Peace for Khan…

January 15, 2009 — xanthippa

 

Rest in peace, Ricardo Montalban!

This chilly morning finds us saying good bye to Star Trek’s sexiest villain, Khan, brilliantly brought to like by Ricarcdo Montalban.

The Wrath of Khan was the only Star Trek movie worth the time to watch it – and, in my never-humble-opinion, Ricardo Montalban’s genius in bringing Khan to life is what sets The Wrath of Khan from the other Star Trek Movies.

Of course, Khan was not just part of the movies – he was one of the originals!   His portrayal of the 20th century genetically altered, crygenically preserved villain is one of those classic episodes which made Star Trek the archetypal classic it has become.

Ricardo Montalban was, of course, an accomplished actor before Star Trek – but it is as the brilliantly evil Mr. Khan that he will always live on in my heart.  I hope he finds peace.

 

Posted in society. Tags: . 1 Comment »

Fascism now rules ‘The West’

January 13, 2009 — xanthippa

First, let me state clearly and unequivocally that this post has nothing to say about the (so euphemistically called) ‘conflict’ currently under way in Gaza.  The particulars of the conflict and those involved in it are irrelevant to what this post is meant to address.  It could be any conflict, anywhere, between any groups: atrocities or not…. 

Instead, this is a story about how we, in ‘The West’, have woken up to find ourselves in a fascist police state.  The official government position – as enforced by the police – is truly frightening.

No, we cannot see it everywhere – yet.  But, we do see it.

No, the grip is not a stronghold – yet.  But, it is unmistakably there, and it is tightening.

No, most of us have not felt it – yet.  But, some of us have… and if it can happen to some of us, it can happen to all of us!

Please, consider the following:

  1. In Germany, police enter an apartment without a warrant while the occupants are not home and remove ‘offensive material’ . (Hat tip:  Breath of the Beast)  I do not care what material they removed or why it was ‘offensive’ – it was not illegal.  When police abandon the rule of law and due process – for whatever reason, we all have reason to fear for our safety.
  2. In Alberta, Canada – in front of Prime Minister Harper’s constituency office – a man waving a tiny flag is told by police to stop it, or he will be arrested for ‘inciting civil disorder’.  This was not a flag of an outlawed organization of any sort.  The man was not tresspassing, or obstructing traffic.  When the police arbitrarily threaten citizens, who have not broken any laws, with arrest – we all have reason to fear for our safety.
  3. In Montreal, Canada (still), the police fail to even attempt to take any action whatsoever when a mob incites violence against a group identified by their religious beliefs.  Incinting violence is against the law.  Promoting prejudice against an identifiable group – on the grounds of religion – is also against the law in Canada.  When the police fail to enforce the laws of the land – we all have reason to fear for our safety.
  4. In Toronto, Canada, a protester publicly and loudly utters a death threat against a child – police look on and do not arrest the law-breaker.  When the police arbitrarily fail to enforce laws – and uttering death-threats is a criminal offence – especially when a child is threatened – we all have reason to fear for our safety.

If this is not a clear and unequivocal demonstration that the rule of law is disintegrating, I do not know what is!

Before anybody has a chance to justify unjustifiable acts, citing some crap about ‘being oppressed’ (and that includes people who like to play at ‘oppressed’) and only acting out as a result of social oppression, please, let me tell you a story about a little boy….

I was born and raised in a country occupied by foreign military forces which imposed an oppressive, totaliritarian dictatorship.  The foreign military forces never left:  and were reviled by most of the population.  Even those among the populace who subscribed to the political doctorine of the dictatorship resented the presence of the foreign forces which enforced it.

One day, when I was about 10 years old, I had surgery and had to stay in the Children’s hospital for a while.  I was in a room with 4 beds and 6 kids (2 of the beds had little kids, so, in the highly-rationed medical system which is the hallmark of socialism, there were often 2 kids per bed….I remembered sharing a bed (and not having a pillow or a blanket, because they ‘ran out’) from an earlier stay there. 

I was one of the 2 lucky kids to have a bed to myself (I was pretty big for my age).  The other kid that had a bed to himself was a cute little  boy, about 4-5 years old, who had fallen out of a tree he was climbing – breaking both arms, getting 2 very black eyes and a bit of a concussion.  The Children’s hospital did not allow any visitors, because children would cry when visitors left – yet, my little tree-climbing room-mate’s father was allowed to visit him…

Why?

The dad was a general in the foreign occupying forces!

The little boy lived on the military base, because his dad was one of the highest ranking officers – and thus one of the few ones priviledged enough to keep a wife and a family.  As such, the little boy had never encountered any of us ‘natives’ – and did not speak or understand our language.  The fact that his dad was allowed to visit him caused incredible resentment among the other kids, none of whom were not allowed any visitors (some of us for weeks)…  The fact that he was a son of a general of the foreign occupying forces also caused most of the nurses to greatly resent him – and many refused to speak to him in his language – feighning ignorance – just because of his heritage.

Now, my family was directly targetted for persecution by the political regime whose power stemmed directly from this foreign occupation.  My uncle had the secret service follow him, 24/7, all of his post-invasion life – even to the point of taking photos of everyone who had attended his funeral.  My dad was sent to the uranium mines because he was identified as a ‘potential leader of people against the people’.  My mom was pressured (by threats against me and my ‘continued well-being’) to divorce him.  She resisted.  We were ‘identified as undesirable elements’; enough that from my earliest childhood memories (pre-school), people would forbid their kids to play with me at playgrounds once they learned my name, lest this minimal association is ‘reported’ and prevents these kids from getting an education a decade-and-a-half later…  My teachers (grades 1-5) regularly berated be in front of my classmates, lest they be accused of ‘coddling the child of a political dissident’ – and loose their job or miss out on a promotion…. 

In other words, you could say I had a good reason to resent the ‘occupying forces’ – personally.  And I did – truly, by this age, I truly did.

But, I could not condone the social ostracism this little boy was subjected to!!!

He was little – it was not his fault his dad was a general!!!  He was hurt, concussed, stuck into a place where he did not understand the language – and many people treated him very, very coldly.  I could NOT stand it!!!

I translated for him – whenever I could (and, many of the nurses were ‘shamed’ by this into speaking to him in his native tongue – even if poorly).  Both his arms were broken – and in casts… so, I fed him (it was not the nurses’ job to feed the kids, just to deliver the food…).  When he was frightened, or cried because he missed his mom, I dredged up all the memories of nursery rhymes and little songs and poems in his language and tried to comfort him (he must have been tone deaf, as well, because he seemed to be comforted by my singing). 

At first, I did not know him – and the sight of his father’s uniform filled me with hate!  I am ashamed to admit it now, but it really did.  (Please, remember I was quite young  and deeply hurt myself back then….)  Yet, I KNEW I had to help the little boy!  Not helping a sick, frightened child would have made me less than human!

Until now, I have only told my immediate family about this.  So, why am I sharing this deeply private and emotional event in my life, I cannot but feel very, very vulnerable.

Yet, when I read the shallow justifications of many ‘Canadians’:  ‘These people have been oppressed!” – to excuse the call for the MURDER OF A CHILD – just because this is a child of a perceived oppressor…..  that is just so very, very wrong!!!! 

I cannot explain just how deeply offensive this is to me….

No matter who the child is, no matter what the child’s parents have done – or what his clansmen, co-nationalists or co-religionists have done – NOTHING can justify the call for the murder of a child!!!

Every attempt to justify the murder of any child is not only an insult me, personally, but to every single person who has sufferred oppression – yet did not loose their humanity!!!

(Sorry, I don’t really know how to write a ‘proper’ conclusion to this post…. )

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

Can labour unions re-invent themselves?

January 13, 2009 — xanthippa

The context for my idea here is that Ottawa, Canada’s capital, is on day 34 of a full and complete public transit strike.  And while these comments were inspired by this particular strike, I think my observation might be general enough to be portable.

While a ‘bus strike’ is inconvenient any time, an Ottawa winter is a particularly unpleasant time for it:  biking or walking  are much less attractive options during snow-storms or when the mercury dips to -20 degree Celsius or lower… 

The reason for the strike?  Control.

The  details of this particular strike are really not all that important… The City of Ottawa had, a few years ago, been amalgamated from the local communities.  During amalgamation, the governance structures were not properly designed to balance the concerns of the civil service labour unions to look after their employees on the one hand and the ability of the City to manage its employees on the other.  The current Mayor and City Council have been attempting to regain the very ability to manage the City’s operations – and the City’s employees.

Now, the first of 8 or 9 employee union contracts (bunched together, from the amalgamation) has come up for renewal.  Surprisingly enough, this union chose to go on strike!

The City has offered a substantial salary increase in its latest offer  (certainly above expectations) in exchange for increased ability to manage – and prevent some blatant abuses of ‘the system’ identified in a recent audit.  Currently, this is controlled by the union – and the union has made it clear they will not give up their power, no matter what. 

Before a vote on the most recent contract offer (when the union had to be legislated to even present it to its members), the head of this union as well as the head of the ‘umberella union of unions’ have urged the members to refuse the contract ‘in solidaruty with all the other unions whose contracts are coming up shortly’.  Some members told me they left the union rally, shouting:  “We’ll stick it to Mayor O’Brien!”

Thus, we are in day 34 of the ‘bus strike’.

In a way, this bus strike has unified the citizens of Ottawa.  People give lilfts to friends, co-workers or, at times, complete strangers (I have).  It has become a sort of a ‘community building’ project.  Just about everyone, even merchants whose businesses are suffering the most, are united in their support of the City Council’s strong position – saying the Council must not give in.

Today, I was (as I often do) listening to a local open-line radio station where the host was – very effectively – asking callers what would be an effective solution:  cut through the rhetoric, the ‘rights and wrongs’ of each side’s positions, and actually try to come up with a solution which might work.  Very constructive – my compliments to him (though I have criticized him in the past on this blog).

I am a slow thinker… so, it was not until it was too late to call in that I got an idea – one I have not heard discussed anywhere before, but which I thought might break this stalemate.  And, if acceptable, this could help unions throughout ‘The West’ reinvent themselves for the emerging economy.  Have we not all seen evidence of just how out of touch with today’s economc and cultural situation many of the labour unions are?  Perhaps this could help…

It is impossible to serve two masters.  The employees cannot possibly be managed by both the union and the City at the same time – not in an effective way which would create an aimcable workplace atmosphere.  As long as there is a power struggle, there will be tension and stress and things will not work well.  Translating to bureaucrateese:  ‘Responsibility to multiple governance structures with non-congruent goals often results in an environment which has historically been unlikely to result in a positive atmosphere within the community of practice; in particular, one which would be conducive to collaborative efforts implementing best practices, thus creating a centre of excellence.’

The Resolution of the ‘Ottawa Bus Strike’ :

  • identify all sides’ responsibilities
  • identify all sides’ goals
  • find a solution to satisfy all of these

Responsibilities:

An employer – private or public – has a responsibility to its customers, citizens/shareholders as well as to its employees to manage effectively.  Here, the employer is the City of Ottawa.  In order to do fulfil its responsibilities, the City must retain management control – it is not their right, it is their responsibility to the user’s of OC Transpo (Ottawa’s public transit), to the citizens of Ottawa (the taxpayers) AND to its employees.

The labour union also has a clear mandate:  look after the interests of their membership in the workplace.  To this end, it is their responsibility to negotiate the best possible contract for their members form the emplolyer.

The employee/union member has the responsibility to live up to an agreed-upon contract.  They also have the responsibility to elect a union leadership which understand and accurately represents their best long-term interests.

Goals:

The goal of the City is to provide service to the citizens in the most effective manner possible and to live up to its responsibilities to the City’s employees.

The goal of the union is to manage things to be most beneficial to its employees.

The goal of the employees/members is to have a good job with fair compensation, with a good working conditions.

The way to satisfy all these responsibilities as well as all the goald – the best win-win solution – (in my never-humble-opinion) is to ralign who the employer is!

If these civil servants ceased to be employed by the City, but became employees of the union instead, all the goals and responsibilities would be satisfied!

The City and the union would negotiate a contract,  clearly and specifically defining all  the services the union will provide to the City,  and the price the City will pay the union for these services.  All expectations and details would be clear in the contract, with legal consequences for non-compliance from either side clearly spelled out.

The benefit to the union?  The members would retain the self-management which they are demanding by this strike – plus more.   This would not only respect the union’s jurisdiction, it would present them with an unprecedented opportunity to truly look after its membership. 

The benefit to the union members?  Since the union leadership is elected by the members, this would, in a very real way, be a form of self-government and would empower them.  This could only improve the workplace atmosphere – as they would be in full control of their working conditions!

The benefit to the City?  By contracting the union, rather than its members, the members would no longer be City employees, which would remove the City’s responsibility to them. The City could abolish the now-redundant layer of management and streamline its operations.  The final contract’s cost would be fixed, which would make the city’s budgeting much more efficient.

Is there a down side to this solution?

If it works,l could this model be used by other labour unions to help themselves re-structure, in order to remain relevant in the emerging economy?

Update:  Today, on day 35 of this transit strike, an opportunistic Councillor turned his back on the principles he defended as late as last week and broke ranks with the rest of the Council and, in a transparent effort to secure the backing of the powerful unions in his upcoming bid for the Mayor’s Chair, he has thrown his support behind the union. 

Still, according to my proposed model, his position would be accommodated:  the union would indeed retain the control they seek.  They would have to accept the responsibility which goes with the control they are striking to retain.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Religion (definition): part 2

January 9, 2009 — xanthippa
To recap from Religion (definition): part 1 :

Religion is a particular state of mind.  It covers beliefs (faith), convictions and even concepts or principles that humans find note-worthy, worship-worthy or love-worthy.  I attempted to demonstrate that different people define ‘religion’ very differently from each other (and from my above definition), providing example of a school librarian who only considered several sects of Christianity as ‘religion’ (not even covering all of Christianity) and classifying all else as ‘mythology’.  As there is no provision in our society for ‘protection from discrimination on the grounds of mythology’, should everyone define the term as narrowly (or according to their own particular liking), this would effectively place many ‘religions’ outside of legal protection…. 

C.G. Jung’s definition of ‘religion’ (which I happen to like because it is clear, concise and can be workable in both a personal and a legal context – as well as being a definition I think most people could accept), is as follow:

Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.

This definition would effectively eliminate the problem which I cited in the ‘librarian’ example – and more.

This definition of religion limits it to a peculiar attitude of the mind:  not the practices or ritualswhich accompany it.

As such, whereever freedom of religion was guaranteed, a person could believe, admit and openly discuss all aspects of their religion freely, without regard to how ‘offensive’ this may be to other religions or to some members of the society.   However, since religion is limited (by definition) to a state of mind – not actions – one could not claim protection under ‘freedom of religion’ laws for taking action which would contravene the laws of the land that person would happen to be living in.  In my never-humble-opinion, drawing a very firm line between ‘beliefs/thoughts/ideas’ and expressing them freely (protected) and actions (not protected) is very, very important.

All actions which contravene the laws of the land – no matter how much rooted in or motivated by ‘religion’ – ought not enjoy any protection under ‘freedom of religion’.

Example:

Human sacrifice is an integral part of many bona fide religions.  From ancient Egypt and other parts of Africa, to China and Japan, to Europe, and the Americas – human sacrifice was an integral part of many religious rituals.  If actions based on religious belief were to be protected under ‘freedom of religion’, any person claiming to subscribe to any one of these religions could commit ritual murder without fear of prosecution or any kind of legal action.  The murderer would be protected under ‘freedom of religion’.

I particularly selected human sacrifice for my example because it is so extreme.  Yet, it is a well documented part of many religious rituals!  If there is a blanket protection for actions based on religious belief, even such extreme acts as ritualized murder would be protected.

In no way am I proposing that this ought to be so.  To the contrary.  I am demonstrating in as strong terms as I can think of that ‘freedom of religion’ must not be allowed to excuse acts which are in breech of secular laws.  OK, so the ‘religious practice’in question need not be as drastic as human sacrifice:  it could be polygamy, ritual rape, paedophilia (child-brides), ritual cannibalism, genital mutilation (male and female) – the list could go on for pages… 

The particulars of the practice are really not important.  The key is that freedom of religion ought to protect one from discrimination based on thoughts, belief, ideas – but must not in any way protect behaviour which contravenes the secular laws of the land.

We must protect everyone’s right to believe and hold ideas freely and openly.  At the same time, we must not allow cries of ‘this is part of my religion’ to protect illegal behaviour:  this would only lead to the hijacking of religions by criminal minded people or those who wish to oppress -or worse. 

It would be wrong of us to allow religions to be abused in this manner.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

Religion (definition): part 1

January 8, 2009 — xanthippa

Another term which is important to define when talking about The Big Picture is ‘Religion’.

This is another one of those words that everybody thinks has a universal definition – but not all these ‘universal definitions’ are congruent…. and some of the differences between the various descriptions are, well, rather substantial.  (Yes, this does make our constitution, which forbids discrimination on religious grounds, rather laughable, as in the absence defining what is meant by ‘religious grounds’, this phrase is worse than meaningles…. it is open to abuse!  Please, don’t get me started on that topic!!!)

Just look at the how (not the what) of the way different people practice religion. 

To some, religion is little more than some surreal principles.  They believe in some undefinible, intangable divine principles that form the universal subconsciousness or, if you prefer, which give the Universe a consciousness of her own.  Or, they call it Mother Nature, or some ‘laws of nature’ which have no perceivable form (personification-able, that is).  To these people, spirituality is important, but religiosity – the rituals associated with these beliefs – may be largely irrelevant.

At the other extreme, there are people for whom adherence to the religious customs and rituals is a much more integral part of their religion than any form of actual belief or even abstract concept of the divine.  We see this in many highly ritualistic religions which dictate daily routines and behaviours onto its practitioners.  I have known Anglicans, Catholics, Jews and Hindus who all practice the rituals of their religion because it supports their perception of their self-identity – or serves and supports others in their community – yet who do not subscribe to the doctorines of their religious dogma. 

Perhaps I should explain what I mean by this:  they are able to abstract moral lessons from their religious teachings and see value (either to their personal growth or things helpful or important to others within their community) in adhering to the religious practices, even though they reject the dogmatic or supernatural aspects of their religions.  (I regard this with great respect – it is the opposite of some peoples’ self-righteous pretense at being religious while missing the ‘greater message’!  That is a subject of its own…)

Yet others both have faith in the dogma of a religion, and adhere to its daily rituals.  The spectrum is about as varied as humanity itself…

Many people in The West think that religion is something which deals with questions regarding the meaning/purpose of life, death, afterlife, God, etc.  And, some religions do that.  However, most religions are not this narrowly limited.  So, what exactly defines religion?  What is common to all the religions ‘out there’?

Well, it depends on whom you ask… and what background they are approaching the subject of ‘religion’ from.

The psychoanalyst (NOT to me mistaken with ‘psycho analyst’) Carl G.Jung defines religion as:

Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the mind which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the word religio, which means a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors that are conceived as “powers”: spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals, or whatever name man has given to such factors in his world as he has found powerful, dangerous, or helpful enough to be taken into careful consideration, or grand, beautiful, and meaningful enough to be devoutly worshiped and loved.

(Emphasis added by me…  I do have to admit that I copied this definition out in calligraphy and stuck it to the inside of my locker door when I was in high-school – yeah, I know, pathetic!)

So, accortding to Jung, religion is a peculiar attitude of the mind. 

The reason I like this definition is because in a society which allows fredom of thought, freedom of religion is automatic:  you are free to believe – fully, partially or not at all – anything you wish.  Here, freedom of religion becomes a sub-set of freedom of thought and does not require special treatment, privileges or accommodations under the law.

That, in my never-humble-opinion, is very important.  After all, no idea or belief should be accorded greater or lesser protection from persecution, regardless of its nature!  Plus, most oppressors (or would-be oppressors….knowingly or condescendingly) are notorious for defining ‘religious grounds’ in a way that allows them to oppress those whose ideas (religious or otherwise) they do not like! 

Example:  when my older son neared the end of grade 8 and different high-schools were lobbying us to register him to attend them, I visited one of the most highly regarded and very coveted high-schools in Ottawa.  That is when I got a chance to look around the school’s library – and it did indeed contain an impressive selection of books!  When I came to the ‘Religion’ section, there were many, many books on Christianity and Christian philosophy.  Truly, it contained an exhaustive collection of books on all the sects of non-Arian forms of Christianity.  Yet, when I looked for the Torah, the Koran, the Vedas, Tao Te Ching and other texts widely considered ‘religious’, they could not be found….until one came to the ‘Mythology’ section of the library….  Needless to say, we chose to send our son elsewhere.

Obviously, to this particular school’s librarian, only non-Arian forms of Christianity qualified as ‘religion’.  Everything else was ‘Mythology’, and would not deserve protection under Canadian constitution which bans ‘discrimination on the basis of religion’ – but does not protect against ‘discrimination of the basis of mythology’….  I’m sorry about the circuitous description, but, I do hope I explained by point clearly:

According to this librarian, only non-Arian forms of Christianity qualified as ‘religion’ and therefore, freedom of religion would only extend to people who subscribed to this narrow group of religious sects.

I’m afraid I prefer Jung’s definition or ‘religion’ to this librarian’s!
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, freedoms, ignosticism, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Big Brother in the EU

January 6, 2009 — xanthippa

And just when you were about to breethe a sigh of relief that you are not in India, that your privacy cannot be invaded without a legal warrant, think again.  Our political bodies are legislating away citizens’ rights faster than we can notice!

Here is an interesting post from Dvorak Uncensored, titled Police Set to Step up Hacking of Home PCs, quoting Timesonline:

“THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people’s personal computers without a warrant.”

In other words, the European Union has made a decision giving all EU member governments the ‘right’ to hack into any computer – without a warrant.

“Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. …”

‘Warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property’ – what a phrase!  Just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to know how well ‘protected’ you will be under this policy – does it not?

I wonder if the police forces of the EU nations are hiring more IT staff….

 

P.S. – This may need more ‘digging’ but… is the Brussels edictlimited to electronic ‘warrantless inrtusive surveillance of private property’, or does it cover all ‘private property’?
add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Tokarski RULES!!!

January 5, 2009 — xanthippa

Oh yeah!!!

Tokarski and His team

Tokarski and 'His team'

 

Congratulations to the Canadian Junior Team for their win tonight!!!

A truly exciting game to watch!!!!  (Yes, it is THEIR fault I have a sore throat and no voice left now!!!)

Way to go, guys!!!!  YOU ARE THE CHAMPIONS!!!!

Posted in society. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Big Brother in India

January 5, 2009 — xanthippa

While most of our information is saturated with the news of the latest wave of fighting in the Middle East, with the latest terrorist attacks around the world, it is understandable that we become more and more afraid about our physical well being.   Add to this the whole ‘world financial crisis’ and the fear that we might soon loose our ability to pay our bills…

This has lead to two things:  increased sense of danger (justifiably, perhaps) with the accompanying desire to give our ‘authorities’ all the means necessary to protect us (physically and fiscally) on the one hand and a sense of apathy (or, perhaps, information overload) when it comes to ‘non-urgent’ or ‘non-critical’ news. 

It is understandable – Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and all that. 

These dangers are very real.  Yet, let’s face it:  for most of us, they are not as immediately dangerous as the atmosphere created by the mainstream media would make us feel.  (Yes, I do use the word feel rather than think – most of this coverage beamed constantly at us is not designed to make us think, but rather to evoke an emotional response from us:  feelings and emotions sell better than making people think does.)

While we are busy paying attention to these perceived dangers, we are not paying attention to some very real, very immediate dangers around us.  Perhaps they may not deprive us of our livelihood, or our life – but they are certainly depriving us of our liberty!

We are all aware that in many ‘not-so-free’ states, internet censorship is high.  Very high.  Malaysia, for example, has now been monitoring Malaysian bloggers to make sure they did not post anything that could be insulting to Islam.  (Actually, this does seem in keeping with the UN again passing the ‘blasphemy is not allowed under free speech’ resolution…)   And we all remember the fuss the MSM reporters kicked up when they got to the Beijing Olympics and found their internet access limited:  they did not particularly care if the Chinese citizens were oppressed or not (after all, they went to Beijing to ‘celebrate’ the current Chinese oppressors), they were just upset that their own ‘special privilages’ may have been limited….  But, I am going off on a tangent again…

The next country whose internet Big Brother has turned his attention to?  India.

Many people consider India to be a part of ‘The West’ – and, despite the fact that it is geographically located rather east, I concur that, philosophically, economically and politically, India is indeed more of a ‘Western’ country than not.  It is a democracy – and quite a big one – where the standard of living has risen, education has become the standard, and people do enjoy a lot of freedoms (including the freedom of religion).  In my never-humble-opinion, India has been succeeding in integrating the best things from ‘The West’ into its distinctly ‘Eastern’ culture – and has not lost her identity in the process.  No country is perfect, of course, but – as countries go – I think India is moving in the right direction.

That is why I was so chilled when I learned that the extent of interntet survailance which India’s new laws would permit (nay, require!).  Via Slashdot and Zero Paid , here is an article (very well written) on Countercurrents.org by Binu Karunakaran:  ‘India Sleepwalks to Total Surveillance’.

“The Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2006 passed by the Indian Parliament recently allows the government to intercept messages from mobile phones, computers and other communication devices to investigate any offence. Not just cognizable offence, the kind you witnessed in Mumbai 26/11, but any offence.

Any email you send, any message you text are now open to the prying eyes of the government. So are the contents of your computer you surfed in the privacy of your home. “

…

“The amended Act also grants the state absolute power to block access to any website in the national interest. In short a total gag and surveillance act that doesn’t set any limits for law enforcers, or have inbuilt safeguards against misuse. “

‘Policing’ and ‘pornography’ (in one form or another):  these are the two things always evoked as states usurp freedoms – this is the predictable pattern!  ‘National security’ and ‘morality’ – how come we are still buying into this debunked pretence???  (Yes, I have written on this before, so I don’t want to belabour the point…but, are humans really this gullible?)

What is quite frightening in the current laws passed by India is not just the extent to which these laws abolish privacy, but also the means through which the laws are to be implemented:

“…A law so sweeping in its powers that it allows a police officer in the rank of a sub-inspector to walk in or break in to the privacy of your home and see if you were surfing porn or not. It’s the personal morality of the official that will decide whether the picture/content you were looking at was lascivious or appeals to prurient interest.”

I wonder if Jennifer Lynch, the chief opressor of Human Rights in Canada, is planning any expensive trips to India to ‘study’ these laws – and to try to figure out how to implement them here!

In his article, Binu Karunakaran goes on to explain that people in India are now going to have to follow 3 new commandments:

  1. Thou shalt not author a joke.  Not even forward one.
  2. Thou shalt not surf Bollywood news (even things not explicitly pornographic, but ones which could ‘evoke lascivious thoughts’, are banned).
  3. Thou shalt not watch porn.

He explains each commandment.  Read the whole article here – if you dare!

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , . 4 Comments »

My response to ‘DMCAs as an instrument of censorship’ video on YouTube

January 3, 2009 — xanthippa

If you read this blog regularly, you may know that Freedom Of Speech is near and dear to my heart. 

It is essential that we defend our freedom of speech, because if we are not free to speak up, we cannot defend any of our other rights.  Therefore, quite uncharacteristically for me, I have gone and made a response to the video telling the YouTube community about how some groups and individuals filed fraudulent DMCA charges against a number of YouTube channels whose message they do not like. 

Instead of using their freedom of speech to challenge the messages they did not agree with, these people (and organizations) tried to curb freedom of speech….  Even though they knew that each one of their DMCA charges would be proven false, they knew that simply by having DMCAs filed against them, it will create a bad reputation for tha channel.  As a result of this ‘bad reputation’, this channel can be suspended by YouTube. 

It is a variation on the ‘lawfare’ we have seen in Canada to silence some voices….

So, here is my response:

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank

Posted in atheism, freedoms, opression, politics, religion, science. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

DMCA’s a an instrument of censorship

January 1, 2009 — xanthippa

As 2009 opens, I am encouraged to see that more and more people are waking up to the dangers to the growing trend of censorship of free speech – with the dangers this entails!

It really does not matter who it is that is attempting to impose censorship of free speech:  it is the attempt itself that must be opposed, by every freely thinking human being, regardless of their particular world view, philosophy, religion, or whatever else they choose to call their outlook on life!

In Canada, we have seen the insultingly called ‘human rights commissions’ censoring any speech that seems to advance the Christian point of view.  Ezra Levant higlighted this when he demonstrated that publishing the very same words which got a Christian pracher, father Boissoin, a lifetime ban (!!!) on conveying his opinions on marriage and homosexuality (he was, among other things, a marriage councellor, so this, in fact, deprived him of his livelihood). Yet, when Mr. Levant – a Jew – published the very same letter that father Boission had written, he was not persecuted…. 

Thus, Mr. Levant demostrated clearly that it was the speaker’s religious affiliation – not the words he spoke (or published) – which determined his ‘guilt’….

On the other hand, we have the ‘YouTube case’ where several radicalized Christian organizations had abused the Digiatal Millenium Copyright Act in an attempt to censor areligious and anti-rligious voices.  It really is chilling!  Please, join in the fight to stop DMC abuse to impose censorship on this particular forum or free thought:

All of this is not happening in a ‘vacuum’ or in some sort of ‘isolation’.  During this time, the UN has, quietly, decided that it is reasonable to limit freedom of speech in order to suppress ANY SPEECH that would criticize any ‘religion’!  This should strike the fear of censorship into every one of our hearts!

The great philosopher Hypatia had said:

“All forms of dogmatic religions are fallatious and should never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final!”

While I agree wholeheartedly with Hypatia’s sentiment, if it would not be too presumptuous of me, I would like to ‘update’ her statement to encompass the relalities of today:

“All forms of dogmatic doctorines (religious or secular) are fallatious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final – and must never be allowed to form a basis for laws and policies!”

Hypatia’s martyrdom marked the end of the classical era and the onset of the ‘Dark Ages’:  times where thought was replaced by blind obedience to dogmatic doctorine, learning was replaced by ignorance, respect for knowledge was replaced by book-burning and the destruction of all who entertained ‘opposing thought’. 

Are we at similar crossroads now?

Much of what is happening in the world indicates that we just might be. 

Yet, the dawn of 2009 is also bringing to us the beginning of the awareness of the danger of being at such a crossroads!  And, whether it is ‘Christian thought’ which is being censored – or which is attempting to do the censoring – the ‘dogma-affiliation’ (religious or secular dogma, it really makes little difference) is much less important than the action it takes:  censoring free speech and, by extention, free thought!  I really do not care who it is that is the censor, or who is being censored.  

Those are just the details of the larger precedent:  the desire and ability to censor!

This is something we must all stand together to oppose.  I just hope enough of us realize this and, setting aside our doctorinal differences, we lend our voices to the battle which would silence us all!

Posted in freedoms, opression, philosophy, politics, religion, science, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »
Newer posts »