De omnibus dubitandum

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

It Will Get Worse

It’s been over two years since I last wrote here. Today, I feel I have no other choice but to write again. Call it therapy.

Many on social media proclaim 2016 to be the worst year ever. With the deaths of popular celebrities, a slim majority in the UK opting for economic suicide with Brexit, and now the election of Fuckface Von Clownstick as president of the USA, it seems hard to argue with that.

But I’m telling you, this is just the beginning. It will get worse.

Let’s look at the underlying current causing the Brexit vote in the UK and the Trump vote in the US. It’s an undercurrent that is active in many so-called civilised countries, and it has not reached its peak by far.

This undercurrent of fear and hatred will only prosper, as its legitimacy is seen to grow with these recent democratic outcomes in the UK and USA. Inevitably, we will see the election of more far-right parties to power.

Geert Wilders and his PVV will seize power in the Netherlands. Marine Le Pen’s Front National will win in France. Other European countries will see similar political shifts to the far right.

Aside from their obvious bigotry and regressive policies with regards to many personal freedoms we now take for granted, these parties have something else in common: they are fiercely anti-EU.

In France and the Netherlands and perhaps other EU countries, there will be battles about whether or not these countries should leave the EU. If even one of those countries succeeds and, despite the horrors Brexit is unleashing in the UK, chooses to leave the European Union, the entire European project will collapse.

In the wake of the catastrophic impact this will have on European economies, the far-right parties will continue to blame ‘the other’ for the problems they themselves have now aggravated, and the white working & middle classes will believe them thanks to the aid of vocal partisan media online and offline.

Hatred of minorities will fester and grow. Hate crimes will increase. There will be violence.

This will all be aggravated by the growing impact of climate change. The new right-wing powers in charge across the west are, on the whole, climate change sceptics. Rather than enforce the policies that might prevent the worst, there will be no significant action to fight climate change.

Extreme weather will become the norm. Food crops will be scarcer. Economies will suffer more. Societal pressures will increase further as people want to migrate to those increasingly scarce countries where the climate remains temperate.

As a result, more countries will close their borders. Isolationist policies will prevail as countries act in self-defence, hoard their food supplies, and refuse entry to outsiders.

As the economies of western countries implode, politicians will find any scapegoat they can. More fuel for the fires of hatred and bigotry. There’s a strong likelihood of countries turning towards tangible enemies in the form of other sovereign states, which will increase the chances of armed conflict.

Then, with the EU weakened beyond repair and NATO in no position to act (as the USA under Trump will likely withdraw from NATO and other members fight among themselves), Russia is likely to seize the opportunity and invade the Ukraine properly. They might even reclaim Belarus and some other countries like Georgia.

War in Europe is almost inevitable.

If anything, 2016 has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the era of Western hegemony is over. In fact, it deserves to die. We deserve to relinquish our place as leaders of the world. It’s time for someone else to become the next Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome,  Britain, USA… All previous empires have fallen, and so will the West.

We’ve had our time at the front. It’s someone else’s turn.

Who? Probably China. They’ve been quietly getting on with it for the past decades, and are now – ironically – a beacon of political and economic stability. If they’re smart, they will ally themselves with growing powers like India and Brazil to form a new global order to replace the collapsing West.

So it will get worse for us. Much worse.

What can you do? There’s little hope of restraining the forces that are now unleashed. At best, we can hope to weather the storm. It’s unlikely that we’ll ever be as prosperous and safe again in our lifetimes as we were in the mid to late 1990s. We can only endure.

It will eventually get better. It will take decades, but the west will emerge from this darkness that is consuming us. We won’t be around for that, but our children will, and our children’s children.

So don’t give up hope. Keep fighting for what you believe, even if you know it’s a losing battle. Do what you can and what you feel comfortable with, knowing that to speak out against the tide of hate means risking your safety and that of your family and friends.

Most of all, stay civil. Show people their due respect, even if you cannot respect what they believe. Treat everyone as you would like to be treated. Be kind. Be generous.

It will get worse. But, eventually, it will get better.

When I read about a TV news presenter being verbally abused for daring to not wear a poppy – the UK’s symbol of Remembrance Day – I find it hard to keep myself from flying in to a fit of rage.

It’s hard to overstate the profound ignorance of the tabloid-reading masses that are responsible for this exceptionally misguided expression of putrid hatred. Unfortunately it’s endemic of a growing trend in the UK to worship everything military and to uncritically accord the armed forces with heaps of respect.

I believe that’s a dangerous cultural phenomenon. The military is not something any country should take a great deal of pride in. A nation’s ability to kill and destroy is not something to boast about. At best, a country should view its military as a necessary evil, something that is an unpalatable requirement for engaging in international affairs.

A country that worships its military is a country that often shows little restraint in flexing that military muscle. In fact, the more a country praises its armed forces, the more likely it is to use those armed forces in the pursuit of their own economical and political goals. That used to be something solely associated with so-called ‘banana republics’, but since the 1950s it’s actually been a staple of western Realpolitik.

Here in the UK, the military is worshipped on a level that borders on a fascist ideology. Even people who are nominal pacifists say that soldiers deserve respect, and that on Remembrance Day we should honour those fallen in service of their country, regardless of the reasons for the war they died in.

I vehemently disagree with that. I do not believe we should separate soldiers’ deaths from the reasons they fought and died.

In fact, I believe we should closely scrutinise exactly why these soldiers were sent in to battle, and pay a great deal of attention to the reasons that are given for that.

Because when we do that, when we analyse exactly why we send armed troops to countries halfway across the planet, we quickly realise that the vast majority of soldiers who’ve died since the end of World War II died for no good reason at all other than to serve the interests of corporate profits and imperialist politics.

If Remembrance Day was purely about commemorating those who died in the first and second world wars, then I’d be perfectly fine with it. But that’s no longer the case. Instead Remembrance Day – and, by virtue of being its symbol, the poppy – has become about commemorating and idealising all soldiers who have died in all modern conflicts.

And that is nothing to solemnly commemorate. In fact, that’s something to get infuriated by. Countless thousands of lives lost because of political egos, corporate oil profits, and international trade rights. And that’s just counting the UK military – civilian casualties are orders of magnitude higher.

‘Defending democracy’ had fuck all to do with most of the wars fought since 1945 – it was nearly all greed and political face-saving.

Those are piss-poor reasons to send young men to their deaths. In fact, any life lost in the pursuit of those sinister goals should come with a powerful backlash against the corporate & political forces that caused it.

But that backlash is entirely absent, of course. Instead the UK population has bought in wholesale to the pro-military hype peddled by the politicians and eagerly supported by a cynical profit-chasing media, to such an extent that even an expression of neutrality – such as not wearing a poppy – is met with outpourings of hatred and bigotry.

That is profoundly sad, and deeply disturbing.

News broke today that the UK government wants to force all internet service providers to block pornography by default, forcing users to ‘opt-in’ before they can visit sites that are deemed to contain pornographic content.

This utterly deranged policy has a great many problems associated with it. I’ll list a few:

First and foremost, in describing this new policy PM David Cameron commits the grave and unforgivable error of conflating porn with images of child abuse. This is probably a deliberate and highly cynical move – a common political sleight of hand known as “think of the children” – intended to position the porn-blockade as somehow being aimed against child porn.

This is of course utterly farcical. Child porn is already highly illegal and actively blocked and deleted whenever it is found. There’s no need to introduce another law or policy to fight it. On top of that, most of the sharing of child porn imagery happens in the ‘dark net’; usenet groups, private forums, peer-to-peer services, all of which are beyond the scope of ISPs to identify and block, and whose users are technologically savvy enough to make a mockery of any attempt at blocking.

Second, a nationwide blockade of porn would depend on a self-selected group of politically motivated civil servants to decide what is pornography and what is not. As we have already learned, what one person calls artful erotic imagery, another person would classify as hardcore porn. It’s hardly a clearly defined category.

As a result, a porn blockade will leave a lot of forms of art and personal expression on the wrong side of the filter.

Third, at its root this is simply an attempt to censor the internet. Censorship is anathema to free expression, and free expression is the essential foundation of an open and inclusive democratic society.

In light of the highly questionable recent conduct of the UK government and its various agencies, it’s very easy to imagine this porn blockade to be expanded to other forms of content the government finds ‘objectionable’, and to create a list of all people who have decided to opt out of the blockade for ‘intelligence gathering purposes’.

Fourth, such a blockade is easily interpreted as a method to absolve parents from their responsibility to educate their children about safe internet usage.

This is not a good thing. Parents should talk to their children about the good things and bad things to be found online, and parents can very easily install all kinds of content filters – on their computers as well as enabled via their ISPs – to prevent their children from viewing porn, if they so wish.

That is what parents should be doing (there’s literally no excuse not to), and it sure as hell is not the government’s job to step in where parenting skills fail.

Fifth, David Cameron is showing staggering amounts of hypocrisy by wanting this blunt force porn filter, but not acting against the blatantly sexist Page 3 phenomenon. This truly reveals the porn block for the mindbogglingly cynical point-scoring move that it is.

By not acting against Page 3, Cameron shows he genuinely doesn’t care about the objectification of women and sexist attitudes in his country, and simply wants to appease The Sun so it’ll say nice things about him.

By acting in favour of the anti-porn crusade, Cameron shows that he is eager to pander to a misguided foaming-at-the-mouth rant from a newspaper so it’ll write in favour of him.

In short, Cameron cares only about votes. When it comes to genuinely helping fight sexist attitudes, his ‘fucks given’ meter stands firmly at zero.

This is just a sampling of reasons that make this horrifically misguided porn filter a bad move. Truly, the UK is steam-rolling towards totalitarianism where any whiffs of freedom are rooted out and everything put in service of the capitalist superstate.

Reform Section 5

It’s no secret that I’m a fierce defender of free speech, and that I resist any and all attempts at censorship.

Criticism in all its guises is, I believe, an absolutely vital aspect of a progressive modern society. And in a society that jails people for what they say, free speech is a particularly fragile right.

Fortunately this is not a fight waged by a small minority. In fact, free speech in the UK is a grave concern for many of us. Activists have started the Reform Section 5 campaign which presses for reform of section 5 of the Public Order Act.

This reform is highly necessary, because section 5 allows police to arrest people for “insulting words or behaviour”.

The fact that insults are punishable by law is laughably ridiculous and no country professing to be free should even remotely consider such a farcical law. But nonetheless there it is, in the UK law books. Which is why this law desperately needs to be changed.

Rowan Atkinson puts it rather well in this speech:

Free speech includes the freedom to insult. No one has the right to never be offended.

  • Filed under: culture, politics, video
  • Forsaking my democratic duty

    Tomorrow’s parliament elections in the Netherlands will be the first Dutch national elections that I won’t have voted in since I became eligible to vote at age 18.

    I used to be one of those shrill democracy-thumpers proclaiming that if you didn’t vote, you had no right to complain about politics. Arrogant with conviction, I figured that the Dutch multi-party system always gave someone the chance to vote for a political party they mostly agreed with, and that every citizen had a duty to exercise their democratic right.

    So I’m slightly surprised at myself that in this case, I genuinely don’t think I should vote in these elections. And I’m trying to understand why I feel that way.

    First of all, I don’t live in the Netherlands any more, and I have no intention of returning to my homeland any time soon as anything other than a temporary visitor. It’s not that I hated living in the Netherlands – quite the contrary, I loved my life there and the country has given me much.

    It’s just that I don’t miss it. I miss my family and my friends – I miss them tremendously and I really should keep in touch with them much more often than I actually do – but I don’t miss the country. There are some rather unpalatable aspects of the Dutch national identity that have become much clearer now that I have the luxury of an external perspective. I won’t go in to specifics here – maybe at some stage I’ll write about it in a separate post – but suffice to say that I no longer wholeheartedly embrace my Dutchness.

    Combined with the fact that I don’t have a significant personal stake in the outcomes of Dutch elections, and much of my reluctance to vote is explained.

    Secondly, the direction the Dutch political debate is heading towards is one that I vehemently disagree with. In years past, it seemed that Dutch politics was more or less a rather stately affair. Politics wasn’t vicious, debates weren’t full of personal attacks, and parties were not personality cults.

    None of that is true any more. And I think that’s a Very Bad Thing. The Americanisation of Dutch politics is, frankly, revolting. And worst of all, on the whole people think this is a commendable trend. ‘It makes politics more accessible‘, they say, ‘it encourages public participation‘.

    It probably does, and that’s the problem. For public participation in politics to be commendable, it requires an informed public. A public that understands the issues and uses reason and empathy to guide its electoral decisions.

    Unfortunately, the Dutch public is, on the whole, dreadfully misinformed. And that means that, as a people, the Dutch make horrendously bad decisions when it comes to electing politicians.

    Additionally, I don’t think wild-eyed propagandists are necessarily the right type of people to govern the country. Foamy-mouthed critics are fine on the sidelines, but that’s where they should stay. You just shouldn’t give any real power to someone whose raison d’etre is finding the nastiest populist sentiments – racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia – and capitalising on them. That’s a recipe for national disaster.

    As a counter-argument, I can think of one reason why I should vote in the Dutch elections: my family and friends live there, and I care a great deal about what happens to them. I want nothing but the best for them, and I should vote for a party whose policies I feel would benefit them most.

    But, thanks to my indecisive musings, the election ballot is still sitting on my kitchen table, 30 hours before it should be at the international electoral offices in The Hague. Barring a very expedient (and expensive) FedEx courier, it’s simply going to be too late to be counted.

  • Filed under: adamus, politics
  • What You Say Online Can Get You Jailed

    I am increasingly convinced that I’m living in the wrong country. My current status as a resident of the United Kingdom means that I could potentially go to jail for nothing other than speaking my mind online.

    Those who know me know that I tend to have very vocal opinions that are often expressed with an abundance of profanity. I rarely hold back, and I swear often and loudly.

    Apparently that is enough to get me sent to jail, should the wrong person choose to take offence and make a case of it. That is not an exaggeration. There are abundant examples of people going to jail for nothing more than saying something rude on Twitter or Facebook. Some prominent examples:

    Facecook riot sentences: Two men are sentences to four years(!) in prison for posting messages on Facebook calling for riots. As those riots never materialised, these two men are effectively jailed merely for saying something online.

    Twitter Joke Trial: Paul Chambers is convicting for making a bad joke on Twitter.

    Offensive tweets: Student Laim Stacey is jailed for 56 days for posting offensive tweets about a footballer.

    Olly Cromwell: Blogger Olly Cromwell faces prison for indirectly insulting a councillor with the c-word on Twitter.

    All these cases are examples of a growing – and very worrying – trend in the UK to criminalise people’s opinions. What you say online can and will be used against you. All it takes is for someone to take offence and get the litigation ball rolling, and before you know it you’re behind bars for merely speaking your mind.

    I fiercely believe that no one has the right to never be offended. I believe that everyone should have the right to speak their mind, just as everyone else has the right to disagree and to reply with criticism, mockery, and ridicule.

    So for someone like me this criminalisation of opinion is an almost unbearable state of affairs. The UK is simply not a free country. A nation where citizens cannot speak freely because they fear being jailed for what they say is nothing short of a fascist police state. There is no other conclusion possible.

    The UK Riots

    I want to write about the riots currently raging throughout many major UK cities, but my point of view on the matter is expressed much more clearly in the following opinion pieces:

    The UK riots: the psychology of looting (The Guardian):

    “Between these poles is a more pragmatic reading: this is what happens when people don’t have anything, when they have their noses constantly rubbed in stuff they can’t afford, and they have no reason ever to believe that they will be able to afford it. Hiller takes up this idea: “Consumer society relies on your ability to participate in it. So what we recognise as a consumer now was born out of shorter hours, higher wages and the availability of credit. If you’re dealing with a lot of people who don’t have the last two, that contract doesn’t work. They seem to be targeting the stores selling goods they would normally consume. So perhaps they’re rebelling against the system that denies its bounty to them because they can’t afford it.””

    Caring costs – but so do riots (The Independent):

    “How, we ask, could they attack their own community with such disregard? But the young people would reply “easily”, because they feel they don’t actually belong to the community. Community, they would say, has nothing to offer them. Instead, for years they have experienced themselves cut adrift from civil society’s legitimate structures. Society relies on collaborative behaviour; individuals are held accountable because belonging brings personal benefit. Fear or shame of being alienated keeps most of us pro-social.”

    London riots: the underclass lashes out (The Telegraph):

    “This is not a gospel of determinism, for poverty does not ordain lawlessness. Nor, however, is it sufficient to heap contempt on the rioters as if they are a pariah caste. One of the most tragic aspects of London’s meltdowns is that we need this ruined generation if Britain is ever to feel prosperous and safe again. If there are no jobs for today’s malcontents and no means to exploit their skills, then the UK is in graver trouble than it thinks.”



    Adamus is the online identity of Barry Adams. A Dutchman living in Northern Ireland, Barry / Adamus is an internet fanatic, skeptic, technophile, gamer, and geek.

    On this personal blog he provides his unpolished view of the world and its insanities.

    Identity 2.0

      Twitter  LinkedIn  Google+