Question about ‘Hippies’

All right, we all know what the Hippies stood for:  peace and love and removing socially repressive barriers imposed by mainstream culture.  Sort of  modern-day Dionysians, except with LDS and marijuana instead of wine…

They self-describe as being peaceful, accepting, laid-back…  When one hears the word, we think of open-air music festivals, free love, the ‘peace’ movement, bad hair and ‘punch-Buggies’ painted in psychadelic colours and other similar cultural icons of the 60’s era.

Here is my question:

What can we conclude about the Hippie counterculture from the fact that they self-branded with the only car whose distinctive ‘look’ was designed by Adolf Hitler?

‘Cooperation’ is to ‘Collaboration’ like ‘Hippies’ are to ‘Yuppies’

Sometimes, things nag at me.

‘Buzzwords’ ‘bug’ me in general, the buzzword ‘collaboration’ bugs me in particular.

Being a slow thinker, I have wondered for years now why I even care.  And, yes, I do flinch every time I hear it used….’collaborative efforts’ sets up a whole tick of flinches!

But, why?

The obvious reason is the pejorative connotation ‘collaboration’ has in all the European countries once occupied by Nazi Germany.  Collaborators were those who sought to improve their individual circumstances by working alongside (co-labour-ating) the oppressive occupational forces through (and this is key in my mind) harming others.  Growing up, there was no ambiguity in morality:  ‘collaborators ought to be lined up along a wall and shot’. 

Of course, that is not the only meaning in which the term is used.  Is there something else about ‘collaboration’ that I am almost – but not quite – picking up on here? 

Perhaps a good starting place is to contrast ‘collaboration’ to its ‘predecessor buzzword’, ‘cooperation’.  The dictionary definition is – excepting the whole ‘lining collaborators up against the wall’ thingy – somewhat similar…yet slightly different.  Some dictionaries list them as synonyms, others define ‘collaboration’ as ‘directed cooperation’…  Many people more qualified in this than I have done excellent analysis of the difference in meaning from one discipline to another (some are mutually quite exclusive)…

What about cultural connotations, who uses the words, and to what end.  Could I find a clue there?  Perhaps…

The ‘old’ buzzword, ‘cooperation’, has a decidedly ‘Kumbaya’ feel about it…  It is all about caring and sharing and stoning anyone who isn’t already stoned into cooperating with, like, nature, and people, and, like, stuff. 

But it is also evocative of super-exclusivist intellectuals, like those who wear Birkenstock sandals (those non-conformists!) and set up ‘condominium co-operatives’ where they insist on interviewing potential condo buyers to make sure they are ‘suitable’ kinds of people to ‘cooperate with’.  They are open-minded, of course – ‘minority status’ is a bonus, so long as they have the right ideology and score high enough on the ‘pretentiousness scale’.

And it also makes one think of some more ‘proletarian’ forms of ‘cooperation’, usually called ‘co-ops’.  These would be ‘co-operatives’ set up to ‘help’ a specific class of people – say, farmers.  These tend to be incredibly inclusive:  as in (here in Canada), they successfully lobied governments to make it illegal for someone – like, say, a farmer – to farm UNLESS they were a member of the cooperative.  Papa Stalin would have been so proud!

From ‘Milk’ and ‘Egg’ and ‘Wheat’… these took on names like ‘Marketing Board’ and – strictly to protect the farmers and assure a ‘fair’ wage for their work – set out manipulating produce prices by setting quotas to limit production.  ‘Member’ farmers then have to buy a ‘quota’ and are forced to destroy any produce above this – or the ‘inspectors’ will destroy their means of production.  It is so strict that a chicken farmer is not allowed to bring a chicken she grew to her son’s barbecue… for removing the chicken from the premises and allowing ‘others’ to consume it with her, she could be stripped of her production quota. 

Now, THAT is SOME protection ‘cooperation’ can provide!

Marx had seen human cultures as forming a closed circle:  starting with a ‘primal collectivism’ in the earliest dawns of human civilization, through various stages like feudalism, capitalism and socialism, all the way to ‘advanced collectivism’ (I am translating these terms, never read this bit in English – sorry if it is not in ‘usual terms’…it is, however, in accurate terms.)  ‘Advanced collectivism’ is, of course, synonymous with ‘communism’.

So why does the word ‘collaboration’ make me cringe even more?

Perhaps because ‘cooperation’ is to ‘collaberation’ like ‘hippies’ are to ‘yuppies’!

It is ‘self-centred’, ‘task-oriented’, ‘mean, lean and cold’.  Still just as pretentious – especially among the ‘condo people’.  Which is where the whole ‘WWII collaboration’ meaning comes in.  No, don’t invoke the ‘Goodwin law’, not like that…  Just that whatever the evils of ‘coerced cooperation’ may be, there is at least a ‘lip service’ paid to ‘improving’ and ‘community building’.  It still hold the idea – as wrong as this is – that whatever the means, there will be a common good that will come out of this.

‘Collaboration’ shakes these illusions.  Yes, is also is ‘working together’ but not like a team – more like cogs in a machine!

It is strictly business!  No social benefits, no community building, no ‘common goals’.  We have a ‘task’ here, you do your bit, I’ll do mine. Don’t bother trying to build an infrastructure from which other ‘stuff’ could grow – we don’t have funding for that.  Just build your widget – I don’t care how or whom you hurt in the process – and hand it over to the next guy in line!

I suppose it is a sort of a ‘modern day production line’, except without the robots.

Like ‘cooperation’, ‘collaboration’ is less and less a matter of choice and more and more a matter of coersion.  It has all the negative aspects of ‘cooperation’ (except the campfire songs – no time for that), yet more dehumanizing…. 

Oh, yes, we are all pulling ‘together’, but not as a team… it’s each collaborator for him/her self!

Where ‘cooperation’ was (in its infancy) a reaction to a controlling society, an attempt to band together to stand up to ‘big business’, ‘collaboration’ is the ‘next evolutionary step’.  It is – in every sense of the word – ‘bureaucratization’ of ‘cooperation’.  Just think about it for a while – it really is.

Which brings me to the WHO: Who are the people most fond of this buzzword?

Bureaucrats of all stripes! 

Oh, they don’t see themselves as bureaucrats!  They are ‘educators’, ‘intellectuals’ and ‘professionals’!  Except that….they’re not.  They could have been – but instead of ‘teaching’ and ‘discovering’ and ‘achieving’, they are busy ‘defining the process’ and ‘implementing best practices’ (controlling the process) and going to important meetings to tell other important people about their latest ‘best practices’… bureaucratizing!

Collaborators, the whole bunch of them!

‘Ezra’s cartoon fate’

It seems rather ironic…
 
First, I wrote about how Yemen and Iran are subverting their legal systems to impose death penalties on the bloggers whom they dissaprove of. 
 
Then, I explained how others try to stifle free speech…even in the shape of ‘little’ blogs.
 
You could say that protecting free speech in all forms is one of those defining issues for me.  Yes, I have kids – and I teach my kids well!
 
So, even my young son could not remain unaware of the ‘free speech/Human Rignts Commissions’ controversy brewing in our fair homeland of Canada.  Perhaps the most visible (certainly the most colourful) free speech advocate in Canada right now – in my never-humble-opinion, is Mr. Ezra Levant.  I admit, I have become fascinated with the ‘gray dungeon’ Mr. Levant was interrogated in by the Alberta HRC Inquisitoress in, seeing its ‘grayness’ with the painting of the ‘sunny, free outdoors’ as somehow symbolic of the whole proces…  I have gone as far as to paint my ‘impression’ of the dungeon, in hopes of – sometimes soon – donating it to an auction benefiting the ‘free speech’ defense fund. 
 
Please, consider the ‘interrogation chamber’ vs. my very imperfect impression of it:
 
Interrogation Chamber: 

…and my ‘impression’ of it:

'Ezra's dungeon'

'Ezra's dungeon'

Yes, it is not a ‘perfect’ copy, the colours are brighter (on purpose), the shapes are not the same – but this is simply my ‘impression’ of the ‘promise of bright freedom’ – only as an illusion, a projection on the wall of this dank, gray, cave of a dungeon… please put it down to ‘artistic licence’!

Well, the funny thing is…the day before I wrote about the death-threat Mr. Levant had received, and the day of the benefit for a comic who is being dragged in front of the thought police for sayin ‘unfunny jokes’, my young son had drawn a series of cartoons, capturing an innocent 9-year-old’s perceptions of our struggle for the freedom of speech! 

(Yes, the seating positions of Ezra and the Inquisitor (or, is it Inqisitrix?) are mirrored in the comic….please excuse that detail – but note that it has been carried throughout the comic strip.  Also, note the beautifully-rendered, iconographic painting on the wall, which clearly identifies the setting!)

Ezra Levant is being 'told off' by the HRC Inquisitor

Ezra Levant is being 'told off' by the HRC Inquisitor

The hammer comes down!

The hammer (gavel?) comes down! It knocks poor Ezra through the ceiling.

The hammer hits the table so hard, it goes right through!

The hammer hits the table so hard, it goes right through!

 
Ezra frees himself, the hammer crashes through the wall...

As Ezra frees himself, the hammer rebounds, crashes through the wall behind the Inquisitor...

...and the hammer hits the neighbour!

...and the hammer hits the neighbour!

...mid-air collision...

...mid-air collision between Ezra and the Inquisitor...

....the rough landing

....the rough landing, as the neighbour grasps the hammer...

The angry neighbour throwns the hammer back, clever Ezra ducks!

The angry neighbour throwns the hammer back, clever Ezra ducks!

Ezra is fine as the knocked-out Inquisitor passes out

As the KO'd Inquisitor gets stuck in the table, Ezra is free!

And the moral of the story?

If you bring the hammer down on someone who does not deserve it, it might just rebound onto you!

Death threat against Ezra Levant!

Ezra Levant, a vocal Free Speech Advocate in Canada – and a blogger – has received a death threat.

This is not good.  I ardently hope that the police will take this seriously.  As Mr. Levant supports free speech for everyone – not just a select group of people who think like he thinks – he has ‘ruffled feathers’ in many places.

Yet, as some of the people commenting have pointed out, killing someone is ‘murder’.  Advertizing in advance the intent to kill someone is ‘terrorism’! 

Please, read the whole story here!

Mr. Levant may present it with a brave smile on his face, but I do hope he (and the authorities) take this seriously.  Very seriously.

When telling jokes can get you jailed…

Sometimes, I have a terrible feeling that the social engineers are attempting to create a Canada which is very much like the good soldier Svejk’s Austro-Hungaria!

Well, perhaps they are not trying, but they sure are succeeding!

Why do I think this?

The novel ‘The Good Soldier Svejk’ by Jaroslav Hasek, widely regarded as the earliest example of modernist writing, is said to be perhaps the first ‘anti-war’ novel ever.  Yet, it describes no combat, no killing, no military training…. 

I don’t think it is an anti-war novel at all.  I think, like his contemporary Kafka’s ‘The Castle’, it is anti-bureaucracy novel!  It uses humour to explain the ridiculesness of existing in a over-bureaucritized, regulations-trump-common-sense system where humans are merely an afterthought!

And, like it or not, that is what Canada is slowly but surely becoming!

All right, let’s keep the ‘big cases’ tackled by the ‘Human Rights Commissions’ aside for a while, and look at some of the other examples of where ‘bureaucratization’ has replaced normal scoial discourse:

This one, I witnessed with my own eyes, or I might have had a hard time believing it..

A man, obviously ill, produced an invalid publich health insurance card at a medical clinic. The nice lady behind the counter refused his offer to pay to see a doctor:  ‘As a resident of Ontario, you are entitled to free health care.  So, you are not allowed to pay money to see a doctor.  Just go down to the government office, get the problems with your card straightened out, and we’ll be glad to put your name down on the waiting list.’

How nice!

And while I am on healthcare, how about this one…

A elderly gentleman (in his 70’s or 80’s) came to a specialist’s office for his appointment.  Being forgetful, he could not find his ‘card’…but did not want to loose the appointment, as he had waited 3 months to get in.  The receptionist went into a bit of a panic…  Paying was out of question, that would be illegal.  Seeing the patient without having the card first – well, they could face big penalties when they got audited (not if, but when – most doctors are audited 2-3 times each year to make sure they adhere to all the government regulations, like appointment length per patient).

After talking to the doctor, she came up with a unique solution:  the doctor would see him, no card, no charge, but during his lunch.  And it would not be recorded on the official medical chart, so the doctor could not get into trouble with the government. 

How insane is that!?!?!

When doctors are afraid of seeing patients because of sanctions by the government, we have Svejk-like bureaucritization of our society! 

And don’t let me get started on education, where a kindergarten teacher is not allowed to comfort a child that fell, because it might infringe cultural practices…

The laws tell us what kind of signs we are – and are not allowed – to put up to promote our businesses.

How can one expect humane treatment, when the bureaucratic process becomes more important than people?

But all this is only a tiny, tiny part of the whole machine!

Yes, a bureaucratic machine is the universal result of an overbloated government which continuously  attempts to expand its existence by regulating more and more aspects of its citizens’ lives.  And, as a rule, bureaucrats tend to be very, very humourless…

Of course, this is where the Human Rights Commissions come in:  their role is to keep the machine going by eradicating all semblance of independent thought.  After all, independent thought might lead to independent action – and we only want machine government regulated actions around here!

Is it surprising, then, that humour just might be made illegal in Canada?

This guy, Guy Earle, is being dragged through the legal system, because his jokes were ‘hate speech’….here is his account of that saga:  (Note – may contain offensive humour/language.)

It seems insane, but the HRCs DO have the right to forbit this man from ever telling a joke again!

Since their rulings are recorded with a real court, they are binding – and were this comedian to breech it, he could indeed be jailed.  There is a fundraised for him this coming Saturday, in Toronto.

Now, I do recall some countries – under some regimes – where people could be jailed for telling jokes.  Coincidentally, they all valued bureaucracies over people.  Namely, Nazi Germany, Communist Soviet Union and its satellites, and so on. 

Oh, and let’s not forget, the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire of the good soldier Svejk!

Ezra Levant’s speech to the US Congress

Yesterday, Mr. Ezra Levant spoke as an expert witness to the US Congress on the topic of human rights, freedom of speech and their erosion through lawfare and ‘soft jihad’.  Here is the link to the entire speech, from which come these following excerpts:

Canadian human rights commissions, however, are not respectful of the sensitivities of all religions. Less politically correct faiths are regularly prosecuted by them. This May, an Alberta pastor named Stephen Boissoin was given a lifetime gag order, never to say anything critical of homosexuality – not in a church sermon, not even in private e-mails. As well, in what can only be called a Maoist verdict, he has been ordered to renounce his religious beliefs, and to publish a self-denunciation in the local newspaper.”

“By the way, the truth of what you say is not a defence. And at the Maclean’s magazine trial last month, half a day was spent determining whether their jokes were funny. They even had a joke expert.

Don’t laugh – literally. Just three weeks ago, a comedian was ordered to stand trial for telling off-colour jokes in a night club. Warning to Chris Rock: don’t bother coming to Canada”

“Because we didn’t fight for freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for people who were hard to like, now we’re having to fight for those fundamental freedoms for ourselves. It’s always better to fight in the first ditch rather than the last one.

The legal onslaught against freedom of speech and religious pluralism continues. There are 14 human rights commission in Canada, employing 1,000 people, and with an annual budget of $200-million. It’s an industry, and it needs social strife to stay in business. So it positively drums up discontent. This spring in Alberta, 60,000 new immigrants were taught English as a Second Language using a workbook all about how to file grievances, including against un-funny jokes.”

The conclusion of Mr. Levant’s speech is eloquent, and very, very powerful:

So what can Americans do? 

1. The first thing you can do is what you always do: continue to monitor the erosion of freedom around the world, including through Congressional committees like this one. Publish annual reports shaming foreign countries for their abuses of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Put Canada on that list, to let our government know what they’re doing isn’t acceptable.

2. And rededicate yourselves to your First Amendment. Understand that the erosion of freedom doesn’t always happen with a bang – it can happen with a whimper. And that, when it comes to free speech, it’s usually unpopular people who are censored first. But if they can go for a neo-Nazi yesterday, it’s Geno’s Steak House today, and then a Christian pastor or a news magazine tomorrow.

I believe in a pluralist society where I can be Jewish, he can be Christian, she can be Muslim, and we all get along peacefully – we can agree to disagree about political or religious matters. The use of our own Western laws to crush such disagreement, and end healthy debate, is a threat to all of us, and the U.S. Congress should be on guard.”

 

 

 

(All emphasis is Mr. Levant’s)

Brilliant!

In a related development, the very radical Imam who brought a complaint against Mr. Levant and his then magazine, Western Standard – and thus starting the process which had turned Mr. Levant into ‘an expert’ in this field, may indeed be becoming less radicalized…  Unless I am much mistaken, this is the very first radical Imam who has actually become more moderate after exposure to our ‘western’ values and publicly said so.

 Via Blazing Catfur, the Pete Vere editorieal article in SooToday.com  which prints S. Soharwardy’s letter:

“Response to recent human rights decisions

by Syed Soharwardy

When I initiated my complaint against Mr. Levant, I saw human rights commissions as a non-violent means of resolving differences among Canadians.

I was not aware of the controversies between the commissions and Canada’s faith communities. I am thinking specifically of my friend Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary.

Upon learning about the difficulties he and other faith communities have encountered with the commissions, I withdrew my complaint against Mr. Levant.

One of the reasons I chose Canada as my adopted homeland is because of our country’s great respect for religious freedom.

In Canada, I am free to be good Canadian and a good Muslim. There is no contradiction between the two.

In listening to the experiences of Bishop Henry and Pastor Boissoin, I realized how precious religious freedom is to our country and how easily freedom is lost.

Yes, I have often expressed concerns over Islamophobia.

Some of the portrayals of Muslims in the media have been painful – so much so, that I worried when I set out across Canada on the multifaith walk against violence.

However, the reaction from ordinary Canadians could not have been more hospitable. Canadians of all races, colours, religions, and ages have welcomed me, a Muslim man with brown skin, into their homes, their neighbourhoods and their communities.

They have walked with me, eaten with me and prayed with me.

They have expressed strong concern for preserving our civil liberties – which includes freedom of speech and religion.

They have also expressed a strong desire to end violence in Canada and around the world.

This experience has taught me that we can only end violence when we respect the freedom of all Canadians.

There will always be pockets of Islamophobia in Canada, just like there are still pockets of anti-Semitism, racism and sexism.

However, I have learned that the best way to dispel misconceptions between our various cultures and communities is for us to meet face to face and learn from each other’s similarities and difference.

This can only be accomplished in a society that respects freedom of expression, freedom of religion and all of our other democratic freedoms.”

As ‘they’ say:  we live in interesting times!

‘This has nothing to do with censorship!’

All right, this is not breaking news… not by a long shot.  The article is from 2003.

 The article is about a University of Toronto project which looked at what websites were being blocked and inaccessible from within various countries.  Check out the wording in this quote:

Using ICE, Diebert and his team have discovered that pornography and government criticism are the subjects most frequently blocked by non-democratic countries. China’s blocking techniques keep out everything from Playboy.com to Friends of Falun Gong to the Dalai Lama’s website.

Chinese officials insist such techniques do not amount to censorship.

“We don’t have censorship of the Internet,” said Larry Wu, second secretary for Science and Technology at the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Washington. “Generally, the Chinese government is for the full exchange of information. We have full freedom of speech, freedom of the press. However, we have our own understanding of what is a limitation of the freedom of speech. So we do use techniques to block certain websites, as well as we try to block spam.”

(All emphasis is mine.)  What a swell thing to do – nobody likes spam, right?

Also noteworthy quote from a different government’s official:

Nail Al-Jubier, a spokesperson for the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, admits that his government regulates Internet access.

“The overwhelming number of blocked sites are pornography,” Al-Jubier said. “Some websites that are deemed un-Islamic — those that promote violence — are blocked because of the standards of the community. Some parents don’t want their children going online if these are the things they can see.”

Why is this so interesting now?

It is the old and tired ‘we are not opressing anyone, we are only protecting children – every good parent wants that’ justification for censorship!

Yesterday, at the dentist’s office, I picked up Macleans magazine and read the following story:  ‘Guess who’s watching porn’.  As a matter of fact, the whole issue was geared that way, including the cover.  The editorial was headlined ‘Plug the porn pipeline’ and demanded government action to regulate the internet to prevent this evil.

To be clear, this is not an issue of censorship. The goal should be to prevent children from viewing what may be legally viewed by others. And parents must take responsibility for monitoring their own child’s computer usage. But there is likely a legitimate role for government and industry in tackling this problem, and with luck it won’t require the brigades of bureaucrats that are somehow necessary to managing movies and TV.

Ah, yes.  A ‘legitimate role for government and industry’ indeed!  This is the same Macleans which has been fighting for the freedom of speech in front of multiple Canadian Human Rights Commissions/Tribunals…. 

The gist of this legal battle, which has dominated the Canadian news for months?  That a ‘potential harm’ is not a justification for censoring the press!!!  And now, that same Macleans is arguing that ‘potential harm’ is a justification for censoring the internet???

Ah, but it is for the good of the children!  How could any reasonable person oppose something that will protect our children

So, how could such ‘regulation’ be accomplished?  Without censorship, of course, because – what was that phrase?

We have full freedom of speech, freedom of the press. However, we have our own understanding of what is a limitation of the freedom of speech.”

Yet, many ‘Western’ audiences would not submit to censorship and site blocking this easily.  How to go about it?  Or, as Marvin from the Buggs Bunny cartoon might say: 

“But we have got to make it look legal!”

Here’s an idea!

The ISPs could offer consumers access to the internet in a new, unique way – the customer could pre-select the sites they want to allow into their homes!  These could be bundled – much like today’s cable TV is bundled – and they could pick which bundle they’d like!  Wouldn’t this be swell, to increase the customer choices like this???

Of course, being a large, well-established Canadian magazine, Macleans would make it into the ISPs bundles.  Its competition – not as likely.

Oh joy! 

As long as we have that freedom of speech and freedom of the press – and increased customer choices in one swell move, how could we possibly complain?  No, I really mean – HOW???  We would no longer have means of being heard!

The Blogosphere is under attack!

There is so much happening in the whole wide world!  And the blogosphere makes it all so easy to access.

The internet is truly changing our society.  Not just within our town, or within our countries – it is truly allowing people from all ‘corners of the world’ to build up a common pool of knowledge.  I truly think that the blogosphere is one of the most effective tools driving this change for the better.  (As a matter of fact, that is why, few months ago, I decided to join it!)

The blogosphere is not merely a communication tool, it is a completely new ‘animal’. 

It may  facilitate the exchange of information, but it is not just the sort of ‘information’ that ‘reading the same newspaper’ or ‘watching the same newscast’ could convey.  After all, as the mainstream media (msm) had already discovered, transmitting factual information is only a part of any ‘story’.  While the msm has attempted to ‘flesh out’ their stories by including that ‘human experience’ factor, their medium is uniquely unsuitable to such a job.  Instead of adding dimension to their coverage of world events, they end up appearing to be manipulating the emotional context and reducing ‘news’ to ‘gossip’.

Add to this that many new journalists are being taught in school to put emphasis on ‘reporting the news and facts and presenting them in a manner which will indicate to the audience what their appropriate response should be’.  In other words, the very journalists whom we used to rely on to report unbiased facts only are being taught in journalism schools to be the tools of social engineers…

No wonder the msm are becoming irrelevant!

The blogosphere, on the other hand, is actually really, really good at adding a real human dimension to what is happening in the world around us. 

Why?

Because it is so highly interactive!  Because it is made up of millions of individuals!  Individuals from ALL over the world, with all kinds of backgrounds, all points of view! 

That is what makes the blogosphere so powerful!

I do not have to rely on some pretty/serious/demure/outraged face on TV to tell me how people on the other side of the world ‘feel’ about some event.  I don’t have to read a ‘cookie-cutter’ story with a preset word-count, surrounded by pointless ads, the ink of which is bound to come off on my fingers.  If I don’t like the slant of the story, or if I notice factual inaccuracies, I don’t have to be one of thousands of phone calls or emails or letters-to-editor, hoping, despite the odds, to be noticed…

Instead, I can go and look for a real live blogger (OK, I only access their virtual personnas’ posts, but I find these represent a real person, who can use the internet as a shield – and thus expose more of their ture self than they would ever dare in a person-to-preson interaction) who actually is from that part of the world.  And it is not somebody who makes a living from ‘how’ they report the event – which necessitates ‘offocial spin’.  Yes, there will necessarily be ‘personal spin’ – as in, it will reflect the person’s perceptions and understanding of what happened and thoughts and emotions about it.  But they will actually be ‘that person’s’!

And I can go to many bloggers there – and get many different individual points of view.  If I don’t understand things, I can post a comment – and usually get answers that are very useful and educational….and very personal. And if I like that blogger, I am likely to re-visit the site from time to time – just to keep in touch with what is happening in that part of the world and what is happening with that blogger

That makes a world of difference.

In a very real sense, the ‘bloggers of the world’ establish a virtual community. 

We may never meet in person, but that is not necessary to develop an empathy, an understanding – to let them into our monkeysphere!  That means we begin to perceive ‘our familiar bloggers’ as people, as individuals.  All of a sudden, should a tragedy occur in a faraway place, the body count is not just a statistic:  these are our virtual friend’s families!

It is impossible to overstate the incredible power in the combination of being able to access uncensored information and points of view along with establishing social bonds with people all over the world!

After all, it always affects us much more deeply if a wrong happens to someone we are connected to than if it happens to a stranger….

Now, we not only learn what happened, we know it happened to someone connected to our social network.  One of us.  Without these social bonds, most of us would lack the depth of desire to affect change.

During successful wars, the governments/rulers kept tight control over the flow of information – and used propaganda to dehumanize the ‘enemy’ into an abstraction!  Only then could they manipulate people into a war…  Large part of the US military failure in Vietnam was due to the fact that the American people were recieving more uncensored information from the frontlines than ever before. 

Make no mistake, this lesson has been learned by opressors everywhere!

It is not surprising, then, that censors and manipulators and social engineers are all waging a war on the blogosphere!

In Canada, it is in the gray drab of bureacratic HRCs which ban people from ‘ever expressing their opinions or thoughts or emotions’ on a subject….  They appear to follow a clear, well defined process, but use this process to bring financial ruin to those whose opinions they disapprove of, and silence them thus.

In Yemen – and, unfortunately, perhaps in Iran – this penalty could be death!

Let us hope the blogosphere is strong enough to withstand these attacks and continue to re-shape the world into a better place.

Death penalty for blogging!

The ‘blogosphere‘ may be be a virtual community, but the social connections it creates are very, very real.  These connections cross boundries:  political, cultural, linguistic, + + +…  In a very real sense, the blogosphere transends these boundries and makes them irrelevant.

This threatens all those who would control their populace, forcing them to adhere to only one ideology (regardless of what the particular ideology may be), limiting them to access only those opinions approved by these rulers.  Yet, like Pandora’s box, once the lid was opened and people realized the vast possibililties the blogosphere presented, closing the blogs down, or filtering them, was not enough to slam the lid back down.  Those who would control now had to ‘neutralize’ those who had peeked in…

Thus, many opressors are going after bloggers themselves.

Here, in Canada, we face only minor punishments:  monetary penalty, perhaps a lifelong gag order (!)against ever ‘expressiong oneself’ on or about a particular topic…  This is enough of a threat to our inherrent right to freedom of speech from our own bureaucratic opressors, but it is nothing comparing to what our counterparts in other parts of the world are facing!

Here is the unpleasant bit of news from ‘Global Voices’, and another from ‘Daily Tech’ (this one includes the original cartoon), Khaleej Times Online, thought many other sources have picked up on it, too.

Earlier this year, Iranian bloggers had been asked to register each and every blog on a specific government site.  Fearing this will be a tool to prosecute/persecute them, many bloggers refused to comply.  Predictably, bullies feel threatened by anyone that stands up to them.  This show of backbone by the bloggers could not go uncrushed by that opressive regime…

Last Wednesday, Iranian parlilament has agreed to discuss adding ‘disturbing mental security in society’ to such crimes as rape, kidnapping and armed robbery:  all capital crimes. 

Apparently, blogging could ‘disturb‘ this ‘mental security in society’ if it were to ‘promote prostitution, corruption or apostasy.  In the sense used here, the term ‘apostasy’ applies to anything that is not in full agreement with the views and policies of the ruling Ayatollahs. 

According to the strict interpretaions of Islam in Iran (and other Muslim countries), apostasy is punishable by death, as per Koran, chapter 4 (Al-Nisa), verse 90 (partial quote):

“If they turn away [from Islam], then sieze them and kill them wherever you find them…”

That is not such only quote in the Koran, just the one which is best known.  From its past behaviour, it is also clear that the current regime in Iran is using the very strictest possible interpretation of the Islamic scriptures and imposing death sentences on people it deems to be ‘apostates’.  Of course, the Iranian regime is abusing the scriptures in order to silence its political opposition and to stifle legitimate political debate among its populace. 

This is how that twisted reasoning goes:  

  1. The government is headed by the highest religious authority, the Ayatollahs.  
  2. Questioning the government’s policy is therefore questioning the Ayatollahs.
  3. Questioning  the Ayatollahs, the highest authority on Islam, is questioning Islam itself,
  4. Questioning Islam, by the Ayatollahs’ definition, is apostasy. 

… and apostasy is a capital crime.

Q.E.D.

But Iran is not the first country to make such a move!

Last April, Yemen passed a similar law.  Under this law, bloggers whose blogs are deemed to be ‘inciting hatred’ (does the wording sound familiar) could face death penalties. Here are some quotes from ‘Mideast Youth‘:

 Walid Al-Saqaf, the administrator of YemenPortal.net which has been blocked in Yemen since January of this year, has just sent this very alarming news to his friends and colleagues:

“This week, the government’s Minister of Information threatened to file lawsuits against news websites on the justification of ‘inciting hatred’ or ‘harming national interests’ and the other usual excused they often use to prosecute journalists. The threat is even more severe for websites because the government would use the penal code instead of the press law. This means that website owners could get up to death penalties.”

Report in Arabic:

وحذر مصدر مسؤول في المركز من خطورة مثل التصريحات التي توحي بتوجه رسمي لزج الصحافيين والمخالفين بالرأي إلى السجون وتشديد الخناق عليهم بتطبيق قانون العقوبات الذي يحتوي على عقوبات قد تصل حد الإعدام

(Source)

Death penalty for blogging! 

I am speechles…

Yet another lesson… will it be learned?

All right, this clip is not from the boys down under, it is from Pen and Teller – the professional sceptics who put on the show ‘Bullshit’.

In their role as sceptics, they have gone on to challenge much – and not everyone is always pleased with them.  Here, they are teaching a lesson in how ‘environmental enthusiasm’ – a very real and honest desire to protect the Earth from harm by us, humans – can be so very easily abused by those who wish to use these honest, trusting and eager activists and subvert them and their voices for something completely different… 

In some ways, it kind of is like that ‘Trojan Horse’ idea!