Individuals on phone calls at the New York Times Beijing bureau have had their calls cut short when the word “protest” is uttered, in both English and Chinese.
How very 1984.
We are also already cringing at the search terms that we will find reaching our blog upon the publishing of the below webcomic:
Photo of Darwin found here.
Webcomic is Cyanide and Happiness, by Kris Wilson.
Amongst all the chaos in Egypt, the Egyptian government took a step last week which seems to be common amongst repressive regimes when protesters become bold: they turned off the Internet and SMS networks, to make it difficult for people to organize themselves.
Vodafone’s CEO confirmed that they received such an order, and that — under Egyptian law — they were obliged to comply.
Almost immediately, concerned citizens – obviously not Egyptian citizens, who were cut off from the service – started expressing their displeasure. Not just with Egypt, but with Vodafone. They urged people to write to Vodafone and demand that Vodafone return access to people in Egypt.
Here at the Big Bad Blog, we have a huge problem with this.
We are of the opinion that the Egyptian government’s actions was an oppressive act, performed by an oppressive regime. We wish the protesters well, and applaud private citizens who are contributing to projects such as TOR which can be used to circumvent actions like those of the Egyptian government.
However, we think that Vodafone did the right thing, and needs to obey the Egyptian government so long as they are the relevant authority in Egypt.
Our reasoning is simple: we do not believe that private corporations should decide what laws or (legally issued) government orders they should follow. We believe that private corporations already hold too much influence regarding the machinations of politics — just take a look at your local laws regarding “pirated” music — and do not think that the revolution should be sponsored by Vodafone.
If it is OK for Vodafone to disobey Egypt’s legal instruction to shut off their service, then what prevents Facebook from ignoring privacy concerns in Canada, or BP from ignoring environmental protection legislation in the United States?
For the most part, these people who want Vodafone to turn around and tweak Mubarek’s nose are those same people who decry that corporations are being treated as people when it comes to political donations in the United States, or the influence of industry on intellectual property laws.
This is nothing more than having one’s cake and eating it too.
If you — like us — believe that corporations should be obedient to the law and not agencies that work for political change, then Vodafone did the right thing. Be disappointed and upset with Mubarek’s government.
For Vodafone, turning off access to the Internet was something they had to do — it is a condition that was required in order to provide Internet access in the first place.
So I had this great post ready to go tonight. All ready to go. On how all this Protest the Pope nonsense is … well … nonsense.
And then, earlier today, the Pope pre-empted me, saying that “aggressive neo-atheism” and secularism must be resisted:
We can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews.
“I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives.
As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society.
And I am offended. And flabbergasted.
I have thrown out those thousand words, saying that this man and his visit should not really be protested, that either the real reasons for the protest are disingenuous or the entire thing is pointless. That I cannot see why anybody would care about what this man does or says. That it is best to ignore lunatics, not engage them.
While those last two sentences still ring true, I cannot help but hope now that the protesters outnumber his supporters. Still … I had some good material, and it should not all go to waste.
The fact remains that the whole idea of protesting the Pope is a bit silly. The reasons for it are outlined in this letter to The Guardian, signed by a mix of infamous atheists (Dawkins et al) and minor celebrities. In short, it reads like a list of policies and positions the Catholic church has long taken that they do not like.
Resisting the signing of treaties on human rights. Opposing equal rights for gays. Discouraging the use of birth control.
The usual list of things that people dislike about the Catholic church.
On that basis, they argue, the UK should not allow this man into the country on a state visit.
But … take a good look at that list. Is that any worse than the positions that might be taken by a potential Republican nominee for US President in 2012? Any worse than the current President, or the previous one?
Is Pope Benedict [insert a combination of Xs, Vs and Is here] really worse than Putin? The last couple of South African Prime Ministers? The man who was nearly elected as Prime Minister in Australia recently?
I would tend towards “no” on each count. Which means that the level and source of opposition boils down to two things:
1. He is the head of a religion, as well as the head of state for the Holy See.
2. Followers of his religion are numerous, and excited about his visit.
Neither of these warrant protestation. Protesting will not make him recant his religion. As his politics are inspired from his religion (and not vice versa), protesting will not make him change his politics.
Instead, protests focus the cameras more firmly on the man. Protests make what he says seem more important, rather than less so. Protests help to give him a stage.
The Pope is, apparently, not very politically astute. And very sensitive.
His comments today — to compare atheists and secularists to Nazis, and term the actions of Nazi Germany “the atheist extremism of the twentieth century” are blatantly false.
The Pope who, it should be noted, is a former Hitler Youth member.
The Pope who, it should be noted, has supported a holocaust denier.
The Pope who, it should be noted, is the head of an organisation which launched the Crusades, is responsible for the Inquisition, held Galileo under house arrest for correctly describing the movement of celestial bodies, covered up child molestation by its priests, and which feels that ordaining women is a sin akin to molesting a child.
The Pope who, it should be noted, is speaking in Britain. The British are relatively sensitive about being called Nazis. And have some pretty crazy libel laws.
It is hard to see what the Pope gains by making this comparison — it merely makes him sound ridiculous. And that he was pushed to it by the fact that protests were being organised speaks to a huge lack of composure.
Maybe the protest have a chance for success after all, which I did not see before.
In any case, as an atheist who — when he left for work this morning — really could not have cared less what the Pope was doing this weekend and thought the protests were a bit dumb, I am now (due to the man’s actions) tempted to go join the throngs in protest on Saturday.
Because being called names without merit or evidence angers me. Having a head of state stand up and denounce my kind on a public broadcast and tell the country that they need to be on guard against me is not merely inflammatory — it is threatening.
And I stand up when people are threatened.
Rather unlike the Catholic church during World War II.
I am not fond of the “no confidence” vote, the mechanism in parliamentary politics by which members of parliament can vote out the current government by expressing that they do not have confidence in those MPs who are currently running the country. While some votes are natural confidence motions, as their passage is necessary for governing the country — budgets are a good example — confidence motions outside these key votes are mere politicking.
Years of minority rule in Canada have soured me on these motions. On one hand, we have a government which routinely declares a controversial vote to be a “matter of confidence” in order to push through legislation disliked by the opposition, who are not prepared to force an election over the issue. The opposition, meanwhile, watches the polls and gathers funds into their war chest, and will miraculously “lose confidence” in the government when they believe they have an opportunity to form the government themselves.
All of which is politics at its worst.
However yesterday I came across this story in the Globe and Mail, which details Canada’s Conservative government’s attempts to avoid an inquiry into police behaviour, tactics and strategy during the G20 meetings in Toronto, all of which was criticized a couple of weeks ago here on the Big Bad Blog.
If there ever was a reason to suddenly “lose” confidence, Liberals, this is it. When all reports suggest that the forces you use to “keep the peace” instead waged war on the liberties of your citizens, the government has a duty to conduct an investigation.
Instead, the government is accusing the opposition of supporting “thugs and hooligans”, and siding with “anarchist groups” for daring to suggest an investigation should take place. While nobody has ever accused a politician of being honest, the dishonesty is overwhelming in these statements as the concerns expressed by the opposition are not in regards to the arrest of those who actually committed criminal acts, but threats and arrests of those who did nothing wrong.
For instance, here is a photo of National Post photographer Brett Grundlock being arrested by five police officers in riot gear, who appear to be using force that one would think would be unnecessary in order to subdue a lone photographer:
This photograph is from the National Post article regarding his arrest. The National Post is one of two national newspapers in Canada, and is known for its right-wing editorial stance. Does that sound like an anarchist group? Does “photographer” or “newspaper reporter” sound like “thug” or “hooligan”?
Click on that link to Canada’s right-wing newspaper, and read about the treatment of their reporters. This is from a newspaper which posts editorials like this one, claiming civil liberties advocates ought to be ignored, and containing gems like this:
of course it was wrong and unfortunate that police seemed to believe secret laws had been passed giving them the right to violate civil rights. It should be remembered that this was a delicate time, and it’s unlikely to happen again.
Yep. It was a delicate time. It was unfortunate. But no need for consequences — it won’t happen again. Honest.
Finally, we would like to present to you another one of those arrested protesters. As much a thug and hooligan as a four-year-old at a picnic. Perhaps an anarchist? Do we arrest people for thoughtcrime now?
