Apparently democracy in Romania is in great danger. In fact it's in the gravest of dangers since 1990.
People have been demonstrating for years, prime ministers went to prison, and corruption, apparently is high.
Yet not a peek from the EU. No angry sermons, no talks about (Western) European Values, just a muted reaction essentially saying "whatever". I guess you could make the argument that the very presence of protests mean that they are less corrupt than other Eastern members of the EU, but that would be quite a torturous argument... The fact is they are probably more corrupt than their neighbours, hence the protests.
Contrast this lack of interest to Poland, for example, which is facing some serious backlash for -guess what- rolling back democracy. Same with Hungary.
If you are the tinfoil-wearing type, you might ask why this difference in reactions.
Perhaps because Romania does not act as a thorn in Brussels's side about migration? Perhaps because unlike Hungary and Poland the Romanian government is not right-wing, hence their shenanigans are acceptable? (Just like in 2006 the Hungarian police was beating up random people was perfectly fine with regards to human rights and democracy?)
One can only wonder.
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Monday, December 18, 2017
Thursday, July 27, 2017
So what ties together Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the other repressive Arab states?
Well, it's their mutual dislike to Al Jazeera. Somehow Arab despots don't like independent journalism, and since Al Jazeera has angered them constantly, they put Qatar in a blockade -the whole "supporting terrorism" reason is a fig leaf. (And kind of a bold one coming from Saudi Arabia, but there you go. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.)
So what does the "only democracy in the Middle East" announce? Well, they are about to "remove it", of course.
It's always nice to see how democratic principles, such as freedom of speech matter to both repressive kingdoms and so-called democracies. The question remains, though. How democratic can you be when you are afraid of a news agency so much you violate press freedom? What does it say about you that you have something in common with a horrible repressive regime lead by fundamentalist nuts? And most telling of all: why isn't the whole "Western World" up in arms about it?
So what does the "only democracy in the Middle East" announce? Well, they are about to "remove it", of course.
It's always nice to see how democratic principles, such as freedom of speech matter to both repressive kingdoms and so-called democracies. The question remains, though. How democratic can you be when you are afraid of a news agency so much you violate press freedom? What does it say about you that you have something in common with a horrible repressive regime lead by fundamentalist nuts? And most telling of all: why isn't the whole "Western World" up in arms about it?
Monday, April 24, 2017
2017 French elections
The news has been full lately about how Le Pen wants to "exploit" the latest terror attack in Paris; also a lot of lamenting is about of how the Far Right is surging ahead. (Although it seems like these news outlets like to blame Le Pen herself, as if she was doing everything on her own, and the French had nothing to do with the whole thing, unlike those pesky Eastern Europeans, who are en bloc racist, and that's why they keep reelecting Nazis. Interesting contrast.)
This amount of blindness is simply astonishing.
If the Far Right wins in France, they win because they were handed the election on a golden plate. They were the only ones who expressed any unease about the increase of Islamic fundamentalism (and terrorism) in France; they were the only ones who dared to say anything about uncontrolled immigration. If the electorate shares some of these worries, some of these opinions, and nobody else picks them up, what do you think will happen? Sure, you can come up with statistics about how many more people die of other acts of violence than terrorism, but you'd miss the major point: most of those acts of violence happen between people who know each other. They don't involve thinking about speeding trucks when you take a stroll in a Christmas market, or gunmen when you're attending to a rock concert. You can say that if a drug dealer is murdered that it has nothing to do with you, and in some respect you'd be right. If you don't mix with the bad sort of people, in general, you have a good chance of avoid being beaten, knifed or shot. You can't say the same thing about terrorism; it's random, and it can kill you. The last couple of years have shown how inept security services are identifying individuals who may be planning acts of terrorism. Politicians have been shown to be delusional of what their electorate thinks about the influx of large number of largely uneducated Muslim migrants, and quick to condemn anyone who does. There has been an incredible amount of accusations of racism, xenophobia and Fascism for everyone who dared to voice any worries, devaluing the meaning of these words. In Western Europe only the Far Right was willing to address these issues, and now it does not shock anyone if you call them racist or Fascist; these words just don't mean anything; not really, not any more. Judging by the comment sections your average reader of even the Independent and Guardian will just think that people called racist merely did something that displeased the establishment.
If you ignore what people think don't be surprised if they vote for someone who they think does not ignore them; I think this is the take-home message.
In some respect it is beautifully democratic.
Let's just hope this time France does not elect a Far Right party, and let's hope the "mainstream" political elite gets their shit together before the next general election. We have had enough Trumps and Brexits already.
This amount of blindness is simply astonishing.
If the Far Right wins in France, they win because they were handed the election on a golden plate. They were the only ones who expressed any unease about the increase of Islamic fundamentalism (and terrorism) in France; they were the only ones who dared to say anything about uncontrolled immigration. If the electorate shares some of these worries, some of these opinions, and nobody else picks them up, what do you think will happen? Sure, you can come up with statistics about how many more people die of other acts of violence than terrorism, but you'd miss the major point: most of those acts of violence happen between people who know each other. They don't involve thinking about speeding trucks when you take a stroll in a Christmas market, or gunmen when you're attending to a rock concert. You can say that if a drug dealer is murdered that it has nothing to do with you, and in some respect you'd be right. If you don't mix with the bad sort of people, in general, you have a good chance of avoid being beaten, knifed or shot. You can't say the same thing about terrorism; it's random, and it can kill you. The last couple of years have shown how inept security services are identifying individuals who may be planning acts of terrorism. Politicians have been shown to be delusional of what their electorate thinks about the influx of large number of largely uneducated Muslim migrants, and quick to condemn anyone who does. There has been an incredible amount of accusations of racism, xenophobia and Fascism for everyone who dared to voice any worries, devaluing the meaning of these words. In Western Europe only the Far Right was willing to address these issues, and now it does not shock anyone if you call them racist or Fascist; these words just don't mean anything; not really, not any more. Judging by the comment sections your average reader of even the Independent and Guardian will just think that people called racist merely did something that displeased the establishment.
If you ignore what people think don't be surprised if they vote for someone who they think does not ignore them; I think this is the take-home message.
In some respect it is beautifully democratic.
Let's just hope this time France does not elect a Far Right party, and let's hope the "mainstream" political elite gets their shit together before the next general election. We have had enough Trumps and Brexits already.
Monday, February 13, 2017
We want your data. Or else
This has been a law a long time: Border Control has a right to search any and all electronic device you bring into the USA, 4th Amendment be damned. Obviously the Founding Fathers felt that laptops don't fall into the same category as sealed letters. Obviously. And it happens in Canada, too.
So this happens, and then the whole of Western world applauds US politicians expressing concern about data privacy laws in China and Russia without any obvious discomfort from cognitive dissonance. Where is this concern when it comes to the USA?
The latest furore in certain parts of the media when it actually happened to a real person (meaning: American) is quite loud nevertheless.
Let's stop for a second and think about this, shall we? Aside from the strange legal twisting of the Constitution so that you can claim that it is legal to essentially seize anyone's most private information at the border, there are things to consider here. One thing particularly.
The US is claiming it can do legally what even the Stazi, the KGB and the Gestapo could not really hope to achieve: get everything, every single piece of data you own. You have to give them access to all your files, all your information, otherwise you are either denied entry and/or arrested. It claims powers that the only the most autocratic regimes have ever claimed: an absolute right to every single piece of your private life. (The US also claims it has an absolute right over your life -namely it can end it without any legal processes, but it's also something we should not discuss at this present junction.)
Because let's face it: nothing can be hidden, unless you are content living in the Virginia mountains along with the rest of the nutjobs who are stockpiling canned food and ammunition before the inevitable FEMA crackdown on freedom (sorry, Freedom) comes. We all have our lives encoded in bits and bytes; it's a fact of life. Regardless how it's stored, you should still should have right to privacy. The US can just force anyone to give it up (the parts they have not already captured through the NSA) and -aside from some "fringe" lefties, like Chomsky- nobody is raising an eyebrow.
So where was the furore from these very same media outlets over these years? A couple of feeble articles on how to deal with the situation were all I could find from the "mainstream"; some reports on the CIA's capacity to hack into anything, and use cars to kill people; it's hardly the angry media response on an unprecedented infringement on personal privacy by the torch-bearer of freedom.
Despite of this we still claim the US is a liberal democracy. All this after the NSA, illegal wars and torture. Weird, isn't it?
So this happens, and then the whole of Western world applauds US politicians expressing concern about data privacy laws in China and Russia without any obvious discomfort from cognitive dissonance. Where is this concern when it comes to the USA?
The latest furore in certain parts of the media when it actually happened to a real person (meaning: American) is quite loud nevertheless.
Let's stop for a second and think about this, shall we? Aside from the strange legal twisting of the Constitution so that you can claim that it is legal to essentially seize anyone's most private information at the border, there are things to consider here. One thing particularly.
The US is claiming it can do legally what even the Stazi, the KGB and the Gestapo could not really hope to achieve: get everything, every single piece of data you own. You have to give them access to all your files, all your information, otherwise you are either denied entry and/or arrested. It claims powers that the only the most autocratic regimes have ever claimed: an absolute right to every single piece of your private life. (The US also claims it has an absolute right over your life -namely it can end it without any legal processes, but it's also something we should not discuss at this present junction.)
Because let's face it: nothing can be hidden, unless you are content living in the Virginia mountains along with the rest of the nutjobs who are stockpiling canned food and ammunition before the inevitable FEMA crackdown on freedom (sorry, Freedom) comes. We all have our lives encoded in bits and bytes; it's a fact of life. Regardless how it's stored, you should still should have right to privacy. The US can just force anyone to give it up (the parts they have not already captured through the NSA) and -aside from some "fringe" lefties, like Chomsky- nobody is raising an eyebrow.
So where was the furore from these very same media outlets over these years? A couple of feeble articles on how to deal with the situation were all I could find from the "mainstream"; some reports on the CIA's capacity to hack into anything, and use cars to kill people; it's hardly the angry media response on an unprecedented infringement on personal privacy by the torch-bearer of freedom.
Despite of this we still claim the US is a liberal democracy. All this after the NSA, illegal wars and torture. Weird, isn't it?
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Snooper's Charter
So finally, the government has gone through with the mass surveillance bill even the Americans would admire: the so-called Snooper's Charter.
Good job, you. I wonder what would Orwell say, but let's forget about that part.
What I'm really curious about is the muted response from the EU and Western powers. You would expect a general outcry, based on what happens whenever a newspaper goes bust in Hungary (never mind it was seriously in debt), or the government flaunts some shady surveillance bill idea, but no. While these things are obvious signs of dictatorship and totalitarianism in Hungary, clearly it's not the case in the UK. No general condemnation, no fiery speeches about Western values (sorry, Values). So to recap: the UK enacts a bill that would make any Stazi leader wet his pants, and nobody bats an eye. It's fine. Some left-leaning newspapers write some alarmist articles, but in general the political landscape (and the media) does not give a shit. Not one little bit of shit. No calls to impose sanctions for breaching EU's fundamental values, or exclude the UK from the EU (I know, I know, but it is a symbolic gesture, OK? You're not leaving, we're throwing you out because, guess what, you are shitting on the fundamental values we hold dear). This is quite telling about the whole issue of hypocrisy, doesn't it? The tone is similarly muted from the Hungarian Left; somehow there are no hysterical cries of totalitarian take-over of the most admired democracy... they are fine with this; the "West" is still the idol to look up to. Sure. Let's ignore the worrying signs that things are seriously going wrong everywhere. And if you don't think the UK is in danger of losing personal rights and freedoms, think about these issues:
1. Spying on MPs
2. Forward Intelligence Team
3. Special Demonstration Squad
and let's not forget about surveillance of peaceful groups, to the extend of undercover officers having families with the subjects of surveillance. Good job doing this democracy-thingy. And even the Germans are doing it: as usual, they prefer to do it so that they can be seen as clear.
What we see here is a general trend moving towards a totalitarian surveillance state in the Western World, but of course it's only a problem when a shitty little country is trying to emulate the big brothers (the term used in more than one meaning here, in case you miss the reference). Nobody wants to point out that the emperor has no clothes; perhaps the supposedly free press is not so free after all. (Who would have thought? They must be free, since about 70% is owned by one individual...)
Good job, you. I wonder what would Orwell say, but let's forget about that part.
What I'm really curious about is the muted response from the EU and Western powers. You would expect a general outcry, based on what happens whenever a newspaper goes bust in Hungary (never mind it was seriously in debt), or the government flaunts some shady surveillance bill idea, but no. While these things are obvious signs of dictatorship and totalitarianism in Hungary, clearly it's not the case in the UK. No general condemnation, no fiery speeches about Western values (sorry, Values). So to recap: the UK enacts a bill that would make any Stazi leader wet his pants, and nobody bats an eye. It's fine. Some left-leaning newspapers write some alarmist articles, but in general the political landscape (and the media) does not give a shit. Not one little bit of shit. No calls to impose sanctions for breaching EU's fundamental values, or exclude the UK from the EU (I know, I know, but it is a symbolic gesture, OK? You're not leaving, we're throwing you out because, guess what, you are shitting on the fundamental values we hold dear). This is quite telling about the whole issue of hypocrisy, doesn't it? The tone is similarly muted from the Hungarian Left; somehow there are no hysterical cries of totalitarian take-over of the most admired democracy... they are fine with this; the "West" is still the idol to look up to. Sure. Let's ignore the worrying signs that things are seriously going wrong everywhere. And if you don't think the UK is in danger of losing personal rights and freedoms, think about these issues:
1. Spying on MPs
2. Forward Intelligence Team
3. Special Demonstration Squad
and let's not forget about surveillance of peaceful groups, to the extend of undercover officers having families with the subjects of surveillance. Good job doing this democracy-thingy. And even the Germans are doing it: as usual, they prefer to do it so that they can be seen as clear.
What we see here is a general trend moving towards a totalitarian surveillance state in the Western World, but of course it's only a problem when a shitty little country is trying to emulate the big brothers (the term used in more than one meaning here, in case you miss the reference). Nobody wants to point out that the emperor has no clothes; perhaps the supposedly free press is not so free after all. (Who would have thought? They must be free, since about 70% is owned by one individual...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)