Most exciting UK election in ages? Other minor parties are banal (Part Five)

Having run through the Conservatives (who want to shrink the state a little, just wont say how), Labour (who want to grow the state, and balance the budget, except the latter doesn't add up) and UKIP (who want to shrink the state a little more, except for healthcare, education and immigration), what about the others?

Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats are the other party of government, who have taken a schizophrenic approach over the years since the Liberal Party merged with the breakaway Social Democrat Party in the 1980s. It was in the centre, then when Blair led the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (and the green political religion was in ascendancy) it moved left.  Now, it has spent five years supporting a Conservative government in coalition, and has been severely hammered by its voters, used to feeling morally superior by supporting policies that they knew would be highly unlikely to be tested with reality.

Given Labour's swing off to the left under Ed Miliband, the Liberal Democrats are playing the only logical card they have, by claiming to be more fiscally responsible than Labour, and more "caring" than the Conservatives.  For a libertarian this doesn't mean a lot.  The Liberal Democrats are happy to support some lower taxes, but also support new taxes on the "rich" including a mansion tax.  Beyond that it is much of the same, except for a commitment to five new environmental laws, and the Liberal Democrats are solid supporters of retaining EU membership.  What sliver of liberty remains is a belief in a slightly less criminalised approach to cannabis, solid opposition to further state surveillance powers on communications (which both Labour and the Conservatives battle to support), and a handful of candidates (such as Jeremy Browne) who are more "classical liberal").

Or indeed neither

The one thing the Liberal Democrats do have is bargaining power. This is the largest minor party that would credibly help support either major party to be in government.   The avowedly leftwing parties wont, so it is difficult to see how they can have that much bargaining power.   Yet, what really can be said of it?  It is so plagued with the disease of environmentalist unilateralism that it is difficult to see it, on economic policy, as being anything more than a hindrance.  Yet it's rather fractured approach to personal liberties is better than the two main parties (although UKIP may end up being better, it wont have the 20-30 or so MPs the Liberal Democrats are likely to have).

With few exceptions, there is no good reason to vote for a Liberal Democrat candidate.  They are, after all, usually moderate socialist politicians with a deep green tinge.  It's a shame.  The old Liberal Party, while it did have a mixed centre-leftish tinge on the welfare state, it also has a strong commitment to personal liberty, a position not comfortably held by the "tough on crime" two main parties.  The Liberal Democrats have found identity only because Labour swung off to the left, if Labour loses and returns closer to the centre, it's hard to see what the point of the Liberal Democrats is.  Yet, it is the first time one can say that the Liberal Democrats are the most likely of any of those standing, to be in government after the election.  It is difficult to see how either major party could govern without its acquiescence.

Scottish National Party

Shrill, nationalist socialism with two key motives.  First and foremost, engineer a path towards a second referendum on Scottish independence, and secondly to implement an almost Bennite approach to policy.  In the first instance, polling indicates that it could go from 6 to the majority of the 56 Scottish constituencies, if not most or all (some polls suggest all but one), and so making itself essential in propping up a Labour government (it has vowed not to ever support a "Tory" government, which it treats as poison).  So, is a price of keeping Labour in power, a path to another referendum?  Of course, if the Conservatives form a government, it feeds the absurd narrative that, yet again, Scotland is led by a government it "didn't elect".  It's absurd, because:

1. The SNP doesn't stand candidates outside Scotland, so could never be a government to lead Scotland in the absence of independence.

2. A plurality of voters in every safe seat in the country can claim they never get the government they elect half the time.  Indeed, given the majority of voters never change their vote, they can say the same thing.  

However, the SNP is riding on the back of nationalist hysteria and scapegoating, which, given it is on the far left, it claims isn't racist, but is incredibly intolerant.  Other parties in Scotland have noted that it is much more difficult than it used to be to get supporters to put placards or billboard up on their properties, because SNP supporters may vandalise them or throw bricks through their windows.  Now it's clear most wont do that, but a handful of incidents have made Scots "feardies" for good reason.  As such, it might be that the SNP "surge" isn't quite what is seemed, as many Scots quietly think they've had enough of the intolerance of the nationalist socialists.

The fact the SNP actually runs the devolved Scottish government now, but blames Westminster for any ills in Scotland, and once campaigned on all the "oil wealth" that could shower Scotland with a generous welfare state, but low oil prices have knocked that idea away.  However, it is nationalism, a psychological disorder based on pure tribalism.  Driven moreover by an utter delusion that there can be an end to so-called "austerity", because debt and deficits can be willed away.  See Greece's current state to check out that fib.

So no.  The SNP offers nothing but an anti-thesis to reason and a smaller state.  It is led by an unreconstructed fan of Michael Foot, who remains committed to the far-left foreign policy position he held.   Conservatives will delight in its evisceration of Labour in Scotland, but the SNP is far more dangerous than Labour - it seeks to use its presence in Westminster to machinate the break up of the UK, and in the meantime to demand more socialism for it.  The only bright hope for Scotland is that the Conservative leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, is head and shoulders above most of the Westminster Tory front bench.  However, given many of the best and brightest Scots left the country already, she will feel lucky for the Conservatives to hang onto their sole seat there.

Greens

Think Green Party and think more mad, led by a poorly prepared Australian, who is standing in a seat that she has no chance of winning.  The party that said membership of ISIS shouldn't be considered a crime or a reason to keep someone from immigrating to the UK.  A party that wants everyone to have a guaranteed welfare cheque, and engage in a spending programme the Institute for Fiscal Studies described as:

This sense that there is free money out there just waiting to flow into the Treasury’s coffers without anyone noticing reached new levels in the Green party manifesto, which claims to have identified a truly staggering £200 billion worth of tax revenue from tax avoidance, financial transactions, the rich and the wealthy.

That would be laughable if it weren’t playing into a wider narrative that there is a magic money tree that we can pluck at will. There isn’t. All these taxes, if collectable at all, are paid in the end by individuals. Many of them, especially when layered one upon the other, will have damaging economic effects.

The Greens will be lucky to retain their single seat.

Plaid Cymru

SNP in Welsh, with much less chance of winning many seats.

Ulster

In Northern Ireland, politics is mostly about which sectarian side you identify with.  On the Protestant/Unionist side it is the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)  for the hardline, and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) as more moderate.  On the Catholic/Nationalist side it is Sinn Fein for the hardline (which also takes the salary but never turns up to Westminster) and the SDLP for the moderates.  For the unaligned, the Alliance, the Conservatives and UKIP are standing.  What does it all mean?  Well the Conservatives may try to get DUP and UUP support to form a minority government.  Labour is aligned with the SDLP.  Rarely do the MPs from Northern Ireland become part of any government, it might matter more than it has for a generation this time.  Sinn Fein may be incredibly vile, but it does have the record of doing the least harm in Westminster in recent years, having never voted for any taxes or new laws (or anything).

Respect

Catholic communist appeaser of Islamism and supporter of Scottish Unionism, George Galloway, is the MP for Bradford West.  This is one seat I hope Labour snatches.

Conclusion

Nothing to see here, except people who want more of your money, who mostly want more control of your life, property or business. Beyond a handful of Liberal Democrats (one-hand), there is no reason to consider supporting any of this lot,

Most exciting UK election in ages? No to UKIP (Part Four)

UKIP is not a libertarian party.  It is not a free market party. It is not the UK equivalent of ACT.  It is a populist party with some good policies, and an outspoken leader who, sometimes, is rather good. 

So if you vote for a UKIP candidates, judge the individual on their merits, because the manifesto is a very mixed bag.

For me, in a first past the post system, a minor party better be pretty good, a decent alternative to deserve my vote.  After all, in most seats it has no hope of winning, so you might vote for it there as a statement of moral principle in support.  In those where it has a hope, it is more serious.  Is it better than the incumbent major party candidate?

So how does UKIP stack up?  Yes it wants lower taxes (although it wants a diverted profit tax too), yes it wants to leave the EU, but wants to keep agricultural subsidies.  Yes it wants to cut foreign aid, scrap the Scottish subsidy (the Barnett Formula), the HS2 vanity project, merge government departments, end fake charities, limit child benefit to two children, deregulate childcare, tighten up access to social housing, repeal the Climate Change Act and withdraw from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. 

So why the hesitancy?

It's not so much the contradictions of liberalising the smoking ban for pubs and restaurants, but wanting to ban smoking in parks and introduce a sugar tax.  It isn't the tightening of protection of Green Belts and a new planning presumption in favour of conservation.  It isn't the desire to just pour more money into the NHS and ban foreign companies from tendering to supply services.   It isn't the creation of a sovereign wealth fund from taxes on energy extraction to pay for social care for the elderly.  It isn't the higher tax on empty homes, the abolition of tertiary fees for those studying science, medicine and engineering.

It's not even the substance of the policy on immigration, which is to have what is called an "Australian style points system" for all migrants.  It is the deeper, more insidious focus of UKIP rhetoric which is to consider that for most problems in the UK, immigration is a core contributor. The problems of EU membership, in terms of regulatory hindrance and waste are obvious, and to its credit, UKIP talks about withdrawing from the EU not to engage in little Britain isolationism, but to promote more free trade with the rest of the world.  Good.

Whilst, on the face of it, there is quite a bit to like, let's not pretend what is at the centre of UKIP's support base - opposition to immigration.

Blame for many of the UK's so-called ills is laid at immigration from Eastern Europe.  Not immigration of Islamists (for which I have some sympathy in terms of national security), but of people whose families spent at least two generations previously under totalitarian communism.

NHS waiting lists? Blame immigration

Housing shortage? Blame immigration

Traffic congestion? Blame immigration

Lack of school places? Blame immigration

Lack of jobs for the unskilled? Blame immigration

Moreover, the more disturbing, economic nonsense, is that immigration lowered wages which is bad for the economy.

With the exception of the arrival of some criminal gangs, all of the problems attributed to immigration are problems of statist solutions to allocating resources, not immigration.

The NHS problem is because it is free to anyone who turns up.  The housing problem is because Councils have a legal obligation to house whoever turns up, and Councils severely limit permissions for building housing.  Roads are congested because they are poorly priced and state funding of new road capacity was severely constrained for political reasons for many years.  There is a lack of school places because funding for schools does not follow pupils and parents, and so on.

Yes, there is a real issue about a country with a welfare state, with free health, education and housing offered to those who are poor, with open borders to countries which are much poorer per capita.  Yes, there are genuine issues about serious criminals, and gangs of criminals coming to the UK with no way of intercepting them.

However, UKIP has tapped into something darker,  It's the envy dripping xenophobia of part of the British working class who don't like these new people, with their funny ways, showing us up, working longer hours, for less money than they'll take, raising families, with aspiration.   That is exactly what UKIP is tapping into, as much as many of its well meaning folk deny it.  It made a colleague of mine at work, who is Romanian, and far from unskilled, feel unwelcome and uncomfortable.  

After all Nigel Farage did say:

Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door

Not a gang of men, as he previously said, not squatting Roma, but a "group of Romanian people". Really?  Even if I give Farage the benefit of the doubt, in not carefully using words, it's the expression of xenophobia that IS unreasonable, and unfair. 

It is this the far left have taken and run with, to claim UKIP is racist, wants to deport foreigners and hysteria.  All of which is deplorable nonsense and smears.

Yet the mere fact that the far left can play this card is because UKIP has created the space for it.  It offers absolutely no solutions to health, education, housing or transport issues that are meaningful, it wants to sustain or even worsen the status quo.  Yes, its policies on energy and climate change are laudable, and withdrawing from the EU is commendable, but playing a tune on the back of the xenophobia of many is just plain irrational and wrong.

There is another dimension, which is the EU blaming when it is not only wrong, but actually gives succour to tyranny.  For some time, UKIP has blamed the EU for the events in Ukraine, claiming the EU orchestrated the popular revolt against the Putinesque thug Yanukovych, and that somehow Putin should be admired.  Seriously?  Whilst there was definitely a Western wooing of pro-Western politicians in Ukraine, including the EU, how was this evil?  Was it wrong to encourage Ukraine to ditch the 20 years of bankrupt kleptocratic autocracy that meant its per capita income has stagnated? Yes, Ukrainian nationalists are awful, yes the Russian minority does have genuine fears, but to damn the EU more than Putin? Seriously?  As bad as the EU is, it isn't executing its opponents, and we are a long way away from Russia - just ask the former satellite states of the USSR.

So no.  I wont be voting UKIP.  Not because I disagree with some of its policies, but because they are all entirely tainted by an overwhelming emphasis on blaming resource issues that are due to statism, on the arrival of foreigners, and the result of this rhetoric is this:

Yes, I'm oh so tempted to vote UKIP for what is good in it, I'm tempted to do so to stick two fingers up at the far left fascists who have vandalised UKIP property and threatened UKIP campaigners. However, I cannot in the depths of my conscience give moral authority to a party that has deliberately played on the xenophobia of ignorant bigots - even though it is actually against Europeans!  Yet there are a few who are deserving of your vote.  Douglas Carswell in Clacton is most clearly the best hope for a more libertarian UKIP.  Nigel Farage in South Thanet, might be tempting, given how well he debates at the European Parliament, but while most of his instincts are right, he IS the leader

So what about the other minor parties?

Most exciting UK election in ages? What small government option? (Part Three)

What do the Conservatives offer?  Rebuttal of the Labour narrative?

Barely.

In fact, Labour's accusations that the Conservatives will "privatise" and "destroy" the NHS (with implications of the doomed "American style health system") are total fabrications.  Labour also claims the Conservatives will cut public spending to the level of the 1930s, which is also a fabrication.  Yes, there will be cuts, but the level of public spending as a proportion of GDP will drop to levels seen around 2000-2001 under Tony Blair, and still higher than both Australia and Switzerland. Labour implies that the sick and poor will all suffer, and its class war narrative reinforces that, regardless of how much of a fictional piece of agitprop it all is.

The Tory narrative is "we've fixed the economy, there are two million more jobs, we fixed the mess Labour left us, we've cut the deficit, we're on the path to prosperity".  That is all very well, but is there a serious attack of the core Marxist narrative of Labour?

No, not really.

The Conservatives plead, rightly, that they cut the taxes of the lowest paid, by raising the threshold where income tax gets paid, to over £10,000.  However, they don't defend cutting the top rate of tax from 50% to 45%.  They find it difficult to defend raising the threshold at which inheritance tax cuts in to £1 million.

They talk about the money they have poured into the NHS, but never rebut the narrative that the way to get better healthcare is simply to put more money into an enormous bureaucracy full of producer capture, because who can say nurses and doctors are paid too much, or are not experts on how to procure supplies for enormous enterprises very wisely? 

The Conservatives play the "tax avoidance", "tax evasion" narrative as well, but don't say it is good for people to keep their own money often enough, although to his credit David Cameron has said this occasionally.  The problem is the Conservatives have raised other taxes, like Air Passenger Duty and have never addressed the biggest problem of the tax system - its complexity.

What about business?  No, the Conservatives have not argued that big business is good for Britain, and that the best way to deliver better goods and services for consumers at reasonable prices is to lower barriers to competition.  There is little talk about enterprise, entrepreneurship and how more people ought to set up their own businesses, and grow the economy and jobs through the private sector.  Yes there are votes in that, obviously, but when HSBC is looking to leave the UK, who is going to say this is bad?

What about welfare?  Yes, the Conservatives are seen as being tough on welfare, but the only real gap identified by the IFS is that there are to be £12 billion in welfare cuts, but no one from the party will say where these will come from.  So instead of saying that we shouldn't be borrowing to sustain people on welfare, the main narrative is that the Conservatives "hate the poor".

The number one weakness the Conservatives have is that the "class war" narrative, which has been waged not so much by Labour until recently, but certainly spread amongst its foot soldiers in unions, the public sector and crucially, the education system, has taken hold.

The Conservatives are said to be the party of the "well off" and look after their interests, but Labour is the party of everyone else, and looks after them.  Not the party of individual enterprise, effort, responsibility, opportunity and freedom versus the party of large government, ever growing welfare, subsidising irresponsibility and failure, more regulation and identity politics stereotypes.  It's a view expressly commonly by young people, no doubt having been taught this by their Labour aligned teachers.

Beyond a few tax cuts, the Conservatives are mostly offering "we're not Labour", and most recently given the high polling of the Scottish National Party (meaning Labour will most likely need SNP support to get a governing majority), which is more leftwing, the narrative is "you don't want to be ruled by a government held to ransom by those who want to break up the UK, and want to vote on English laws".

It's fear, which is much less than a positive defence of the government incrementally rolling back. Because, you see, this Conservative Party is not offering much rolling back.  You see, I can have the same headlines as with Labour and you get this...

Most exciting UK election in ages? Philosophical commitment vs. capitulation (Part Two)

I was wrong.

When I first envisaged this blog post, the UK election campaign looked like a lot of "me too" ism, which moved away from the early rhetoric of Labour Leader Ed Miliband, to a middle muddle ground of mediocrity, where both major parties campaign on different versions of the same policies. Although in substance both main parties are not too far apart on most policies, the truth is there is a yawning gap, and it is one based upon not simply political philosophy, but the very notion of having a political philosophy and set of principles upon which to base policies.

In that sense, the Labour Party has got both.  The Conservative Party, has almost neither.

It's relatively easy to look at the policies of both major parties and see that the gaps between them are not significant.  Although they may joust over the economy (the Conservative claim of success) and the NHS (Labour's claim of disaster), the truth is there is little between them on both issues.  The Institute For Fiscal Studies said as much in its review of their fiscal plans.  The Conservatives would cut spending more than Labour and run an actual budget surplus, although there is no clarity about proposed cuts in welfare spending.  Labour would run a current (i.e. not capital) budget surplus, "as soon as possible", but is also unclear how it would make up the gap (it's claims of "savings", and revenue from new taxes and the perennial "crackdown on tax avoidance" are pitiful).   

On the NHS (note no one talks about health policy, but rather how much to spend on the world's biggest civilian bureaucracy), it's about "we'll spend £8 billion more" or "we'll spend £2.5 billion more per annum", both basically wanting to throw more money into the same system.  No debate, at all, about whether it is fit for purpose or whether there are better ways to deliver healthcare. 

Beyond that, there is a lot of noise about tax.  Both parties claim they will crackdown on tax evasion and avoidance, both parties claim they will get more money from the rich (who despite the top 1% paying 27% of income tax apparently should be fleeced more, in different ways).  Both have announced either direct or indirect measures to do this, Labour by increasing income tax on those earning more than £150,000 and by a wealth tax on homes worth over £2m, the Conservatives by cutting tax relief on pension contributions.

What about housing?  Well a review by Paul Cheshire, Emeritus Professor of Economic Geography at the LSE, indicates that both parties are doing little to address the real issue, which is supply.  Both parties offer various fiscal bribes through either subsidies or targeted tax relief to make housing more "affordable", and Labour advocates returning to the heady days of building public housing, but Professor Cheshire says:

The illness is real but all that is on offer is snake oil; displacement activities treating some symptoms but not the underlying causes and – paradoxically – having the net effect of making the crisis worse. Perhaps that is just a little harsh on Labour but I did just hear their spokesperson offering the party’s solutions and the whole emphasis was on how the ‘market was not working so the planning system needed to be tougher’. Not so: the problem IS the planning system. It needs root and branch reform but that would take serious political courage.

The combined impacts of the Town and Country Planning Act, the power-hungry dedication of local authority planners and the banking of vast tracts of urban land as "green belts" is the problem, but no party will address any of these meaningfully.  Labour does want to introduce rent-regulation, whereas the Conservatives want to nationalise the social-housing held by privately owned Housing Associations so their tenants have a taxpayer subsidised "right to buy" them.  Neither is exactly a market oriented solution.

What about other policies?  Education?  Well, here there is more of a difference. The Conservatives have been pushing their somewhat successful "free schools" programme, which allows anyone to set up new schools, which is roundly opposed  by Labour and the teaching unions, and so Labour has promised to stop new ones being developed and to wage war on "unqualified" (read "non-unionised and not indoctrinated into state progressive teaching ideology") teachers.  Meanwhile, Labour wants to cut tuition fees, even though they don't have to be paid until a university student earns above the average wage.

How about the environment?  Who cares, thankfully (pledges on that have largely gone unnoticed).

I could easily go through a bunch of policies.  Labour's pledge to regulate energy prices, the Conservative pledge to freeze rail fares, both party's support for renewing the Trident nuclear weapons' system, but they aren't really the point.  On immigration, both want to "crack down" on immigration, except of course from the EU.

Yet what is actually going on between the two main parties is more fundamental.  Both embrace solutions to problems that are interventionist, that are sceptical about free markets.  The difference is that the Labour Party, and the Labour leader in particular - Ed Miliband - is back to its roots of Marxist rhetoric, narrative about the relationships between business and labour, and more explicitly a class based analysis of what is wrong with the UK (with some identity politics thrown in).

The Death March: Started 100 years ago today

As Aussies and Kiwis focus on ANZAC Day at present, it tends to overshadow an event, conventionally thought to have started today, a century ago, that is not as widely known as it should have been, not least because the land upon which it happened is, by and large, in complete denial of it.  The Governments of Australia and New Zealand, maintain this, presumably for convenience of trade with Turkey.  

That fact is an utter disgrace, and I give a rare credit to the Green Party for seeking to change this.

The Ottoman Empire was in trouble, the Great War, as it was then, was not going its way, and the Empire thought it had found one of the chief reasons, its scapegoat was the Armenians living in what is now Turkey, primarily because it saw Armenians as allied to Russia (which had often sided against discrimination and persecution of Armenians over previous centuries).  

There had been a history of periodic oppression of Armenians under Ottoman rule, as Armenians periodically rebelled against the inequality of treatment of the Ottoman state.  However, the catalyst for the events of a century ago came from the defeats of the Ottoman Empire in eastern Europe. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims fled from the Balkans to live in what is now Turkey, in what were predominantly Armenian areas.  These impoverished Muslims (who left many killed from war) were disenchanted by the relative comfort of the Armenian population, so a twin legacy of economic envy and "fifth column" fears emerged.  As Ottoman Muslims found it difficult to encourage Ottoman Armenians to turn against Armenians in Russia (which it was at war with), and there was genuine fear that Armenians would turn to fight with the Russians.

Armenian conscripts in the Ottoman army were demobilised, out of fear that they would switch sides. Their weapons were removed, and so it began.

Jevdet Bey, Governor of the Vilayet of Van, ordered 4000 Armenians to "volunteer" to defend the area from Russian attack, but the Armenians feared he would repeat his actions in villages of massacring Armenian men.  So they formed a self defence force, to protect a single square kilometre of the town of Algestan successfully.  On the night of the 23rd of April, the Ottoman Government rounded up 250 intellectuals and Armenian community leaders in Constantinople, and were moved to holding centres in Ankara, from where they were subsequently deported or executed.  In May, one of the triumvirate who ruled the Empire, Mehmed Talaat Pasha, ordered the deportation of Armenians.

Subsequently, Armenian property was confiscated, and hundreds of thousands of Armenians were forced at gunpoint, to leave their homes and businesses, and the towns and cities where they lived. Many were sent to march to Deir ez-Zor, in what is now Syria, crossing desert to get there.   Many starved or dehydrated in the process.  Some were shipped by rail, in a manner reminiscent to what the Nazis would replicate across Europe 25 years later. 

It was not just men of military age, but all men, women and children.  The soldiers had full carte-blanche to do as they saw fit, so in Damascus some would display women naked and sell them as chattels.  25 concentration camps had been set up to take the Armenians, where they were provided with woefully little rations in the way of food and virtually no medical attention. 

There are reports of villages being razed, with the inhabitants burned to death,  Estimates of the numbers killed range from the high hundreds of thousands to 1.5 million.  Raymond Ibrahim in The Commentator writes of the atrocities committed, saying they are not unsimilar to the actions of ISIS today, on some of the same territory.  

Turkey today denies that there was genocide, merely that Armenia collaborators with Russia were killed in war, and that the deportation wasn't forced killing, but that there was merely some starvation.  This continued obfuscation may reflect intense nationalistic pride, but it doesn't reflect evidence.  It is clear that, for a combination of historic bigotry and genuine military concern over allegiance, that the Ottoman's decided to remove Armenians from their country, not just without compensation, but in a manner than ensured many would die.

The continued denial by Turkey should shame its government, as it feeds into bigotry by some Turks against Armenians.  What's a further disgrace is that Barack Obama, even after campaigning about recognising the Armenian genocide, refuses to call it that as President. The continued obfuscation of the US President (if not Congress), and the governments of many countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and a more nuanced (gutless) position from the UK, and of course (just to show the humanity of Islam and its  opposition to Muslim led slaughter of non-Muslims) the only Muslim majority countries to recognise it are Lebanon and Syria.  

Some Armenians think that the commemoration of the events at Gallipoli are intended to take attention away from what happened to their ancestors.  I don't believe this is at all true for almost everyone who is involved in them, but it is important that we remember and note what happened.

Today, the country of Armenia is a small fraction of the territory that was Armenian dominated, and essentially represents the territory Russia won from the Ottoman Empire, minus that which it administratively carved up into other Soviet Socialist Republics.  Notably, a large Armenian enclave remains in Azerbaijan, where a sectarian conflict has periodically raged since independence of both countries.

The genocide of Armenians helped inspire the Holocaust.  It has also helped inspire Islamic State.  It is only right that today, we spend a moment to learn and remember what was done, because of their nationality and religion, to hundreds of thousands of innocent people.  It isn't about "shaming" Turkey.  It is about not forgetting when states wage the worst act any of them can do - to torture and slaughter there own people, for the crime of simply existing.

Starving child victims of the genocide of Armenians

Most exciting UK election in ages? In one sense... (Part One)

That's the line being taken by the UK media, of course every election is presented as a "once in a lifetime" chance, when it rarely ever is.

What is deemed exciting is that the polls for the past few years have indicated that neither major party is likely to win a majority of seats.  There are two reasons for that.  

Firstly, boundary changes that were recommended by the Electoral Commission, but which perversely need Parliamentary approval to be implemented, have not been.  This is largely because the current boundaries tend to favour Labour and the Liberal Democrats, because both parties have constituencies that have proportionally fewer voters than the ones currently held by the Conservatives.  So some MPs represent fewer voters, meaning their votes count proportionally more than those in others.  The Liberal Democrats refused to support the boundary changes in coalition, so for the Conservatives to win a majority of seats, the party needs, on average a 4-5% higher share of the overall vote than Labour, which would (notwithstanding the next point) have more seats than the Conservatives, even if the Conservatives had a higher proportion of the vote.  Remember, this is still the vagaries of First Past the Post (and voters rejected a mild form of electoral reform in a 2011 referendum). 

Secondly, minor parties are making a significant impact, in varying ways.  Not the Liberal Democrats, who expect to get hit because a fair proportion of its voters didn't agree with it backing the Conservatives and may feel lucky to win half the current lot of seats.  UKIP is taking support from the Conservatives in the south, but also Labour in the north (it is polling a strong second in many traditional "safe" Labour seats, primarily because of immigration-phobia, but also perceptions that Labour is a party of the so-called "metropolitan elite". It will be pleased to get at least 3 seats. The Greens are having a small impact too, mainly taking some Liberal Democrat voters (as the Liberal Democrats were the green evangelists of the past) and Labour ones, although the Green run Brighton Council's disasters and the shockingly poor performance of Australian born (yes I don't know why Australian Greens migrate to pollute the planet with their ideas) leader Natalie Bennett.  It will be surprising if it wins more than the one it has at present.

Yet none of those parties is having the impact of one that has a much smaller percentage of the UK wide vote, but which could win more seats than the Liberal Democrats, UKIP and the Greens combined.  It is the Scottish National Party.  Fresh from losing the independence referendum, it has rallied the 45% support that the independence idea gained into direct electoral support.  It is eviscerating both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland, and is looking like winning most seats there.  By wiping 30-40 seats from Labour's tally of "safe seats", it looks highly unlikely that Labour could win a majority.  

So, the most likely outcomes of the election are for the largest party to try to cobble together a coalition or series of confidence and supply agreements, with one, two or even more parties, and to fail and find the second largest tries the same.

From a psephological point of view it is interesting.  The Conservatives could pair with the Liberal Democrats again, and possibly UKIP, and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland might back the Conservatives, perhaps the Alliance Party could too.  However, the Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP (from Northern Ireland) have all indicated they would "block" a Conservative government, and so might back Labour.  The Liberal Democrats have said the largest party in Parliament is the one it would most likely work with, but UKIP is highly unlikely to go with Labour.  The DUP hasn't ruled out supporting Labour as long as Northern Ireland got its pound of pork.  Meanwhile, Sinn Fein wont take up its seats, although there have been rumours of Labour-Sinn Fein discussions.

So from a pure who does what with whom equation, it's interesting.

My suspicion is that there will be another election later this year.

However, in terms of the variety of what is on offer, it is more nomenclature than substance, as I will write about shortly.

Proper political interviews from the UK...

Whether he stays or goes should be irrelevant, because incisive political interviewing on New Zealand television is, at best, as scarce as a Macaya Breast Spot Frog.

So for my kiwi friends, I thought I'd show you what exactly you are missing out on.  Bear in mind that while the UK is not devoid of decent political interviewing, it isn't common here, and the best of the current lot - Andrew Neil - has been prohibited, by the Conservative and Labour Parties, from interviewing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

Why?  Because he asks straight questions, seeks sources, has research done to find contradictions between statements of others from the same party, stops politicians taking over interviews and refuses to let evasive answers be tolerated.

Enjoy, imagine this in New Zealand.... (and yes I know Lindsay Perigo would deliver, but New Zealand broadcasters have been braindead on current affairs for over 20 years now, so I've lost all hope)

Exhibit 1:  At 4:09 watch Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett get grilled on the parties far left spending spree lunacy and economic illiteracy, and belief that belonging to ISIS and Al Qaeda shouldn't be a crime in itself.

Exhibit 2: At 4:00, watch Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman tie herself up in her own party's policy contradictions, helped along by a proper interview.   

Exhibit 3: At 4:05  watch UKIP Leader Nigel Farage get grilled about the comments of some candidates (this is a year ago, before two Conservative MPs resigned, defected to UKIP and got re-elected at by-elections)

Exhibit 4: From the start, Scottish National Party Deputy Leader quizzed over its policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Exhibit 5: From 1:55 Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liberal Democrat MP Danny Alexander, on the failures of increasing capital gains tax to raise additional revenue, including near the end, the Liberal Democrats not having paid the bill for policing at its previous conference.

Exhibit 6: From 1:04, Transport Secretary, Conservative MP Patrick McLoughlin, confronted about security at railway stations, environmental approach to transport.

 and more if you like....

John Pilger – hyperbolic fiction writer and fan of Putinesque fascism

For many years John Pilger has been the pinup polemicist of the far-left, he takes evidence and facts of actual situations, and uses them to justify his inevitable conclusion that some atrocities, suffering or disaster is the fault of Western governments and businesses.  Of course, like any decent polemicist he takes quite a bit of accuracy, points that are difficult to refute, and then uses it to hitch onto his predetermined line.

The enemy of humanity is capitalism and Western liberal democracy, and humanity’s friends are those who accept governance by socialists, nationalists, theocrats and other leaders who epitomise opposition to those enemies.  By contrast, he depicts Putin’s Russia as a proud sovereign state, ignoring blithely its suppression of dissent, and the vast corporatist gangster run corrupt economy it represents.   I can only guess it is because it reminds Pilger of his beloved USSR.

Now he has let out a vituperative narrative about the globalsituation that is long, but starts with treating the United States as morally equivalent to Nazi Germany, which should be enough to tell you what he is, a raving charlatan:

 

Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery.

It’s history for simpletons, and is almost laughably childish.  Yes, Auschwitz would not have happened as such as it was in Poland, but to claim that the Nazis would not have committed genocide in Germany before then is ludicrous.  To claim “almost a million” people would be alive today had Iraq not been invaded, is equally ludicrous.  Even the controversial Iraq Body Count website counts a total of one-third of that figure.  To claim even that presumes the Hussein demagogues would have not executed opponents, not invaded neighbours and not spawned proxy attacks in the Middle East.  Pilger, you see, treats the Hussein regime as having moral legitimacy and a right to exist.   It also ignores the inconvenient truth that most of the deaths were due to insurgents Pilger and his ilk supported.   

You can’t have it both ways, supporting terrorists resisting the invasion, and then blaming the other side for the people they massacre.

Furthermore, to blame ISIS on this is even more ludicrous.  ISIS was spawned in Syria, as resistance against the Assad regime (which Pilger implicitly supports, and which has always been aligned with the USSR/Russia historically), it spread to Iraq due to sectarian bigotry of the Iraqi government supported by Iran (another regime Pilger implicitly supports).  

I could go on, as pulling apart Pilger is like the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel, it’s too easy. However, given it’s too easy, I’d thought I’d summarise his turgid piece into a series of bullet points, you’ll get the picture rather quickly:

Greece votes for a dream, and it is only that

The news that Greece looks like getting a far-left government let by the soft communist Syriza Party has excited some commentators, but what is perhaps most deceptive is the claim that it is a "rejection of austerity", as if the choices to Greek people were like a menu.

In fact, the choices are far more stark, because what Greek politics is and has been ever since it joined the Euro (indeed one could say ever since it joined the European Economic Community), is an exercise is mass deception and reality evasion.

The troubles of the Greek economy are not due to "the Germans", nor are they due to "the bankers", they are due to the peculiar, though not unique, mismatch between the part of Greek society that wants money from the state (and protection for their businesses or jobs), and the part that doesn't trust the state at all, to the point that it egregiously evades taxation on a grand scale.

This mismatch used to be managed by stealthily stealing from most ordinary Greek people through continual devaluation of the drachma. 

Then it was covered by structural adjustment transfers from the EEC/EU, as Greece gained money to build transport, energy and civic infrastructure, and of course the ongoing subsidies for its agricultural sector.   When it joined the Euro, the Greek government gained access to easy borrowing in a hard currency at low interest rates, so it ran further deficits.  The OECD describes Greece's economy as thus:

In Greece, economic difficulties go deeper than the direct effects of the recent crisis and fiscal consolidation is urgent. Difficulties have been brewing for years, so when the crisis came, Greece was significantly more exposed than others. Besides the severity of its fiscal problems, Greece has, over the past several years, gradually but persistently lost international cost competitiveness, resulting in widening current account deficits, a deteriorating international investment position, and a poor record of inward foreign direct investment. 

Greece has a highly regulated protected economy, with a bloated state sector. 

Syriza wants to protect the economy even further, increase the state sector even further, cut taxes and thinks that banks in other countries, supported by taxpayers in northern European Eurozone states, will help Greece out.

There are, in effect, two paths.

Either a renegotiation of existing loans to be written off or extended is achieved, and Syriza quietly folds its promises on state sector pay, free electricity (indeed any further giveaways), and Greece remains in stasis.  or

Greece defaults on debts and leaves the Euro.

In the former scenario, it looks like at best Greece might get some easing of terms of debt repayment, but the idea that it will get half of its debt written off again, is unlikely, given the previous deal saw private Greek government bondholders accept a 50% write down of debt.  There is little real chance the Greek government could get anything from the private sector, so any further loans will be government to government.  

If Greece gets the sort of deal Syriza hopes for, it will set a precedent that Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and even French and Belgian governments will want to replicate.  At that point, you would have to wonder how much tolerance voters in Germany, the Netherlands, Finland would have for propping up their profligate southern neighbours (let alone the former communist bloc countries that went through much more radical and painful structural reforms than Greece should be facing). 

The real risk is that voters in those countries eject governments that agree to bail out other governments with their money.  After all, who wants to be seen to be bailing out Italy?  German guilt over the war can't be stretched that far.   It threatens unravelling the Euro and even the entire EU project, as parties like Syriza effectively want a fortress Europe that looks closer to the former COMECON than a customs union.

The latter scenario has seemed less likely, but I'm not so sure.  A deal gets offered to Greece that extends the terms for existing loans, in the hope that Greece engages in reforms, but ultimately Greece will run out of money.  At that point, it faces either not paying its pensions or public sector workers, or issuing a new currency, and then the Greek economy finally collapses under the weight of its fundamental contradiction.  A western European standard of living cannot be sustained with an economy that is akin to a wealthy developing country, 

The only solution to this is to reduce the costs of doing business, address the corruption within the regulatory/subsidy/state contract/tax system, remove protection for existing businesses (and jobs) and to cut the role of the state, while enabling the state to be more effective in carrying out its core responsibilities.

However, the outgoing Greek government only made modest progress on this, and Syriza is philosophically opposed to making life easier for the private sector.  Syriza believes in the state owning larger businesses and licensing/protecting smaller businesses.  It believes in a generous welfare state and public sector, and wants lower taxes on everyone except the "rich", who of course have either already left or have at least set up their accounts in a way that they are away from the hands of the taxman.

Even if Syriza does get a deal that avoids a default, it will only delay the next crisis.  An anti-business, anti-free enterprise party will continue to strangle Greece just like similar policies have done for many years.  

What's bizarre is that Greece's northern neighbours have faced much more serious levels of reform and restructuring in the past twenty years than it needs to, but they did it.  Bulgaria and Albania are both much poorer than Greece on a per capita GDP basis, but have economies in much better shape. 

The tragedy is that too many Greeks have voted for a dream that they too can convince taxpayers in other countries to buy them a standard of living they don't earn themselves, and that they can convince banks and other private investors to risk their money with a government that is unwilling to pay them back.  It is a dream, and it is about to become a nightmare. 

What I wrote before about Greece, two years ago, remains true.  

What went wrong with Greece

Greek voters have rational choices, but they reject them

Greece's tragedy should be a lesson to all

Greece for dummies. Austerity = living within your means

Greek crisis is a taste of things to come

Greece is collapse under the weight of its own contradictions

Greece's socialism catching up

Page 3, libertarian techniques for authoritarian gains

There are two dimensions to the #nomorepage3 campaign that has been waged by leftwing British feminists against The Sun newspaper that I agree with.

Firstly, it is avowedly libertarian to ask, rather than force, a publication to not publish something you don't like, and to ask people to boycott it.   By and large the campaign has been about persuasion, not force.  However, that's about as far as that goes.

Secondly, I personally find the page 3 topless image in a newspaper to be rather dated and not so interesting.  If they disappear for commercial reasons, I wont care.

However, every other side to the campaign is quite odious, patronising and fundamentally Orwellian in its philosophical position.  The reasons for the campaign are claims that publishing images of topless women "objectifies" them, portrays the view that "women only exist as sexual objects and nothing else" or even that it promotes the latest trendy slogan "rape culture".

It is only when you deconstruct the reality behind the photographing and publishing of the image, and the alleged contribution to crimes that the insidious authoritarianism of the position is apparent.

1.  The opinion of the model is deemed irrelevant:  Bearing in mind that the women that appear in The Sun choose to do so, and apparently get paid rather well for it, it is curious that their opinions are dismissed by the feminist left.  In an almost archetypal example of the sort of "class-bias" that the feminist left sometimes rally against, these women are treated as though their views don't matter.   This is exactly what the feminist left accuse "the patriarchy" of doing, but they do it to the women who they presume are not university educated or who are complicit with the patriarchy (bearing in mind that the most radical feminists eschew men for political reasons altogether). 

Here are women, who through their own conscious volition (which the feminist left would stand up for in respect of many other choices regarding their bodies, like marrying another women, getting pregnant, not getting pregnant, having an abortion) choose to expose their breasts for a camera for a newspaper.  The women are not forced to do it, the newspaper is not forced to print it, and nobody is forced to buy the newspaper (and many others are on the market).  Of course, those opposed to "page 3 girls" don't buy the newspaper, which is entirely appropriate.

Even worse are some who will claim the model is a "victim", even though none of the models believe themselves to be victims.  This is classic totalitarian psychology, whereby you seek to convince someone who has made their own choices and decisions that somehow, someone has taken advantage of you and that your decisions were made fraudulently.   The "victims" don't understand that they are victims, and if only they understood the philosophical position of the protestors, they would realise they are being exploited.

Yet in this totalitarian world view, if the women don't accept that position and even actively argue against it, they are dismissed as being "victims" or worse, "sell-outs".  There is no scope for ideological plurality in their world.  At no point does the feminist left think that the point of view of the women posing really matters, because they look down on them and diminish their minds, in exactly the way they accuse men of doing.

2. They speak for "all women":  Frequently the claim is made that the image "objectifies women" or "makes them look like they are just sexual objects", on the basis that women never want to be seen that way or thought that way.  For those asserting this, it may be perfectly valid and indeed for most women most of the time, this may be true.  It is unlikely that most people want to spend their entire day being treated by others as a potential sex partner rather than whatever other roles they pursue in life.  Of course, the likelihood of this happening will tend to reflect how relatively physically attract someone is compared to others of their sex, and the demographic of those they interact with. Healthy, fit, attractive young women will get looked at by men (and some women) because they are sexually attractive.  Indeed, sometimes, some women dress and present themselves so they can be seen that way, they want, sometimes, to be seen sexually by men.  That's their choice, as appalling as it may seem to the feminist left.  Again, the feminist left would ignore women making that choice, or say they are obviously "victims", perhaps playing out "sexual abuse" they experienced from men.  However, once again, the totalitarian world view comes out that women should never be treated as sexual objects, and those that choose to do so, need help.   Women can't be free to choose to seek to be seen in whatever way they wish, they must fit the "accepted" range of the feminist left.

3. They seek to end thought crimes:  The end result of the proposed ban is to "stop women being seen as sexual objects", but of course the people they want to stop doing this are men.  They want to stop men thinking, talking and acting certain ways.  Certainly any libertarian would agree that anyone who assaults another sexually is behaving immorally and criminally. Beyond that, it is rude, condescending and stupid to treat most women like that most of the time.  Most employers do not tolerate it, and most women (and many men) quite readily patrol such behaviour.   This is entirely how it should be.  People should treat each other with respect, and it is entirely appropriate for people to campaign to change behaviour that is not criminal.

Yet the feminist left want to go further than that.  In seeking to "stop women being seen as sexual objects" they are seeking a sanitisation of human discourse.  You can see this overlapping with the strenous and successful efforts to regulate sexual behaviour on US university campuses, with the odious concept of "affirmative consent".

If you're unfamiliar with "affirmative consent" it is an attempt to regulate how individuals pair up sexually.  The intention is to reaffirm that just because a woman kisses a man, doesn't mean she consents to intercourse, and it is intended to confirm that if, during any encounter, a woman says no, then it should stop.  In itself, it is difficult to disagree with that intention, but its implementation and net effect is effectively sanitising every step of a sexual encounter by requiring that the man (it is always about men seeking consent from women, other couplings are not considered to be an issue) gain consent for every placement of his hands, mouth, genitals with a women.  "Can I touch you there..?" is required at each step, and at any point if he doesn't obtain consent, and touches her, it is sexual assault and it's all over.   The attempt to sanitise intimate human relations to the point that "can I kiss your neck" "can i kiss your breasts" "can I kiss you belly" becomes what is required at every step without a man being accused of sexual assault,  will kill it.  Particularly given that "affirmative consent" advocates seek such consent, on every occasion, regardless of the nature of your relationship.  If you cannot kiss another whom you have been in a steady loving relationship with for some time, without asking explicit permission, then it loses its appeal.  Indeed, it fundamentally undermines having relationships of trust and the expression of spontaneous affection, which many people enjoy receiving.

The feminist left want page 3 shut down because they want to control what people think, and what they do:

-  Women shouldn't consent to having photos taken of themselves with their breasts exposed;

-  Newspapers shouldn't print those images;

-  People shouldn't look at such images;  

-  Women shouldn't want to be seen as sexual objects;

-  Men shouldn't think of women as sexual objects.

If you deviate from this, you're either a man and so sexist and part of the "rape culture" (consider just what that actually means for those accused, but also how much that diminishes the agency of actual rapists), or you're a women who is either an uneducated "victim" or a traitor to her sisters.

So when it comes down to it, while I'm relaxed about whether The Sun publishes tits or not, I am not relaxed about the philosophy that drives those campaigning against it.  When Islamism, which threatens to treat women as chattels, continues to grow.  When women in the UK of minority backgrounds find it hard to fight misogny within their communities, because the left gives those minorities a "free pass" of "victimhood and disadvantage", you'd think the feminist left would have plenty of targets to focus on whereby women face actual violence.   The blindspots towards sexism within some Muslim communities is palpable, but remember the feminist left police the views within their community like Maoist Red Guards.

Instead, they cling to their 1970s campaigning, at a time when most people can find countless images of women naked online with a series of clicks, many of whom took the image themselves, so they could be admired sexually.

Unless they want to join religious fundamentalists in a new call for censorship of images of womens' bodies, the feminist left might be better just letting newspapers like The Sun, make their own decisions based on what their readers want, or if they think the models are exploited, convince them of the merits of their case.   Better yet, how about re-evaluating their entire philosophical premise - that women should all think the same as they do.

"Nobody supports complete freedom of speech"

That's the line that always gets thrown back at libertarians or indeed anyone defending the right to print cartoons that offend some people.  That lack of absolutism in freedom of speech is seen as justification for any exception that anyone wants to claim, which of course means the "right" doesn't exist.

However, the argument that there is no absolute unrestricted right to free speech and so free speech is "up for grabs" is from the same school of thought as those who claim you can't have absolute freedom or anyone can do violence to anyone else.

It's missing the point that the issue is around individual rights, and that restrictions on free speech are not restrictions on individual rights, but the boundaries between individual rights.  It is the same as my right to use my body as I wish, as long as I do not deny that same right to others.  Otherwise I am not asserting an individual right that all people have, but asserting privilege to do as I wish to others that I am not extending to others.

The same applies to the boundaries of free speech.

So what are these boundaries from a libertarian perspective?

No right to use platforms or property owned by others:   You can say, write or produce media if you wish, but you have no right to demand others provide you a platform to do so.  You do not have a right to demand a newspaper print your article, nor do you have a right to be on someone's private property and do as you wish against the wishes of the property owner.  The quid pro quo is that neither does anyone have a right to demand you print their articles, or be on your property and say or distribute content that you disapprove of.   Say what you wish on your own property, say what you wish on your own platform (and bear in mind this means there are no restrictions on who can publish, broadcast or produce content or talk), or as is often the case, obey the rules of someone else's platform.  This also includes accepting the rules of property that you enter.  When you enter a cinema, the classic shouting "fire" is likely to be a rule that would get you ejected from the premises, but also subject you to a lawsuit for the harm done to the owner and the others who acted on the false call.   Free speech, as with all actions are constrained by property rights. 

No right to use the intellectual property of others, without their permission:   Copyright and patents are the cornerstone of many industries and careers.  Those who apply their minds to pens, computers, paintbrushes, musical instruments and even their voices, have the right to own what they produce and to sell the proceeds of the products of their minds.  It is hardly a restriction on your own speech to simply reproduce that of another, if the other's speech is not restricted.

Defamation is about property rights too: Whilst less material, one's reputation is still something that belongs to you and has value, as it affects employment, business and personal relationships.  If someone distributes content that is demonstrably false which seriously diminishes your reputation (i.e. claims of criminal conduct), then there is a right to not only respond with free speech, but to claim financial damages for the harm done.  This does not prohibit such speech, but means that the damage done due to such speech can be claimed.

Censorship of recordings of crimes against the person:  There is no justification for restricting written, drawn, painted or virtual depictions of any events, as this is a creative endeavour that involve no person other than the creator/producer.  By contrast deliberate video, still or audio recordings of actual violent or sexual crimes being committed (recording made with the knowledge the crime would be committed, rather than security cameras incidentally recording the commission of a crime), are a part of the actual offence, as the person who made the recording is an accessory to it.  In such cases, such recordings should be the property of the victim, and can be used as evidence of the original crime, or treated as the victim wishes.  If the victim is not identified, the recordings are evidence of a crime and should be treated as such, until the victim is identified and can specify the fate of the recording.  This is how so-called "snuff" films, child pornography and recordings of actual rapes should be treated, as they are extensions of the actual crime.  Recordings of any other legal behaviour, regardless of it being sexually explicit, including simulated crimes, are different, as these are not crimes.  Recordings of acts without the consent of those involved could be considered violations of property rights (if the recording is undertaken without the consent of the owner or person with licence to occupy the property from the owner) or, if the other party or parties are aware of the recording, as void consent (consent obtained under objectively fraudulent circumstances). 

Prohibitions against threats are an extension of the crimes that are being threatened:  A threat to commit a crime against another is a crime, it is the possible step before the attempt to commit a crime.  The threat is itself an initiation of force, as it may result in the victim responding in submission to the threat.   In this case the speech is an initiation of force that denies the right of the recipient to live in peace.  This does not change if it is a group of individuals making threats to a single or a group of individuals, in other words it covers true hate speech, being the use of speech to threaten violence.

Fraud:  You can make statements that are false, or false claims, or lie about the contract that you are making with another party, but all of these can be subject to criminal and/or civil action for fraud.  This is, in effect, another form of initiating force, for it leads people to enter into contracts, exchanging value, on the basis of a lie, so that value is not exchanged on the basis upon which it was originally agreed. 

In all of these cases of limitations on free speech, the limitation is a demarcation of the boundaries between  the same rights held by all individuals concerned, whether they be property rights or the right to decide what one does with one's own body (recording violations or obtaining consent fraudulently being the violations).  They are not limitations based on a party being offended or in some statist definition of protecting public morals.

So no, those of us who argue for unrestricted free speech are not hypocrites when these limitations which are consistent with individual rights are quoted as the boundaries to free speech.  That is why those arguing for free speech, but also supporting "hate speech" laws fall victim to the claims by Islamists that insulting "the prophet" is "hate speech" because Islamists consider "insulting  the prophet" to be a greater offence than "hate speech" towards Muslims.

Do those of us arguing for free speech say everyone should be offensive to everyone else? No.  It is neither rational nor intelligent nor even ethical to be a whimsical vulgarian, but if it does not infringe upon the rights of others, then it is not the role of the state to use force to control it.

Within this is the right to insult any philosophy, whether based on religion or based on a this-wordly set of beliefs, regardless of how rational or whimsical they are.  It includes the right to insult any art, any speech, any person, and to praise as well.  Yes, it means that frequently you'll be offended, as will I, probably about different things, different words, images or sounds.   

However, it is only through free speech that human beings can learn from each other, can apply their minds to the full evidence of expressions from each other and respond accordingly, with speech or actions.  The right to free speech is the most fundamental egalitarian right that there is, for it is a statement that no power has the right to use force to close your voice, no power knows better than you as to what words, sounds, images and objects you can see and interpret and the sole limit on this is when your production or consumption of speech violates another.

Sky News UK shuts down journalist for trying to show Charlie Hebdo image

Those of us with libertarian/small government leanings have tended to think of Sky News more positively than other UK television news outlets.  The "pay the TV licence or be prosecuted" BBC has long had a reputation for being statist and left-leaning, and state-owned, but commercial Channel 4 is not much better.  ITV News has tended to be less that way. However, Sky News was always thought as being a bit more (if less well resourced) towards the so-called "right", and more challenging of the "what's the Government going to do about it.." narrative that is the default for interviews from so many other journalists.

No more.  Whilst the BBC chose to briefly show the cover of the Charlie Hebdo commemorative edition this week on its 10.30pm Newsnight programme, Sky News (as a rolling news channel) has repeatedly stated that it has made an editorial decision to not show the image on the cover of Charlie Hebdo, seen on the right here.  

 

Of course Sky News, as a privately owned, commercial broadcaster, has every right to make editorial decisions to not show content if it so wishes.  In the grand Voltairean tradition, I respect and would wholeheartedly defend this right, even if, as I do in this case, vehemently oppose the decision itself.  

However, what happened yesterday evening (Wednesday 14 January) on Sky News was rather more disturbing and offensive, as it consisted of shutting down the interview and the attempt by a French journalist Caroline Fourest.  It had shades of an embarrassed state broadcaster under an authoritarian regime that suddenly had to switch from something embarrassing. The Guido Fawkes blog has the video which I repeat below

Caroline Fourest was displaying, quite correctly, the disappointment and barely veiled contempt for British journalists (as none of the national newspapers have printed the cover on their covers, a couple have printed versions as large as the one above) for not actually standing up for French journalism.  They say #JeSuisCharlie as a hashtag, but none have the courage of Charlie Hebdo.  

Furthermore, Sky News apologises for an "offence caused" by the split second showing of the image, but is completely uninterested in the offence caused to thousands of viewers who are not Islamists, because Sky News insults their intelligence or emotional stability in not being able to handle seeing it.

It is as if it equates showing the image with an endorsement of the content of the image, rather than showing the image in the context of the news item being discussed.   Sky News readily shows clips from ISIS or Al Qaeda videos, but nobody assumes it does this as an endorsement of what is being said.  Sky also regularly shows content that "some viewers may find distressing" or "offensive" involving corpses, the badly injured or distressed.  Real people suffering, which some call "war porn" or "disaster porn".  It isn't difficult to see why it is offensive to some to repeat video footage of the last moments of someone's life, but Sky does it, as it is part of a story with the implication that it should be stopped or relief provided to those suffering.

Yet Sky News has decided not to show the image at all, even with a warning.  Why?  Well Sky wont say,  but there are three most rational conclusions:

1.  Fear of reprisals:  If Sky News genuinely feared its staff would be targeted if it showed the image, then it should say so.  Would it imply that security is not sufficient to protect them?  Perhaps.  Would it imply that the Police have indicated they would not be responsible for protecting them?  If so, we should know this.  Would it indicate that media outlets in the UK may be self-censoring because UK based Islamists are threatening and bullying them?  If so, we also should know this, because it indicates that the claims made by David Cameron that broadcasters should feel free to show or not show what they wish, within the law, as rather empty.  If our media feels at risk from offending Islamists, what next?  It means we are on a slippery slope and the Government's attention needs to shift from talk of passing new laws, to actively protecting those wishing to exercise free speech.

2. Empathy with the "offended":  The least likely, but most disturbing interpretation is that Sky News has  "agreed" the images of the Prophet Muhammed are offensive, and that it is more important to not offend a sub-set of Muslim viewers, than to not offend those who consider the self-censorship to be disgusting or childish.  In short, it would mean Sky News has taken the side of the Islamists, implying all Muslims would be offended, and their offence is worth more than mine.

3. It's not newsworthy: Sky News may have decided that the publication of Charlie Hebdo isn't important, against queues at hospital A & E, energy policy, prospective party leader debates on TV etc.  This would be just fine, there is a lot of news broadcasters don't cover because time is limited.  However, this isn't credible given  the extensive coverage given including correspondents in Paris and of course the offending interview with a French journalist. 

Of course there is a fourth conclusion, which I believe is the most likely.  A panicked, confused and kneejerk reaction has been made based on:

- Copying what other UK broadcasters and print media have done, as a default;

- Fear of reprisals expressed by some staff;

- Some commercial concern that by allowing the image to be shown, it would face viewer or even advertiser boycotts (which is dubious, indeed the opposite reaction could be true);

- A decision that SkyNews did not want to be "the news story itself" by being the only broadcaster in the UK to show it (even though half of UK households have access to multiple TV news channels from many countries, some of which have shown it).

Sky will, I suspect, stick to this line, unless a growing number of viewers and high profile figures demand it apologise for the offence caused by its self-censorship.

In one move Sky has:

- Offended non-Islamists who, as adults (and indeed children as well) can judge for themselves if the benign comic image above is offensive or not.  Instead Sky has judged for them;

- Offended Muslims who do not hold to the theological position that any drawing of Mohammed is offensive.  Sky has presumed to know best for them;

- Demonstrated that it is not, by any means, able to say Je Suis Charlie.  It does not uphold standards of journalistic freedom or courage.  

Notably, broadcaster Iain Dale on Sky News, as a regularly commentator in a review of the next day's newspapers, noted that Sky News is a large organisation, capable of defending itself, by contrast to the small independent newsagents around Britain and in France, who are stocking Charlie Hebdo, at some risk to their own lives and livelihoods.   Watch his response here:

Sky News has disgraced its reputation, has shown itself to be meek, timid and either easily intimidated, or simply appeasers of those who want Islamist blasphemy law to apply in the UK.

It doesn't show solidarity with journalists in France, or journalists that are anywhere taking on those who wish to kill them for reporting that which offends those who want power over our lives.  It shows a muddled, pablum like complacency, sitting with the mediocre, middle ground of "let's talk a lot about it, but don't rock the boat in case we get called names or threatened".

Let's be very clear.  Sky News has taken sides.

The side it has taken is not one against laws of blasphemy, it is not one against religions censoring that which they find offensive, it is not one of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, journalists who confront state or clerical censorship or threats of violence in doing their jobs.  It is not one with the vast majority of their viewers who are not Islamists, nor is it with those offended by the infantile treatment of a benign image.

It's not to side with freedom, an unalloyed defence of Western civilisation and the right for full, free and frank debate.  It's to side with fear, appeasement and to follow "the group", moreover it is, regardless of intent, to side with those who demand that Islamist definitions of blasphemy be followed in editorial decisions. 

and broadcasters wonder sometimes why they are losing audiences...

UPDATE:  Nick Cohen in the Spectator has another excellent take on this issue.