Freedom of Speech (Just Watch What You Say)

The recent lobbying scandal exposed by Channel 4’s Dispatches has seen former Labour ministers Stephen Byers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt suspended, pending an inquiry. The three amigos were filmed ‘allegedly’ offering to sway Westminster decisions in exchange for thousands of pounds.[1] This sleazy episode is just the latest in a long line of misdemeanours and mismanagement by our political leaders. I don’t think they realise the full extent of popular disgust over their avarice. For example, witnessing Lord Mandelson kneeling in obsequiousness on a recent Newsnight ,as he complimented former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke’s financial acumen, engendered disgust, alienation, and anomie in this particular viewer. If Mandy could have sweet talked the Lib Dem representative, we may have witnessed a ‘double dip’ more carnal than financial.

I’ve never felt further alienated from Westminster politics, and I’ve never trusted politicians less. It is depressing and frustrating spending hours on end searching for work and hearing the same old doublespeak sound-bites from politicians. Those in our society who contribute most- nurses, social workers, those working with vulnerable children and adults, and mental health workers, are downtrodden, undervalued and underpaid. Yet, despite the continuing financial crisis, which could as easily deepen as improve, bonuses are already being paid to bankers and politicians are still ‘on the take’; as the old Mafia saying goes ‘one hand washes the other’. We are told to trust the government and the banks: that they ‘know what they are doing’, that this is ‘just a dip, things will pick up again.’ I wonder how catastrophic things have to become before our leaders admit that it is not the performance of the financial machine which is pathetic, but that the machine itself is broken beyond all repair. Financial recovery this time around must also provide in-built safeguards and assurances for Third World and developing countries, because if we are struggling here in the West, be assured that conditions of poverty and deprivation in these areas are compounded beyond belief by this crisis. Financial recovery after WWII did not even take Third World or developing nations into consideration, and the seeds of the current crisis were sown in the form of the explosion of credit debt in the US from the 50s to 60s. We should look at a system which is fairer for all, and is not based on greed and exploitation, because it is patently obvious that the current system hurts us all and encourages inequality, injustice, division and hatred.

The Home Office recently wasted £10 000 of taxpayer’s money losing a battle to keep rapper Snoop Dogg out of the UK. Snoop Dogg may yet face further problems over performing in the country due to previous criminal convictions. However, he won his case on the basis of his right to freedom of expression.[2] Government officials had banned Snoop from entry to the UK in 2007 because they feared that the MC would incite gang violence in some of his fans who could already be involved in criminality and his visa was refused because he had previous convictions for drugs and firearms offences. It is amazing that our Government thinks that our sensibilities are so fragile. It is a pity that the Blair Government was not positively influenced by the acid house counterculture when it used an ecstasy anthem (‘things can only get better’ by D: ream) to herald its General Election victory in 1997. However, the only kind of trip Blair was on was a power trip, and, like Snoop, (although not convicted), Blair is suspected of complicity in serious firearms offences- up to 2008, according to the revised ORB survey, there had been an estimated 1,033,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the invasion in 2003.[3]

We don’t need rappers like Snoop Dogg to influence us towards a path of gangsterism: we’ve got much more powerful crooks in Westminster. In the words of Public Enemy’s Chuck D – ‘The Government’s gangster so cut the crap, there’s a war goin on, so where y’all at?’

---

[1] http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-57/episode-1

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7403573/Snoop-Dogg-US-rapper-wins-100000-legal-fight-to-visit-Britain.html

[3] http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:poYbDjVlYVkJ:www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/Revised%2520Casulaty%2520Data%2520-%2520Press%2520release.doc+site:opinion.co.uk+revised+casulty&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Contrasting Libertarian Traditions in the US & Europe

Classic libertarianism, like most political ideologies, had a European conception. However, it was most readily accepted and flourished across the Atlantic, where it influenced the political leanings of the founding fathers of the modern-day United States.

The British philosopher John Locke is associated with the codification of Libertarian thought in his magnus opus “Two Treatises of Government”.[1] This was an explicit refutation of the political philosopher Robert Filmer, and an implicit critique of Thomas Hobbes. Both had written in defence of the traditional monarchical system, whose merits were in debate in the 17^thcentury. Writing in the wake of the English Civil War, Filmer and Hobbes were strongly in favour of a dominating, unifying, enforcing sovereign authority in the shape of a monarch.[2] [3]

The mode of political discourse at this time was based on what is known as Social Contract Theory. This was based on Hobbes’ imagining of a “State ofNature”, a unpoliticized state of being. It does not refer to a particular moment in human history to which one can look to and observe a world free of political influence, but rather, it refers to the state of the human condition when it is absolutely free of any political interference or social constructed institutions. For Hobbes, the state of nature meant a dangerous existence which was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. This required the metaphorical social contract with a monarch which the citizens entrusted with keeping their security.

For Locke, the state of nature was not as dismal as painted by Hobbes. Instead, the sate of nature was virtuous as it allowed liberty and human nature ensured that neighbours’ actions were, for the most part, in concert. However, a social contract to allow minimal government was endorsed by Locke, as a means to preserving this liberty and providing the means to which individual freedoms could excel. This is the classic libertarian stance and was readily accepted by the founding fathers of the United States as the political basis for their new federation of states, which mandated direct government at the state, rather than national, level.

The libertarian standpoint is still very strong in the modern America with strong libertarian lobbies within the two major parties, and a smaller libertarian party also contesting elections. Even in the literary and motion-picture culture, in Randian heroes such as Howard Rourke and John Galt,[4] and in the hero protagonists of many old Westerns that celebrate the fiercely independent frontier spirit, there is a proud sense that libertarianism is in step with the American ideal and US exceptionalism.

While analysis of libertarianism in the US has often been best viewed in light of the American laissez-faire capitalist structure that prevails there, conversely, in Europe the tradition of libertarianism has traditionally been most associated with those who protest state socialism, which is seen as the injection of government into virtually every aspect of the state and therefore being the most suffocating system of government on individual freedoms and private property. Unlike the synchronicity of US libertarianism with the prevailing political culture and tradition, there is a distinctly counter-culture or political-opposition flavour to libertarianism in the European context.

The Austrian school of economics, a school of libertarian economic thought, was established by Ludwig von Mises and argued against the socialist trend in Europe in the early 20^th century, as European states began to adopt a so-called European Social Model, based around the emergence of the welfare state.[5] Mises decried that “The continued existence of society depends upon private property.”[6] However, the welfare state is an almost uniquely European, and proudly European phenomenon, and consequently libertarianism is relegated to the meek but important role of critique and reason.

---

[1] http://books.google.ie/books?id=K1UBAAAAYAAJ&dq=locke+two+treatises+of+government&source=gbs_navlinks_s

[2] http://books.google.ie/books?id=-Q4nPYeps6MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hobbes+leviathan&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[3] http://books.google.ie/books?id=hANUPgAACAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randian_hero

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_social_model

[6] http://mises.org/quotes.aspx?action=subject&subject=Private%20Property

Ribbons and Bows: The Political Package

“We can’t go on like this.”[1] Never one to shy away from platitudes, David Cameron may have inadvertently stumbled upon the very reason that voting in this general election has become more about the personality than the policy.

During the run up to the 2010 general election the majority of the electorate has already decided who they are going to vote for. This decision has been made a lot easier by political packaging. The struggle between the two major political parties in the UK has been less Herculean and more like a limp struggle between two inebriated IT specialists. Not exciting. Certainly not parabolic. Just political packaging. Each party attempts to win over the electorate with glossy campaign posters, relying heavily on the stereotypical image of their party. David Cameron’s right, we can’t go on like this.

But year on year we do go on like this. The same voters turn up and vote for the same party, determined to fight for democracy. Unfortunately, the reality falls far short of this ideal. The strong relationship they have built with their party suffers as they become increasingly disillusioned by the flaws beneath the thin veneer of political assuredness. Nothing much changes to improve “our number one priority”- the NHS.[2] Nothing much changes to eradicate the education budget cuts. Absolutely nothing changes in the bid to economically overtake our neighbours and reclaim our gilded throne where siteth the financially gifted (eth). Instead, the perception we have built up of Dave and Gordie has been destroyed by the reality of their inadequacy. However, at each general election we are sucked in again. Fooled by the way sparkly rhetoric seems to glide off the page and into our heads. Fooled by the promises of a “future fair for all”.[3] Fooled by our own inclination to vote for the political packaging.

As we begin to recover from the glare of the sun striking the promises of yesteryear a frightening thought spurs us into inaction. What happens when the party we vote for changes but its image stays the same? Last year another important general election occurred, this time in South Africa. The African National Congress maintained their political stronghold in the country, winning 65.90% of votes.[4] “The ANC's key objective is the creation of a united, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic society.”[5] Yet, by placing the ANC in power for another term South Africans have condemned themselves to rule under a man accused of bribery, rape and corruption- Jacob Zuma. Because of what the electorate feels the ANC represents they vote, irrespective of how the party has changed under Zuma. A ray of hope for Black marginalised South Africans has been extinguished leaving only political packaging. A traditional Zulu man with a natural propensity to smile and a scummy residue of chauvinistic charm to conceal his incompetence. A package.

Sitting in our centrally heated houses, complaining about our free healthcare and subsidised education, it is easy to assume that this plight is another African problem engendered by corrupt leaders and rotting institutions. The future of democracy is affected by neither. Politicians will continue to be shrouded in a cloud of personal and political scandal. However, it is our duty to ensure that we vote with our heads and not our heart, that we make the informed decision and not the easy one, and that the people in power represent the future of our country. No country in the international community can afford to bury the corpse of democracy during a time where political and economic development is vital to our survival.

---

[1] http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/01/David_Cameron_We_cant_go_on_like_this.aspx

[2] http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/02/Andrew_Lansley_Our_NHS_our_number_one_priority.aspx

[3] http://www.labour.org.uk/future-fair-for-all

[4] http://www.elections.org.za/NPEPWStaticReports/NationalList_MPs.pdf

[5] http://www.anc.org.za/about/anc.html

To Serve and Protect: The Lisbon Treaty

The EU has been an ever expanding organism since its birth. What started as a loose trade alliance between a handful of countries based on the key industrial materials of the mid-twentieth century, coal and steal, eventually grew into an economic behemoth. A breadth of treaties and legislation apply uniformly across the continent bringing national economic players and institutions into closer alliance and partnership. Despite many successes, the external security the union is one area where the EU has failed to properly integrate and the 27 member states retain control over their own foreign relations and security matters. While the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) exists, it has to date been largely disorganised, ineffectual, and superficial in clout.

Internal security is another matter. Europol is the intelligence agency of the EU and began operating over a decade ago, in 1994. However, the idea for an integrated cross-border policing organisation was first promulgated in Europe as far back as before World War I.[1] The Europol office in The Hague, The Netherlands is a hub of information pooled by all twenty seven of the EU’s member states. The added benefit of the organisation is that it can conduct meta-analysis of data and information, identifying trends and understanding patterns, by looking at a wider picture than national police forces.

The so-called Europol Council Decision, which came at the same time as the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, is much more direct than the reforms in the treaty proper. It made Europol and EU agency, rather than a body funded by member states. Our examination reveals steep increases in Europol’s implemented budget in recent years: €52 (2005), €52m (2006), €55m (2007), €65 (2008), €68m (2009), €80 (2010). [2] [3] [4] This is a significant change in the funding and organisational structure of the body. At the time of the decision a spokesman for Commission Vice-President Jacques Barrot said,

“This is a veritable transformation, not merely a cosmetic one. Europol will become a full EU body, with the tools to support law enforcement agencies in the Member States even more effectively. As a result, European police forces will cooperate more closely.”[5]

The Lisbon Treaty influenced the direction and advancement of Europol indirectly through the EU’s second internal security organisation Eurojust. A department of public prosecution, the agency fills a similar role to that of the district attorneys office in the US, and was established in 2002. The Lisbon Treaty expanded the list of crimes subject to judicial cooperation, by proxy expanding the mandate of Europol.[6]

The Telegraph journalist Philip Johnston points out that this is the vital step in expanding a system that “was designed in the first instance to deal with offences against the EU's financial interest.” Johnston stands opposed to the developments heralded by the Lisbon Treaty arguing that the fundamental difference in judicial system of the UK and Ireland (common law) to most of the rest of Europe (civil law) means that these advances are incompatible in principal and, secondly, are detrimental to sovereignty. [7]

However, some critics decry that the Lisbon treaty did not go far enough to coordinate policing and justice in the union. Hugo Brady, a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, argues that having two organisations complicates operations and duplicates duties, causing confusion and distrust of the current system. These problems have not been properly addressed by the Lisbon treaty and Brady argues that it is essential that further moves should be made to merge the two organisations.[8]

The development of the law enforcement and judicial capabilities are sure to be a contentious issue in Europe going forward. For some the EU is going to far, and other’s it is not going far enough. The intricacies of the issue lie in the fact that the sprawling and interconnected nature of European legislation means that a development in a seemingly loosely related field may have unintended consequences that may expand or contract the capabilities of the justice and law enforcement bodies of the Union.

---

[1] http://www.slate.com/id/2135558/

[2] http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/Budget/Budget2006.pdf

[3] http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/Budget/Budget2007.pdf

[4] http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/Budget/Budget%20and%20Staff%20Establishment%20Plan%202010.pdf

[5] http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/610

[6] http://www.uaces.org/pdf/papers/0801/2008_Quaglia.pdf

[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7125259/The-very-moment-to-put-Europe-in-its-place.html

[8] http://centreforeuropeanreform.blogspot.com/2007/12/should-europol-and-eurojust-merge.html

Independence and Interdependence - Politics of the English Independence Party

I take a keen interest in the current debate on Scottish independence. At some point this year, Scottish people will vote in a referendum on whether Scottish devolution should continue in its current form, should be extended to full devolution, or should transmogrify into full independence: effectively ending a Union which has existed for over three hundred years. I’m fascinated by concepts of national identity- what it means to be Scottish in the 21st Century. The SNP is careful to avoid the negative connotations of nationalism- appeals to a sentimentalised, romanticised past, an identity based on ‘the other’; what we are not; and commensurate notions of ethnic purity. Therefore, notions of Scottish identity are complex and fluid. Scotland is a nation which was not only colonised but also participated in a global colonisation project. I am reminded of this every time I pass Buchanan Bus Station in Glasgow, named after one of our ‘Tobacco Lords’, who made his fortune in Jamaica from slave labour. Furthermore, I am also interested in English national identity: what it means to be English, the concept of Englishness and political debates over English independence. In this pursuit, I discovered the website of The English Independence Party (EIP).

The party is committed to furthering the welfare of the English and combating widespread institutionalised discrimination against the English. However, we recognise that where elected, we will also have to represent the interest of all who are lawfully living England. We will observe this obligation which is an essential part of a representative democracy. We regret that others have felt no need to represent our interests’ (1). Thus, immediately, Constantine makes an important distinction: there is a difference between ‘the English’ and those ‘who are lawfully living in England.His concession that, if elected, the party will ‘have to’ represent the interests of this lawfully abiding group is reminiscent of a bone being gradually twisted from a bulldog’s jaws; an English bulldog of course; not a British one.

Constantine subsequently clarifies the difference between ‘The English’ and ‘all who are lawfully living in England’. It seems that there are two types of Englishness in his England- ‘civic Englishness’ (2) and ‘ethnic Englishness’ (3). ‘Civic Englishness’, for the EIP, is ‘determined simply by an association with England, perhaps by residence or birth. Anyone, regardless of ethnicity, can assume this identity’ (4) whereas, ‘ethnic Englishness’ is ‘founded on a sense of community and a way-of-life. We English are an ethnic group and a nation. We are a group of people sharing ancestral roots, a history, a language and a sense of belonging together. We are of English origin, descent and heritage’ (5)

So, what is to become of the ‘civic English’ in the prospective dystopian England of the EIP? Will they be tolerated, exterminated, or will a system of apartheid be introduced? At this point, Constantine clambers aboard his white charger and belches his pre battle address to his troops- ‘They did not ask our permission when they systematically took from us our ability to live freely in our own land, and we shall not ask their permission as we set about taking back that freedom’ (6)

Anyone with an ounce of intellect would find EIP policies repellent. However, in times of economic crisis, we look to rid ourselves of ‘the other’ and synthesise a sense of identity based on who we are not. Those who are vulnerable and downtrodden are pushed into the arms of parties like the EIP and BNP. Western economic dominance was founded on the exploitation of the resources of indigenous cultures and the enslavement of their inhabitants. Furthermore, the perpetual economic enslavement of developing and third world economies is an integral and inherent component of our current system. Yet, when the corruption of that system is exposed by the current financial crisis, we do not examine our own complicity: we feel the pinch in our pockets and look for someone to blame, marginalise, demonise, and exterminate. In the words of Joe Strummer, ‘if Adolf Hitler flew in today, they’d send a limousine anyway’.

References 1-6: http://www.englishindependenceparty.org/index.php

Time for the UK to Reform the Official Secrets Act?

In the UK, the moniker The Official Secrets Act does not actually refer to a single, stagnant document but rather it is an evolving and expanding body of legislation that has built up from the late 19th century. The first incarnation came into law in 1889, but was refined in 1911, reflecting the paranoia in Britain that German spies were operating in the UK and were carrying out clandestine intelligence gathering.[1]

The possibility of war with Germany was seen as a very real threat at this time. The novel “The Riddle of the Sands” by Erskine Childers was a very popular book and was widely read in the early years of the 20th century. It was published just at the turn of the century in 1903 and is regarded as one of the first examples of a novel with espionage as its primary theme. The main protagonist and his companion stumble across a German plot to invade the British Isles by sea.

The primary concern for Britain was that the unification of Germany, about three decades earlier, had led to German imperial ambitions. The colonial empire had began amassing a number of territories including what is present day Namibia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Burundi, and Rwanda, among others. These far flung dominions required an expansion of naval capabilities that threatened British dominance in the high seas. Thus there was a natural, if exaggerated, atmosphere of distrust in Britain towards Germany.

Since 1889, sections of the act have been repealed and replaced many times, with the most recent changes being applied in the Official Secrets Act 1989.[2] However, the primary purpose of the act, to prohibit the external passage of information obtained while in the employ of the Crown, has not changed in over the century since the act’s initial conception.

However, there is reason to believe that the legislation is inadequately equipped to the threats of the modern day, such as terrorism. For instance, the Canadian equivalent of the act, which was adopted in Canada almost verbatim in 1890, was replaced in December 2001 with the Security of Information Act which is part of the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act.[3] This new act expands the scope by acknowledging the threat posed by “new players (other than the governments of traditional states) [which] include governments-in-waiting, governments in exile and other foreign powers, as well as terrorist groups”.

Reform of the act in Britain has not been expedient since the 9/11 or 7/7 terrorist attacks. However this may have more to do with protecting the government’s policy actions rather than a simple neglect of important legislative reform. In a press release on the 26th of January, 2010, Liberal Democrat’s leader Nick Clegg implicitly made this case, stating:

“The number one responsibility of civil servants must be to the people of Britain, not self serving Ministers. That is why my party would amend the Official Secrets Act to restore the public interest defence for whistleblowers that was originally removed by the Conservatives. If that protection had been in place when the fateful decision was taken to invade Iraq Tony Blair and Gordon Brown might have been more openly challenged by officials who harboured real doubts about the war. But without cast iron protection for whistleblowers, it was too easy for this government to bully and cajole the civil service into remaining silent about one of the greatest errors of any government in the post war period.”[4]

Perhaps with the interest surrounding the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry, and the public scrutiny of the David Kelly affair, a new resilience will emerge to reform the outmoded act. Also, perhaps, if the much touted election reform referendum is passed next year and brings about a proportionally representative system á la Duverger's law[5], the LibDems will have a greater pulpit from which to proliferate their message on the much needed revision of the act.

---

[1] http://www.jstor.org/pss/1409984

[2] http://pso.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/pso8100/documents-and-forms/Guide%20to%20OSA1.pdf

[3] http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/nwsrm/bckgrndrs/bckgrndr12-eng.asp

[4] http://www.libdems.org.uk/press_releases_detail.aspx?title=Nick_Clegg_calls_for_whistleblower_protection_to_be_restored&pPK=7956255e-ff96-4bbe-9b3a-fbafd82113e1

[5] http://ideas.repec.org/p/clt/sswopa/688.html

Documentary Photography’s Influence on Public Policy

Photography is an important tool used to shape public policy and perception and to effect social change. Photography became an important emerging medium, in the mid 19th century, stretching back as far as before the American Civil War. It is difficult to speculate how much the evocative photography of that era influenced public opinion on the war. However, the war is significant in being one of the first major events where documentary photography showed its potential as a mass medium for the dissemination of visual information. Previously prints and lithographs were the primary method by which images were shared and spread. Alternatively, photography offered a reality and truth that could not be matched by the earlier technology.

It would not be long before documentary photography was adopted by governmental institutions to carry out their work and showcase their findings/achievements. The United States Geological Survey, or USGS, was one such government agency which used documentary photography in their work. In the late 19th century they surveyed the western United States which became a useful reference for law and policy makers in the east who had never been to the frontier lands, but who were expected to create a just federal code. Later in the United States, Joeseph Riis pushed the case for urban social policy reform with his printed collection of images of inner-city ghetto and tenement dwellers. During the Great Depression, Dorothea Lange was famously charged with the task of documenting the life of dustbowl, or ‘Oakie’, farmers and sharecroppers, by a New-Deal agency. The harrowing images, while of great archival importance, were undoubtedly unique and unsurpassed propaganda for New Deal advocates. Peter Stoz has compiled a fascinating article in the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare entitled “Documentary Photography in American Social Welfare: 1897-1943”, which analyses the policy implications of some of the projects noted above, and some more.[1]

Cause and reform advocacy are quintessential, if not defining aspects of documentary photography, thus inextricably linking the practice with the political domain and the policy-making process. Themes of injustice and immorality are overarching in the medium and scholars continue to study the effect of documentary photography on the policy process. In the Journal of Women’s Health Caroline Wang discusses a photographic therapy strategy. [2] While informing and educating the collective conscious of broad society of the health struggles of women is listed as one of its three primary goals, it is telling that the programme classifies its third primary goals as the specific targeting of public policy makers. Thus public policy outcomes are not relied upon as side-effects of the documentary process, but rather as specific aims.

However, caution is a strategy that should be employed by policy makers when confronted with documentary photography. It is noted that the photographer may manipulate the image by documenting certain scenes, or developing relationships with subjects and “runs the risk of producing a result socially opprobrious and pornographic”.[3] Objectivity is a trait that the creator must bring to the practice and which must be recognised by the audience before any lessons for public policy can be extracted.

---

[1] http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jrlsasw35&div=21&id=&page=

[2] http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.1999.8.185

[3] http://www.donigancumming.com/dcpdf/DCe_1984_Graham.pdf