Banning 'Hate' Sites: A Rash Non-Solution

Sarkozy (left) wants to censor the Internet. Picture by Sergey Guneyev, from www.kremlin.ru.

In the wake of an Islamist-inspired shooting spree that left seven dead in southern France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed a brave new world of Internet surveillance and criminalisation: treating them the same way as people who access child pornography, he has said that 'habitual' viewers of sites that promote terrorism, violence, and 'hate' should be subject to imprisonment. It marks a bold new foray into widespread monitoring of online activity, and seems aimed at appearing 'tough' on jihadis and neo-Nazis who may seek to strike in the future.

Punishing those who repeatedly view sites that promote terrorism is clear-cut enough: you either endorse terrorist activities or you don't. But what defines a 'hate' site, exactly? We've seen in the UK how widely that particular net can be cast. It can be anything, from physical violence and verbal abuse to asking to be put with people you can actually work with in a science lesson. Or even not liking the taste of curry, by some insane standards (yes, that example is true - it comes from the National Children's Bureau, and you can read their 366-page epic novel, or, as they call it, 'guidance,' here). So will people now be banned from viewing this site, because I say that saag is one of the most disgusting foods invented by man? That sounds ludicrous. But, if Sarkozy's proposed e-law was implemented here on top of existing legislation, it would actually be perfectly possible. As that report reminds us, the definition of a racist hate crime in the UK is:

'..any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person'

Where the

'...intent and perception of the perpetrator are irrelevant.'

That means exactly what it says. Namely, that anything is racist if someone says so. Such a subjective definition writ large online is a recipe for disaster; not only would all manner of sites - including national newspapers - be walking a legal tightrope every day, but poor little blogs and private sites wouldn't stand a chance if someone took offence at their content - even if the accusations were, by any non-childish standards, baseless. This would be enough to constitute a hate crime, even though it doesn't say anything remotely offensive about Muslims in the slightest (for the sceptics: re-read it. It doesn't. 'Fundamentalists' aren't all Muslims, and only a tiny, unknown percentage of Muslims in the UK live in the ghettoes I'm referring to), and anyone who read this blog after its publication would now be up for a fine or a prison sentence. Why they read it wouldn't be taken into account. For instance, I read a handful of the anti-Islam blogs in this country on occasion, to keep an eye on that ghetto situation I mentioned earlier (festering pools of fundamentalist hate really grind my gears). Do I agree with them? No. I don't do identity politics, especially of the 'my kind is better than your kind' variety. It's just playground antics played out on a grand scale, albeit with more destructive consequences. But they are one of the best place to go for raw information on that subject: information which, were visiting them banned, no-one would have access to.

Then there's the matter of how the police would know who's visiting what and when. Lucie Morillon, of Reporters Without Borders (a group which already has France on its concern list) fears the new Internet surveillance system that will be necessary to make this law viable. The law also makes a ready assumption that a visitor to such a website not only agrees with its content, but wants to commit illegal acts. Laws which assume are dangerous things. The French government itself has no idea how the law would actually work; neither Sarkozy's office nor the Ministry of Justice have thus far offered any details. But, should it come to pass: be afraid. Be very afraid.

Reassessing the Mali Coup

The entrance to the Malian capital, Bamako.

It is now three days since disaffected army officers rolled up to the Presidential Palace in Bamako and ousted President Amadou Toure. The key charges laid against Toure by the rebel administration is that they have not been properly equipped to fight the rebels, that their widows have not received financial support they are entitled to, and that the government's handling of the crisis in general is 'incompetent.' Soldiers have complained of a lack of arms and equipment in the past, and, compared with the hardware brought home by Tauregs who fell in with Gaddafi's oil-rich regime the average Malian squaddie isn't what you could call technologically superior.

However, accepting the rebel's narrative at face value overlooks the fact that the Taureg's armed insurrection abated, as many Taureg fighters chased petrodollars rather than continuing the war at home. It only intensified in January - that's hardly long enough for disattisfaction to boil over into revolutionary sentiment, especially as Mali's twenty-year-old democracy was showing no signs of failing. Elections were due, and Toure was not a candidate; finding a replacement would have been a simple affair. Mali was also due to receive $137million in US military aid, mainly focused on counter-terrorism activities (an issue inextricably linked with the Taureg rebels, who offer safe haven to al-Qaeda militants) which the coup has now jeopardised. Either the 'National Committee for the Redressment of Democracy and the Restoration of the State,' as the rebels are styling themselves under the leadership of Captain Amadou Sanogo, didn't think this through in its entirety, or there is some other reason for their rashness.

What could that reason be? Well, first off, even quite considerably research into this Sanogo doesn't turn up anything that might give us a clue. He's a bog-standard African insurrectionist, a middle-ranking officer with some training at a US military college. He came out of nowhere, with no mentions of his name in the Malian news prior to the coup. He is a soldier, not a charismatic revolutionary leader, as any of his television performances will show you. However, there is something to be said about his supposed supporters: he claims to have received a message of support from one (and only one) opposition party, the tiny African Solidarity for Democracy and Independence. The party's president, by contrast, claims to have never heard of him, stating: 'I don't know him, I don't know anything about him.'

That said, the far-left, pan-African party, which opposes the privatisation of state industries and the influence of foreign multi-nationals, has a long history of being anti-establishment. With only four of the one hundred and forty-seven seats in parliament, it would never have won the election scheduled for April, and has long cast itself as an outsider - neither ruling nor opposition. It has previously debated whether to continue to participate in government, as some - including supporters of the Secretary-General - argued that it would be against the party's views. Most notably, in 2007 a local party activist was found dead - the party claimed assassination. Mistrust of government? Check. Revolutionary ideology? Check. Nothing to lose? Check. Refusing to denounce the coup, when every other party did so? Check. If the party itself is not involved in the putsch, its ideals might well be.

Socialistic pan-Africanism is a tried and tested recipe, that, if anything, will be the rebel's staying power - not arguments over army rations and equipment, which a simple election could have solved.

Independent Columnist Caught Out Misquoting Le Pen

'You cannot trust quotes on the Internet' - President William McKinley, Supreme Leader of Icantbelieveitsnotistan

If there's one thing that grinds my gears more than misquotations, it's conveniently-placed misquotations offered as evidence for a point that would otherwise be pretty shoddy. In an article entitled 'France is a deeply racist country, and Toulouse will only make that worse,' Adrian Hamilton has it that Miss Le Pen, leader of the right-of-centre-and-once-criticised-Islam, aka. far-right, Front National said the following:

fight this war against these politico-religious fundamentalists who are killing our Christian children, our young Christian men

thereby implying that she only cares for white Christians, and is thus deserving of the far-right, chauvinistic, xenophobe label that the Independent often ascribes to her and her party.  I should clarify that Adrian Hamilton has not misquoted her: rather, he's blatantly disregarded half of what she said. Her actual quote, as recorded in every other media report that discussed the subject, is:

fight this war against these politico-religious fundamentalists who are killing our children, who are killing our Christian children, our young Christian men, our young Muslim men and who killed these Jewish children two days ago

It makes a difference, no? The ommission of those lines can take Miss le Pen from a Muslim-bashing, foreigner-hating bigot to an open-minded and inclusive secularist. Their inclusion would have demolished the claim that France is a 'deeply racist country' -  the central thrust of the piece - and it simply wouldn't do to have the supposed 'far-right' leaders come across as more caring and inclusive than the average Guardian reader, now, would it? To include the quotes would have shattered the narrative. Perhaps that's why comments were disallowed, too, because a few of them would have shattered the narrative - or even pointed out Mr. Hamilton's error?

The French Left Rounds on Le Pen

Having failed to see a problem themselves, the left now seeks to discredit those that can. Picture by Antoine Bayet.

This time three days ago, the entire world suspected that the person responsible for the terror attacks in France was a far-right extremist. Or at least that's the impression you'd get if your source of information was Europe's national papers. The left-wing l'Humanite, which doesn't do beating around the bush at the best of times, screamed 'racist killer.' Le Figaro pondered ironically whether Islamophobia was to blame. La Depeche du Midi took a similar tack, noting that 'racism' was a possible motive.

Well out in front, though, was Britain's ever-humble Guardian, publishing a full piece on its online edition by one of its longest-serving columnists, Fiachra Gibbons, brazenly entitled 'race, religion, and murder.' He blamed outright the questioning stance of French politicians towards mass-immigration and Islamism, and opined that the killer was similar to Anders Brievik (a cultural nationalist ultraconservative) and neo-Nazis, inspired by the rhetoric of the presidential campaign trail. He, like most left-wing comment pieces on the subject, made reference to the Front National, the French party blithely mislabelled far-right (more like backbench Tories, who happened to mention Islam on TV) famous for their integrationist, anti-Islamist stance, and their dynastic le Pen leadership.

It's since turned out, of course, that the killer was not the 'far-right' at all, nor was he a white racist, but in fact an Islamic fundamentalist who claimed links to al-Qaeda. You'd think that Marine le Pen would stand vindicated, and, to her mind, she does. But, rather than operating under a code of humility and retracting their mistakes - or at least adjusting their rhetoric to suit the truth - the same newspapers that initially blamed her and Sarkozy for the attacks now accuse her of playing the crisis for political gain.

Having changed her moniker from the incorrect 'far-right' to the wildly wrong 'extreme-right,' undoubtedly in an attempt to offset any popularity she may have gained, the Guardian accused her of 'playing the politics of fear' in 'the hope of repeating the electoral shock' of 2002, where her father (who was actually far-right) came second to the incumbent. Alexis Corbiere, a spokesman for the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon accused her of feeding 'a Crusader spirit inspired by religious war under the theory of a clash of civilisations.'

That's abysmally wide of the mark: it fails at the word 'Crusader.' Le Pen is not talking of embarking on foreign expansionist wars: she is, and has only ever, spoken of increased (perhaps excessive, and some would say oppressive) vigilance against Islamist fundamentalism at home, specifically in the banlieus. Vigilance that would have served well if put in place already. Nor has she stated any support Christianity, or hinted that it is 'superior.' Unlike her father, she's cut a more secular tack through the minefield of religion: in fact 'politico-religious fundamentalists' of all colours or creeds are what she's set herself against in the days since the attacks, deploring the men 'who are killing our Christian children, our young Christian men, our young Muslim men and who killed these Jewish children two days ago' (note: she was shamefully misquoted by Independent columnist Adrian Hamilton, who ommitted her reference to Muslim men and Jewish children on a piece where comments were, unusually, disallowed).

Le Pen has said nothing since the crisis that she didn't say before it. But she has put her presidential rivals - whom she accuses of ignoring the Islamic fundamentalist threat - on the back foot. Now, in the wake of an event which validates, if not vindicates, her claims, her critics are having to resort to mislabelling, misquoting, and outright lies in order to prevent her approval ratings from rising.

No Taxation Without Representation

Robin Hood: more of a 'man of the people' than any Commissioner will ever be.

The Commission has finally resorted to bribery to ease the implementation of its financial transactions (aka. 'Robin Hood') tax: if countries, thus far reticent about allowing a supranational body to directly level taxes on legal entities under their jurisdiction, agree to play ball then their net contribution fees to the European Commission will be reduced by half. The idea is that of the EU’s Budget Commissioner, Janusz Lewandowski, who, facing stiff opposition from Germany, the UK, France, and others, has had to come up with more innovative ways to get his message across.

Like most deals, it sounds attractive until you boil it down: allowing the Commission to impose a tax on large financial transactions well beyond what most of us will ever deal with, and in return we all save a substantial amount of money. £7,600,000,000, in fact - or one hundred and twenty four pounds extra that the government could spend on every single person in the country. If you're brain skipped that number, rather than reading it, then you've got a measure of just how big it us. But, boiled down, it does not sound quite as appealing: let us, an unelected body, set taxes over the heads of your elected parliaments and we won’t charge you so much for the privilege of our governorship. Not only would accepting this deal a titanic blow to our notion of ‘democratic control,’ allowing an unelected, unaccountable, and largely unknown institution to plumb the depths of our pockets without us being able to do a thing about it, but it is also nonsensical: why should we get our money back? Why should we be paying in the first place> The Commission doesn’t do anything that our elected pdoesn’t, or couldn’t.

Our elected government could put in place an exact replica of anything the Commission espouses, to the same effect. The tax itself would remain unchanged; it’s the institution that’s different. Not only would this be infinitely more democratic, ensuring that the only institution that can rifle through our family budgets remains directly accountable to us, but we’d save double the amount that the Commission are offering, simply because we would not be paying them a penny in the first place. We would keep all the £15,200,000,000 that we are scheduled to give them in net contribution over the next ten years alone (assuming that our contribution doesn’t rise - and it always does). Put simply, we can have exactly the same thing, without sacrificing our democratic control over the government, or shelling out much-needed cash. When the contrast is made between having a national government putting in place an FTT or the European Commission doing the same, the national, democratic option comes off better in every respect.

That is if we do go down the route of a financial transactions tax, of course: that would be a very risky action, considering that our economy is shaky at the moment and the only sector we can consistently count on is the financial one. London is still clinging on to its title as the world’s financial capital, and in times when we’re not exactly outdoing ourselves with the growth figures it would be irresponsible to let any economic advantage slide, much less give it away to one of our close competitors. But no matter what the idea is, and no matter how vehemently you disagree with it, it is far better that it is put in place in as democratic a way as possible. After all, loss of money is temporary, and easy to rectify. Loss of control is not. We can always repeal a law or tax we don’t like, provided we have control over the people who set it.

Co-operation Doesn't Require the EU

'I am Nils Olav, commander of armies.' Picture by Lee Carson.

It's an observation that the more astute, and perhaps less ideological, critics of the EU often make: almost nothing the EU does couldn't be done without it. The most oft-stated 'benefits' of its existence - and our membership - do not actually require it at all. Greater co-operation between nations, enhanced trade links, and closer defence ties are all things that could be, should be, and, the world over, already are, being taken care of by democratically-elected national governments, under the auspices of no-one but their own electorates.

What proponents of the EU often forget is that nations are capable of unity and agreement with unaccountable supranational government. In fact, there is not a region on earth which does not have some kind of assembly where diplomats from all nations in that region come together and negotiate for their mutual benefit. They sign trade agreements, co-ordinate efforts, synchronise laws, etc. all without surrendering an inch of national, economic, or democratic sovereignty.

The UK and Europe is just as capable of it as any other state or region. Only today, we signed a Memoranda of Understanding with one of our oldest allies, Norway, allowing for greater co-operation in the field of military defence. Similar agreements have also been signed with Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland. It comes after comments, made by David Cameron in January, that there was an 'alliance of common interests,' ranging from economic to environmental issues. All the while the EU is nowhere in sight. So much for it being 'vital' to peace, co-operation, and prosperity in Europe.

14% 'Want Further Integration'

Your move.

It's amazing how many ways the same poll can be cut:

60% want to loosen ties.
20% want to leave.
Only 13% happy with the status quo.
Two times as many people want out than in.

One thing you can't ignore is the figures themselves. Not only has a YouGov-Cambridge poll found that over sixty per cent of people in the UK want a referendum on our membership of the European Union, one of the highest figures ever recorded, but it's also revealed that only 14% of people in the UK want further integration.

This is one of the lowest proportions ever recorded, and shows not only that support for EU integration is slipping, but that any new treaty, any new framework, and any new opt-in will automatically enjoy the support of just over one in ten people - hardly a ringing endorsement. The subtle inclusion of a third option, akin to Scotland's 'devo-max,' dilutes but does not hide the truth: that the overwhelming majority of people are not happy with the way things are, or the way things are going in regards to Europe.

David Cameron, take note before you put your name on the dotted line.