Christchurch and Our Edinburgh Vigil

Another week, another massacre. Geography was one of the factors that made the Christchurch murder different. New Zealand a peaceful group of islands with no terrorist history. The terrorist came from the outside: a white supremacist from Australia who seems to have been radicalised overseas, possible in the UK. From the reaction of now-disgraced senator Fraser Anning, who wrote “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allows Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.” it seems that Australia have their own share of bigots and supremacists. Fair play though that, since he wrote those words on the day of the attack, Anning is now facing a national petition with over 800,000 signatures, demanding that he be removed from the Australian senate.

Today, along with hundreds of others, I attended a memorial vigil outside the Central Mosque of Edinburgh, organised by the Muslim Woman’s Association of Edinburgh. The many speakers covered a wide range of topics. The shock and sadness on hearing the news. The fear and anger that such attacks generate. The need to avoid hate and to overcome it with love. Others spoke more politically: the need to face down the rise in modern Nazism, the role in the likes of Steve Bannon in organising the Far Right on an international basis, and the enabling and normalisation of Islamophobia by senior politicians. Boris Johnson got special mention for comparing woman wearing the burka to letterboxes. Noted also was the media’s role in normalising the killer. ISIS terrorists do not appear on the front page of British newspapers with pictures of them as a sweet little boy, but this privilege was extended to the Christchurch murderer of (at the time of writing) fifty people. Contrary to what the speaker said though, this time it was the Daily Mirror who was guilty and not, as stated, the Daily Mail. 

 

The microphone was briefly offered to the crowd to share our thoughts and, some who know me, thought I would take advantage of the opportunity. Although I had no prepared words, it is true that I was tempted. Today though was not for me: it was for the people of New Zealand, it was for our Muslim neighbours and it is for us all: to listen, to sympathise and to understand. It is difficult sometimes to make sense of such vicious disregard for life and to comprehend that some who live among us can see others as somehow lesser or even as a threat. Of course people how hold extremist views are a potential threat should they decide to act upon them but they are few. The vast majority of us just want to get on with living our lives free from oppression and in peace. 

It is my view many of the speakers are correct: that there is an active movement to motivate the Far Right across the globe. Most countries in Europe now have their Far Right movements and in places like Poland and Hungary, extreme nationalist governments have taken power. Trump in the USA has more in common with President Putin in Russia than he has with Angela Merkel. In order for our own politicians not to seem extreme, there must be someone further along the political spectrum. With the Conservatives containing the European Research Group of about 80 MPs, a party-within-a-party, along with Theresa May’s own views on immigration and Home Secretary Sajid Javid willing to pay fast and loose with the rule of law, the only people further right is the likes of Britain First and so-called Tommy Robinson. The latter’s views are being normalised in order to make our current politicians seem moderate. 

Mr Jalal Chaudry of the Council of Ethnic Minority in Edinburgh questioned the use of the term of Islamic terrorism. If terrorism is not applied to actions done by white people: if such people are deemed as lone wolves, mad, crazy people, while any act of violence done by a Muslim is Islamic terrorism, the term “terrorist” should not be used. I disagree. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper gives an exact definition of terrorism. It is a curious thing though, that when I attempted to look up his exact words, the quotation has not turned up in the searches. So until I get hold of another copy of The Open Society, memory must serve. Terrorism is an act of violence intended to affect the political viewpoint of people beyond its immediate effect. This is a powerful definition because, as Popper goes on to explain, terrorism can be carried out by individuals, groups or by a nation-state. This latter aspect has led to the term terrorist being devalued. All states claim to act for the benefit of their own population and within the law. State actions can, the claim therefore goes, never be acts of terrorism. This is propaganda, as example of states carrying out acts of suppression against their own population are too numerous to note. However, the term terrorism has been solely applied by states against those that they disapprove of. More disturbing perhaps, the term is not applied to acts of violence that a particular state may be sympathetic too. Hence the concern that Islamic terrorism is a real threat while killings performed by white men sympathetic to the Far Right is usual ascribed, at least at first, to mental instability or individual examples of wickedness. There can be no mistake this time however, as the Christchurch killer emailed his political manifesto ahead of carrying out his act of evil against a gathering of defenceless men, women and children.

When it comes to acts of political violence, we must demand that the media cannot be partial to one side or the other. The term “terrorism” must be re-established and, if necessary, an explanation to the general readership must be made. Terrorism in the name of Islam exists, as does terrorism in the name of Irish republicanism (with the recent incendiary bombs being sent from Dublin to four or five targets in the United Kingdom) and as does, in this particular case, terrorism by the Far Right against Muslims. Jo Cox was murdered by a Nazi. At the time I called it straight away (before charges were laid) but was told to be not to be hasty as it could have been a lone nutter. The media does not give Islamic terrorists such benefit of the doubt. As a society, we must be consistent with our treatment of all politically-motivated violence.

As for my own personal reaction to the killings in Christchurch, I was greatly saddened. New Zealand is a peaceful nation that has partially detached itself from the militarism that is dominates the foreign policies of many other liberal-democratic nations – including the United Kingdom. A friend of mine commented that she felt that New Zealand had lost its innocence. I know what she means: I felt exactly the same when I heard the news of the Norwegian terrorist attack of 2011, which resulted in the death of seventy-seven people. 

Britain has a proud tradition of fighting Nazism and what it stands for. It is up to us all today, to continue that tradition because it is clear that the Far Right, or Alt-Right, is nothing more than modern Nazism. It is our responsibility, as Nazism is a combination of nationalism, corporate interest and racism that arose from the pseudo-science of eugenics. Fascism may have arisen in Italy and Nazism in Germany but the ideas that fed both came from across Europe and North America, including Great Britain. 

At today’s vigil, a young man took the microphone and tried to rouse the crowd with cries of “Never again! Never again!”. My response was, to be truthful, half-hearted. There is always going to be another time. As Nome Chomsky notes though, not only must we challenge the ideas that feed terrorism but also the situations that lead people to think they have nothing personally to lose by turning to violence. People who are secure and content do not pick up a gun. 

The problem of terrorism is ours and we must own it, no matter in doing so how uncomfortable the truths that we will face. Only by having the courage to do so can we continue to live in a society that can, on the whole, be called ‘free’.

Fake News and the Age of Cynicism.

We live in an age where knowledge has never been so widely or cheaply available.  The results are all around us: the computer device you are reading this on, the artificial fabric which keeps most of us warm either in the house or on the street, the car or bus that most take to work.  All fruits of knowledge and the labour of teams of experts who wrought this knowledge into material goods.  Knowing and doing is how most people earn their living.

There is one area of life however where knowledge seems to be unwelcome and that is the public sphere.  Especially in Anglo-Saxon society, it can be considered rude to show off one’s education outside an academic or applied setting.  On one level this is fine: it is an attempt to put others’ at ease who, through whatever circumstances, may not have shared in the advantages of a good education.  In another way, it is also a defence against any bad feeling that may result from excessing erudition.  “Know-it-all”,“too clever by half” or “too clever for his own good” are peculiarly British insults for those deemed boorish or precocious thought the use of too many big words.

It seems though that this suspicion of knowledge and those who possess some (for long gone is the age when anybody can claim to know everything), has moved into a new higher level.  This did not come about by accident but instead has been long in the making.  

The media have had a long history of skewing the news to fit their particular agenda.  When it comes to newspapers that has been long accepted as people are free to purchase the news that appeals to their own sensibility.  As for state-run media, the free-to-air stuff where most people get their daily news, it is more dangerous.  If the facts are tailored to fit the government view, this will work while the the media outlets are still relatively limited.  In the age of the Internet though, that is no longer the case.

Obviously the Internet changed everything and what the world is seen since is a constant struggle for control.  Some nations like China have been particularly heavy-handed with the setting up of the Great Firewall.  Others like Russia have more relied upon monitoring of internal consumers and  that for the majority of the population, English is still not widely spoken or read.

What happens though in the West?  It is impossible to suppress the news completely.  Facts can be challenged and checked.  So the answer is to attack the facts themselves.  This is not a competition between facts so that a path ahead can be mapped out based upon some reason, but rather the undermining of facts by downright contradiction, making it less possible to see reason at all.  

Contradiction and outright lying in politics has of course a long history.  It’s theoretical basis is outlined in the beginning of Plato’s Republic: rulers occasionally have to lie to the population, concealing a current truth in order to bring about a beneficial outcome.  

What happens though when the desired outcome is not beneficial to most, but rather to a narrow clique?  In order for this to be achieved, the last thing that most people should be told is the truth. Instead people will have their prejudices pandered to.  Something going wrong?  It cannot be Our fault can it?  We are wonderful!  It must be Their fault.  It doesn’t really matter who They are, as long as there is a recognisable difference.  The point is that it is Them that are holding Us back.  There might be too many of Them here.  Their culture does not fit with Our culture and ways.  They are a burden on society.  If it wasn’t for Their rules, we would be free to do everything better.   Even worse, the Elite is on Their side!  Elites cite Facts in order to bamboozle ordinary folk like You and Me.  Unless You are one of those who go around citing Facts?  Are You an Expert?  In which case You are a member of the Elite and thus either one of Them or, even worse, a traitor to the rest of Us.

I am not even going to pick a side here to attack.  There are so many to choose from nowadays.  Once political debate is reduced to the Them versus Us, facts and reason no longer matter.  The people who buy into whoever version of this are lost to both.  Instead their opinion is putty in the hands of whoever feeds them dialogue.  It is not even news.  It does not even have to be a version of reality because the motives of anybody who contradicts the dialogue must be acting from the worst of motives.  People have been trained to be cynical.

I will leave you with a suggestion.  If you automatically dismiss everything said by somebody you identify as an opponent.  If you are in the habit of branding certain parties as evil.  If you object to certain people simply by their presence. If you call for freedom from dictatorship without having any clear idea or knowing solid examples of what form that oppression takes.  If you only use facts to further your cause. 

If any one or more of these points rings a bell with you, ask yourself these questions:

Who is doing the thinking for me?  

What do they hope to achieve?  

Why am I not getting the all the facts so I can make up my own mind?

Then go and get those facts and be careful of those who would have you disbelieve that it is possible to do so.  The Internet is here: use it well.

Campaign Letters #2: Press Freedoms and Media Ownership.

Thank you for your email on media ownership and the abuse of power.

If I give you a long answer to a short question, please understand why.  For a politician to go charging into to a freedom of speech debate knowing all the answers is extremely dangerous.

Yes, my initial reaction on Leveson was to back the report in full and ignore the howls of complaints from the big media.  But when Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, joins in the criticism of the report, one should sit up and take notice.  Private Eye has repeatedly covered the stories that many other mainstream papers would not touch until there was no other option.  Any comment from it concerning press freedom is therefore worthy of the upmost consideration.

Liberal Democrats share the hope of Lord Justice Leveson that the incentives for the press to sign up to genuinely independent self-regulation will succeed. But if, in the judgment of the Press Recognition Panel, after 12 months of operation, there is significant non-cooperation by newspaper publishers, then – as Leveson himself concluded – Parliament will need to act, drawing on a range of options including the legislative steps necessary to ensure that independent self- regulation is delivered. Where possible, we would seek to do this on the same cross-party basis that achieved the construction of the Leveson scheme by the Royal Charter

On the phone hacking scandal and payment to public officials, there are already laws covering such issues.  Operation Elveden is making it clear that enforcing these laws and bringing successful prosecutions is extremely difficult.  I would be open to ideas to tighten up upon illegal acts committee by individuals; making the owning corporations and senior executives culpable in their responsibility.  At this time, it seems that claiming ignorance or a failure to recollect the facts are indeed enough of a defence.

As a Liberal Democrat, I believe it is vital to uphold freedom of speech.  Part of that process is that, in a democracy, people have the right to be wrong in the view of others.  This has to be balanced with responsibility.  The major question is to what and to whom?  My best answer are to the facts of a given situation.  Thus the responsibility of media should be answerable to presenting not the best, but the most balanced evaluation of available facts.

In order to protect journalists who pursue facts with the aim to uncover corruption, Liberal Democrats would:

Introduce statutory public interest defences for exceptional cases where journalists may need to break the law (such as RIPA, the 2010 Bribery Act, and the 1998 Computer Misuse Act) to expose corruption or other criminal acts.

Ensure judicial authorisation is required for the acquisition of communications data which might reveal journalists’ sources or other privileged communications, for any of the purposes allowed under RIPA; and allow journalists the opportunity to address the court before authorisation is granted, where this would not jeopardise the investigation.

Undertake a post-legislative review of the 2013 Defamation Act, which Liberal Democrats drove through Parliament, to ensure the new provisions are reducing the chill of libel threats.

Introduce, after consultation on the detail, the changes to the 1998 Data Protection Act recommended by Lord Justice Leveson to provide a fairer balance between personal privacy and the requirements of journalism, ensuring that the position of investigative journalists is safeguarded.


To guarantee press freedom, we will pass a British ‘First Amendment’ law, to require the authorities and the courts to have regard to the importance of a free media in a democratic society.
To nurture public interest journalism and protect the public from press abuse, we are committed to a system of accountability that is totally independent of both government and the newspaper industry, as set out in the Royal Charter on Press Regulation.

On media ownership, again it is in everybody's interest that a single individual does not become too powerful.  I did not want to particularly name an individual organisation but in the case of News International, it has been very successful in building up its own global power by putting itself and the service of the ruling elites of wherever it is operating: Fox News and The Wall Street Journal in the US, Sky News Arabia and, until last year, Star TV China.  I do not have to quote to you more local examples.

News International's global reach just shows how difficult it is for a single nation to uphold desired standards.  We certainly do not want any state of affairs that resembles that of Italy, when while in power Silvio Berlusconi was in control of the majority of private companies and as prime minister control the state media outlets too.  

The trouble is that, as Nome Chomsky pointed out in his book Necessary Illusions, big business owns most big media and thus has many more shared values to protecting the status quo than in depicting reality as it stands.

This leads us to the nub of the matter: the depiction of the facts.  A year ago I was asked to comment by a friend on a ten minute video presentation by film director David Puttnam, in which he asks the question whether the media has a duty of care towards the public.  My blog piece is here:
http://martinveart.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/media-and-duty-of-care.html

Why media responsibility towards facts are so important is because it is where most people get their information from.  In the end, it has to come down to respecting facts and protecting those who pursue them.

If you have any further points you would like to raise, or indeed subjects, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely,


Martin Veart
Scottish Liberal Democrats
Edinburgh North and Leith.


PS.  Unlike Labour, the Conservatives or the SNP, The Sun and Rupert Murdoch has never supported the Liberal Democrats nor urged their readers to vote for us.  I'm fine with that.  mv.

Media and a Duty of Care.

In this talk, TEDxHousesofParliement, film director David Puttnam asks whether the media has a duty of care towards the public. It is a good question. I was asked for my thoughts on the presentation by a friend of mine on facebook.

Certain sections of the media distort facts, either in the service of government to drive forward a given ideology or policy, or in the interests of a given corporation or social group. Press on the left do this too: it is not just a top-down affair.

 Differing perceptions are of course grist to the mill of debate. Debate can only be informative and educational however, if the facts are agreed, or if that cannot be reached, at least as honestly presented and as available to scrutiny as circumstance allow. If this does not happen, then the result is sophistry, which often as not, is what passes for political debate and reporting nowadays. A shorter label for it is "spin".

Puttnam mentioned another aspect that informs action and that is morality. Now, let us say that the media has a duty of care to present the facts. Obviously there are a lot of facts to any given topic; a media outlet, be it the BBC, Fox News or a blogger, probably cannot know all the facts but should present a picture based upon the facts available. This is different from spin insofar all the available facts have to be distilled into the story, and not just the selection of those that fit a particular agenda. This is difference between balanced reporting and spin.

Balanced reporting is also not the same as current practice: allowing two (or more) proponents to take to airwaves and have at each other. This has the illusion of balance but in reality it is a collision of spins and thus far more difficult to get to the real facts. The most celebrated case of this currently on the British media circuit is BBC's Question Time: a show when up to six flavours of spin (plus audience participation) take part in a mass tourney. It is of course very entertaining, modern day bread and circus for the politically interested, and occasionally truth does emerge. Its most useful purpose as far as facts are concerned is that audience member may pick pointers to where further details can be found. It is in no way a presentation that allows the audience to impartially judge a given issue.

Still, BBC Question Time and similar shows are better than the media monocultures that are the real target of Puttnam: the uninformative and biased tabloids, whether in print or on air. They present politics and many other issues with the sensibility of soap opera writers: that the participants are either idiots or scoundrels. Of course, politics, like all walks of life have their share of both but by the relentless presentation of everybody involved as such, it dulls the sensibility of those nurtured upon such fare. It is popular for a very simple reason: most everybody likes to be able to look down upon somebody else and what gives the illusion of empowerment more than a feeling of moral superiority? That feeling literally sells tabloids by the truckload. It is not a factual picture though and thus fails Puttnam's duty of care test. It discourages political involvement and breeds nothing but cynicism.

One can already hear the screams warning of censorship and yes, in a democracy one must have the freedom to be wrong in the opinion of others, especially if that somebody is the government or other organs of the state. At its heart, Puttnam is calling for honesty in the reporting of facts. The democratic process lies in the interpretation of those facts. We can still disagree over what they mean but if the facts are skewed or completely absent, then the basis of our democracy and freedoms are not even on foundations of sand. They rest upon nothing at all.

Those Press Attacks on Nick Clegg

There is an old saying "When one sees the enemy making mistakes, don't correct him!" so really I, as a Lib Dem activist, shouldn't be writing this at all! But these press attacks were entirely predictable following Nick's performance last week (see past blogs).

Usually when the press praise, one knows that it would normally happen over a period of weeks. Then the revelations would start, slowly at first, the cracks appearing and then the whole built-up image is brought down.

The problem with these attacks, as far as their intentions are concerned, is timing. There hasn't been time to build up any image of Nick Clegg in the press. So suddenly it is Demon Clegg - the baby-eating European. And people know that the whole thing is just panic from the right-wing.

The press is now reaping the cost of their policy of ignoring the Liberal Democrats. It is a good job for the country that we, on the whole, are fairly normal people and not some bunch of swivel-eyed  loonies.

But then, I would say that, wouldn't I.

US TV News

I first realised that there might be something up with the quality of US media in 1996 where I was in Houston for some training. I was due to be at work for 8.00 am. so decided to catch the news for fifteen minutes prior to departure. CNN was located on the television. Not my favourite broadcaster, but I knew it from the international coverage so, it was reasonable enough. Or so I thought it would be. The 07:15 story was the Santa Claus’ of Time Square. Okay, I settled down to wait for this soft item to finish. 07:20 and it was still on. By that time even the commentators had given up; just images of guys in wigs and red suits were being broadcast. 07:25. They’re taking the piss aren’t they? 07:30 came and it was time to leave for work. What the hell is going on?

This couldn’t possibly be representative of the internal US media could it? So after that I made a point of tuning in on a daily basis. While the items were not so dire (how could they be?), the coverage was limited to solely US domestic news. If there was the rarest of mentions of anything international, it was always in relation to either a visit by a senior government member or news from abroad that had direct implications for the USA. I was told there was one regular international news programme, that going out at the less-than-peak-time of 4.00 pm. In the domestic news there was always, and I mean always, a news item about the President, even if he was doing bugger all that day.

As I said, that was twelve years ago. This morning I found the CBS Early program. Okay, I thought. Let’s see what is on?

• Main news item on the hour: consumer spending. Message: “do the patriotic thing,” go out and “if you have money, spend it.”
  
  
• The holiday period with the Obama family.
  
  
• Lance Armstrong is a father again. Does drug taking reduce an athlete’s sperm count?
  
  
• Schumacher Chevrolet. A small business bucking the trend. “What would you do if you got a call from the White House, asking you to step in and run America’s motor industy?”
  
  
• Military families at Christmas
  
  
• Eartha Kitt. Died on Christmas Day, aged 81.
  
  

Alright, it is the holiday period. But if this is representative of the news in America, no wonder the general public is ignorant of world affairs. I love the American people, they are warm and generous and it is a fantastic place to visit. But it is almost distressing the lack of general knowledge that most people have about the outside world. There has been plenty of jokes made about it already. I too have my funny stories. But this isn’t the time to tell them here. I’m trying to make a serious point. The citizens of the USA deserve better than they are getting. When I was a child, I learned things off the news. The British media is by no means perfect but it is often informative and does cover at least the major world events even in its’ most popularist news programs. There is even a special news program for children on the BBC to introduce them to the concepts of news and information.

Bigger names and smarter guys than me have commented on the state of the US media and whom they serve. Noam Chomsky has written extensively on it. It was also highlighted by Michael Moore in his film “Bowling for Columbine.” The problem is though is that a lot of the serious criticism of the media has been coming from the left of the political spectrum, while the right has been critical of the media for being too liberal. As a foreigner, I don’t understand the terms of such debate. It seems to me that the root question the American people has to ask is “Do we want to be informed and educated by our television news media or not?”

Because at the moment, that question is being answered for you with a resounding “No!"