Tesco - Attacking Free Speech

A group of authors have signed a letter to The Times calling on Tesco to 'exercise restraint' over their ongoing libel action in Thailand. The protest has been organised by English PEN, a campaign group for freedom of expression. The full letter to the newspaper reads as follows:

Sir, We are writing to urge Tesco to exercise restraint over libel actions that we understand to have been recently launched by its subsidiary Tesco Lotus in Thailand. The claims have been brought against three critics of Tesco Lotus. One of these critics, Jit Siratranont, faces two years in jail accused of criminal defamation, and a civil damages claim of 1.1 billion baht (£16.6 million). While we accept the need for Tesco and other corporations to protect their reputation, we are concerned by this disproportionate response.

The offence of criminal defamation is considered by most international watchdogs to be incompatible with the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Its deployment now by a subsidiary of a UK-based company, which prides itself on “upholding basic human rights” and which “supports in full the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, sends an unsettling message around the world.

As writers we greatly value the tradition of free speech in Britain, and we would like to think that a leading international business such as Tesco would be concerned with exporting these values along with its groceries. We urge Tesco to impress its critics with the force of argument, not the threat of imprisonment.

Lisa Appignanesi

President, English PEN

Mark Haddon

Jonathan Heawood

Director, English PEN

Nick Hornby

Anthony Lester, QC

Marina Lewycka

Deborah Moggach

The supermarket is currently engaged in a libel battle with two Thai journalists for making critical comments about the retail giant. A libel battle that, according to one human rights expert, would be 'unable to succeed' if the action was taken in the UK.

Judging by some of the comments in The Times piece, many people are turning off Tesco altogether. Perhaps this is the start of a wider ranging boycott of the retailer. This case could, if it proceeds, be their McLibel. I for one will not shed a tear.

Thai Critic of Tesco in UK

Tesco won't be happy. Kamol Kamoltrakul, one of the Thai men currently being sued for defamation by Tesco, is currently in the UK as a guest of Index on Censorship. From The Guardian:

Kamol Kamoltrakul wrote one of his monthly columns in a Bangkok business paper last year on Tesco's aggressive expansion in the south-east Asian state. The threat from western superstore chains to Thailand's thousands of "mom-and-pop" retailers has been a controversial issue there for the past seven years.

His own English translation of his article, which he hands over, does not read in a particularly inflammatory style. It does contain a mistake: Kamol says: "The shocking truth is that 37% of [Tesco's] income comes from Thailand." And he goes on to make the case that Tesco's Thai profits are mostly returned to the UK "because of the complexity of accounting which can deduct a lot of expenses and show low profit". Kamol now says the 37% figure was a slip based on a misreading of figures and the correct number is more like 3.7%. But on the more general point, that Tesco ships profits out of Thailand, he claims: "I think I'm right." An economist by training, he says the limited information in the company's local financial reports suggests, for example, that they pay hefty royalties to their parent for use of the Tesco name.

Tesco said yesterday that royalties were charged by Tesco Stores Ltd to its Thai operations and to other foreign operations "for the provision of know-how and the use of brand and trademarks". This was described as "perfectly normal practice" in compliance with all relevant tax laws and agreed with both UK and Thai tax authorities.

Tesco said yesterday: "Tesco does not have a policy of using legal action to silence its critics. In fact until now we have never had to issue legal proceedings to defend our reputation. The ongoing cases in Thailand and the UK are entirely unrelated. Neither has anything to do with restricting free speech and it would be deeply misleading to suggest they do. The right to free speech does not of course imply the right to defame us.

"In Thailand Tesco Lotus has been seriously defamed in a sustained and malicious campaign over a number of months. In the UK, the Guardian made a series of very damaging allegations relating to Tesco's tax affairs despite our clear indications to the paper in advance that these were utterly false and that we would defend our reputation if necessary. The Guardian was given the opportunity to retract the allegations but chose not to do so.

"In both cases we have been left no option other than to take legal action - a step we would not consider unless we believed it was entirely justified. We still hope the matters can be resolved by agreement, but if not we will have to resort to the courts to restore our reputation."



This is the line that Tescoo has been sticking to ever since their actions have been revealed to the public. I wrote to Tesco and complained about their attempts to suppress free speech, threatening to boycott their stores until they drop the action. The response was essentially lifted from a statement prepared by their spokesperson (click on image):

There is no justification for this action. The consequences of a successful claim by Tesco is particularly worrying. Should they succeed, attempts to criticise large corporations, debate their impact on society or question their business practices will be seriously compromised. Considering the power that these organisations have in this increasingly privatised world, that should be a concern to everyone, Tesco shopper or otherwise.

US A Threat to Free Speech in Iraq

Just a week ago, Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on his followers to halt attacks on government forces as the security situation threatened to spiral out of control. That Iran was a crucial player in prompting al-Sadr to announce a ceasefire was, typically, a mere sideshow to the events in Iraq as witnessed through the prism of US hegemony. Al-Sadr has been seen as a vital bulwark to growing corporate control of Iraq's sovereignty for many people in Iraq. It is in this context, that we must view reporting of al-Sadr and any attacks that are made on his supporters. The final removal of al-Sadr as a serious voice of opposition in the region, will finally pave the way for a corporate takeover of Iraq and the completion of the neoconservative mission and thus enable the Iraq oil law to become binding. As one analyst from the Revenue Watch Institute, a group that advises policy-makers in the US and Iraq on the oil law, has said:

"Together with fair local elections, a resolution to Iraq's oil law conflict is the key to unlocking Iraq's development potential."

'Development potential' that would, as we know, benefit foreign oil corporations. Therefore, the neutralisation of al-Sadr's support is crucial to the establishment of a oil law that is in the interests of US corporate power.

Consequently, it comes as little surprise to learn of the latest action taken by US forces in the region. Tomorrow, al-Sadr had planned to march with 1 million Iraqis against the US presence within Iraq. The march would have given a very clear message to the forces of the empire. Let Iraqis govern themselves and allow them to put their interests above those of the global markets. This was, however, clearly intolerable for the forces of corporatism in Iraq. Consequently, US forces made their mark in Sadr city and sent a very clear warning: Iraq is under our authority. To reinforce this message, the US army launched airstrikes within Sadr city killing at least nine people (referred to as 'criminals' by the US army). Furthermore, due to intense fighting between Iraqis and US forces, at least 20 people were killed and 52 wounded, including women and children. There is little doubt why the US decided to act at this point, particularly when al-Sadr had been encouraging supporters to observe a ceasefire. A ceasefire, incidentally, that has done more to curb violence in Iraq than the so-called 'surge'

As a consequence of this action in Sadr city, al-Sadr has decided to call off the planned protest to mark five years of occupation. The reason for calling off the protest? According to al-Sadr himself:

"I call those beloved Iraqi people who wish to demonstrate against the occupation to postpone their march, out of my fear for them and my concern to spare their blood."

The US forces had achieved what they had hoped for. By indulging in shock tactics to frighten the supporters of al-Sadr, they have successfully frightened him into calling off a legitimate protest march against the ongoing occupation of Iraq. And yet, protests are a very potent symbol of a successful democracy, a democracy we were led to believe the neoconservatives were keen to spread. Instead what we are seeing is the suppression of voices that seek to threaten US hegemony in the region. Quite simply, it is US style corporatism or it is nothing. Anything that sits outsides the boundaries set by the occupying power is a threat to security and must be dealt with severely, regardless of civilian casualties. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who sought to curtail freedoms and ban the right to protest. It would appear that this alternative is no better. Unless, of course, you continue to see the world through the prism of US corporatism.

Tesco - Every Little Helps

Capitalists often tend to claim that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. That for people to be free from state tyranny, the best option is to reduce the power of the state and put public industry in the hands of capitalists who are free from the constraints of government bureaucracy. This would then, according to Milton Friedman's acolytes, lead to greater economic stability and prosperity. However, as we have seen in countries such as Chile over the years, in order for capitalism to truly thrive, civil liberties must be curtailed and a new authoritarianism must rise up. It is in this context that we see the latest efforts by the corporate world to replace state tyranny with corporate tyranny.

Tesco's operation in Thailand (Tesco Lotus) has taken the rather dangerous step of attempting to shut down the right to free speech in regard to it's operations in the country. According to reports:

Tesco Lotus, one of the biggest retailers in Thailand, has filed two staggering defamation cases against a Thai columnist and a former member of Parliament, sending a strong message to civil society and the press to tread carefully before criticising the retailing giant in Thailand.

Tesco Lotus is suing columnist/academic Kamol Kamoltrakul and former Thai National Legislative Assembly (NLA) member Jit Siratranont for 100 million baht and one billion baht, respectively, after they criticised and questioned the aggressive expansion strategies of Tesco Lotus in Thailand.

Put aside for one moment, the laughable concept that to defend against allegations of aggression, one must act aggressively. What exactly did they say that caused such offence?

Siratranont, currently the secretary general of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, was quoted by British newspaper "The Observer" as saying in a speech to 150 activists: "The large-scale expansion of the big retailers must be exercised with great care – not too aggressively and too rapidly - to reduce the potential tension, which could lead to serious conflict. There is also the need for the small retail traders to adjust to changes. Tesco Lotus must take all of this into account."

Kamol was sued for an article published in the Thai-language "KrungThepTurakit" (BangkokBizNews), which expressed generally the same concerns about Tesco Lotus' aggressiveness, and also what the columnist suggested was the retailing giant's weak social responsibility in Thailand.

Hardly worthy of a defamation case. Slowly but surely, across the globe, a new style of tyranny is spreading. This tyranny protects the rights of the rich whilst destroying civil liberties. Oh yes, they may tempt you with 'competitive prices' and the illusion of 'choice', but they simply want you to buy their goods and shut up. Totalitarianism is back, and we're the ones paying for it.

Ben Griffin World Against War Speech

Courtesy of Ten Percent.

Vanunu Appeals Against Judgement

Very little on this in any sources that I can find. I guess freedom of speech just ain't that important for the free press (oh, the irony).

Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear whistleblower, is due in court today, this time to appeal against the six-month sentence he received late last year for talking to foreigners. This sentence was not for what he said to them but, in conflict with human rights legislation, just for talking.

And now, not content with their ongoing prosecution of Vanunu, the Israeli authorities have once again disrupted his Christmas activities, on this latest occasion detaining him and a young German woman for many hours as they were meeting at the American Colony Hotel. Vanunu reports the German woman was harshly treated, including lengthy and aggressive questioning, despite having done nothing wrong.

Could this be the latest attempt by the vindictive Israeli security services to mount new charges against Vanunu, just before he goes to court to challenge their previous trumped-up charges?

Ernest Rodker
London

The Merits of Debate in The World of Blogs

I have been pretty critical of right-wingers in the past on this blog, justifiably so in some cases. However, kudos must go to Martin Simms, a guy who has been engaged in debate with me over the appropriate response to the situation in Iran. Suffice it to say, he tends towards the pre-emptive strike end of the spectrum. Although the debate was heated, sometimes perhaps too heated, it ended on good terms. Martin ended the debate with the following words:

Thank you for a wonderful debate, it was both educational and inspirational. Take care...Martin Sims Homepage 04.09.07 - 12:29 am #

A gracious an satisfactory way to end a debate. Martin was also kind enough to send me an email about the debate. He wrote:

Your points are shared by many, as are mine, but it is only through debate that reasonable people can come to understand where those with differing opinions are coming from. I do not think you are ignorant or evil because of your point of view, and I certainly hope that you do not think that I am ignorant or evil because of my point of view. I learned from our discussion as I trust you did, and it is just such an expansion of vision that I am most interested in fostering in myself and others...

Now, putting politics aside for one moment, this is what I truly respect. Many bloggers out there are not keen on opening up to a public debate. There are those out there who seek to shut down debate as it would expose their rather tenuous grip on the subject matter. Coincidentally, at around the same time as this debate, I discovered that I had been banned from commenting on another site, USS Neverdock. I have sent many comments to Marc at Neverdock in order to make a few points about the many things he posts on his site. Disappointingly, instead of engaging in debate, he simply refuses to publish anything that contradicts his viewpoint. That this amounts to a certain degree of totalitarianism (something he claims to oppose), seems entirely lost on him.

I would have far greater respect for bloggers such as Marc if they spent the time to explain their views. The fact that they broadly ignore anything that opposes their world view speaks volumes about how fearful they are that their arguments will be exposed and ridiculed in public. Instead of exposing themselves to scrutiny, they prefer to avoid the possibility altogether by indulging in censorship. What are they so afraid of? Are there views so under-developed that they cannot defend them against such scrutiny?? I sympathise to a degree, it can be very tempting to delete comments that you cannot argue against, but to do so suggests a level of intellectual bankruptcy. I try to employ a policy of allowing all comments on my site, unless they go over a very distinct line. I have deleted and banned one commenter who made anti-Semitic remarks about September 11th. I have also deleted defamatory remarks that claim that I am anti-Semitic. As far as I am concerned, along as the commenter doesn't indulge in racism or anti-Semitism, I will not delete their posts, no matter how deranged their point of view. For me that is the only way civilisation can develop. To debate and to argue different perspectives. Anything else is giving in to the ideals of totalitarianism.

Mike McCready Speaks Out About Webcast

The following is taken from the Pearl Jam website. Lead guitarist Mike McCready writes:

Thoughts of an American.

I grew up in a democratic system of government. This is what was taught all through Kindergarten through College. Freedom of thought and expression were hallmarks of my early education. These concepts and theories integrated my belief in an American system of democracy. Consequently, I became a musician because of these inalienable rights. Make no mistake I am an artist and a capitalist because of this system that I believe in and our country. I don't however believe that a capitalist corporation such as AT&T has the right to subvert the first amendment of the constitution to which we all are accountable. This happened on the night we played Lollapalooza. I was dismayed to hear that the act of censoring free speech was used to edit our song Daughter for a webcast. Surely the American listening public can discern for themselves what they deem acceptable to hear. This is a hallmark of our American way!! The freedom to listen to what you want or don't want to. The American public was duped as was I in believing that I can speak freely without censorship.

I can only look to historical figures who are above reproach in my mind, such as Thomas Jefferson "I hope we shall crush...in it's birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." I feel that corporations can still exist without worry of a few words at a rock concert and need not trample upon our constitution for the sake of profit.

Another example that I believe is relevant is a George Orwell quote from Animal Farm. "If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Some people don't want to hear our political beliefs in a song but that too is the beauty of America. WE CAN DISAGREE and still function as a democracy. When one person or company decides what others can hear, that is totalitarian thinking! This runs contrary to America and threatens the core of our freedom. We can think for ourselves, AT&T. I had the great pleasure of seeing the Space Shuttle launch live in Florida today. This gave me a feeling of excitement and patriotism in my country today.It showed me a future of ingenuity and promise for a better America.

With that I will leave you with a last quote from the quintessential American "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." This is an example of my belief in what Ed was saying the night we were censored during Daughter. You can't get more American than Mark Twain!!! Say no to censorship, it leads to dictatorship!

Mike McCready

Iran Arrests More Union Members, As Protests Spread Across the Globe For Mansour Osanloo

Taken from Scoop:

Today's worldwide day of action to free jailed union leader Mansour Osanloo has been answered by arrests and prohibition in Iran. This morning five members of the Executive Board of the bus drivers' union were arrested while state security agents have been positioned at Osanloo's house and are threatening union members who had planned to rally there to request his release.

Osanloo is being held without charge in Tehran's notorious Evin prison as the latest move in a brutal two year government campaign against him and his Tehran bus drivers' union.

Today's action day has been called by the ITF (International Transport Workers' Federation) as the latest tactic in its campaign to defend Osanloo and his fellow bus drivers. It is being supported by the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation), Amnesty International and unions and union organisations worldwide. Protests have today taken place or are shortly to take place in Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Great Britain, Iran, Indonesia, Finland, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Trinidad, the USA and Yemen.

ITF General Secretary David Cockroft commented: "If the Iranian Government wanted to know why workers worldwide are putting them under pressure then they've just supplied the answer. Today's arrests and intimidation show that despite all the reasonable approaches made to them in the last two years, they have locked themselves into a descending course of continued repression."

As union members once more stand up for their rights, those who claim to oppose the Iranian regime are strangely quiet. Strange, eh? I mean, I thought they were genuinely concerned about the Iranian people, not just in it for the opportunism. Ah well, fooled me. But then, of course, when the regime does fall, the right-wingers will claim that the left was quiet while the right went into battle. It's a bit like the fallacy over the Nazis. Some rightists claim that the left appeased Hitler (mmm, Chamberlain was a Conservative PM) and the right were the ones that opposed him. They obviously didn't oppose him enough. I don't remember many rightists joining the International Brigades when the Nazis were indulging in a proxy war in Spain. Facts eh? Confusing things.

The Information Divide - How Government Represses Vital Freedoms

The recent censorship of a performance by Pearl Jam at a festival in the US, is the latest in a long line of attempts by the privileged elite to restrict the flow of information and the right to free speech. Despite the rhetoric about spreading freedom around the globe, the west has been reluctant to grant the same freedoms at home as they claim to export abroad. The British government have been reluctant to allow a culture of free speech, and the past couple of weeks have only gone to reinforce the fact that this is one of the most secretive democracies in the world.

This has ever been so. Back in 1988, the then Conservative Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, gave a speech to the Royal Television Society Conference. In that speech, Hurd said the following:

'The disclosure of certain information was always harmful whether or not it had been published before.'

The Conservative government had shown that they had no intention of allowing a culture to develop that encourages freedom of information, and why should they have? For decades, government had been trying its utmost to ensure that the internal workings of government were not open to public access. The irony was, of course, that the British government at the time of Hurd's address was actually trying to encourage freedom of information in a country that was truly suffering at the hands of censorship. In the same year, Kenneth Baker addressed students at Moscow State University:

'What's the point in having computers and information technology if you are now allowed access to anything more than the contents of a modest library?...The information technology revolution cannot bear fruit without the free flow of information within society and between societies.'

Of course, being in the USSR, Baker would say that. The Conservative government proved that, although they talked of freedom of expression and lobbied their enemies to open up the flow of information, the establishment were reluctant to let go of the reins during the technological revolution. This double-speak continued, even after the Conservative government were finally kicked out of power in 1997.

The election of the Labour government in 1997 brought forth the promise of a more open style of government. Perhaps anticipating how difficult it would be to manage information in the age of the internet, the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act heralded a new age of access to information. However, this was not to last. In May 2007, Alastair Darling wrote to Lord Falconer expressing his concerns about the Act. In the letter, he claimed that government may need to:

"redress an apparent imbalance between the 'right to know' and the protection of private space where necessary for good governance".

Once more, the establishment had revealed that it cared little for the concepts of freedom of information, despite the Act. Even before Darling's letter had come to light (courtesy of the BBC by the way. A novelty, eh? A state broadcaster prepared to reveal the true nature of government machinations), MPs had been trying to put through legislation that would have prevented their travel expenses being open to the public.

Two recent actions by the government have also attempted to restrict the flow of information and the rights to free speech. Only today, it has emerged that the police are able to use terror laws to deal with protesters at Heathrow. According to The Guardian:

Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.

Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday. The police have been told to use stop and search powers against the protesters, who have pledged to take direct action on August 18 and 19 but not to endanger life.

The police powers will include:


· Stop and search people and vehicles for anything that could be used in connection with terrorism

· Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

· Hold people for up to a month without charge

· Search homes and remove protesters' outer clothes, such as hats, shoes and coats.

Remember when the government said that anti-terrorism powers will not be abused? As well as this blatant attempt to suppress free speech, the government has also been cracking down on the military. Only yesterday, The Guardian revealed that the Ministry of Defence has been taking steps to address soldier's rights to free speech. According to the report:

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

They also cannot release video, still images or audio - material which has previously led to investigations into the abuse of Iraqis. Instead, the guidelines state that "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence".

Despite the fact that this may contravene the Human Rights Act (an act that opponents of free speech have long lobbied to repeal), the government seems willing to continue with a blatant act of censorship to ensure control over the flow of information. But then, should we be surprised given that the government also crippled the BBC after a report that has proven to be factually accurate, yet exposed the truth behind the government. The hounding of the BBC in the wake of the Gilligan report, only laid bare the extent to which the government was willing to suppress information that was harmful to its interests, regardless of the facts.

Meanwhile, as the government continues to control the amount of information about the inner workings at Whitehall, the government is demanding even more information about the general public. Earlier this year, it was revealed that there is an amazing 4.2 million CCTV cameras in the UK (32 cameras around George Orwell's house alone), ensuring that the government is able to gather information about your movements. Government is also trying to introduce a mass programme of DNA collection from every citizen in the UK, providing important genetic information about the population. Finally, the government has also been pursuing the idea of a national identity card carrying biometric information. So, while the government has been restricting our rights to free speech and our ability to access information, they have been collating more information about us than any other government in this nation's history. And if you think the government won't abuse this mass of information, you only have to look at the abuse of anti-terror legislation that is being deployed by the police at Heathrow to realise that we are heading for desperate times.

This issue of freedom of information is a crucial one. If this country wants to stand as a beacon of freedom across the world, it must do something about the lack of freedom citizens currently enjoy. Whilst the government continues to restrict our access to information, while increasing theirs, the UK will remain a country divided along informational lines. That cannot be a good thing for democracy.

Corporate Whores At&T Censor Pearl Jam - This Means War You Fuckers

From PJ website (thanks RickB and War Within a Breath):

LOLLAPALOOZA WEBCAST: SPONSORED/CENSORED BY AT&T? 08.08.07

After concluding our Sunday night show at Lollapalooza, fans informed us that portions of that performance were missing and may have been censored by AT&T during the "Blue Room" Live Lollapalooza Webcast.

When asked about the missing performance, AT&T informed Lollapalooza that portions of the show were in fact missing from the webcast, and that their content monitor had made a mistake in cutting them.

During the performance of "Daughter" the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" but were cut from the webcast:

- "George Bush, leave this world alone." (the second time it was sung); and

- "George Bush find yourself another home."

This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media.

AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of "NetNeutrality." Check out The Future of Music or Save the Internet for more information on this issue.

Most telecommunications companies oppose "net neutrality" and argue that the public can trust them not to censor..

Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown..

"Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider." (Marguerite Reardon, Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 21, 2006, 2:23 PM PST).

But what if there is only one provider from which to choose?

If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting out bits of our performance -not based on laws, but on their own preferences and interpretations - fans have little choice but to watch the censored version.

What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.

The complete version of "Daughter" from the Lollapalooza performance is posted below for any of you who missed it. We apologize to our fans who were watching the webcast and got shortchanged. In the future, we will work even harder to ensure that our live broadcasts or webcasts are free from arbitrary edits.

If you have examples of AT&T censoring artist performances around political content, it's a good thing for everyone to know about. Feel free to post examples on the official Pearl Jam Message Pit.



SEE FOR YOURSELF 08.09.07

Check out a little video that we put together to clearly illustrate the difference between the webcast and the live video feed from Lollapalooza.

Daily Mail - Fascist Paper Indulging in Political Correctness?

You can always rely on the Daily Mail for a good old fashioned slice of hypocrisy. Clearly revelling in the plight of the BBC (although I have yet to meet anyone who has changed their views of the institution), they really go to town on the alleged pressure from the Queen to prevent the programme from being broadcast. Clearly taking the same view of the palace, their banner headline screams:

The Queen wants BBC's faked film banned
Palace fury at refusal to scrap 'misleading' documentary

And the views of the Mail reading public? Fairly typical of the type of person you would expect to read the Mail. Here are a few examples:

Of course it should not be broadcast, the question does not even need asking. And the enquiry is being led by a ex-beeboid.. Why bother?

- Irxin, South West, England

If the Queen does not want it to be shown after the mis-representation, then it should not be shown. It shows the BBC is still high handed and has not learned anything.

- John, Norfolk UK

It should be banned. Considering the BBC's recent record of duplicity, how can anyone have confidence in this, or any of their documentaries?

- Mr S Perkin, Penzance, Cornwall

Good for Her Majesty. She's not going to put up with the poor standards of the BBC. I'm sure the majority of decent people in this country are behind her and mourn the death of decency of this once-great broadcaster.

- Anon, Haywards Heath, W.Sussex/

She should ban it. She is after all still the Queen of England and deserves respect.

- Steve Jones, Stockport, UK

And it goes on. Yes, calls for censorship are alive and well in the pages of the Daily Mail. I guess this should come as no surprise given that the Mail was one of the key Nazi sympathisers during the 1930s. They just loved that whole censorship ideal. Still, it doesn't stop the fascist hypocrites from claiming to defend free speech. Take this example:

This trampling of free speech

An interesting article, here are a few quotes:

And where blustering officialdom thinks it can "challenge" and "educate" honest citizens whose opinions don't meet with its approval?

Time was when the answer would have been obvious. Such things might happen in banana republics or Communist dictatorships, but never here. Not in tolerant, democratic, free speech Britain.

In a county where violent crime shot up by 17 per cent last year, you might think the force would have better things to do than follow up this outrageous attempt to censor free speech. But no.

But this isn't the first time police have tried to suppress opinions that don't suit the political elite.

Maya Evans too knows all about the new censorship.

Today, politically correct senior commanders seem ready to push their powers to the limit and beyond, if they think it will please the establishment.

But just as worrying is the intolerance of views that don't follow the prevailing fashion. Isn't this supposed to be a country where there is an inalienable right to honest opinions, honestly expressed?

Hmmm. Censorship, it's all in the eye of the beholder. And this beholder is a great believer in censoring material to 'please the establishment'. Hypocrisy? You Decide.

<

Amnesty Campaign on Free Speech in Turkey

Amnesty International are running a campaign to abolish Article 301 of the Turkish penal code. Please lend you support:

People in Turkey are being persecuted simply for expressing their opinion peacefully

In January Hrant Dink, a prominent Turkish-Armenian journalist and human rights defender, was shot dead outside his offices. He was killed for his words - words that were thought to be a threat to the Turkish state.

Following his claim to be an Armenian from Turkey, Dink was accused of 'denigrating Turkishness' - illegal under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code. This triggered a hate campaign in the nationalist Turkish media which led to repeated death threats against him and his family.

Dink dedicated his life to democracy, mutual respect and freedom of expression and was persecuted for these convictions. Ultimately murdered. His assassination shows all too tragically the danger of Article 301. In contradiction to Turkey's international obligation to protect freedom of expression, 301 is now being used by ultra-nationalists to repress ideas and opinions and to persecute the people who hold them.

Article 301 must be abolished

At present, a number of Turkish writers, journalists, publishers, artists and human rights defenders are facing charges under 301. Most of them have been subjected to threats and intimidation.

Those of us who can must speak up in their defence

By making a donation today, you will be helping Amnesty keep up vital pressure on the Turkish authorities to end this violation of a fundamental human right.

Please make a donation to this campaign today

To donate, please click here.

Christian Groups Threaten Our Democracy

Apologies for the lack of posting the past couple of days. I was intending to blog last night, but we had a power cut which subsequently disabled the main PC. Luckily, my father in law has a lap top that I am able to borrow (on the downside, the keyboard layout is totaally different to what it says on the keys, so the punctuation might be a little odd). Anyway, one of the dubious pleasures when I am away, is the ability to watch Fox News. Now, I do not have SKY at home so, although I am aware of the content, I am not subjected to it every day. What is particularly fascinating at the moment is the focus on James Cameron's new documentary. Particularly in light of the storm caused over the Danish cartoons.

Whilst watching Neil Cavuto the other day, I was interested to see him interview a member of the Christian community about the documentary. During the course of the interview, Cavuto asked why Christians have been so calm in their response. The guy he was interviewing claimed this is because they are taught to 'turn the other cheek', in contrast to the Muslim community. This went unchallenged (this is Fox after all) and there was no attempt to balance this viewpoint. Imagine my surprise when I watch it today, only to see a Christian demanding that the documentary should not be broadcast. According to him, the documentary is offensive towards Christians. Yet, nobody claimed that this was an attack on free speech (as would have been the case if this had been a Muslim protesting). Mmmm, that kinda got me thinking. When the Muslim community protested about the publication of the cartoons, they were smeared as attacking the right to free speech. It was claimed that Christians would never behave in this way, and that their response was disproportionate to the cartoons themselves. Yet, according to Fox, it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to demand that a programme should not be broadcast because it is 'offensive' to them. This is, of course, not without precedent.

Back in January 2005, a cult known as Christian Voice, went beserk when the BBC aired Jerry Springer - The Opera. They even went so far as to claim that the programme breached their human rights. Luckily, the BBC ignored their protests and pushed ahead anyway, refusing to acquiesce to a bunch of religious zealots. Of course, we all know what the response would be if the Muslim community were to protest against a similar show about the Prophet Mohammed. The mainstream media would work itself into a frenzy of attacks upon the Muslim community.

Now, those that seek to protect the extremist Christian lobby would argue that they do not resort to violence to further their cause. They would argue that only the Muslim community would protest through violent means. This is, of course, entirely false. The Christian community is equally guilty of using violence to further it's cause. For example, there are those in America who have been guilty of murdering many abortion providers, including three doctors. All of these murders were committed by those that claimed to be Christian. There has been a campaign of violence and intimidation against abortion providers for many years and these tactics have been slowly making their way over to the UK. James Dowson in particular has been guilty of encouraging attacks on those that practice abortion. He has distributed names and addresses via the internet and encouraged those who share his twisted agenda to send hate mail and death threats in an attempt to intimidate those who do not share his views. Again, imagine how the mainstream media would react if a Muslim will engaging in such activities. No doubt they would be threatened with extradition, they would certainly not be ignored.

The supposed silence on questions of Islam, whilst Christianity is under continual attack, is a total fabrication. There have been continual attacks on the Muslim community in recent years, whilst the Christian community is treated with total veneration. As Media Matters has noted, commentators such as Glenn Beck and Bill Donohue, make constant attacks on Islam and yet will not accept any legitimate criticism of Christianity. Media Matters notes Glenn Beck's comments that:

"There is a double standard in the world today. Treat Christians one way, but heaven help you if you try that with anybody else's religion."

But when you examine his record, there is a wide range of attacks on Islam:


During a November 14, 2006, interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who recently became the first Muslim elected to Congress, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "

Beck mocked Islam by "mark[ing] the death" of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with a "Zarqawi bacon cake."

He described as "surprising" a letter criticizing Al Qaeda in Iraq because "the man who wrote it" -- Islamic Society of Nevada director Aslam Abdullah -- "is a Muslim."

Beck aired a segment mocking the names of several missing Egyptian students in which the announcer said that one "may or may not be accompanied by his camel." The segment showed pictures of crowds and pointed to random, unidentifiable people as the missing Egyptians. It ended with a reading of the students' names in quick succession followed by the announcer pretending to gag as he struggled to pronounce them.

As for Donohue, his record is much the same:

On the February 9, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Donohue said: "People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty."

On the December 8, 2004, edition of Scarborough Country, he said: "We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost."

In 2004, Media Matters first detailed anti-Catholic comments made by Jerome Corsi, who, as co-author of Unfit for Command (Regnery, August 2004), was one of the ringleaders of the smear campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- a Catholic presidential candidate. Among Corsi's bigoted comments: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." Despite the uproar surrounding Corsi's comments, Donohue subsequently dismissed the comments as "quips."

The very idea that somehow criticism of Islam is not allowed in the media is a ridiculous notion. The media is dominated with it. When there is an outcry by the Muslim community, there is talk of an over-reaction. When there is an outcry in the Christian community, there is talk of a community being under sustained attack. The fact of the matter is that both communities are guilty of over reacting when their faith is criticised. The difference is that the media always seeks to defend the Christian community, whilst seeking to demonise the Muslim community.