‘Speech Police: The Global Struggle to Govern the Internet’ is the latest publication from UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, David Kaye. Following on from his 2018 report on content regulation, this book looks at the issue of who decides what kind of speech is acceptable online, and the potential implications of the increasing expectations placed on platforms to regulate certain kinds of content.
Kaye’s narrative style is both thoughtful and engaging, covering difficult concepts in a clear and concise fashion, but also exploring aspects of the debate that are often overlooked. Coupled with a relatively low page count, this means that Speech Police is not only a valuable read for those already familiar with the questions around content moderation and freedom of expression, but is also extremely accessible for those new to the topic. As a result, this book is a must read for anybody currently studying or working in tech policy, or those who are simply concerned about the future of the Internet.
Disclaimer: I am not being paid to review or recommend this book, but if you click on the Amazon link above and buy a copy, Jeff Bezos might send me a few pennies to say thanks.
One of the latest cases to spark intense debate around freedom of expression happens to fall in my own back yard. The facts of the ‘nazi pug’ case concerned one Mark Meechan, aka ‘Count Dankula’, who filmed himself training his girlfriend’s dog to react to various phrases such as ‘gas the Jews’, and then posted it on YouTube. In his own words:
“My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is, and so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing that I could think of, which is a Nazi”
Meechan was subsequently charged and convicted in a Scottish Sheriff Court under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003, which makes it an offence to (publicly) communicate a ‘message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’.
Offensive speech should not be a criminal offence
The accused argued that the video was intended as a joke to noise up his girlfriend, as evidenced by the disclaimer at the outset. This position was rejected by the court, who stated that humour was ‘no magic wand’ to escape prosecution, and that any determination of context was for them to decide.
In passing the sentence, the Sheriff brought up the fact that the accused’s girlfriend didn’t even subscribe to his YouTube channel, and so claimed that as a result the notion that the escapade was in fact intended as a private joke didn’t hold any water. This is important as it demonstrates a deep cultural ignorance of how people communicate in an age dominated by online platforms, but also for what may well be a more interesting point: That the actions could only be classed as an offence under the Communications Act by dint of the fact that the video was posted on a ‘public communications network’. In other words, if the same ‘joke’ had been demonstrated at a house party, down the pub, or even on stage in front of hundreds of people, then it could not have brought about the same kind of prosecution.
This brings about two questions:
Should there be any distinction between posting a video online (or via telephone), and making statements in person? If so, why?
Should anybody ever face jail time for making ‘offensive’ statements?
These are questions that can only realistically be properly addressed by Parliament – not the Sheriff court, though one would have hoped that they would have taken a more liberal approach to statutory interpretation, or that the Procurator Fiscal would have had more foresight to not pursue a conviction.
A bad sense of humour should not be enough to justify the possibility of a criminal offence. Further, even if the video was in fact an expression of a genuine conviction (which has not been at issue in this case), then it still should not warrant the possibility of jail time – especially not when the distinction lies on the fact that the statements were made on a ‘public communications network’ rather than in person. Remember, this was not a question of ‘incitement’, but simply offence.
Nazis are not your friends
It appears that in many ways, the court were bound by the statutory terms, and that the 2003 law itself is inadequate, to say the least. However, there is another element to this tale that is worth discussing. Namely, that individuals such as the former leader of the so called English Defence League have come out to associate themselves with the issue, and that not enough has been done to reject those attempts.
The support of the far right is not particularly surprising, as they are increasingly taking up the bastion of free expression to justify their odious positions. I is also understandable that when faced with what you perceive as an unwarranted criminal prosecution that you would welcome any support that you can get, or that the media would try to draw connections where there are none. However, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. If arseholes such as Tommy Robinson whose views you claim to be diametrically opposed to try to co-opt your situation for their own political ends, you have a duty to clearly, loudly, and publicly tell them to fuck off. When the far right started to infiltrate punk culture based on the premise of certain shared values, the Dead Kennedys responded in no uncertain terms.
I don’t and won’t claim to know the politics of the accused in this case, but the situation should be a warning for all who consider ourselves to sit on the liberal end of the spectrum: Be wary of those who seek to use a shared belief in freedom of expression as a trojan horse. Yes, fight for the right of those you disagree with to speak, but don’t let the crows trick their way into your nest as a result.
Meechan has indicated plans to appeal the conviction in order to make a point about freedom of speech, although it is unclear at this point under what grounds he will do so. Either way, whilst this is something I would support prima facie, it is becoming increasingly tough to do so with the knowledge that each development gives people such as the EDL a platform without any real challenge.
In the past week, we have seen peaceful protests around the world, in response to the actions taken by Donald Trump, as he has assumed the American Presidency.
Despite not having attended any of the demonstrations myself, I’ve been troubled by the fervent reaction against those who have done so, and the poor arguments that have been made against speaking out. So, without passing comment on the content of any of Trump’s policies or actions, I’ve decided to address the common criticisms publicly:
1. Protesting doesn’t make any difference.
I almost can’t believe that this statement is still being uttered in 2017, after all that has been written, and after we have seen and to-this-day celebrate the outcomes of peacefulprotest in the past.
The ultimate goal of protest is obviously to bring about change, but few who take part in any single act of resistance are naive enough to believe that that one particular event will have devastating political ramifications on its own. Movements are built over time, and are successful by building the pressure on those in power.
In this particular situation, there is a real chance that sustained protest can have an impact on the policies of the Trump administration. The Republican party is not full of evil people, and many viscerally disagree with his approach to many issues, but at present feel unable to speak up against them. If all these people hear is silent indifference to what is going on, they are far less likely to have the courage to take the first steps themselves in opposition.
For many, even if there is absolutely zero chance of political change, demonstrations are still immensely important. First and foremost, they are about standing up and publicly stating that you refuse to quietly accept actions that you fundamentally disagree with, and may otherwise be powerless to stop. It’s about demonstrating to other people who facing the brunt of the effects that they are not alone. That’s why they are called ‘demonstrations’.
I won’t draw comparisons between Trump and Hitler at this point, but I do find it rather curious how one of the biggest questions people have when looking back at history is how the German population could possibly have let fascism take hold, seemingly without much protest. I wonder how many people were dismissing those who spoke up, with the same argument: ‘Protesting won’t make a difference’.
2. It’s a foreign country. It doesn’t have any impact on you or people you know. Focus on your own issues.
There are a few constitutent parts to this. Firstly, this kind of statement is often made in a blanket fashion, completely ignoring the personal relationships that the person on the receiving end may have. Where their wife may come from; where their friends may live; where the company their work for is based, for example.
Secondly, even if a person has zero personal ties to the US, the idea that we could close our eyes and ears to what happens outside of our country is a non-sequitur. In fact, it’s the worst kind of nationalism. Following the argument through logically, no Scottish person should ever speak about the evils of apartheid – because it was a South African issue. Neither should the UK have gotten involved in the Second World War. There are innumerable examples of why this doesn’t hold water.
There is a valid criticism to be made of people who only care and speak up about what they see on the news in a foreign country, whilst acting completely indifferent about what is happening in their own back garden. However, that sort of criticism can only be made with in depth knowledge of a person and their motives, and is certainly not something that should be applied with a broad brush to people whose background you have no idea about. Just because somebody is concerned about the actions of Trump, doesn’t mean that they aren’t equally as passionate about the right wing agenda of the UK Government, or that they volunteer at a local foodbank every night.
All of this aside, the reality is that what happens in America does impact what happens in the UK. The policies and rhetoric of the most powerful man on Earth, who leads the biggest military superpower in modern history, who happens to be our supposedly closest ally, definitely has repercussions around the globe. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.
To bring it home, so to speak: the ‘solidarity’ word is one that comes with a lot of baggage, but it is exactly what protest is often about: making a statement about what kind of society you want and believe in, even in spite of everything that may be happening elsewhere. It’s about saying: ‘The most powerful nation on the planet may be targetting refugees, but we won’t accept those same actions here.’ If all the protests in Glasgow yesterday achieved was to make a single refugee feel more welcome and secure in their adopted city, then they were already a success.
3. The American people chose to vote for Trump. Get over it.
This is one of the most ridiculous assertions of the lot. The idea that once a political party or candidate wins an election that they are infallible, and should be immune from any sort of criticism is ludicrous. At best it is complete hypocrisy on the part of those uttering this nonsense, and at worst an extremely dangerous perspective, that results in human rights abuses in countries like Turkey and Russia.
4. Protesters are just idiots who are virtue signalling whilst contributing exactly zero to the cause they’re apparently so passionate about.
This is pretty much a word for word comment from someone who didn’t approve of the demonstrations held in Glasgow yesterday, but the language is similar to a lot of others.
Here’s how ‘virtue signalling’ is defined:
virtue signalling (US virtue signaling)
noun [mass noun]
the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue: it’s noticeable how often virtue signalling consists of saying you hate things | standing on the sidelines saying how awful the situation is does nothing except massage your ego by virtue signalling.
On its own, the phrase is seemingly innocuous, but more and more frequently it is now being used to dismiss people who are taking a position that others disagree with, without them having to actually intellectually engage with that position. It’s become one of the lazy phrases like ‘fake news’ that I can’t stand, as it doesn’t actually mean anything in practice.
Given that the phrase is based on intent, the only way ‘virtue signalling’ could accurately be ascribed to those who chose to demonstrate against Trump or his actions, would be if the person using it knew those intentions. In other words, they would need to know the specific motivating factors involved… something that is clearly impossible when applied to a group.
It’s probably worth being crystal clear on this: disagreeing with your position doesn’t mean that somebody is ‘virtue signalling’. It means they disagree with your position. Challenge them on their arguments, not with some spurious empty phrase that only serves to shut down discussions that you can’t handle.
Yesterday, the British Home Secretary Theresa May threw her log onto the fire of the ‘debate’ over the UK’s membership of the European Union; stating that whilst we should remain within the EU, we should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. It’s important to note that the ECHR and EU are two separate legal constructs, and so theoretically you can be part of one without the other.
Not long after May’s comments were published, a video with Patrick Stewart in it was released, highlighting the various benefits we derive from being a signatory to the ECHR.
The response to this that I’ve seen from those who dislike the ECHR would make May proud, with statements such as:
[these are] all rights enshrined in the [1689] British Bill of Rights.
and
We had these because of the Magna Carta already.
Given that it’s becoming a popular riposte in any discussion regarding the UK’s continued acceptance of the ECHR to point towards ancient British legal documents to somehow prove that we know better than the rest of Europe, and should just go back to using the Magna Carta instead, it’s probably time to clear up a few things:
Bill of Rights 1689
This ‘British’ Bill of Rights was never actually a British Bill of Rights. It was enacted by the English Parliament before the Acts of Union in 1707. A separate Act was passed shortly afterwards by the Scottish Parliament, titled the Claim of Right Act 1689. Good luck reading that if you’re not familiar with auld Scots.
However, despite the misty eyed pride in which opponents of the ECHR call up the English 1689 Act, it doesn’t actually have much relevance to the ECHR in terms of content. It’s actually far more about the constitutional position of the Crown in a turbulent historical period.
There is no protection in the 1689 Bill of Rights for the people’s right to be free from torture (Article 3 ECHR), to be free from slavery (Article 4 ECHR), to be free to marry (Article 12 ECHR), or to assemble freely (Article 11 ECHR). There is mention of Freedom of Speech, but it only applies to proceedings in Parliament – not the general ‘subjects’ of the Kingdom.
The sort of rights that the 1689 Bill is really concerned with are:
Outlawing Ecclesiastical courts.
Banning the ‘rising or keeping of a standing army’ that could threaten the Kingdom.
Protecting the right of Protestants to bear arms (yes, really – so definitely no Freedom of Thought or Religion here, as there is in Article 9 ECHR).
Whilst the English Bill of Rights of 1689 does formally recognise a few important fundamental rights that lay the groundwork for the frameworks that we have today – such as the freedom and frequency of elections – let’s not mistake or misrepresent it for anything other than what it was: a piece of law designed to protect those that were in power, not the actual people themselves.
Magna Carta (1215)
The Magna Carta is another favourite for those who oppose the ECHR. “We don’t need the bleeding heart liberals in Europe telling us what to do! We have the fucking Magna Carta!” (this is a genuine quote).
There is no doubt that the Magna Carta is a hugely significant legal document, as its international recognition clearly shows. It contains some truly brilliant and beautiful provisions, such as:
(39) No free-man shall he seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land.
and
(40) To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice.
However, lying amongst the grand and oft-quoted provisions, there are also paragraphs such as the following:
(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, which they hold by charters from the Kings of England, or by ancient tenure, shall have the custody of them when they become vacant, as they ought to have.
(48*) All evil customs of forests and [rabbit] warrens, and of foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river-banks and their keepers, shall immediately be inquired into by twelve knights of the same county, upon oath, who shall be elected by good men of the same county; and within forty days after the inquisition is made, they shall be altogether destroyed by them never to be restored; provided that this is notified to us before it is done, or our judiciary, if we are not in England.
The Magna Carta is truly an inspirational piece of legal history. It should be of no surprise that it has gone on to inspire legal systems around the world, and used as the basis for hugely important international treaties… including, uh, the European Convention on Human Rights.
Therein lies the point. We should recognise both the historical importance, and seminal nature of the Magna Carta, without thinking that it is somehow an adequate or appropriate tool to solve the issues of 2016.
British Rights and Sovereignty
Whilst people have, and do use the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights as broad swords to justify pulling out of the ECHR, the real argument being made by people such as Theresa May is that whilst these documents themselves would not be adequate in of themselves, our history shows that we are more than capable of producing law that enshrines protections.
This line of thought seems more coherent, but is dangerously misrepresentative. The most obvious reason for this is that we already have created a set of rights that applies to the challenges faced today – so much so that the rest of Europe followed suit. British judges were already developing the protections contained within the ECHR through our domestic common law before the Treaty was ever signed, and were instrumental in shaping its inception. This can be made no clearer than with the fact that Churchill himself called for a shared protection for rights across Europe, and led Britain to be the very first signatory of the ECHR. We already have a British Bill of Rights. It’s called the European Convention.
The response to this of course, is that the ECHR may once have been adequate, but is no longer fit for purpose. The Tories will tell you that the ECHR encroaches upon the ability of the British Parliament to deal with specific issues that we face as a nation today – and that’s why they had to defy the Strasbourg court, continuing to deny prisoners the right to vote. Instead, we need a new British Bill of Rights so that we can’t be told what to do by Europeans. We created rights after all, damnit!
Even if we accept the argument that the ECHR is no longer fit for purpose (which I do not), to think that we can create some British only version of the Convention that will give us the same protections is nonsense. The great historical documents of the Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights were brought about primarily to ensure the continued existence of the power structures of the time; they weren’t ever primarily about the rights of the people – and it would be the same situation here.
The Conservatives are not interested in the rights of individuals; they are intent on removing any barriers that prevent them from doing whatever they please whilst in power. This can be framed in terms of protecting the sovereignty of Britain, but it’s actually about protecting those in power. The rights enshrined in the ECHR protect the British people from the excesses of the British (or any other) state. The only way that they have any power to do this is by existing a level above any single government. A new British Bill of Rights would not be able to do this effectively – as there would be no external pressure, and so irrespective of what went into such a Bill, it would be toothless.
To close…
Yes, the UK has been one of the leading voices in history for the adoption of universal human rights, and that is something of which we should be proud. However, we should not and cannot look to the past to demonstrate our ancient achievements in the likes of the Magna Carta and 1689 English Bill of Rights. The natural culmination of these historical developments is in a shared, international acceptance of the basic rights we should have, as protection from the flux of political change and upheaval. This is precisely why the ECHR was used as a crucial part of the Good Friday agreement, helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
If we are going to talk about sovereignty, let’s talk about sovereignty of the people – not the self-serving sovereignty of the British Parliament.
Seeing the news unfold from Paris that there had been yet another terrorist attack, I have to be honest: I didn’t feel too much at first.
Yes, it was awful, but the scenes played out on the screen like the plot of an action film: dramatic, but ultimately ones that we’ve seen time and time again. The world would get back to their feet, and life would continue as before.
Or at least, that’s how it should have went.
Eleven days on, when the frivolous debates over whether or not people should change their Facebook profile to a blue, white, and red tricoleur have subsided, and other humanitarian tragedies that were ignored by the Western media have been highlighted, the chaos and uncertainty remains.
That wasn’t meant to happen.
I don’t want to admit it, but I’m going to be honest: I am scared. The sort of fear that builds and grows based on over-exposure to one particular threat. I recognise that the chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is statistically lower than dying in a car crash, or even from being hit on the head by a coconut, but there is a deep, all-permeating fear that remains. This is something that isn’t helped by the fact I have to confront the issue daily at work: reviewing material such as the horrifying images of those lying dead in the Bataclan Theatre.
All of this is, of course, as many commentators pay lip service to: ‘what the terrorists want’. They want to ‘destroy our way of life’, and bring about greater divides between us and ‘the other’. It’s all very obvious and predictable.
The problem is though, that it is working.
This time, the symbolism of terrorism has captured both the imagination of the sensationalist media, and attracted the authoritarian arm of the so-called sovereign states.
The exaggerated press coverage, along with the equally disproportionate reaction of our governments from the UK to Russia gives the impression that we are trapped inside of an all consuming state of war, with danger omnipresent; gun-men just waiting for us to drop our guard to take their chance and blow us up. The BBC’s panorama report on the Paris attacks finished with an ominous statement about how the next attack could take place at any time, anywhere, and the US have issued a worldwide travel alert to its citizens to ‘be aware of immediate surroundings and avoid large crowds or crowded places’… Brussels has been ‘locked down’, with armed police filling the streets. There is literally no escape from the perceived threat, and that isn’t because of ISIS – it’s because of how our own countries are reacting – suffocating us with the same issue 24/7.
I can’t help but think back to when I was younger; growing up with the consistent threat of the IRA targetting mainland Britain. We shrugged off the idea that we should avoid ‘crowded places’, because that could be literally anywhere, and the attacks had gone on for so many years it was impossible to do so. We used to laugh when Americans couldn’t understand why there was no bins in train stations: it was just part of life. Yes, the threat was real (and far more common in this part of the world than ISIS), but the level of panic and fear was completely different.
How quickly that all gets forgotten. It’s far easier to paint the brown skinned, Muslim folk as the enemy than the pale ginger Irish ones. Easier to demand new, unprecedented surveillance and security measures on the back of an enemy that can be hiding around any corner, clutching an AK47 and a Quran.
After Paris, it is easy to feel like ISIS are everywhere; all powerful… but they are not. To conquer that feeling, we first need to recognise it, and then fight back against it. Travel to Paris. Travel to Brussels. Welcome the refugees. Don’t accept the derogatory things that others say about them. Fight for greater civil liberties, not the restriction of them. Stand up against those who would have it otherwise. Refuse to give in to the fear that not only the terrorists, but your government wants you to feel.
With the upcoming draconian Digital Surveillance Bill in the UK, that has been described as ‘worse than scary’ by the UN’s Privacy Chief, I’ve again resorted to sending all of my web traffic over VPN.
The VPN I use is Private Internet Access (PIA), for their stance on user privacy. I was curious to see what they had to say about the new Bill, so dropped them an e-mail. I got two separate responses, one from their tech support, and one from their legal team. They’re worth reproducing publicly.
Here they are. First off, the more general position from their tech team:
Hello,
Thank you for contacting us. It is our current interpretation that the EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EG is not applicable to private VPN services such as ours and instead applies to larger public communications networks. The law requires that telephone and internet providers temporarily store data about a user such as assigned Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses, timestamps, and more to assist law enforcement and investigations. Private VPN providers do not fall within the purview of the European definition of a public communications network, so it is our position that the EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EG does not apply to our business organization.
PIA absolutely does not keep any logs, of any kind, period. While this does make things harder in some cases, specifically dealing with outbound mail, advanced techniques to handle abuse issues, and things of that nature, this provides a high level of security and privacy to all of our users. Logs are never written to the hard-drives of any of our machines and are specifically written to the null device, which simply acts if the data never existed.
The Mandatory Data Retention logs in the EU and many areas applies to Telecommunications and Internet Service Providers as they are a “Public Communications Network”. This is not applicable to our VPN service as we are a private network.
Due to this, we’re unable to provide information on our customers usage of our service under any circumstance, including subpoenas and court orders, which are extremely closely reviewed before we make any response by our experienced legal team.
PrivateInternetAccess.com is a business that strives to protect privacy and the privacy rights of our clients. Although we will comply with all valid subpoena requests, our legal team scrutinizes each and every legal request that we receive for compliance with both the “spirit” and letter of the law. For invalid or overly broad subpoenas, we will often question or attempt to narrow the scope of any subject matter sought.
Moreover, when it is possible and a valid option we will provide the user an opportunity to object to any requested disclosures. We cannot provide information that we do not have. PrivateInternetAccess.com will not participate with any request that is unconstitutional.
and secondly, the more direct answer from the legal team:
Thanks for the email. We are aware of this proposed law pending in the UK. First, the law has to actually go into effect first before we will consider making any changes. We are paying close attention to this proposed law and we will make any adjustments as necessary to maintain the privacy of our users. Second, PIA will not maintain logs because we do not believe that we will be classified as an ISP under the new law. The log keeping requirements are specific to ISPs and we do not fall under that definition. We hope that helps answer your questions.
Help fight back against the Bill with the Open Rights Group:
First off, I’m not going to talk about the historical relationship between the police and British nightlife. I’m not going to talk about the legality or morality of drugs. I’m not going to talk about the political controversy over a single Scottish police force. I’m not going to talk about the suggestion that clubs are being purposefully targetted for their prime city centre real estate, or the very persuasive allegations that the former Chief Constable of the tendentious single police force – Stephen House – is a wanker. I’m sure you already have opinions on all of that, particularly the latter. I know I do.
What I am going to do is offer my view as a seasoned photographer (and patron) of nightclubs for around a decade. I’ve worked in all of the usual Glaswegian haunts from the Cathouse, to Bamboo, Garage, Sub Club, and the ill-fated Arches, and I am going to argue that we need to look closely at our city’s nightlife community to see a dangerous trend unfolding that represents a more authoritarian stance from the police.
Much has been said in recent years about how the ‘Glasgow style’ of police enforcement has been allegedly spreading to other parts of the country, with examples including the crackdown on the saunas of Edinburgh, and the presence of armed police on regular callouts in Inverness. What people fail to realise (or give appropriate attention to) is that this is not a Wegie-centric style of policing, but an entirely new approach in general. This is most evident (as far as I can tell) recently in the position of the police towards licensed premises.
In the past year or so, I have witnessed a palpably different attitude from the police towards clubs in Glasgow from what existed before. Not long ago, there was a good relationship, with many clubs praised for their low levels of ejections and lack of requirement for calling upon police resources to control their patrons. The basic idea being, that if your security staff can head off trouble before it happens, and/or deal with it effectively when it does arise, then you are doing a good job. Less calls to the police signal a better managed environment – and less burden on the taxpayer.
Based on this principle, there was hardly ever any reason for the police to step foot inside the private establishments where we go to drink and dance in the wee hours of the morning, unless there was a serious incident. People got on with drinking, and having fun – perfectly legally – and so long as there wasn’t any real manifestation of violence that couldn’t be controlled or dealt with by the trained (and licensed staff), the high-vis wearing arm of the law kept their distance; and rightfully so. Effective community policing – particularly in a city like Glasgow – is about working respectfully alongside people.
Now, however, things are different. The police routinely make drop-in visits to clubs throughout the city, in which they take some sort of guided tour throughout the various dancefloors… to eh, well, who knows what? Far from being a friendly visit to check that everything is going smoothly like they may have been in the past, these serve a distinctly different purpose.
There are two possibilities: either the police genuinely think they are going to stumble upon somebody engaged in some sort of nefarious activity whilst traipsing about in their dayglo jackets and arrest them, or else they are really there to demonstrate a misguided show of force. If the former is correct, then it remains to be seen how it makes any of us any safer. I’d be far happier if they were waiting outside at kicking-out time for the inevitable clashes with drunk passers by, or clamped down on the boy-racer neds who routinely speed out from Mitchell Street onto Argyle Street on weekends to cause trouble, or maybe even dedicated more resources to seriously tackle the 5% increase in reported rapes from 2014 to 2015 (and no, this is not simply down to ‘increased confidence of victims’).
I personally completely reject the idea that emanations of the State should be able to turn up at private establishments, and walk around with their assorted weaponry in a display of force, giving their approval for the behaviour of people who are socialising and not causing trouble. The only time police should enter nightclubs in this manner is where a crime has been reported – not on some routine ‘inspection’ to swing their self-inflated dicks around. Irrespective of the legal powers the police may or may not have, the question is about what kind of relationship we want to have with them.
One needs only look to Aberdeen to see the abhorrent practice of police turning up to clubs just before they open, and demanding that anybody who wants to enter has to submit to drug testing. This sort of action is completely unnecessary, and an illegitimate intrusion of the police into people’s private lives – skirting around the requirements of Section 23(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act for reasonable suspicion.
If we are not careful, this sort of authoritarianism from the police is only going to increase, and not just in the places where we gather to drink and listen to loud music. It’s worth bearing in mind at this point that Scotland is already subject to some of the strictest alcohol related alcohol laws in the UK, never mind the rest of Europe. How long before drug testing is mandatory to enter any sort of pub? How long before the police expand their jurisdiction to further elements of social society? This aggressive approach is not only a waste of resources, but an affront to everything that we supposedly believe in with regards to the freedom to live without undue interference from the State.
I don’t know what the strategic agenda is in these ‘drop-in’ visits. I don’t know the political manoeuvrings that are going on in the background. I don’t know if this is really a misguided attempt to curb violence, or to cut down on excessive drinking, or if it’s the hangover of a Stephen House power trip. I don’t know if it’s really an attack on ‘youth culture’, or if it’s somehow a result of David Cameron and that pig. What I do know is that the more time goes on, the more the principle of ‘policing by consent’ is being made a mockery of. Yes, clubs should be safe places – but they largely already are. The presence of the police does nothing but to cause friction where none exists. Our freedoms to congregate are rapidly being eroded for seemingly arbitrary reasons, and nobody really seems to care.
I used to have one single solitary blog that I’d throw everything onto. Usually photos, but also sometimes a place where my political thoughts would spill over. For years these articles have lived on allmyfriendsarejpegs.com, but not really fitted in – so I’ve decided to slowly re-publish them here so they have a more suitable home. Note that these haven’t been edited since they were posted, and so may not necessarily reflect my current position.
Why I am opposed to ‘assumed consent’ for organ donation
First published: 25th October 2011
Today on the news there was a story around organ donation, highlighting that Scotland has the highest figure of people signed up in the UK at a reported 37% of the population.
As part of this, the question was again brought up as to whether or not we might move to an ‘opt-out’ system of registration rather than the current one, where people must actively state that they wish their organs to be used after their death where possible.
I posted on Twitter with my rather blunt opposition to such an idea (something along the lines of fuck that), and was surprised (in a way) to see that there were a number of responses that were in complete disagreement. Rather than reply in bursts of 140 characters, I thought I’d try articulate things a bit better on here.
What would the change mean?
The policy that is being advocated is one of ‘assumed consent’. Essentially what this means is that if you die and your organs are able to be used, then it will be presumed that you would agree to such a thing in the interests of saving another person’s life, and they will be taken unless you have specifically stated that you do not wish this to be the case prior to your death.
So what’s the problem?
Why should anybody object to such an approach? It seems fairly straightforward surely? What happens to your body upon passing away is of no consequence to you, and if such a move will help increase the number of organs available and in turn save lives, then we should make it happen. After all, if they do have problems with the idea, they can still opt-out.
However, it isn’t as simple as that, and there are subtle, but profound effects of such a decision. The utilitarian notion of the ‘greater good’ trumping the inconvenience of the few is as flawed here as it is in other ethical questions. To go into examples would be fruitless as it is debated at length elsewhere, and there are deeper questions involved that transcend any idea of accumulated communal wellbeing. In short, just because something may have a positive impact in one respect on a group of people as a whole, that does not mean that it is automatically the correct position to take; far from it.
Why are rates so low?
If the donor rates are so low, then why is this? Does that mean that people in society have some sort of moral deficiency? Does the act of not signing up not state exactly what opting out will do, but in a different way? If it is indeed true that people simply don’t have the knowledge, interest, or concern about the topic, then why should the State coerce them into a position that they have no desire to be involved in? By re-stating the question in a different way, do we not just twist the rules of morality to make them acceptable to our own standards, dominating the moral and political narratives that underpin our supposedly ‘free’ society, and ignoring any possible philisophical, ethical, theological or ideological differences?
Ideology
There is a massive ideological problem involved in the approach being proposed. There are a whole host of issues that we will set to one side for now, such as those involving how foreign nationals would be dealt with; those with a lack of mental capacity; basic human rights claims; the question of whether consent is really ‘informed’ or not; tensions and relationships with relatives in the event of a dispute… all of which are important, but there is a deeper question about the reach of the State itself.
By creating such legislation, the Government would in effect be stating that it had an automatic right to ownership of your body (over and above even your closest family), unless you explicitly protest against it. This is an incredibly dangerous road to travel down, and is something that they do not, and should never have the authority to claim. That in of itself is enough to reject the proposal completely.
We need to read behind the lines in decisions like this, and not just take things on an issue-by-issue basis. The precedent that this assertion would create would conceivably allow future Governments to make further claims on its back, with the steady erosion of control over our own being.
Implied consent is not a common default with regards to other legal questions, and especially when it comes to matters regarding the body. Interestingly enough, the act (or contract!) of sexual intercourse requires active consent. The exact definition of what that entails is open to legal debate, but there is never assumed consent to engaging in sex. Whilst the comparison may be specious, it’s worth noting our attitude to issues relating to the person as distinct from other contractual matters, and on this hangs the crux: There is something important about the rights of a human being to their own constitution actually belonging to them without having to explicitly make this clear. No person, State or other entity should ever have the arrogance to over-ride this.
Disclaimer: In the interests of full disclosure, it’s worth noting that I am a registered donor and have been since I was young. This isn’t a question about the value of organ donation in itself, but political interference in the process.
Immigration. The ugly political topic that quickly ignites guttural feelings from across the political spectrum, allowing fundamentalists to gain ground whilst those seeking compromise rush to take shelter from the crossfire.
Whilst we in the UK have questions about freedom of movement within the EU to deal with, the situation in America is decidedly different. With far poorer neighbours just across a land border to the south, a history of ignorance, and marriage regulations that vary from state to state, it is a complex issue.
As part of his Presidential election campaign in 2008, Obama promised to be the one to bring much needed reform to the immigration policies of the US. His voting record at the time (#) appeared to back up his stance on a more liberal approach – such as giving permanent residence to particular categories of workers who are without a legal right to remain in the country.
In amongst a litany of other broken political promises (Guantanamo Bay, anyone?), there was the specific guarantee to deliver an immigration bill within his first year of office – something that has drawn substantial criticism.
‘I cannot guarantee that it is going to be in the first 100 days. But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I’m promoting. And I want to move that forward as quickly as possible.’ (#)
Finally, it was announced a couple of days ago that Obama plans to take executive action to make changes in the way that immigration is handled.
This is to concentrate on three main areas:
Providing more resources to ‘stem the flow of illegal crossings’ at the border.
Making it easier for ‘high-skilled immigrants’ to stay and work in the US.
Moving to ‘deal responsibly’ with those immigrants who already live in the US illegally.
The first two issues are almost a necessity to be mentioned in any proposed change to immigration rules, in order to appease those who will (and have) inevitably been outraged by the prospect of any sort of move that isn’t seen to be ‘cracking down’ on the problem. (#) There’s always a feeling in immigration discussions that political parties are simply moving chairs around on the deck of the Titantic; a lot of what’s being proposed (such as ‘Visa Modernization’) sounds fine and well, but isn’t really anything different to what we’ve been told by any other government before. (More detail #)
The thirdissue however, made for some interesting reading, and it’s what Obama spent most of his time explaining in his speech. Obama-Immigration-Transcript.
The gist of it is as follows:
There are millions of undocumented immigrants living in America, who contribute to the society. (That’s putting it lightly. Arguably, the whole American economy relies on the exploitation of those living there illegally).
It is impractical to track down and deport all of those people.
Giving an unconditional amnesty would be unfair to those who had followed the rules to migrate legally.
If people (who have been in the US for a certain amount of time, as well as other conditions) are willing to pay taxes, they can register to ‘come out of the shadows and get right with the law’.
Unsurprisingly, this was a clever speech, designed to appeal to all parts of society… Biblical references and all.
‘Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger – we were strangers once, too.’
It is clear that this was as much about a President in his final term forcing the hand of Congress to act, after the Democrats recently suffering a heavy defeat in the midterm elections. This was about throwing a political stake in the sand to try and force change.
‘And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.’
It is symbolic, and an admirable aim. However, it appears that this might be all it is.
Obama’s speech was heavy on rhetoric, and almost non-existent on actual content. Looking closer, it is unclear what it actually means to ‘come out of the shadows and get right with the law’. He explicitly stated that this would not grant a permanent right of residence, or any other rights of citizenship.
‘It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive’
It isn’t obvious then, why exactly anybody who is currently living in America illegally (and who meets the criteria) would come forward. All this does is give a temporary reprieve from the threat of deportation, which as the President admitted himself, is a threat that would never realistically come to fruition for many people. Wo why take the risk of stepping out of the shadows in the first place? I wouldn’t.
Whilst a highly symbolic, and sophisticated political move, this doesn’t actually confer any real benefit on those who Obama spoke passionately about in his speech: those who ‘work hard, often in tough, low-paying jobs’, who go to the same churches and schools as everyone else, who support families, whose ‘hopes, dreams, and patriotism are just like ours’.
The end game of this move way well be to try and push Congress to make positive changes, but that isn’t the way Obama dressed it up. Instead, he painted a red white and blue striped picture of a glorious America that was embracing brothers and sisters with open arms; as if these changes would give people fundamental and significant protections that they currently don’t have.
They don’t.
It’s infuriating enough on its own to listen to yet more politicking on immigration, but especially so given the false hope that Obama has given to those people that he praised as part of American life.
‘That’s what this debate is all about. We need more than politics as usual when it comes to immigration; we need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears.’
These are powerful words, but words which ring hollow in the face of scrutiny.
Sadly people seem more interested in whether this is ‘smart politics’ or legal than about the people the proposed changes are meant to help.
A few years ago, I proposed to a blue eyed, blonde haired American girl named Grace. She lived in Denver, Colorado, and I in Glasgow, Scotland. I told her I knew it would be rough, but I was prepared to do whatever we had to so we could be together. We agreed that we would pursue the legal path of least resistance – which was for her to move to the UK. This was partly down to the minimum income requirements imposed by our respective Governments (I had a higher paying job at the time), but also to do with having more experience of the British legal system.
Despite being the lesser of two evils, the process itself was hellish.
There were endless contradictions, blatant flaws, and convoluted evidential requirements. Just when it seemed like we had gotten over one obstacle, another illogical one would present itself. Often, I would literally be ripping my hair out in sheer exasperation at the injustice of the whole thing. How could they get away with this? It seemed clear that the problems were there by design rather than incompetence. Every part of my being wanted to scream from the rooftops to tell people about what was really going on; to publicly question why – despite all of the rhetoric from the UK Government about wanting immigrants who add value to our society – my future wife was banned not only from working, but from volunteering.
I didn’t. To this day I am still wary of openly criticising the policies on immigration too heavily, as we are locked into the process for years to come. The decisions that we would be calling into question would be made by the very same people and organisations that could deny any of our future applications on a whim.
With just days before the people of Scotland decide to vote on independence, it’s important that I make this clear: The UK’s immigration policy is fundamentally racist, with the system deliberately left broken. As a result, British citizens have less rights in their own country than those from elsewhere in the EU.
Actual paperwork aside, here’s a specific example:
* Grace requires a specific residence visa to live in the UK. To avoid waiting weeks for a decision, we have to go to a dedicated UKVI (formerly the UKBA) office. As there is only one office in Scotland (with limited hours), this meant travelling to Liverpool to get an appointment. The cost for this privilege (which has to be renewed every couple of years) is around £1000.
* Each time Grace arrives in the UK, she has no automatic right of entry. She must present her passport and residence card, along with a completed landing form. Providing that entry is granted at the border, her passport is stamped with the entry date, and her fingerprints taken.
* If a German citizen came to the UK, they would have the right of residence under the European Union’s regulations on freedom of movement.
* The German citizen’s partner would automatically have the right of entry to the UK, as long as they were either travelling with them at the time, or coming to join them in the country. Their passport would not ordinarily be stamped, and they would not require any visa or residence permit, as they were there by virtue of the German citizen’s Treaty rights.
The UK cannot impose restrictions on the freedom of movement of citizens of the EU or their families (allowing for the relevant definitions in question), but they are able to impose whatever restrictions they like on their own people. This is because it is not counted as discrimination against the citizens of another member state.
In short, this means that because of Westminster immigration policy, I (as a British person) have less rights than somebody from anywhere else in the European Union.
In order to gain the same protection as other European citizens, I would first need to move to a different country within the EU, stay for three months (in the ‘pursuit of an economic activity’ – working, basically), and then return to the UK with Grace. This is a complicated route, and one established by the case of Surinder Singh.
So why does this ridiculous situation exist? Simple. The ideological pursuit of the Tory government. Hey, Better Together, right?
But hey, want to bring your dog with you from the USA? Not a problem.
UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, David Kaye. Following on from his 2018 report on content regulation, this book looks at the issue of who decides what kind of speech is acceptable online, and the potential implications of the increasing expectations placed on platforms to regulate certain kinds of content.
