents of communism refuse to queue for hours to get their loaves of bread, pints of milk etc.  You didn't see those calling for privatisation refuse to use the services in the public sector - no thanks I don't want my water now.  


At the same time I guess this argument is that these conveniences (like the mobile phone technology, convenient coffee shops etc) wouldn't have come about if it wasn't for the capitalism that they are protesting against.  I don't think anyone would claim that it is perfect, I studied enough Economics at University to know that markets are far from the efficient ideal we'd like them to be.  It is also plainly clear that the game is rigged in favour for the ones who are at the top to stay at the top.  


For me this is one reason why I'm a Liberal Democrat.  They are always talking about social mobility, for me this is ensuring that a child's life will be of a better quality than their parents (not through the trickle down effect as this is an illusion).  When I look at my party, I'm proud to be a member, I may be naive but I really believe Nick Clegg when he says that as a party we are in nobodies pocket - be that the City and their Bankers, the Unions or the likes of Rupert Murdoch (they boycotted our conferences for long enough to make sure we stayed an insignificance) all of whom have a vested interest in keeping the people down.  People want to change the system, change the rules, the only effective way I can see this happening is from within the system itself - so like it or not I am still of the opinion that Nick is the best hope for the people in their tents to bring about any meaningful change but I admit we haven't yet gone far enough. 

Taking the "War on Drugs" to a whole new level...

Any regular reader will know I'm not a fan of the "War on Drugs" which is mainly due to the US's policies on the matter.  One of my main objections to it is that it can often lead to criminal records for people who've done nothing that has harmed another person or society (there may have been harm further down the supply chain, however this is also specifically due to the "War on Drugs").  It is therefore possible that a teenager's life could be ruined just because they want to impress people and happen to get caught carrying a couple of ecstasy tablets.  

The US want to take this one step further.  Now they are looking to prosecute people who don't even engage in illegal activity, but just plan to do something (anywhere in the world) which is illegal in the United States whilst in the country - irrespective of the legality of the action in the country(s) where the act would take place.  

You can read more about this here.  The article makes the absurd example of organising a wedding in Amsterdam:

"Under this bill, if a young couple plans a wedding in Amsterdam, and as part of the wedding, they plan to buy the bridal party some marijuana, they would be subject to prosecution," (Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance)

Under the Amsterdam wedding scenario, anyone who participated in the planning of the wedding with knowledge of the planned pot purchase would be guilty of conspiracy, even if their particular role was limited to buying flowers or booking the hotel.

The way I read the story I'd say it's even worse than that, just say two people booking to go away somewhere discussing the possibility that they may undertake in legal activities could be prosecuted - it doesn't even seem like they have to commit the activity.

I am not completely against the purpose of the bill:

"The law is a reaction to a 2007 case in which the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals threw out the convictions of two men who planned the transfer of cocaine from a Colombian drug cartel to a Saudi prince for distribution in Europe. Though the men planned the transaction from Miami, the court found that because the cocaine never reached the U.S. and was never intended to reach the U.S., the men hadn't committed any crime against the United States."

Given the fact that the US consider drug trafficking an offence then their reaction to not being able to prosecute people committing what they consider a crime is completely understandable - however planning to prosecute people for just planning what will be legal activities is just another example of the US trying to impose it's laws across the globe.  Sometimes they are for the benefit of people and an attempt to improve people's rights and lives but this does not, it creates victims, opens up black markets and leads to vulnerable people being exploited and finding it harder to get help.

The US has some very noble aims, however their drugs policy is completely ridiculous, in my opinion causes more harm than good and is completely hypocritical - in California, thanks to Proposition 215, it is legal for people who would benefit from medical marijuana to cultivate the crop.  Yet this article implies that someone (lets assume in a state other than California) advising a person how to cultivate cannabis would be breaking the law - would this be the case if they were advising a Californian?  I doubt it.

Protect freedom of speech everywhere...

This apparently isn't new news however it has only come to my attention because of Wikipedia's noble stance of temporarily (for now) shutting down their Italian website.  If you now go to their site (http://www.wikipedia.it) you get redirected to an excellent message explaining the decision (English version here).  The key paragraph(s) relating to the legislation ("DDL intercettazioni" - Wiretapping Act) they are protesting against are:  

"This proposal, which the Italian Parliament is currently debating, provides, among other things, a requirement to all websites to publish, within 48 hours of the request and without any comment, a correction of any content that the applicant deems detrimental to his/her image.

Unfortunately, the law does not require an evaluation of the claim by an impartial third judge - the opinion of the person allegedly injured is all that is required, in order to impose such correction to any website.

Hence, anyone who feels offended by any content published on a blog, an online newspaper and, most likely, even on Wikipedia would have the right for a statement ("correction") to be shown, unaltered, on the page, aimed to contradict and disprove the allegedly harmful contents, regardless of the truthfulness of the information deemed as offensive, and its sources."

In my opinion (hopefully this wont offend anyone - as I have no intention of posting a "correction") but assuming it's true as written above this is absolutely ridiculous.  If someone is offended by anything, no matter how true they could be fined unless their correction is posted in 48 hours.  It strikes me that maybe somebody has just become a bit frustrated with their media coverage and realised how their actions when reported could be detrimental to their interests.  The person doesn't obviously even have to be offended, all they need to do is say that they are in order to get perfectly true information about them hushed up/compromised or even the person reporting it punished.  


Even think of the logistics of the process - how can it be guaranteed that a person will even get the request in that 48 hours (it may have been published by someone who then went for a few days or a holiday away straight after).  In such cases, without the person being aware that they have offended someone with their free speech they would be penalised with a very large fine (apparently of €12,000).  This cannot be fair!


The repercussions could be serious, it could lead to blocking criticism of pretty much everything, Nadine Dorris, for example, may not be able to criticise Nick Clegg/The Lib Dems online because we'd be offended or visa versa. Political parties would probably end up having to carry opposing parties views whenever criticising their policy.  A person commenting on a sporting event saying a decision was wrong - well that can offend the official...  The Home Secretary could get into trouble, and I'm not lying, for talking about cats (oops - I couldn't resist)... I could come up with more ludicrous examples if I thought it wouldn't bore.  


I should clarify that the legislation as a whole appears to have some good parts however, (I'm not going to sit and read the entire thing unless someone tells me Wikipedia and myself have misinterpreted it), from the reporting it would appear that sections of it deal with the way certain things are reported in the press which then compromise trials.  I am always saying that too often future trials are open to miscarriages of justice because of how the press report on them (take the Christopher Yeates case for example).  Putting evidence in the public domain and prejudicing people towards a particular view on either the victim, defendant or circumstances should not be tolerable (I would have a blanket ban on naming any suspect until proved guilty) however in protecting people you should not be able to impede general free speech in the way Italy is doing.


The world rightly condemned the Egyptian government when they blocked social media amongst protesters - yet people were talking about doing the same here after the riots.  Restricting people's freedoms to have an opinion is wrong whether you are in Egypt, Italy or Westminster, Wikipedia should be proud of the ethical stance they have taken, I hope theirs and the Italian people's protests are successful!

Oppression is never right... probably a very naive blog...

I have started blogs on this subject many times, however I'm yet to finish one.  One always seems to be on dangerous ground, likely to offend someone whatever your point of view.


Mohmoud Abbas is today submitting a letter to the UN calling for recognition of a Palestinian state, after which he will address the assembly to present his case.  This will be followed by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking soon after.  The US have already stated that they will use their UN security council veto to block the move (the countries with vetoes are the permanent members, the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China).


Now I will never claim to be the most informed person on this subject, however as far as I'm concerned, the time when the Palestinian people have their own state cannot come soon enough - I don't see how any rational person wouldn't want the Palestinians their own state.  I am very anti-war, it wastes lives and rarely accomplishes anything.  In this case Israel and Palestine need to find a way to live alongside each other to prevent more lives being wasted.  


So should they be pressing this?  Personally, I don't think that submitting a request to the security council is a wise move (irrespective of whether the request itself is reasonable or fair).  The reason I don't think it's wise is because it will fail and given the tension in the area I'd be very surprised if it didn't lead to more trouble and as a result more wasted lives.


A vote on enhanced status however may be just the spark to help their peace processes.  To give them status equal to the Vatican and other similar regions would enhance their standing and wouldn't come up against the US veto.  It may not be ideal but it is feasible.  I am just worrying that the effect of their chosen course of action will have unintended negative consequences.


From a young age it has always confused me when it came onto the news, it was quite clearly favouring the Israelis, yet in my mind the seemed like the bad guys - they always appeared to be the ones holding the cards and imposing their will on people who lived in the same area, it seemed to me like oppression and it just seemed wrong.  Since I've become slightly more informed I've seen little to change my mind, the blockade on the Gaza Strip seems terrible to me and the attack on the Turkish vessel earlier this year (if they really did attack unarmed people) was an outright disgrace.  I know Hamas are(/were) a terrorist organisation and "the west" doesn't want to deal with them, but that is no reason to make the people living in that area suffer.  I don't agree with what Hamas have done in the past, but their actions have always been in defence of their people.  I don't agree with their methods but their reasons to me seem valid.


One thing that I've always wondered is why does no-one think outside of the box.  I know there are many issues that divide the two sets of people, over years people have been displaced and Israel keeps building in the West Bank among many other things however why do they only ever suggest a 2 state solution as the ultimate outcome?  One of the problems always mentioned is Jerusalem, obviously it is holey to both sets of people and both want it in their territories... why don't neither and both have it?  I may be looking at this problem too simply but why isn't there talk of a 3 state solution where Jerusalem is a separate entity (maybe similar to the Vatican City.  I know this would be terribly complex to administer but the people living in that city be independent, with free movement from either country into it and shared rule involving both Muslims and Jews?  I'm probably just naive and believe too much in pluralism and the ability of people to work together for the good of their people.


I've been writing this blog over the course of the day so things will have progressed - I'm nervous but glad to be posting one on this subject at about the fifth attempt.  I hope when I wake up they'll have progressed further in a positive way.