There have been a few stories about China on this blog - China and Google, China and Microsoft, Falun Gong - and it seems that they’ve noticed. China’s internet censoring technology, dubbed the Great Firewall of China, now blocks this site. You can test your own site at a “great firewall” test site. Are you as dangerous as a mongol horde?
Hat tip: Pacific Empire.
Wanganui District Council’s last attempt to pass a bylaw banning gang patches failed because the council doesn’t have the legal power to pass bylaw that contravene the NZ Bill of Rights Act.
The Press reported* yesterday that National MP Chester Borrows is poised to sponsor a bill in Parliament that would effect the ban. If the Wanganui ban succeeds, Christchurch is likely to follow suit. Christchurch mayor Garry Moore expressed his support for the idea in December. Everything I wrote then still stands.
Hat tip: No Right Turn.
*The story has disappeared from Stuff. This is Google’s cached copy.
Spiked describes itself as “an independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms.”
Spiked has a couple of interesting articles at the moment. Tyranny of the individual examines today’s thin-skinned culture, in which any individial can complain and cause a product or advertisement to be pulled.
Today’s culture of inoffensiveness, the idea that ‘You can’t say that!’ if it hurts someone’s feelings, has given rise to censure based on tiny numbers of people claiming to have felt offended. Once society accepts that it is legitimate to protect individuals or groups from the subjective category of ‘offensive’ speech or expression, then that gives carte blanche to individuals everywhere to demand the removal of things they don’t like. At least the old censors claimed to be democratic, to represent a ‘silent majority’ or ‘public decency’; of course this was nonsense, because in fact they tended merely to dress up their own values as the nation’s values. Today, by contrast, groups like Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority openly respond to tiny handfuls of complaints, using the bogeyword of ‘offensive!’ to remove certain words and images from the public realm.
In Denial, Frank Furedi looks at the emergence of ‘denial’ as the new blasphemy, the calls for those heretics who don’t correctly follow ecological doctrine to be punished, and the effect of all this on free speech.
Many influential figures have a cavalier attitude to free speech, believing that ‘dangerous’ ideas should be repressed. Disbelief in today’s received wisdom is described as ‘Denial’, which is branded by some as a crime that must be punished. It began with Holocaust denial, before moving on to the denial of other genocides. Then came the condemnation of ‘AIDS denial’, followed by accusations of ‘climate change denial’. This targeting of denial has little to do with the specifics of the highly-charged emotional issues involved in discussions of the Holocaust or AIDS or pollution. Rather, it is driven by a wider mood of intolerance towards free thinking.
The Greens reported on Friday that Falun Gong had been kicked out of the Cuba Carnival and Chinese New Year celebrations in Wellington.
[Green Party Wellington City spokesperson Iona] Pannett said “this issue once again raises serious questions about the Council’s commitment to freedom of speech in the city. This decision infringes on Falun Gong’s right to free speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and to any other group or individual who wants to speak on issues that the Council does not agree with.”
Greens co-leader Russel Norman, writing on FrogBlog, says
The word is that the Council told them that the Chinese Embassy had paid for the big Chinese New Year celebration and the Chinese Embassy did not want Falun Gong in the parade, so they had to go.
“The word” presumably comes from Falun Gong. Wellington City Council would deny any connection.
Norman rightly continues:
If the story is accurate then the City Council is bending to the will of a foreign government to suppress freedom of expression in return for money.
Regular Section 14 readers will remember that Falun Gong were also excluded from Wellington’s Christmas parade.
One of the biggest upsides of globalisation is that as well as Coca-Cola and Versace, people in dictatorships like China also get a taste for other Western goods like freedom of expression. It would be a travesty if the reverse were to occur and we imported this dictatorship’s repressive policies into New Zealand.
The Australian Classification Review Board has banned Dr Philip Nitschke’s Peaceful Pill Handbook.
The decision (PDF) states that
The Classification Review Board determined that The Peaceful Pill Handbook warrants Refused Classification (RC) because it instructs in the crime of the manufacture of barbiturates. Further, a majority of the Review Board determined that it also instructs in the crimes of the possession and importation of barbiturates and in offences under Coroners legislation in all States and Territories.
So there you have it. In Australia (and stay alert in New Zealand), free speech is less important that the idea that citizens should surrender control of their lives to their political masters and the loss of free speech is regarded as the acceptable collateral damage from the war on drugs.
In the wake of the successful second reading of Sue Bradford’s amendment to the Crimes Act, which would outlaw smacking, CYFSWatch has entered the debate with a post describing a fantasised beating of the MP and suggesting she is “a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination.”
The question is: does this post constitute something close enough to an act of force that it should be banned?
And the answer is no. Expressing violent fantasies doesn’t do much for CYFSWatch’s cause, given that they’re advoctaing on behalf of people who have had children removed by the state - parents who have probably been accused of abuse - but that doesn’t mean that their opinions should be illegal.
The fantasised beating is an attempt to explain the difference between smacking someone and beating them up, a key distinction that opponents of the anti-smacking bill feel is being glossed over. It’s written in a graphic manner but I don’t believe it constitutes a genuine threat. It is simply strong rhetoric.
Likewise, the supposed “death threat” is political commentary. Bradford’s position has roused strong emotions and this is an extreme expression of that. The writer does not threaten assassination, but simply calls Bradford “worthy” of assassination. How many people have made the same assertion about George W. Bush? There’s no evidence that the implied threat is anything more than hyperbole or that the writer has the means or intent to carry out a real attack.
Should genuine violent intent become apparent, a line will have been crossed from thought to action and preventative action will be required by the Police. Until then no action should be taken against the writer and Bradford should carry on with her job as a parliamentarian uncowed.
UPDATE 11:00am: CYFSWatch is gone - shut down by Google. The Watching CYFS site is still active but doesn’t contain all of the CYFSWatch posts.
UPDATE 23/2/07: CYFSWatch is back, this time hosted by WordPress, but the old posts have not been restored. I wonder whether they can stay inside the WordPress terms of service or whether the Ministry of Social Development’s crack legal team will carry the day.
UPDATE 1/03/07: The WordPress site has disappeared, saying that the authors have deleted it. In a post at a new Blogger blog, the authors claim they didn’t delete the WordPress site and have asked WordPress what happened.
UPDATE 3/03/07: They’re back, this time with their own domain.
Matt Robson has made the apology required of him by Parliament’s Privileges Committee. Back in November Robson made some remarks about Peter Dunne’s links to the tobacco industry and Dunne complained.
Despite Robson no longer being a member of Parliament, the Committee was still able to act as judge and jury for Robson’s “offence”. No need for Dunne to worry about any inconvenient libel case like the rest of us would have to.
Robson made sure to reinforce his original point during his apology 
In my November 1 newsletter I contrasted United leader Peter Dunne’s strong rhetoric in favour of the interests of families against his party’s vote against family-friendly policies like my Four Weeks’ Annual Leave Bill in 2003 and his own vote against my 2005/’06 Bill to raise the alcohol purchasing age to 20.
I would like to make an unqualified apology to Hon Peter Dunne that the wording of the original version of that November 1 newsletter to members and friends might have been misinterpreted by some to suggest that Robson-on-politics was in anyway suggesting that Mr Dunne was not an honourable person.
Another story for the ‘pathetically-thin-skinned’ file came out of Oxford University this week. Spiked has the story of Merton College at Oxford, where all the students got a good lecturing about refraining from “unacceptable and extremely offensive” behaviour.
The vile crime that provoked this stern crackdown? During a pool game, someone used the word “gay” in a derogatory way, as in “that shot was so gay”. Says Spiked:
The idea that students should behave according to some predetermined college ethos stands in stark contrast to the old idea of universities as places where young people should be free to experiment, to think, to argue, to learn, to say what they please in a student common room…. Enforcing an official dogma about words, phrases and actions betrays an elitist view of what sort of behaviour is appropriate, and what is not.
Worse, it treats students as children who either must be reprimanded for saying naughty words or who must be protected from the jokey words of big ‘bully boys’ by student officials posing as social workers. This infantilises students – which is hardly conducive to creating an atmosphere where students can grow, both educationally and personally.
Merton College, founded in 1264, boasts the oldest surviving working library in the United Kingdom but sadly their copy of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty seems to have gone missing.
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
This “harm principle” defines the boundary of what should be permitted speech. The “harm” caused by speech should be palpable if that speech is to be banned. Being a bit miffed at a throwaway comment does not constitute palpable harm.
Here’s a Walt Disney propaganda cartoon explaining how children are turned into fascist soldiers, complete with Teutonic knights sweeping in to Ride of the Valkyries and Voltaire’s books going up in flames.
If you’re going to watch this at work, you might want to turn the volume down lest your colleagues wonder what all the Heil Hitlers are about.
Hat tip: Boing Boing.
The New Zealand Herald reported today that Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims were upset with the use of the word “tolerance” in the Human Rights Commission’s Draft National Statement on Religious Diversity, wanting something more - respect and understanding.
Leave aside the question of why we need a National Statement on Religious Diversity - I guess it gives the clipboard-wielders something to fill their days. If we’re going to have such a thing, what should it offer?
The document (Word .doc, 25 kB) begins with some fluff but the meat is in the guidelines. They start off well by assuring us that New Zealand has no state religion and that freedom of religion is to be upheld. Of more concern is
4. The Right of Freedom of Expression
The right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press are vital for democracy, but shall be exercised with responsibility and in an informed manner.
According to the Human Rights Commission, I do not have the right to express myself unless I express myself “with responsibility and in an informed manner”.
This is incredibly dangerous. Who gets to decide whether or not I’m being responsible? Am I responsible if I criticise a “faith community” and members of that “faith community” violently overreact? We cannot allow ourselves to get into the situation that exists in some countries where a deliberately thin-skinned group can hold us to ransom, can force us to censor ourselves under the threat of violence.
Freedom of expression is far too important to be thrown away trying to legislate politeness. Tolerance is all that a free society can offer. To demand respect, or more, for one person’s beliefs is to limit their right of others to express their beliefs.
Hat tip: Kiwiblog.
The prosecution in France’s Muhammad cartoons trial has dropped all charges against Charlie Hebdo magazine, which republished the Jyllands-Posten cartoons along with some of its own - including a cover picture of Muhammad saying “It’s tough being loved by idiots.”
Charlie Hebdo was prosecuted for inciting hatred but the trial brought a huge backlash from the defenders of free speech and the prosecution has asked that the magazine be cleared of all charges.
“Free speech is not the issue here. The issue is that, in France, racism is not an opinion, it is a crime,” said Francis Szpiner, lawyer for the Grand Mosque, which has sued along with the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF).
“Two of those caricatures make a link between Muslims and Muslim terrorists. That has a name and it’s called racism.” During the cartoon controversy, offended Muslims demanded an apology and a ban on criticising Islam.
President Jacques Chirac accused Charlie Hebdo of willfully provoking Muslims.
On the side of Charlie Hebdo was an array of philosphers, intellectuals, and politicians:
Even [Interior Minister Nicolas] Sarkozy defended Charlie Hebdo, which typically portrays him as a nightstick-swinging policeman or a rabid pitbull terrier. But Sarkozy - stumping this year as a candidate for president from the conservative UMP party - characterized himself as a critic of “every form of censorship” in a written statement to the court. Sarkozy argued it was better to have “too many cartoons” than “no cartoons” and defended the “right to smile.”
Hat tip: Foreign Policy.
December last year saw the welcome death of Turkmenistan’s comic tyrant Saparmurat Niyazov. In typical tinpot style the incoming president, Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow, was elected with a massive majority against no opposition party candidates. So far, so bad.
The new president is, surprisingly, off to an excellent start. Within a week of formally taking power, Berdimuhammedow has legalised Internet access in Turkmenistan and the capital, Ashkabat, has its first Internet cafes. Internet cafe owners report that there are no restrictions on sites that may be visited.
This is huge. Despite the fact that Internet access costs NZ$6 an hour, which is way out of the reach of ordinary Turkmen, the fact that the world’s information is now allowed into the country unrestricted is an enormous change for the better. If information is genuinely unrestricted then, in this respect, Turkmenistan may now be freer than China, France, or New Zealand.
Hat tip: Liberty Scott.
A group of science fiction authors in Britain has written an anthology of short stories to deliberately break the new Terrorism Act.
The Act prohibits behaviour which “glorifies the commission or preparation” of terrorist acts.
The book, Glorifying Terrorism, features stories which praise “terrorism” from the likes of Nelson Mandela.
Welcome to Rackstraw Press, created in response to the Terrorism Act of 2006 - the controversial ban on the
glorification of terrorismin the UK.This Act is opposed by people from many political parties as an attack on free speech. Government protests that it will only be used if someone “directly incites” terrorism have been regarded as implausible by lawyers who point to the many other laws which currently cover this action.
Science fiction is a political genre. There are many science fiction writers who have already written novels and stories which could be considered in contravention of the law.
Everything evil that terrorists might get up to, like blowing stuff up or planning to blow stuff up, is already illegal. There is absolutely no justification for criminalising the expression of opinion; if the battle aganst terrorism is a battle against those who would destroy our freedoms, this sort of legislation is a scorched earth policy.
There is no value in the Jim Anderton approach (used when discussing media censorship of suicide stories) that sweeping censorship should be used to keep the “lowest common denominators” in line. Criminalising everyone with wide ranging laws and then picking and choosing who to prosecute is police state behaviour.
Hat tip: Boing Boing.
Cuba, one of the least connected countries in the world, where less than 2% of people have access to the Internet, on Monday blamed the United States embargo for its restrictive laws.
[Cuban Communications Minister Ramiro Valdes] defended Cuba’s “rational and efficient” use of the Internet, which puts computers in schools and government computer clubs while prohibiting home connections for most citizens and blocking many sites with anti-government material.
Valdes, clearly in two minds about the Internet, described it as “one of the tools for global extermination” but then said it was necessary to “advance down the path of development”.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) countered:
It would anyway have been astonishing if a country that has no independent radio or TV station or newspaper did allow unrestricted access to the Internet. We await the creation of a better Internet connection via Venezuela, as the minister announced, and we will then see if the government finally allows its citizens access to an uncensored Internet.
In its October report on the Internet in Cuba, RSF noted that
[The U.S. embargo] may indeed explain the slowness of the Cuban Internet and the endless lines outside Internet cafes. But in no way does it justify the system of control and surveillance that has been put in place by the authorities. In a country where the media are under the government’s thumb, preventing independent reports and information from circulating online has naturally become a priority.
The regime also ensures that there is no Internet access for its political opponents and independent journalists, for whom reaching news media abroad is an ordeal. The government also counts on self-censorship. In Cuba, you can get a 20-year prison sentence for writing a few “counter-revolutionary” articles for foreign websites, and a five-year one just for connecting with the Internet in an illegal manner. Few people dare to defy the state censorship and take such a risk.
Given that it’s the excuse that’s used for everything that’s wrong with Cuba, I would love to see the U.S. lift the embargo and accelerate the Cuban dictatorship’s collision with the open world.
Wafa Sultan, speaking on Danish Television, makes the point that the Danish cartoons furore was good for Islam. She says that the hyperbolic response to the cartoons was to be expected because Islam is a culture that hasn’t questioned itself for fourteen hundred years; that Islam is a prison that traps Muslims and the only way out of that prison is for the walls to be broken down from outside; that the cartoon controversy is a crack in the wall.
Free speech is unheard of in Islamic culture because Islam brooks no criticism. Sultan says that Islam is not just a religion but also a political ideology “that applies its agenda by force”. She believes that by publishing the Mohammed cartoons Western newspapers are helping Muslims to get used to being criticised, essential because without criticism Islam cannot be transformed.
Sultan believes that change is possible and says that she remains optimistic about positive change in the long term. With Wafa Sultan’s voice heard on Al-Jazeera and over the Internet in interviews like this one, she may hint at the answer to Eric Schmidt’s question of what will happen when the next billion internet users come online.
Hat tip: Not PC.
You are currently browsing the Section 14 weblog archives for February, 2007.
