Let's hope this isn't libellous.

From Simon Singh;

This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

The English libel law is particular dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world.

We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Something Needs Saying.

The BNP are racist fascists and if you vote for them you are a racist fascist.

• Richard Barnbrook suspended for murder claims | Tory Troll

• Five Chinese Crackers: Barnbrook suspended from Barking & Dagenham Council, made to go on ethics training

It's not said often enough and it's not said loud enough, so here it is again:
The BNP are racist fascists and if you vote for them you are a racist fascist.
I guess most politicians can't say it as it's not a great tactic to insult the electorate, and the media, if they still have any pride (so not the mail) want to keep at least a veneer of neutrality, so they won't say it.

The facts are simple, the BNP is a party that believes it is not possible to be non-white and British, who encourage the use of the term "racial foreigner" for British citizens, who support "repatriation" and senior members of whom were once filmed saying they wanted to machine gun Muslims. Talk to any BNP member or supporter and you are only one pint of (ironically foreign) larger away from hearing the words "of course Hitler was right about some things.

The BNP is not a protest vote. The Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern party was a protest vote, Martin Bell was a protest vote, the BNP are an organised fascist party with racist policies. Of course in a democracy they have the right to talk their bullshit, but to vote for them is to support their policies, in short to be one of them.

Did I mention this?
The BNP are racist fascists and if you vote for them you are a racist fascist!

A Good Week for the World.

Every so often the mire of conflicting self interest that is the international community resolves itself into a cohesive unit. For a short time there will be a run of good news stories that move us all in a positive direction. The last week or so has been one of those. Of course it will all run back to shit in the blink of an eye, but let's have a look at the hope while it's still there.

The UN General Assembly meeting, usually an Irish Parliament of pointless rhetoric, and the G20 summit, with a not much better track record, has seen a couple of good announcements.

First the world seemed to unite at last (and all too briefly) around a nuclear non-proliferation/disarmament theme. Russia indicated that she might give support to, or at least not block, further sanctions against Iran on the nuclear issue. With Russia on board, rather than the old position of lending tacit support to Iran, then it may be possible finally to bring enough pressure to bear that Tehran could be coaxed into following Libya's lead and abandoning their weapons programme.

The old, "great" powers of the nuclear world have been taking action too to at least reduce the hypocrisy where we declare to the world that nukes are bad while stockpiling our own. Gordon Brown announced a unilateral 25% cut in at least Britain's delivery system. There are strategic implications and flotilla logistical problems that make the anchor faced matelot in me shudder, but those deserve their own post. Perhaps if we are serious about Britain leading a new wave of disarmament then the best method would be to follow the lead of South Africa or Ukraine and unilaterally disarm, but at least it is a move in the right direction. And it is clearly a part of a general trend, as US-Russia disarmament talks enter a second week, perhaps the two largest nuclear powers might be headed for a further step down.

In something of a surprise the week also brought encouraging signs of action on climate change, with China announcing moves finally to reduce emissions, with similar noises coming from the Indian sub-continent. If these laggards on the environmental stage can be brought up to speed then maybe we can at least eliminate the schoolyard "but china isn't doing it" objections to carbon limits.

And in a no-doubt happy but painful sounding story, a woman in Indonesia has given birth to a 19lb baby!

That' the good news, the normal shitstorm of selfishness international political system will now be resumed.

Many mans doubleplusungood know newspeak.

Many persons malreport ungood used oldspeak words as newspeak. Doubleplususualwise these crimethinkers unknow meaning of newspeak unhaving read Big Brother's seminal 1984 (which sabateurs untruthwise claim Orwell wrote). Samewise persons have plusungood knowledge of Big Brother, Thinkpol, crimethink and Room 101. These duckspeaking oldthinkers are doubleplusun-notannoying.

Ok that's (more than) enough newspeak. I had had the idea of starting a new blog written entirely according to the principles of newspeak, as set out in the appendix to 1984, but it took me far too much effort and made my brain hurt just to write that much. Incidentally I couldn't have got that far without cribbing off the Newspeak Dictionary and I will be forever in the debt of the fabulous Mitchell and Webb for coining the newspeak word "doubleplusunnotannoying" .

The point, if you only know oldspeak is this:

So often on the internet people* decry a statement, usually by a politician but often a social worker, reporter or charity spokesman as "newspeak". The thing is that if they had properly read and understood 1984, and particularly the appendix on the nature and development of newspeak then they would know that the uses they rail against are the opposite of newspeak.

To twist and distort the meaning of words is an horrible thing, and it damages the political debate, but it is not automatically newspeak. Newspeak is not language abusing the existing definitions of words, but a language that eradicates all but the desired definition. It is not the use of new words, almost the opposite, it relies on the removal of words from the lexicon. Newspeak is not the language used by your political opponents, rather its purpose is to deny language to your political opponents (so that it is impossible even to think a heretical thought as thought relies on words).

These same offenders pull the same trick with Big Brother, Thought Police and Doublespeak, and it's just fucking irritating. I haven't read Brideshead Revisited, and so I steer clear of references to Sebastian or Brideshead, however apt what I think that they mean would be. Is it too much to ask that others do the same with Orwell?

Take this as a warning, from now on when I see such a reference to 1984 I shall hunt down its author and beat them to death with a shovel.


*Well I say people, really I mean a certain type of person. Well I say person, more a viciously right wing, half educated wingnut with opinions far in excess of their intellectual capacity. This wingnut hangs around the comments section of the Daily Mail, or the Have Your Say section of the BBC News site, spewing forth hate on pretty much anyone different from them in appearance or opinion.

Upheaval in China.

There appears to have been a rather large-scale massacre in China. I say appears because as seems to be their standard response to civil unrest, internet and mobile phone service have been cut of to the area, leaving the reports rather thin.

It appears that at least 140 people are dead and over 800 injured, largely in inter-ethnic violence. That is not a short violent riot, that is massive civil unrest. Until the world's media is allowed access to eyewitnesses we have only the official version to say what happened, and you'll forgive me I hope for not just taking the word of a dictatorial, authoritarian post-maoist government at face value.

The part that really starts to get tedious is that old response that totalitarian governments always bring out when faced with dissent:

"The Xinjiang government blamed separatist Uighurs based abroad for orchestrating attacks on ethnic Han Chinese."

It's never actually the people being angry, you see, after all everything is paradise within the nirvana that is China, Iran, Burma/yanmar or wherever. And so the government casts around and finds that the CIA, the BBC, the Russians, the Jews, or as in this case the exiles. And that's just lazy. Nobody believes it really: the people accused know they didn't do it; the people involved in the dissent know the real reason they are involved; spectators, journalists and other leaders around the world are unconvinced; and the Gorvernment sure as hell knows they made it up. So wouldn't it be nice, just for a change if dictators could start being honest?

I understand she also thought about taking some post-its home.

Iain Dale's blog mentions a Torygraph story of a sacking in the Civil Service. Apparently if you work for the British government it is now a sacking offence to criticise your boss. Especially if said boss has been doing something massively unethical.

This is the kind of thing that gets a government a reputation as illiberal and authoritarian. Well this and wanting ID cards. Well this, wanting ID cards and wanting detention without trial. Well this, Id cards, the detention thing, trying to scrap jury tria...I'll start again.

This government is illiberal and authoritarian.

La Belle Label.

In my other blog (over here) I got into a discussion with a couple of guys and the thorny issue of labels came ups. I favoured the classic Oreos label and they prefer the modern and groovy Snickers label. Or perhaps it wasn't that sort of label. Yeah, on second thoughts maybe it was political labels. I say they have almost no usefulness, others think they serve a purpose.

The problem I have with them is complex. For starters there is the lack of flexibility. If I define myself as a realist, I am seen to think within a certain box, the way I interpret the world around me is coloured by a certain system. And this is not just the way others view me; having told the world I am a realist I begin to train myself to think like a realist. And this is all very well, except that, untrammelled, it becomes a runaway train. I know (at least online “know”) many neo-cons who feel compelled to support a Cheney style attitude that torture is ok if it protects the USA from attack. At least one of these I know to have been an active Amnesty member before 9/11, who abhors torture. Having announced loudly and often that he is a neo-con, however, he now feels that he cannot stray from the fold without somehow being treacherous.

As most people soon realise (and I worked out a few weeks after I rushed into my first-week-as-an-undergrad declaration of realism, for most people no one paradigm will cover all of their thoughts, rather they fall into the grey areas that form the borderlands of differing worldviews. The way that we combat this is to start adding prefixes and suffixes, and so certain Republicans beacame no longer conservative but neo-conservative and I become a neo-realist, adopting a very slightly different position than previously. Of course this can end with ridiculous tags as people vary the already-varied paradigms and add a new prefix.

All of this works fine if we're just sticking within a single field, one international relations geek says to another what he thinks about Iran, the reply starts with “Well I'm a neo-liberal, so...” and being a part of the clique the geek knows what the rest of the sentence is. But then the world isn't that simple I also have opinions on domestic politics , economics, philosophy, in fact all sorts, and if I want to be in with the, well I was going to say cool kids but lets face it all these interests land me squarely in the nerd camp, then I need to identify myself. Of course it could be simple, we could use the terms to mean at least roughly the same thing. We could, but we don't. I am a liberal in domestic politics, which is not the same thing as a liberal in international relations.

And right there's another problem, the labels don't even mean the same thing in the two most prominent English speaking nations (that's right the Falkland Islands and St Helena). I have received all of my education in the UK, liberalism is still the term used here to define the dominant political paradigm of the developed world, a centrist, multi-party democratic, broadly market led society with individual freedom. A more committed liberal like me might wish for more individual freedom, less state intervention and a greater use of utilitarianism, but generally western society is liberal. To get the same meaning in the USA I would have to describe myself as libertarian; the term liberal is hurled as an insult at, and increasingly chosen by, socialists. The things that the American right attributes to liberals would make any liberal foam at the mouth.

Which brings us on to the other big flaw, labels are self chosen and self described on one level; I am a liberal, I am trying to make an impression on the USA so I call myself a libertarian, I know what this means and I tell you what it means; on another level the labels are externally chosen, you oppose me and so you shout all over the US press that I am a self described liberal; if that doesn't work then you look at my small government preferences and where I say libertarian you say anarchist; suddenly I'm a lot more scary.

So Labels are both too broad and too narrow, over-flexible and not flexible enough, self-chosen an externally imposed. How can something that contradictory be useful? I would say that it can't.

But what would I know? I'm just a neo-realist-quasi-capitalist-liberal-free-market-monetarist-utilitarian-running-dog.