Talk It Out

Can democracies deal with terrorism?

There was an opinion piece in the Australian concerning the difficulties for politicians in a democracy in showing restraint in their responses to terrorism. The author argued that the shock value, rather than fatalities of terrorist acts means that politicians have no choice but to demonstrate that they are tough on terrorism, especially in a democracy where they will be held to account if they don't.

There is no doubt some truth in that, but is that the whole story? Is it fear of being held to account by the people in a democratic system itself that mandates an overreaction from our political leaders or is it the desire to capitalise on terrorism? Let's face it, terrorism can give a great boost to a leader's approval ratings. Consider Bush's approval ratings in the graph below. His approval ratings doubled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Similarly Howard's approval ratings jumped 21 points from 40 percent prior to 9/11 to 61 points in October 2001. That's a 50% increase.

Consider the popularity boost these leaders received as a consequence of the terrorist attack, the ensuing fear and the militaristic reaction to the attack. This sort of a popularity jump can be the difference between disastrous election loss and a comfortable win. Consequently, overreaction to the threat of terrorism may have less to do with avoiding a negative reaction from the electorate and more to do with the desire to make electoral gains by inflating the situation or creating a crisis if it doesn't exist, instilling fear and reaping the awards of being seen as "dealing" with the crisis.

While such conduct is more likely to occur in a democracy, for the simple reason that non-democratic leaders do not need to worry about getting re-elected, the phenomenon is not a function of democracy. It is a function of moral and ethical deficiencies on part of political leaders (of both left and right wing persuasions) who put their own interests above those of their country. While political leaders behave in this manner, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the author of the article is right when he says that "terrorism succeeds even when it fails."

I'll leave it to you to decide what it says about the voters if politicians can repeatedly get away with such conduct.

July 27th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Australian politics, World politics, Terrorism and war on terror, United States | no comments

Sacrificing the rule of law at the altar of fear

        Inscriptions on the Statue of Liberty

Americans are good at coming up with inspiring slogans. Slogans are not sufficient however for a country to truly remain the "land of the free". They are not an adequate antidote to the fear-driven knee-jerk reactions threatening to compromise essential tenets of rule of law and freedom, not only in America, but also in other democracies.

A few days ago a prominent US judge - Richard Posner, gave a speech to a conference of Australian lawyers in Chicago, in which he reportedly advocated secret trials for terror suspects, increased surveillance and crackdown on US and Canadian Muslims. More frightening still was Posner's suggestion that anti-terrorism efforts should not be "hog-tied" by the Constitution and that US "over invested" in the "traditional concepts of criminal justice." 

I have not been able to find a full copy of Posner's speech, but his speech is said to have shocked the attending Australian lawyers. Posner's position is indeed a worrying reminder of how dangerous a motivator fear is. What we have is a US judge essentially suggesting tearing up the constitution and discarding the principles that form the foundation of the American justice system and the rule of law because he (along with many others) is afraid. We are not talking about someone who is a fool or a right wing extremist. Posner is a highly regarded jurist. Whatever one may think of his economic theory of law (it doesn't appeal to me personally, but each to his own), there is no point denying his capabilities.

That a jurist of his caliber would suggest abandoning the carefully crafted protections and principles that we treasure as cornerstones of our legal (and political) systems, because "the US temper and culture could not sustain repeated terrorist attacks" points to the fragility of our liberties. The country that proudly proclaims itself to be "the land of the free" is willing to destroy its freedoms because of fear. No terrorist action is needed to destroy the American "way of life" - they appear to be content to do so themselves. 

It is not my contention that the fear is unjustified or that the threat of terrorism ought to be ignored. But if we (Western democracies) are to destroy the cherished liberties and principles that make "our way of life" what it is - then what is it that we are fighting for? Do we really want to defend ourselves by destroying who we are? Do we want to abandon the protections and liberties that were achieved through decades or centuries of struggle and sometimes bloodshed? If the answer is yes, then the "war on terror" has already been lost.

One other comment that Posner reportedly made is that the measures he proposed would not "endanger liberty and undermine the political system" because a "very aggressive media" and government whistle-blowers made it impossible for governments to conceal what they did. It is quite extraordinary that a judge would propose media as a substitute for the protections enshrined in the legal system. Leaving essential liberties to the mercies of what journalists wish (or dare) to report and to the possibility that a government employee would be sufficiently disgruntled and courageous to blow the whistle, borders on absurd. It is not to say that the media does not play an important role in government transparency, but it is not an antidote to abuse, as is evidenced by the documented atrocities in the "war on terror". Further, revealing abuses, possibly years afterwards, is not the same as preventing them from happening in the first place.

America's rush to destroy its founding principles is very disturbing. If it continues on that road, the inscriptions on the base of the Statue of Liberty will stand as no more than sad reminders of proud and cherished values willingly sacrificed at the altar of fear. 

July 2nd, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | World politics, Law, Human rights, Terrorism and war on terror, United States | no comments

Can you justify torture?

There is an excellent article by Sally Neighbour in the Australian, titled "Asking the painful questions", which deals with use of torture by the West in the "war on terror".

The article mentions the dilemma formulated by the US legal academic Dershowitz. Imagine this scenario:

"A massive bomb has been set to go off in downtown New York or Sydney. A member of the terrorist cell has been captured. It's believed he has information that could avert the attack, saving hundreds, possibly thousands, of lives. Should he be tortured to get that information?"

Would it be, for example, acceptable to force a sterilised needle under the nails, causing excruciating pain but no permanent damage?

It is very tempting to answer yes to this question. After all, we are talking about a potential mass murderer. There are hundreds of lives at stake. Surely, saving hundreds of lives balances favourably against causing temporary pain to a member of a terrorist cell?

Of course there is a little problem in that, if the person does reveal information under torture, you have no way of knowing whether information is reliable. They would no doubt would be delighted to send the authorities on a wild goose chase. In the meantime our timebomb may very well go off.  This particular argument against use of torture is entirely pragmatic - while it may be effective to force a confession to matters suggested to the victim (for the history buffs - consider the formulaic confessions given by those accused of witchcraft), but it is not all that effective at getting to the truth.

Pragmatic considerations aside, there is a much more important reason why torture is never legitimate. Consider this:

What if the building with a ticking time bomb contains dozens of people, not hundreds. Is use of torture justified then? Does it matter if they are "nice" people we feel sympathy for (eg. if this is a kindergarten building) or if they are not so nice people (eg. if this is a prison building)? What if it is only two people? Or one person? Is every life not equally precious? If it is ok to torture a person to save hundreds of lives, why is it not legitimate to save dozens of lives or to save one life? Where do you draw that line?

What if you don't know that there is a ticking bomb set to go off just yet, what if you just suspect it may be some time in the future. Is it ok to torture your terrorist suspect then? Does it matter if s/he is not personally involved in the plot but is merely protecting someone who is (eg a family member)? Does it matter if they are a child or elderly or ill?

Why would we restrict it to terrorism. How about an accomplice of a serial killer? Should they be tortured to reveal the identity or whereabouts of someone who may murder one or more people? What about a suspected serial killer against whom there is not enough evidence and s/he will go free to kill again - is it legitimate to torture them for a confession? 

The point of these questions is that once you step on the slippery slope, there is no return. There is no stop sign. If torture is legitimate in any circumstances, it will be legitimate in many circumstances.

The article cites a proposition from Dershowitz to make use of torture more transparent (acknowledging the reality that governments do use it), but creating a "system of torture warrants, whereby US President George W. Bush or Prime Minister John Howard would have to sign off on a warrant issued by a judge to authorise torture."

Quite apart from the fact that no political leader would be honest enough or stupid enough to put their signature on such a warrant, the proposition is quite repulsive. Firstly, torture is so antithetical to our common law, to international law and to all notions of decency and humanity, that any judge who does sign such a warrant would be unworthy of their position. An even greater problem is that to officiate torture is to legitimise it. To give an express right to political or judicial officers to approve its use is to sound the death knell for the universal prohibition on torture. The prohibition is reduced to saying that it is not ok, unless we say its ok, which is no prohibition at all.

Dershowitz's argument is pragmatic. "We live in a world where we have to choose evils," he argues. "We can't just declare suddenly, 'Let's not have torture', the way some human rights organisations do, and hope it will go away. It's not going away."

Practically speaking he is right. However, ideologically he is not. The world said "let's not have torture". Almost 130 countries said it when they ratified the Torture Convention, almost 150 countries said it when they ratified the ICCPR. Prohibition against torture is now firmly entrenched as a jus cogens rule of international law - meaning that the prohibition is a peremptory norm which no treaty or law can abrogate. It is absolute.

The cause of eliminating the use of torture in practice cannot be advanced by undermining this absolute prohibition. Why should we allow those who do engage in or authorise this inhumanity to hide behind a warrant? Let them fear revelation and political consequences while in office. Let them fear the legal consequences once out of it. Let them remember Pinochet and have no delusions of impunity. And let them spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder for their own Balthasar Garzon.

It is not perfect, it will not make torture go away, not today, not tomorrow, not in the next decade. But is it not better than giving up the fight and, for reasons of pure pragmatism, legitimating activity which can have no legitimacy?

June 18th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | World politics, Law, Human rights, Terrorism and war on terror | 2 comments

Not committed to preventing genocide

The Howard government has reportedly rejected the UN request to contribute troops to an international force for Darfur. Since February 2003 the genocidal conflict in Sudan has claimed as many as 450,000 lives (although the figure of 200,000 is often utilised) and created some 2.5 million refugees.

One might question the adequacy of the UN and international community response to the conflict as well as the adequacy of UN response to genocide generally (the genocide in Rwanda being the prime example). However, the Austrian government has not claimed that the proposed UN peacekeeping mission is likely to be ineffective or is too little too late - it rejected the request for troops because Australian Defence Force (ADF) has other commitments.

According to Howard, contributing to the UN force to stop genocide would require pulling ADF personnel from their other engagements. These "commitments" reportedly include: 1100 troops in East Timor, 970 in Afghanistan, 1575 in Iraq and 450 "monitoring Australia's maritime approaches".

The government previously described the genocide in Darfur as "one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters" and in 2004  Downer stated that "We shouldn't just turn our backs and say that doesn't matter", but talk it easy, action on the other hand requires true commitment.

The government prefers to have 450 troops making sure that no refugees from Sudan arrive on the Australian mainland (that's what "monitoring Australia's maritime approaches" means) rather than help put an end to the crisis that is forcing people to seek refuge. It prefers to contribute over one and a half thousand troops to a war that was based on lies and has already claimed hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in Iraq, rather than help to put an end to genocide which may have claimed as many as half a million lives.

If the refusal of the UN request is motivated by doubts as to the efficacy of the proposed UN action or by an Australian equivalent of the Mogadishu factor (ie not willing to risk Australian lives in an oversees conflict), then it should say so. If it is a question of priorities - what can be more important than putting a stop to the ultimate evil of genocide?

June 16th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Australian politics, World politics, Human rights, Refugees and asylum-seekers, United Nations, Darfur | no comments

The disappeared

On 7 June 2007, Amnesty International released a report into "off the record" detention in America's "war on terror".

The existence of a secret detention system was acknowledged by President Bush in September 2006. However the US government has never disclosed the numbers of people subject to this system. Secret detention allows a person to be held at an undisclosed location, for undisclosed duration, so no one can find out what has happened to them. Because, with the exception of a handful of detainees, the US government has not disclosed who is secretly detained, these people simply vanish. Their families are not told where they are or what was done to them.

Research by human rights groups, now published by Amnesty International, reveals at least 39 people who have been disappeared by the US government and whose fate or whereabouts remain unknown. It is however known that a number of these "disappeared" have been tortured by various methods including beatings resulting in permanent incapacitation, broken limbs and loud music played in their cells for months without a break. The "disappeared" include children. There are reports that at least two young children have been tortured by denial of food and water and putting insects and various creatures on their bodies to frighten them.

Such conduct violates the ICCPR and the Torture Convention, but lets ask - are we bothered by it? Does it make our blood boil that the country which claims to be "the land of the free" would engage is such manifest abuses of human rights? Or do we not care because the "disappeared" are "the worst of the worst" of terrorists (or at least so the US government claims)?

As to the "worst of the worst" point, the Amnesty Report reveals that the "disappeared" include low level terror suspects as well as families (including children) of the suspects. How a 7-year old child can be considered the "worst of the worst" is unclear. But lets ignore that. Lets assume that the "disappeared" are in fact dangerous terrorists (we have to assume because, as none of them have been given a fair trial, we'll never know for sure).

Is disappearance, indefinite secret detention and torture justified because America is fighting those who threaten to destroy "our way of life"? Is it ok because the suspects are alleged terrorists as opposed to your ordinary everyday criminals? Is such conduct acceptable against people who violently oppose "our values" and "our laws" and "our freedoms"?

I cannot help thinking that, if this is what the "war on terror" is about, then we have already lost. In the rush to "defend its way of life" America has sacrificed the very values and principles it claimed to protect. By violating key human rights and civil rights obligations America has done more to destroy its own freedoms, its own values and its own laws than any terror group could have hoped to achieve. One cannot fight an enemy by becoming that enemy, one cannot defend one's values by engaging in the very conduct that those values condemn.

It is easy to respect human rights of those we love, it is harder to respect the human rights of those we hate or those we fear. That is the ultimate test of our commitment to our core values and it is a test that America has failed. It is tempting to make exceptions for one's enemies. They may even appear to be justified, notwithstanding the fact that no derogation is permitted from prohibition on torture, no matter what the circumstances.

But remember this - if exceptions are permitted, someone would define them. Someone would need to say that certain people are not "human" for the purposes of enjoying human rights protection. That definition will be made by a person or a country with the power to do so, it will be made according to its own political agenda. For America it might be terror suspects. For Hitler it was six million Jews. For Pinochet it was thousands of left-wing sympathisers. For the terrorists it is those who don't subscribe to their view of the world.

If you are tempted to make exceptions of your enemies, you can rest assured that someday, someone will be able to make you the exception.

June 11th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | World politics, Human rights, Terrorism and war on terror, United States | 2 comments

Open discussion or frightened censorship - which is better?

Having just written about Andrew Bolt's inability to understand the concept of politics of fear, it was interesting to read Tony Coady's excellent article titled "Fear drives a bid for censorship" in The Age. Coady critiques the proposal for banning creation or reading of materials that "advocate" terrorist acts. As Coady points out, what constitutes advocacy or terrorism is not well-defined, or defined so broadly that "praising Nelson Mandela's role in freeing his country from racist tyranny, in part by armed struggle" could fall under the definition of proscribed conduct.

Is banning material that "directly or indirectly counsels or urges doing a terrorist act or directly or indirectly provides instruction on doing a terrorist act" (whatever that means) justified? Is is likely to produce a positive result?

Freedom of speech is precious in a democracy, but it is not, and should not be, absolute. In Australia implied constitutional protection for freedom of speech is very narrow and limited to political matters. Even America recognises some limits on its constitutionally enshrined freedom of speech. Limits are necessary - words can do more harm than sticks and stones, especially in the world where technology allows you to spread the word a lot faster and a lot further than you could lob a stick. Words can start riots, incite violence and even direct genocide. But words can also remedy ignorance, break down barriers and counter prejudice.

Is it really likely that reading material "advocating" terrorism will make a terrorist of someone who would not otherwise be inclined to become one? Is banning such material likely to stop those who are so inclined? Or is it more likely to create a situation where such material will be available "underground", but there will be no opportunity for discussion and debate? The destructive words will still have their influence where they are likely to cause most harm, but will be out of reach of the remedial influences of discussion and debate.

Fear is not a great influencer of sound law-making. Under its influence those proposing to ban materials "advocating" terrorist acts have reverted to the state of a frightened child, who closes his eyes and thinks that because he can't see the thing that is frightening him, that thing can't harm him. Such badly thought out, knee-jerk ban is bad for freedom of speech, as Coady points out. But it may also be bad for discouraging terrorism, helping to create that dark, underground zone where harmful words can multiply and fester, undisturbed by the light of rational discussion.

Thanks for reading. 

June 2nd, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Australian politics, World politics, Media, Terrorism and war on terror, Freedom of speech | no comments

It’s not so black and white

Isn't it ironic how people to whom racism means very little are prone to see it everywhere? So Andrew Bolt, commenting in the Herald Sun, accuses Irene Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty International, of taking anti-racism so far as to engage in racism herself. In her report Khan listed four leaders who engage in "myopic and cowardly leadership". These were John Howard, George Bush, Omar Al-Bashir and Robert Mugabe. This combination seems to have upset Bolt. One can almost see his point, after all the myopic and cowardly leadership of John Howard is not as damaging as that of the butcher of Darfur, whom Bolt credits with the genocidal murder of 200,000 people.

And so Bolt concludes that Khan has been engaging in racist anti-racism - her "pantheon of evil" is deliberately balanced to include two blacks and two whites, two "third worlders" and two "westerners". He's outraged - how dare Khan (whom he describes as "a Bangladeshi Muslim whose own country, by the way, is under military rule") lecture the West, where does this Muslim woman get off "likening the worst to the West, and seeing an equivalence between those defending the West and those trying to destroy it."!

Khan's statement that "The politics of fear has been made more complex by the emergence of armed groups and big business that commit or condone human rights abuses." draws another rebuke from Bolt - "How about that? Al-Qaeda (which Khan never mentions by name) is no more deadly than a big business like Nike." Bolt neglects to say that Khan doesn't mention Nike by name either, or that she is not actually talking about which of these groups is more deadly (more on that later), but for Bolt the truth should never be allowed to get in the way of a good rant.

 "You might think I've read too much into one article" says Bolt, but he doesn't think so, you see Khan has previously made statements about the threat to human rights posed by the "war on terror" and compared Guantanamo Bay to Russian gulags. This must be proof that she's off the rails.

The accusations continue to flow. I will not reproduce them here - those wishing to read the full list of Bolt's complaints can find them in his article. But please also read what Khan actually wrote. When you do, you will find that Bolt is right, he is not reading too much into Khan's piece - he is simply not reading what she in fact wrote. It is much easier to extract a few random phrases, take them out of context and miss the essence of Khan's argument. Classic Bolt.

Khan's Foreword to Amensty report is actually a well-reasoned piece of writing. Its central theme is the threat that "politics of fear" presents to human rights and to "our shared understanding and our shared humanity". Politics of fear, as Khan correctly recognises, and Bolt doesn't, is not confined to the "Third World" or "Islamist" countries. What Khan actually said about myopic and cowardly leadership is not quite what Bolt chose to attribute to her. I hope my readers will forgive the lengthy quote:

…our world is as polarized as it as at the height of the Cold War, and in many ways far more dangerous. Human rights – those global values, universal principles and common standards that are meant to unite us – are being bartered away in the name of security today as they were then. Like the Cold War times, the agenda is being driven by fear – instigated, encouraged and sustained by unprincipled leaders.

Fear can be a positive imperative for change, as in the case of the environment, where alarm about global warming is forcing politicians belatedly into action. But fear can also be dangerous and divisive when it breeds intolerance, threatens diversity and justifies the erosion of human rights.
…
Today far too many leaders are trampling freedom and trumpeting an ever-widening range of fears: fear of being swamped by migrants; fear of “the other” and of losing one’s identity; fear of being blown up by terrorists; fear of “rogue states” with weapons of mass destruction.

Fear thrives on myopic and cowardly leadership. There are indeed many real causes of fear but the approach being taken by many world leaders is short-sighted, promulgating policies and strategies that erode the rule of law and human rights, increase inequalities, feed racism and xenophobia, divide and damage communities, and sow the seeds for violence and more conflict.

The politics of fear has been made more complex by the emergence of armed groups and big business that commit or condone human rights abuses. Both – in different ways – challenge the power of governments in an
increasingly borderless world. Weak governments and ineffective international institutions are unable to hold them accountable, leaving people vulnerable and afraid.

History shows that it is not through fear but through hope and optimism that progress is achieved. So, why do some leaders promote fear? Because it allows them to consolidate their own power, create false certainties and escape accountability.

The Howard government portrayed desperate asylum-seekers in leaky boats as a threat to Australia’s national security and raised a false alarm of a refugee invasion. This contributed to its election victory in 2001. After the
attacks of 11 September 2001, US President George W Bush invoked the fear of terrorism to enhance his executive power, without Congressional oversight or judicial scrutiny. President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan whipped up fear among his supporters and in the Arab world that the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur would be a pretext for an Iraq-style, US-led invasion. Meanwhile, his armed forces and militia allies continued to kill, rape and plunder with impunity. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe played on racial fears to push his own political agenda of grabbing land for his supporters.

Only a common commitment based on shared values can lead to a sustainable solution. In an inter-dependent world, global challenges, whether of poverty or security, of migration or marginalization, demand responses based on global values of human rights that bring people together and promote our collective well-being. Human rights provide the basis for a sustainable future. But protecting the security of states rather than the sustainability of people’s lives and livelihoods appears to be the order of the day.

This is not quite what Bolt would have us believe. His article, with its talk of the West being "swamped by migrants from the East" or of "jihad-minded sons of immigrants in Britain" demonstrates his buy-in into exactly the sort of politics of fear that Khan identifies. It is not surprising that Bolt prefers to accuse Khan of racism or of hating Western politicians rather than examine his own arrogance in believing that the West can do no wrong, that al-Bashir's or Mugabe's use of politics of fear has no parallel in Australia or in US. He fails to see that while the outcome may be different in terms of its severity or visibility, the root of the evil is the same. He is unwilling to acknowledge that using public fear to justify bombing the hell out of a country, or to lock up people for years with no charges or trial or even to win an election you would otherwise lose, is a threat to Western democracies. He does not want to acknowledge the threat because it comes from within and not from the demonised "other" of the third world and because addressing that threat requires self-examination and not just a whole lot of cluster-bombs.

June 2nd, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | World politics, Human rights, Media | one comment

Hicks’ return does not undo the damage done

After five years confinement in the infamous Guantanamo Bay Hicks has returned to Australia. There are pictures of him getting off the privately chartered aircraft (an expense which has attracted some media comment), there are statements from his lawyer that he is "elated" to be back in Australia and there is the usually "profound" headline from the Herald Sun, screaming "A dangerous fool returns". And of course there are cautions for "Hicks supporters" not to turn him into a martyr - after all he is a convicted criminal.

Personally, I resent the term "Hicks supporters" - it is liable to portray opposition to the actions of our government and the US government as support for Hicks as a person, as support for his cause. There is nothing admirable about Hicks' cause. Violence is not a cause that deserves support.

However, the concept of the rule of law, of fairness, of natural justice and of respect for human rights of people, no matter how repugnant we may find them, does deserve our support. The so-called "war on terror" was supposedly about protecting our values and our way of life. By allowing the travesty of what happened to Hicks and what is still happening at Guantanamo Bay, we have already lost this war. We have compromised our most fundamental values - the very values we claimed to be fighting for.

Our legal and political system stands on certain foundations. These include the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal that is independent of the executive arm of the government, the right to know the charges, the right not to be detained for five years before finding out what the charges are, the right not to be tried under a retrospective law, the right not to be subject to inhuman conditions as a way to force a plea of guilty and the right to an open and transparent legal process and trial. We expect to be protected by our government when abroad and not have our rights compromised for the sake of impressing an ally. We expect our status as an Australian citizen and a human being to mean something. We expect that if what we did was not a crime in our country, our government will not use that as an excuse to subject us to a five year imprisonment and an unfair quasi-legal process overseas, just to make a point.

Hicks' cause is not admirable, but these principles are. People have fought and died to establish them at the heart of all sophisticated democratic systems. Hicks' return does not undo the damage done to these precious ideals of our society. Rather than talking about the cost of Hicks' return flight, we should consider the moral cost of his ordeal.

Thanks for reading 

May 21st, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Australian politics, World politics, Law, Human rights | 2 comments

The use and misuse of racism claims by tyrants

I have recently written about the controversy concerning the proposed visit by the Australian cricket team to Zimbabwe. Yesterday, the Howard government moved to ban the team's visit to that country. The ban prompted an attack by the Zimbabwe government, which claimed that the ban was a "desperate" and "racist" move motivated by the increasing number of black players on the Zimbabwe cricket team, that Australia was one of the worst human rights violators in the world and that the ban denied Zimbabwean cricketers' "human rights" to play sport.

Lets get the minor matters out of the way first. I am not a fan of the present Australian government. The Zimbabwe ban is one of the very few times I have agreed with their actions. One of the reasons for the difference in opinion is that the human rights record of the Howard government is indeed dreadful.  Their treatment of refugees merits the strongest condemnation (and Labor is not much better in that regard, by the way). Their policies on indigenous people and native title, workers rights, rights of gays and lesbians, of the unemployed and other vulnerable groups are a long way off the best practice human rights standards. Is it true that a country which is not a model of human rights compliance cannot take political action against a government responsible for terrible and persistent human rights violations? If that logic was followed no tyrannical regime could ever be subject to criticism, because there is no nation in the world that has a flawless human rights record.

The second minor matter is that I must confess my apparent ignorance, for in my perusal of human rights treaties I have not encountered anything to suggest that playing cricket against another country is a human right. However, freedom from arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture or execution and the right to participate in a democratic process are just a few among the rights that are in fact human rights and that have been violated by Mugabe's regime.

Now to the claims of racism. It is concerning that there is a distinct trend (perhaps aided by the cultural relativist ideals) to use the cry of racism as a shield against human rights abuse allegations. Debate of what exactly constitutes racism is beyond the parameters of a blog post. However, it may be stated what racism is not. Criticism of a vile dictator because he abuses the human rights of his citizens is not racism merely because the perpetrator is black. Racism is not an excuse for unacceptable conduct by someone who is black. Racism is, at its heart, an abuse of power. It cannot and should not become a shield for abuses perpetrated by racial minorities, such as those of the Mugabe regime. Racism is about prejudice. It cannot and should not be a shield for prejudices that are equally as vile and illogical (refer to Mugabe's stance on homosexuals).

Freedom from racial discrimination is a human right. Baseless claims of racism only cheapen and degrade the enormous problem that racism is and do a great disservice to those who are really its victims. No doubt Mugabe's government does not care about racism any more than it cares about the other human rights that it routinely violates. For it, racism is a slogan to be thrown around when convenient. And it is yet one more reason why the Australian government was right to ban the Zimbabwe cricket tour.

May 14th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | Australian politics, World politics, Human rights | no comments

Your mind online - Google plan to collect psychological profiles of net users

It is quite disturbing to read that Google has applied to patent a technology for creating psychological profiles of internet users based on their online gaming behaviour. Online gaming interactions and conduct can be studied to evaluate the users' psychology. This technology is reportedly not limited to PC users - gaming consoles that connect to the internet also provide a harvesting ground for personal information.

The apparent purpose of the exercise is to use the information for more targeted advertising, based on the psychology of the particular consumer. The idea that such personal data is to be provided to or used by advertisers to more effectively entice us to purchase their products, to the mutual commercial advantage of the advertiser and of Google, is uncomfortable enough. Worse still is the thought that such information may be used for other, more sinister purposes. 

Early last year the US government subpoenaed search data of several search engines, including Google, Yahoo, MSN and AOL. Google alone chose to fight the subpoenas, resulting in a court ruling for provision of much more limited information. While in this instance Google acted to protect the information in its possession, it is by no means certain that it, or other entities that may gain access to its psychological profiling results, will not yield to the demands of governments or organisations determined to use such data for their own purposes, including tyranny and persecution. It is notable that, at about the same time that Google was fighting the US government lawsuit, it succumbed to the demands of the Chinese government and sensored some websites in its Chinese market. Another search engine, Yahoo! was recently sued by a Chinese political prisoner, who alleged that the search engine provided authorities with the information to link him to pro-democracy postings, leading to his arrest and torture.

In August last year AOL published some 20 million internet queries linked to users (identified by numbers rather than names). The company withdrew the publication and apologised for the apparently unauthorised disclosure, however the idea that such information can be released accidentally and not only deliberately does nothing to alleviate the privacy concerns.

Search engine companies hold an enormous amount of information, whether gathered from cookies, services such as Google History or other sources. This information is extremely valuable, powerful and, in the wrong hands, extremely dangerous. Whether it is disclosed to a democratic government pursuant to a subpoena or to a totalitarian regime as the price of being able to access that particular market or released to the world at large because of an employee stuff-up, it has consequences for our privacy. Whether the consequences of disclosure are a minor embarrassment or a criminal prosecution or arrest and torture for daring to speak out, holding the data gives the search engine companies a measure of control over our lives.

When the information collected delves deeper into our mind, to our psychological and behavioural profiles, the danger occasioned by its possession is greater and so is the temptation to gain access to the data. Online privacy is an immensely complex issue - legally, ethically and politically. Google's slogan of  "do no evil" sits uncomfortably with its increasing potential to do so by expanding its data mining into our very minds.

May 13th, 2007 Posted by Unsilenced | World politics, Internet and technology | one comment