I have been thinking about Twitter recently (apologies if not using the copyright symbol is somehow wrong!) and its power for good.
I am also reading a book called "How we invented freedom", by a UK Member of the European Parliament - Daniel Hannan - highly recommend the book and Dan's tweets and articles - very 'sound' on Europe and the freedoms that 'Anglosphere' democracy brings.
The book (is that the right phrase for a Kindle version? I dislike putting e in front of everything!) brings to the fore all those things which many of us almost take for granted - the primacy of the rule of law, no one being above it, property rights and the importance of contracts and above all, freedom of speech, religion and assembly. The book tracks the establishment of common law and the basic principles of same, from the pre-Norman invasion of England through to the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and onto the US Constitution and eloquently shows, the flow of these basic principles runs common to all of these documents and to those ideals that the Anglosphere hold dear.
It seems to me that those basic rights are under threat as never before. Now the threat isn't National Socialism from the German Nazis or Communism from the Soviet Union, no the threat comes from within.
Part of the threat comes from a comfortable place called complacency - long established rights are taken for granted by 'indigenous' Anglosphere peoples and the slow erosion of these isn't noticed or widely remarked upon. Arbitrary punishment is meted out by governments , especially the US's, via drone attacks, for example, and people move past that news item or, if they stop to think, justify it on the grounds of national security. Similarly, people are stopped and searched at airports around the world and have various petty restrictions put upon them, in the name of security.
People are finding that freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, except that most politicians and main stream media shy away from negatively commenting on Islam and it's adherents. Look at what happened to Phil Robertson. He is a reality TV personality on an American TV show called Duck Dynasty. In an interview he stated, amongst other things, that he wasn't attracted to men and he likened homosexuality to sin. Cue outrage from the homosexual lobby in the USA and their supporters in the media at his 'hate crime'. Now, Phil espouses Christian values and for those that believe in the right of free speech - something on which America was founded - his freedom to say such things is exactly that - a right.
A right as in something that he inherently has - not something that he (or you or I) is given.
I have never seen the Duck Dynasty show but all I have read about Phil Robertson and his espousal of deeply held Christian beliefs suggest to me that nothing that he said, in the magazine interview, could be construed as being in any way surprising or controversial. Similarly if Ayatollah Khameni, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the same things I wouldn't be surprised. In fact the only thing that would surprise me is if the media actually reported or in any way commented upon Khameni's speech. The teachings of both Christianity and Islam consider homosexuality a sin. Whether you agree with that or not, is your opinion and I for one am happy to support your right to hold such an opinion - that's what free speech is about! What free speech isn't about is stifling the saying of things with which you or I disagree. Period as they say in the US!
So back to Twitter and its power for good. The A&E TV channel that broadcast Robertson's show, suspended him for a period, after disassociating itself from his comments. Normally, that would be the end of Phil's TV show and fame. However, right-thinking people got to work on Twitter and brought the story to a far wider audience than would have normally been the case. A petition was raised and boycotts of A&E and its advertisers and sponsors were organized and, low and behold, Phil's suspension was lifted. Encouragingly, he did not have to refute his beliefs or sayings, in order to achieve this. The right to his free expression of speech was met. In my humble view, Twitter played a great part in spreading the message and generating the climb-down by A&E. Now I do not think for one single minute that the war is over and the 'powers that be' have seen the light and will 'allow' free expression. I think that this is a battle won but this will need to be continuously fought for these cherished freedoms to be retained. Incidentally, the 'allow' with is because I am uncomfortable in considering that someone allows another person to exercise a right. No one can give you something which you already have!
Problem is though, that Twitter and other social media are under attack. There are the overt attacks, where those that would deny freedom, talk-up so called trolls and make the attacks from these people, a justification for the curtailment of the liberties of all. Then there are also the less obvious methods of attack - such as the USA's Internal Revenue Service using social media to identify groups and individuals from the Tea Party or other anti-Obama administration tweets, and then subject them to special attention from their audit teams.
Dan Hannan, in his book, rightly confronts the facade of rights that some countries have or had and posits that it is the historical depth of these rights, within the Anglosphere, that gives them meaning. He talks about the constitution of the former Soviet Union granting it's citizens all sorts of rights but no means for the citizen to actually exercise them. I hope though that he is wrong in suggesting (I haven't yet finished the book, so maybe he does change his view later) that the places where the fundamental human rights can survive are restricted to those places that have historical links back to England and it's Magna Carta and older common law antecedents. Hope, because these places (and this isn't meant to show an anti-immigration stance) are fast becoming a cosmopolitan mix, where the inhabitants do not all share the historical connection with England. Hope, because I want those people who look to the UK, America, Canada and Australia and want to emigrate to those countries, look not just at the material benefits that settling in those countries will bring, but also at the traditions of individual freedoms, that have made these countries, what they are!
I am also reading a book called "How we invented freedom", by a UK Member of the European Parliament - Daniel Hannan - highly recommend the book and Dan's tweets and articles - very 'sound' on Europe and the freedoms that 'Anglosphere' democracy brings.
The book (is that the right phrase for a Kindle version? I dislike putting e in front of everything!) brings to the fore all those things which many of us almost take for granted - the primacy of the rule of law, no one being above it, property rights and the importance of contracts and above all, freedom of speech, religion and assembly. The book tracks the establishment of common law and the basic principles of same, from the pre-Norman invasion of England through to the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and onto the US Constitution and eloquently shows, the flow of these basic principles runs common to all of these documents and to those ideals that the Anglosphere hold dear.
It seems to me that those basic rights are under threat as never before. Now the threat isn't National Socialism from the German Nazis or Communism from the Soviet Union, no the threat comes from within.
Part of the threat comes from a comfortable place called complacency - long established rights are taken for granted by 'indigenous' Anglosphere peoples and the slow erosion of these isn't noticed or widely remarked upon. Arbitrary punishment is meted out by governments , especially the US's, via drone attacks, for example, and people move past that news item or, if they stop to think, justify it on the grounds of national security. Similarly, people are stopped and searched at airports around the world and have various petty restrictions put upon them, in the name of security.
People are finding that freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, except that most politicians and main stream media shy away from negatively commenting on Islam and it's adherents. Look at what happened to Phil Robertson. He is a reality TV personality on an American TV show called Duck Dynasty. In an interview he stated, amongst other things, that he wasn't attracted to men and he likened homosexuality to sin. Cue outrage from the homosexual lobby in the USA and their supporters in the media at his 'hate crime'. Now, Phil espouses Christian values and for those that believe in the right of free speech - something on which America was founded - his freedom to say such things is exactly that - a right.
A right as in something that he inherently has - not something that he (or you or I) is given.
I have never seen the Duck Dynasty show but all I have read about Phil Robertson and his espousal of deeply held Christian beliefs suggest to me that nothing that he said, in the magazine interview, could be construed as being in any way surprising or controversial. Similarly if Ayatollah Khameni, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the same things I wouldn't be surprised. In fact the only thing that would surprise me is if the media actually reported or in any way commented upon Khameni's speech. The teachings of both Christianity and Islam consider homosexuality a sin. Whether you agree with that or not, is your opinion and I for one am happy to support your right to hold such an opinion - that's what free speech is about! What free speech isn't about is stifling the saying of things with which you or I disagree. Period as they say in the US!
So back to Twitter and its power for good. The A&E TV channel that broadcast Robertson's show, suspended him for a period, after disassociating itself from his comments. Normally, that would be the end of Phil's TV show and fame. However, right-thinking people got to work on Twitter and brought the story to a far wider audience than would have normally been the case. A petition was raised and boycotts of A&E and its advertisers and sponsors were organized and, low and behold, Phil's suspension was lifted. Encouragingly, he did not have to refute his beliefs or sayings, in order to achieve this. The right to his free expression of speech was met. In my humble view, Twitter played a great part in spreading the message and generating the climb-down by A&E. Now I do not think for one single minute that the war is over and the 'powers that be' have seen the light and will 'allow' free expression. I think that this is a battle won but this will need to be continuously fought for these cherished freedoms to be retained. Incidentally, the 'allow' with is because I am uncomfortable in considering that someone allows another person to exercise a right. No one can give you something which you already have!
Problem is though, that Twitter and other social media are under attack. There are the overt attacks, where those that would deny freedom, talk-up so called trolls and make the attacks from these people, a justification for the curtailment of the liberties of all. Then there are also the less obvious methods of attack - such as the USA's Internal Revenue Service using social media to identify groups and individuals from the Tea Party or other anti-Obama administration tweets, and then subject them to special attention from their audit teams.
Dan Hannan, in his book, rightly confronts the facade of rights that some countries have or had and posits that it is the historical depth of these rights, within the Anglosphere, that gives them meaning. He talks about the constitution of the former Soviet Union granting it's citizens all sorts of rights but no means for the citizen to actually exercise them. I hope though that he is wrong in suggesting (I haven't yet finished the book, so maybe he does change his view later) that the places where the fundamental human rights can survive are restricted to those places that have historical links back to England and it's Magna Carta and older common law antecedents. Hope, because these places (and this isn't meant to show an anti-immigration stance) are fast becoming a cosmopolitan mix, where the inhabitants do not all share the historical connection with England. Hope, because I want those people who look to the UK, America, Canada and Australia and want to emigrate to those countries, look not just at the material benefits that settling in those countries will bring, but also at the traditions of individual freedoms, that have made these countries, what they are!
No comments:
Post a Comment