Posted on

Defamation of Religion

This doesn’t look good:

Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to restriction on the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence…

The above is tajken from a text of a proposed UN Human Rights Council Resolution, seeking to condemn “defamation of religion”.  It only seems to mention Islam, however, and also says:

Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards any religion, as well as targeting of religious symbols and venerated persons…

The problem here is that incitement to hatered and defamation of religion are two different things. English PEN argued this point when a Bill of similar spirit was introduced in 2005. Part of the problem is that intolerant groups like the BNP use the cover of religious criticism to veil their extreme xenophobia, and to inspire violence. But on the other hand, the idea of blasphemy and defamation are increasingly used to block any criticism of religion, which is never healthy.
The UN Watch blog says that the resolution is likely to be adopted, but is not binding on individual countries.  Nevertheless, it could mean that the UN is neutered in many human rights/free speech cases, such as the current travesty in Afghanistan, where Pervez Kambaksh has been sentenced to 20 years in prison on blasphemy charges.
I’ve always thought that both constructive criticism, and even satire, of any given faith was a sign of acceptance, like the teasing banter between teammates.  Its a sign that the majority agree that the minority group is here to stay, and must be engaged with.  Indeed, thoughtful criticism of a religion is also a tacit admission that it contains valuable aspects too. It is something to be welcomed, something that makes everyone strong.
That’s not how others see things, though.

Posted on

Coverage 2.0

News gatherers and citizen journalists in Mumbai, 28th November 2008. Photo by Vinu
News gatherers and citizen journalists in Mumbai, 28th November 2008. Photo by Vinu

The way in which 24 hour news channels have changed the way we learn about, and witness, global events has been well documented and discussed. We saw the twin towers fall, live on TV.  I think its astonishing that the image of one of these young terrorists could be pasted across my copy of the Metro, whilst he was still at large in India.
The latest terror induced crisis, in Mumbai, takes our participation in these events a stage further. These attacks, made with assault-rifles over several locations, was in many ways more confusing than Al-Qaeda’s grand gesture of 9/11. It says something about how technology has developed, that this story was relayed as much by connected individuals – the mass of citizen journalists – as by major news networks. Via Peter Bradwell at Demos, I’ve found a Twitter feed giving information on the attacks. In a mirror of the Election Twitter, which captured the global exhilaration of the Obama victory, this Mumbai twitter conveys something of the confusion caused by these attacks.  As well as learning about the events, and witnessing them, it has come to the stage where we are experiencing them too.  The epicentre of the attacks are in India, but we experience the reaction everywhere.
Meanwhile, high quality images are available via Flickr (including Vinu’s excellent shots, which I’ve used to illustrate this and the previous post).  In this case the static, but high-resolution photos beats low resolution YouTube.  Either way, social media sites have been promising to empower the citizen journalist, and to cut out the middle-man of the mainstream media.  And of course, they also make it harder for government’s to force a certain narrative onto us.  In 2008, with the Obama campaign and the Mumbai attacks, I would say that social media has come of age.

Posted on

Femafication

Here’s an interesting neologism from Paul Krugman, yesterday’s winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics:

I also wonder how much the Femafication of government under President Bush contributed to Mr. Paulson’s fumble. All across the executive branch, knowledgeable professionals have been driven out; there may not have been anyone left at Treasury with the stature and background to tell Mr. Paulson that he wasn’t making sense.

That’s been the problem with the Bush Administration all along: bluster and ego masquerading as strong leadership. It really, really matters, and it seems it matters more than a folksy, “man I can relate to” charm.
Incredibly, I’ve been chastised for writing too much about the USA and nothing about the UK. Given the financial crisis, this is indeed an oversight. I guess the cultural implications of the US Presidential election campaign are easier to engage with than the technicalities of the financial crisis that Brown and Darling are currently wrestling with.  You wouldn’t think it from the quote I’ve picked above, but Krugman’s article is principally in praise of the British handling of the crisis. Could this be the start of an unprecedented political comeback for Gordon Brown?

Posted on

An alternative to Live Earth

A further problem with Live Earth is the much publicised waste of energy used to power the event. The Arctic Monkeys recently spoke out against the ‘hypocrisy’:

“It’s a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world,” said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders … “Especially when we’re using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It’d be a bit hypocritical,” he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.
…
Large parts of the band’s hometown of Sheffield were flooded at the end of last month after a deluge of mid-summer rain that some blamed on global warming. Two people were killed.
But the band wonder why anyone would be interested in the opinion of rock stars on a complex scientific issue like climate change.
“Someone asked us to give a quote about what was happening in Sheffield and it’s like ‘who cares what we think about what’s happening’?” added Helders. “There’s more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we’re in a band?”

Much of the Live Earth message is about changing our lifestyles, to cut down on planet spoling emissions. As well as reducing power consumption, we should reduce our carbon footprint by travelling by car and plane less, on foot and bicycle more, and through the purchase of locally produced goods with fewer ‘food miles’. Why, then, was the Live Earth event not concieved with these ideas in mind? Instead of highly centralised concerts, with artistes imported from all over the world, the Live Earth brand should have been used to promote dozens, if not hundreds, of more parochial concerts. Big Name bands could curate a gig in their home town, discovering the latest talent via MySpace and the recommendations from the local scene – an easy ask for the Arctic Monkeys, say. These big name bands would, of course, headline the gig, and the crowds that they attract would be able to walk to and from the venue. Beer would be supplied from the local pubs – and it would be the local economy that recieved a financial boost.
Instead of a distant and mythological Al Gore, local politicians could re-engage with their electorate by explaining what the council is doing to recycle, and on what day the blue bins are being collected. Instead of a Jonathan Ross and Kate Silverton overload, local radio journalists could host the concert, and perhaps inspire some of the community cohesion that many towns lack.
The Live Earth website, instead of being a promotional tool for Madonna and Bon Jovi, could instead carry YouTube clips from thousands of concerts from all over the world. The most popular, as voted for by the Internet viewing audience, would be broadcast on network TV. Sure, these would probably be mostly the big acts (the Sheffield gig for the Arctic Monkeys, the St Andrews gig for KT Tunstall), but this method would undoubtedly throw up some interesting, idiosyncratic acts with a little local flavour, which nevertheless prove popular with Internet users. Some exposure for these artists would be welcome change from the smooth-edges required of any musician who wants to go ‘mainstream’.
Such an approach would also mean than millions more people could actively participate in the event, rather than passively via the TV as some of us have done this weekend. This would still inspire a collective memory, even though individual recollections would depend on which concert you went to see. The question “Where were you for Live Earth?” would not be about which pub you chose to sit in to watch the TV, but about what bands you saw and which friends you went with – an altogether more interesting question, and one that could travel the world.

Posted on

Cometh The Hour…

I am greatly enjoying the BBC Reith Lectures 2007, given by the economist Professor Jeffrey Sachs. He offers an optimistic world-view, and offers critiques against this notion that it is human nature to war, and our destiny to fail. It is as refreshing as it is inspiring.

For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal. – President John F. Kennedy, 10th June, 1963

One thing Sach’s stressed was the need for good – even great – leadership in order to build the trust required to effect global change. Kennedy (who he quotes often) had that gift, and was able to use diplomacy and rhetoric to bring about a Nuclear Test Ban treaty, just 18 months after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sach’s does not say it, but crucially George W Bush does not have these leadership qualities. After the disintegration of Iraq, this fact has became very clear to the American people, as evidenced by the Republican’s loss of Congressional control last November.
But it was ever thus. When people criticised President Bush’s approach, they were dismissed as either jealous, partisan, or simply elitist. When he failed to heed those critics, alter his demenour, or indeed, make concessions to opposition in his own country, he was lauded by supporters as strong and honest. But no-one followed, and all he demonstrated was a kind of faux leadership, epitomised by the charade of his ‘Mission Accomplished’ party on board an aircraft carrier. In fact, his attitude caused much of the United States, and most of the rest of the world, to distrust him and his administration. And if your own people do not trust you, what chance have you of convincing the rest of the world to do the same?
The change cannot come soon enough. Can Barak Obama win the trust of the American people and the world? He is certainly trying:

This election offers us the chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership. The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it.
This will require a new spirit – not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence. It will also require a new leader. And as a candidate for President of the United States, I am asking you to entrust me with that responsibility.