UN council: Nations, stop switching off the internet
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kenya, South Africa, Indonesia, and India
[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/01/un_officially_condem...
Also the actual resolution from the article: https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adop...
The slashdot "value add" for this article appears to be in the negative.
>> Thirteen countries, including ...
where did you get 15 from?
Although a paragraph further it says "Russia and China were joined by 15 other countries"
Bolivia, Burundi, China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Vietnam;
https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38429/en/un...
What does it matter what a few elites at the top want for "their" country, when millions of their citizens usually want the exact opposite?
I doubt that many citizens in the 15 countries that voted against would agree with their leadership on this matter, for example.
So in a way, this is akin to a "strongly worded letter"
I'm not sure you could get a majority of US citizens to agree with what their government does in the UN.
So if millions of people want the opposite, they would enact it but force of they want it enough.
Alas, that is not true. The government always has a military with weapons far more powerful than the public (and the public in a dictatorship is usually forbidden from owning guns). Furthermore, in a dictatorship there is usually a significant minority that is given money and other privileges to support it. So the government usually can simply crush any rebellion in a very bloody manner.
Any country can join these charters as long as they follow the rules agreed upon. What good would it do if you couldn't send a letter to someone in a country under dictatorship? Or if we stopped eradicating polio because the remaining countries are deemed unworthy?
The UN is not this singular place, where you can get "a vote". That is true of the general assembly, but they presumably had nothing to do with this report.
Can you articulate what horrific outcome you're thinking of? I'm not good at imagining what other people find horrific.
I also find sad that people feel they need to speak of South Africa as a democracy. Mandela is gone and the leadership is what it is.
Russia has less than half the pop of US, and it's declining.
Also other nations with authoritarian and anti-freedom stances have large populations (Pakistan >200M, Nigeria >180M, Iran 80 M, Bangladesh >170M, etc).
If voting power is based on population, China and India alone could outvote Western democracies.
slightly less-awful human rights records
Made it more accurately descriptive.
Nobody's perfect, but let's not try to confuse things.
Did you notice the irony in your comment? You praise the "good record" of Western democracies, but do not want a "democracy" within UN, because in that way, the idea of democracy would work against the "Western democracies". That seems to be some kind of "selective democracy", i.e. only apply democracy when it works to your advantage.
If you really support democracy, why not embrace it in the UN and let the decision be based on votes?
However, that there's a paradox is no reason to not acknowledge that Western democracies have the best human rights situation and personal freedom in the world, and giving control of the Internet to authoritarian, populous regimes would be bad for us all.
The US had caused more wars and killed more people in the last 50 years than other countries combined, for financial gain and continues to do so. And no one has been held to account for these serious crimes against humanity.
There is a serious situation with the way black people are treated by the law enforcement, their continued marginalization, demonization, and social mobility. There are more issues around native americans.
There is an entire totalitarian type surveillance state now in operation, with secret courts, secret lists, secret processes and those in power not only routinely getting away with crimes against humanity but also their own people.
Whistle blowers and journalists like Drake, Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras and others who seek to expose the burgeoning surveillance state far from raising alarm are being harassed and persecuted.
These cannot be held up as examples of individuals or states that care about human rights and freedom and I suspect the reality of losing the historical and carefully nurtured 'moral high ground' that has been used to principally bully 'inconvenient' interests and nations has not sunk in among the population. Continuing to claim the high ground clings to nostalgia and myths that have little to do with reality.
The abuse of human rights to demonize other nations for political and strategic interests with little actual concern for people at large has gone on for too long. And achieved little in reality than fuelling a gratutious sense of superiority in the west and complacency in turn and diasters like in Iraq and other unfortunate targets. A genuine interest in human rights will need a untainted less self interested approach. Freedom is not a competition.
That said, the parent post was merely demonstrating that "morally right" or "best human rights" record is completely subjective.
In a democratic system, your notion of "right" and "wrong" is nonsensical and incorrect if it does not align with the majority, regardless of how "evil" or horrifying this may seem.
You either have democracy or you don't.
Certainly not so. Having democracy is never about black and white, if we want to use a metaphor. It's about shades of grey between black and white. A scale between absolute democracy (which is hard to define and hardly exists) and absolute lack of democracy (which is almost achieved, often by countries that describe themselves as "people's democracies").
Western democracies certainly are closer to actual ideals of democracy.
And if we think of the Internet, we certainly want it to be controlled by parties living in the Western democracies, not by autocratic, repressive governments that have a majority of world population.
No, that is not enough. If it is to be controlled at all, I want it controlled by democratic bodies, not simply by parties that happen to reside in a democracy. Or would you be happy to let the Internet be controlled by Enron, Halliburton, the NRA or the RIAA?
People are stupid, and generally don't know what is best for them, and the more of them you get together, the more likely they'll develop mass insanity. You need some kind of buffer to moderate the fickle will of the public.
People all have a similar amount of intelligence. Given that the effect you acknowledge is partially due to large groups, I wonder if it's more a problem of party politics, or an us-versus-them mentality, or collective decision-making...
People would vote to ban free speech on the Internet.
For example, during 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi these jokers were playing shehnai[1] all day on their only state-owned TV channel Doordarshan[2]. This I know, because I lived there then.
And now they even have a prime minister with sketchy/convicted/ruling-overturned background who is well known to have massacred people/colleagues based on their beliefs/position. One can only imagine what goes on behind those free speeches.
You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, to the point of spreading blatantly false propaganda[0]. But even if you weren't, this has nothing to do with democracy or free speech. (Nor is it particularly unusual in democratic countries).
> India isn't really a full democracy; it says it is a "democracy" as long as it is convenient to say so. India has hardly ever stood for free speech or even understands what free speech is all about.
"Democracy" doesn't mean "free speech". And in fact, India's de jure protections on free speech are far greater than (for example) what the UK grants.
[0] While Modi has some figurative skeletons in his closet, it's completely wrong to say 'it is well-known that Modi has massacred colleagues based on their beliefs'.
What about uninformed bullshitting speech that cause voters to not make the 'well-informed' choice?
What is the forcing function that moves voter toward making informed choices, whatever informed may be?
Education.
If you only have one form of speech because others are not allowed, how is any voter to tell if it's bullshit?
Of course, we cross into the treasonous water of the state possibly banning views that it didn't like, rather than simply uninformed views.
You also risk succumbing to your own biases and excluding information that is correct. If that happens and the truth comes out, which it always does, your state eventually becomes unstable.
Nope, it is isn't. Comparison between UK & India with vastly different citizenry, laws, enforcement and track record is a non starter.
> You're vastly overstating what is "well known" about Modi, but even if you weren't...
I wish to bring your statement forward: it is spot on here!
You're right. We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre without the democracy in question being available, i.e. a democracy that stands for: equity, representation, freedom and justice. Note, it includes free speech.
Is it not a fact that people were killed or instigated to be killed by the state then?
It's best not to confuse the liberalism tradition of the west with democracy.
That is not the claim I contested. Nor is it the statement you made, which was:
> [Modi] is well known to have massacred colleagues based on their beliefs/position
though it seems that you have now moved the goalposts to:
> We can never be certain about Modi's role in the massacre [because of a lack of free speech and democracy]
In India politicians often do not represent the views of their voters because they are often elected based on identity, not policies. The key thing to note here is that this is not due to the structure of the system (which is democratic); rather; it is due to how the game is played -- no amount of improvements to the system (short of a direct democracy?) or laws can change this since this is a matter of how the people are voting.
Direct democracy is not a solution either. That will lead us straight to the tyranny of the majority. The religious and intellectual minorities will suffer straight-away. I won't elaborate on that. Next, it will be the wealthy. What would stop the illiterate majority from voting to take away all the wealth of the 1%?
The only way out I see is with the Supreme Court taking drastic measures to clean up the constitution. I don't see that happening in our lifetimes.
Totally agree that direct democracy won't help. I'm saying it is the only way that you have a chance of getting rid of the kind of identity politics present in India by changing the system itself. I made that point just to highlight how the undemocratic nature of identity politics was not a feature of the system. I mean, with a direct democracy propaganda can and will still entice people to vote against their own interests, and minorities will be in a bad situation as you said. It introduces new problems; but it is the one way you have a chance of getting rid of this problem (identity politics) by changing the system. The actual fix for this lies in social change.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/31/indian-government-censorsh...
It is possible. It is also possible that they got corruption, cronyism and lack of free speech all at the same time. :-)
This was the reason of block. No doubt blocking the whole site (especially if it's a platform/user curated content site) isn't intelligent response, but it only indicates incompetence (and not blanket ban on free speech) on behalf of some officials as many of them may still not have good understanding of how the latest web stuff works.
They wanted the ability to take down content that criticized the government, the PM, their government office, anything positive to Pakistan, etc. It was a power move to squash free speech, and they backed down. Terrorism was just a false flag.
> In the end, they wanted us to pledge fealty to India, and take down any content that they (Indian bureaucrats) found objectionable. We refused, and in the end, the hubbub was too much for them and they removed the blocks.
Really, was this stated anywhere or did you just see this way?
> They wanted the ability to take down content that criticized the government, the PM, their government office, anything positive to Pakistan, etc. It was a power move to squash free speech, and they backed down. Terrorism was just a false flag.
Any evidence for this ? And are you sure you're attributing to malice what is likely incompetence. India banned GitHub for a couple of days
It seems your faith in the Indian government will never be changed, and that this has left the realm of facts and entered one of nationalism. Good day.
You seem emotional, which I understand since it affected your website, but you should note I haven't displayed any nationalism.
Measure every bit of your responses to these questions. Although those would still be anecdotal at best, but then it's going to help you decide on yourself. And I guess no one, absolutely no one will use that data against you.
But yes, you're definitely displaying both nationalism and foolishness at the same time.
Why don't you point out the nationalism and foolishness in my comments?
I have neither defended nor justified India's actions. I don't think I've pushed any of my ideas as complete fact, which the other poster has by relying on a single data point.
Giving one instance of 1984 just demonstrates stark biasness/ignorance, in fact it was the pre-private television/internet era. Since those two things have arrived on the stage, free speech has taken itself to an extreme level and powerful politicians/celebrities are ridiculed like anything.
You seem to have zero understanding about Modi and in fact it's due to that "free speech", that perception of yours have been created. He hardly responds on allegations and instead focus his energies on doing the work, which gives opponents/critics a free hand of propagandizing wrong perception about him through that free speech.
The India you might have lived has changed a lot, it’s more open, more daring and more “democratic” than ever before!
Great! I agree that is a nice quality about India that western countries don't have and should (or may be not?) envy. Perhaps Indian citizenry can use this opportunity to take the corrupt establishment down and prove to the world that it really works better that way!
> Giving one instance of 1984 just demonstrates stark biasness/ignorance, in fact it was the pre-private television/internet era. Free speech has taken itself to an extreme level and powerful politicians/celebrities are ridiculed like anything.
I agree with you here too. But only that it's your ignorance and your bias (being an Indian) in the first place. Free speech is not about ridiculing/insulting people at all. It's about the ability to criticize and emphasize opposing views without fear of retribution.
That's mostly it at an operational level.
> You seem to have zero understanding about Modi and in fact it's due to that "free speech", that perception of yours have been created.
I call it bullshit. 3000 innocent people were massacred and you call it propaganda? If it wasn't Modi (or person X) who according to you should be held responsible for the needless bloodshed?
Do you have a different bunch of individuals who you think did it and not Modi/other jokers? And that will you be able to put forward enough evidence and witnesses to prove the guilt of such individuals in place of the said person X who the media wrote about? If not, it's bullshit that you're selling here.
> The India you might have lived has changed a lot, it’s more open, more daring and more “democratic” than ever before!
I'm glad you feel that way but I don't know what you mean by more "democratic" (in scare quotes) than ever before? It somehow still sounds like some people are more equal than others.
Wrong. this isn't a correct fact but a politically motivated and propagandized one. You may wish to read the other side of the story [0]
>>> By highlighting figures of the numbers of Hindus and Muslims killed in police firing, and those rendered homeless, the author makes the point that it was not so much of the “anti-Muslim riots” as it was made out to be; and, it was certainly not a “pogrom”. According to Deshpande, against one lakh Muslims rendered homeless, the number of Hindu homeless was around 40,000. And, as many as 254 Hindus died in the riots against 790 Muslims. And only 127 persons were missing in the riots. He quotes these figures from the records of the then UPA government at the Centre.
According to Deshpande, there were glaring cases of Hindus living in Muslim areas suffering terribly, which were purposely ignored by the human rights activists and the media.
By marshaling figures of the preventive arrests made by the police and giving the exact timing when the Modi government called the army on February 28, 2002, Deshpande seems to have produced evidence to say that there is nothing more the Gujarat government could have done.
Here the facts he produces pertaining to the Gulbarg Society massacre in Ahmedabad, in which 69 people were killed by Hindu mobs, including Congress leader and former MP, Ehsan Jafri, are startling. By giving factual details of how police tried to save Gulbarg’s Muslim residents despite the massive Hindu mobs attacking them, Deshpande says at least 110 more people would have lost their lives that day, and the figure of those killed would have been around 180, had the police not taken action.
He marshals the figures of the 1969 and 1985 Ahmedabad riots to bring credibility to his argument. These were two of the three big riots in Gujarat before the 2002 episode. The book says there were just three convictions in each of the two previous riots, compared to almost 443 (this figure is till 2012; more convictions have taken place after that) in the 2002 case.
Then the author focuses on the work done by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court to probe the 2002 riots and cites its findings to prove how the now dismissed IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt was taking instructions from human rights activists and Congress leaders to create false evidence to nail the then Narendra Modi-led state government. He also shows how the SIT found no truth whatsoever in Bhatt’s claim that he had attended the post-Godhra train burning meet on the evening of February 27 at then CM Modi’s residence and how Modi had allegedly “given orders” to the authorities to “go slow on the Hindu rioters”.
But more interesting are the facts he brings on the table to nail the allegations made in the petition of Ehsan Jafri’s widow, Zakia Jafri. Deshpande cites the SIT findings to show that the she was absolutely unaware about her own petition’s contents when examined by the SIT in November 2008.
The SIT, he says, found that the petition had over one dozen factual errors and was drafted by some one else who had not even informed Jafri about its contents but had merely asked her to sign. Deshpande also produces Zakia’s first statement before police made on March 6, 2002, less than week after the Gulbarg massacre, which is the antithesis of her later petition. In this statement, Zakia gave a clean chit to the police and said that many lives were saved because of the police action.
The SIT, Deshpande says, found that Babubhai Rajput, who had been named in Zakri’s complaint as one of the 63 accused, did not exist. Plus, two IPS officers, who tried to help the Muslims victims of the 2002 riots, Rahul Sharma and Satish Varma, were named as both accused and witnesses in her petition. These names were removed from the list of accused only after Zakia’s lawyer admitted before the SIT that it was a mistake.
He also finds holes in the in the famous Tehelka sting operation-based story of the rioters where they boasted how they had partaken of the riots.
0: http://www.dailyo.in/politics/2002-gujarat-riots-narendra-mo...
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/07/03/0340234/un-council-s...
There's now a group that's also pushing to also make cryptography and anonymity a basic human right.
All the States already had complete access to the internet anyway - this is about to end users.