usmanov /’us mÉ™ nÉ’v/ verb to unsuccessfully attempt to stifle undesired content on the Internet by taking legal action against websites where the content appears, with the result that the undesired content becomes more widespread and better known. [named after Alisher Usmanov, a Russian/Uzbek billionaire who did this regarding allegations made against him by Craig Murray. First use 2007.]
Here’s an example of usage:
Left Behind Games, a company making religiously-themed computer games, were annoyed by the negative reviews that their games were getting, so they usmanoved some bloggers. As a result, the negative coverage of their games got more publicity.
(via Techdirt; also published on Amused Cynicism)
]]>You can hear the allegations on blip.tv, or download the MP3 file.
Alternately, here is a transcript I’ve made of Wise’s speech:
Madam Chairman, Mr Commissioner,
when the EU talks of a common foreign policy you need to be very aware of exactly who you propose to do business with. President Putin is on record as [unclear] should be under no illusions if it wants to buy gas it has to deal with the Russian state. Gazprom is not a private company, it is a state-controlled tool of Russian foreign policy, one moreover in the hands of President Putin and allegedly organised crime.
Take for example Alisher Usmanov. This gentleman, the son of a Communist apparatchik, is chairman of Gazprom inside Russia. He is the man we would be doing business with. He is the man who cuts off gas supplies if client states dare to question Gazprom’s demands.
Allegedly a gangster and racketeer, he served a six year jail sentence in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, his eventual pardon coming at the behest of Usbek mafia chief and heroin overlord Gafur Rachimov, described as Usmanov’s mentor.
Usmanov bought the newspaper Kommersant; 3 months later the journalist Ivan Safranov, a critic of the Putin regime who just weeks earlier had been vigorously interrogated by the FSB — as the KGB is now called — mysteriously fell to his death from his apartment window, still clutching a recently purchased [unclear]. According to Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, it was Usmanov who ordered the cutting-off of supplies to Georgia earlier this year. Please take note [unclear] the construction of a pipeline to the EU over Georgian territory
These are the people you want to do business with? These are the people you are moulding your foreign policy on energy around? Commisioner, good luck, you’ll need it.
(via The Wardman Wire, England Expects, Mr Eugenides, Bloggerheads; this article also posted on Amused Cynicism)
]]>Online petitions could be used to decide the subject of debates and votes in Parliament under a Tory government. Tory leader David Cameron said this would show the public “what their elected representatives actually think about the issues that matter to them”.
Earlier this year more than 1.7m people signed an anti-road pricing petition on the Downing Street website. But unlike the Tory democracy taskforce suggestion, the Number 10 petitions do not have any link to Commons debates.
I agree with this, but it doesn’t go far enough. A large enough petition should trigger a referendum on any issue. How large is large enough? Hard to say, but 5% of the electorate seems a reasonable figure. And the same policy should hold at all levels of elected bodies, not just the Westminster parliament.
For example, some local councils have recently been collecting household rubbish fortnightly instead of weekly, and some people don’t like this. Local councils are supposed to be democratic and to respond to what the people want, so if they are doing something that the majority don’t want, there would appear to be a breakdown in democratic accountability. One solution would be for people to make sure the vote for councillors who favour weekly rubbish collections, however there aren’t be council elections every year, and in any case there are lots of other issues that determine who to vote for. But local referenda would solve the problem of democratic deficit in local councils.
]]>They may well be right that the tram scheme isn’t perfect, and it doesn’t represent the best value for money. But consider: the present tram proposals are the result of years of discussions and planning, and the Scottish Parliament’s term of office is only 4 years. If, after every election, the old govement’s plans are scrapped, then any scheme that takes significantly longer than 4 years is unlikely to go ahead.
So the tram scheme should be kept, because it will bring better transport facilities to Scotland’s capital, even if it isn’t perfect.
]]>Imagine two situations, both involving a religion with influence over large numbers of people. (1) The religion teaches that all are children of the same God and have a spark of the divine within them; and therefore one must treat others with respect. (2) The religion teaches that only some people are favoured by God and those who are not so favoured are contemptible and inferior or some such.
Could an atheistic, rationalist, egalitarian be indifferent as between these two situations and as to which of them is more likely to be strengthening of the moral and political values she subscribes to?
The background to this is a question Johann Hari asked:
I think faith is a dangerous form of bad thinking – it is believing something, without evidence or reason to back it up… Yet at the same time, when there are so many Murdochian pressures on a British Prime Minister dragging them to the right… isn’t it good to have a countervailing pressure to help the poor – even a superstitious one? If religion drives [Gordon] Brown’s best instincts and whittles down his worst, should we still condemn it?
In answering both questions I’ll refer to the Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube. Ncube and the Catholic Church have been in the news recently as forming one of the main strands of opposition to Robert Mugabe’s policies, which have devastated Zimbabwe. So much the good. Ncube is, I would imagine, a decent man with decent sensibilities. But his beliefs are informed by Catholic doctrine. In this instance Ncube’s beliefs align with mine. But in the future they might not — the catholic Church might speak against contraception, or gay people, for example.
How let’s consider Norm’s question. I think the question, as put, is badly worded. It’s not what the religion actually says that counts, it’s how followers of the religion behave. As an example, Pius Ncube no doubt thinks slavery is immoral. However, the Catholics’ holy book says that enslaving people is OK, as long as they are foreigners (Leviticus 25:44-46). And if you go back a few centuries, there were lots of Catholic archbishops who thought slavery was moral. And go back a few centuries and many Christians were slaveowners.
It seems to me that any religion is likely to cause a rift between believers and non-believers, and cause beleivers to think less of non-believers. If a religion asserts that certain things are true (e.g. that God exists), then followers of that religion will naturally differentiate between people who believe those things and those who don’t. And if a religion teaches that some acts are moral and others immoral, then believers will differentiate between doers of the two kinds of act. And people being people, they will naturally think more highly of those like them than those different.
So all religions are going to create a tendency for people to think less well of some people than of others. So to answer Norm’s question, I don’t think it matters as great deal what the religion actually teaches, since people are likely in any case to use the religion as a marker of who’s “one of us” and who isn’t (for example, Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia).
]]>Barlow also proposes that smaller electoral regions should be allocated more representatives than they would from strict proportionality, in order to ensure “a balance of voices from throughout the UK”.
I agree with this; however, how a representative thinks and votes is far more important than what part of the country they come from. So if we want diversity, we should make diversity of views more important than diversity of regions. I therefore propose that lords be elected by a modified version of STV, as follows:
1. 90% of representatives to be elected by STV. (In this case 90 representatives)
2. the other 10% of representatives to be elected by top-up.
3. each candidate would belong to an electoral list. Typically all the candidates of a party would belong to the same electoral list, but there would be nothing to prevent one party running multiple lists, or several parties running a joint list. If a candidate isn’t on an electoral list, they are deemed to be on a list containing just themselves.
4. The 90 STV representatives are elected according to the normal rules for STV.
5. The number of top-up seats for each electoral list is determined. This is done by counting how many 1st-preference votes each list got and how many representatives they got elected by STV. The top-up seats are allocated according to the D’Hondt method so that the total number of seats each list gets (both STV and top-up) is proportional to that list’s 1st-preference votes.
6. Once we know how many top-up seats each list gets, we can determine with candidates are elected by top-up. These are the candidates for that list with the highest number of first-preference votes who were not elected by STV.
This electoral system combines the benefits of STV (representatives have a local link and are chosen by the voters, not the party hierarchy) with those of a national list system (maximum proportionality), and would ensure that any belief-system that commands the support of 1% of the electorate would get represented in the Lords. Because of the diversity of viewpoints elected, this would minimise the feeling of disenfranchisement that voters get if no-one they support is elected.
]]>To recapitulate, article 5 says:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
More to the point, what should we do about Russia?
]]>Only a strong indigenous faith has the capacity to resist Islamisation. That is why the collapse of Christianity in Britain and Europe and its steady replacement by secularisation is so catastrophic for the defence of the west. The useful idiots who believe that only a secular society can hold off the forces of irrational belief at the heart of the Islamic jihad have got this diametrically the wrong way round. Secularisation produces cultural enfeeblement, because the pursuit of personal happiness trumps absolutely everything else. The here and now is all that matters. Dying for a cause, however noble, becomes an absolute no-no. It’s better to be dhimmi than dead – the view that has now effectively prevailed in Britain and Europe.
Leaving aside for one moment whether Europe is under threat from Islam, let’s consider Phillips’ thesis that only Christian societies have the will to fight. The most anti-Christian Western society in recent times was Nazi Germany, and although the Nazis have been accused of many things, I have never heard them being accused of ducking out of a fight! In fact, they were one of the most militaristic societies that has ever existed. Another strongly anti-Christian society was the USSR, and they too were up for a fight on many an occasion and were willing to suffer casualties in the tens of millions to fight off invaders.
In the light of these examples, Phillips’ thesis that Europe needs to be Christian to be willing to defend itself is not just wrong, it is laughable. Rather like Phillips herself. In fact I doubt if she takes her arguments seriously herself, since she finishes her article thus:
And that is why I, a British Jew, argue that it is vital that Britain and Europe re-Christianise if they are to have any chance of defending western values.
Well if she really believes that it’s “vital” that Europe “re-Christianise” or it will be overrun by Islam (something Phillips doesn’t want), then why doesn’t she accept the logic of her own argument and convert to Christianity?
(Note: Mad Mel’s article has also been commented on by Chris Dillow, David T, Ministry of Truth, Norman Geras, Shuggy and Sunny)
]]>[Israeli] Army Chief of Staff Lt-Gen Dan Halutz said the Israeli military would “turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years” if the soldiers were not returned.
Here I intend to approach the subject from a point of view of European (and especially European Union) foreign policy.
The EU’s relations with its near neighbour are described in the European Neighbourhood Policy, which aims to encourage peace, democracy, trade and prosperity. For example, the EU’s website describes the EU/Lebanon Association Agreement as having these benefits for Europe:
For the European Union, the Agreement will promote new opportunities to market products and services,
And for Lebanon:
For Lebanon, the Association Agreement […] enables the country to open up to an international competitive market; moreover it is an important foundation to succeed its entry into an efficient economy.
Clearly Israel’s destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure and blockade of Lebanese ports and airspace does not further the EU’s goals of encouraging economic development in Lebanon or trade between Lebanon and the EU.
Furthermore the Israeli blockade of Lebanon’s ports is a direct challenge to European authority in the Mediterranean. The EU should regard the Mediterranean as Mare Nostrum — “Our Sea” — and should aim to control what does and doesn’t happen there. it should do this because of the co-incidence of two factors: (1) the Mediterranean is in Europe’s “near abroad” and thus what happens there affects Europe, and (2) the EU has the economic and military clout to make what it says stick.
As a consequence, I suggest EU foreign ministers should meet and deliver a note to Israel worded roughly thus:
The European Union views with alarm recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, the destruction of life, property and infrastructure, and the Israeli air and sea blockades against that country. These actions are contrary to the EU’s policies as expressed in the EU/Lebanon Association Agreement and the European Neighbourhood Policy, and therefore represent action which is against the interests of the EU.If Israel continues its present course of action, the EU will therefore have no choice but to consider Israeli actions as hostile to the EU.
As a consequence, the EU requests that within 24 hours of the delivery of this note, the Israeli government do the following:
1. ceases military activity against Lebanon, particularly including bombing infrastructure targets of killing civilians.
2. ceases its air and sea blockade of Lebanon.
3. agrees to pay Lebanon compensation for the damage caused (the amount of compensation to be agreed by the Israeli and Lebanese governments, or if they cannot agree to be arbitrated by the EU).
If Israel chooses not to comply with this request, the EU will have to reconsider its policies towards Israel and other nations in the region. This reconsideration may include one or more of the following:
1. The ending of trade between Israel and the EU.
2. The EU may further choose not to trade with companies in third countries which continue to trade with Israel and to seize their assets (both physical property and intellectual property) in the EU.
3. If the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) see the above actions as against their rules, the EU will consider withdrawing from those organisations and will seek bilateral trade agreements with countries that wish to trade with it.
4. If the EU seeks an economic embargo of Israel, that embargo will be more effective if more countries join it. The EU anticipates that other countries may wish to join an embargo, including candidates for EU accession, countries with large Muslim populations, and countries wishing to negotiate good terms in bilateral trade agreements with the EU (see paragraph 3 above).
5. The purpose of an EU embargo of Israel would be to punish the Israeli government, not the Israeli people, many of whom disagree with the policies of their government. Therefore the EU may consider allowing all Israeli citizens to travel and seek work in the EU; in particular, skilled workers may be offered relocation packages to help them move to the EU. If large numbers of the most skilled Israelis — who are most important to the Israeli economy — choose to vote with their feet and leave Israel, it will put further pressure on Israel to comply with EU requests.
6. The EU may choose to deter future Israeli air attacks on those of its neighbours which Israel is in the habit of bombing. It could do so by selling these countries Europe’s most advanced surface-to-air missile systems, either at market value or at a discount. If as a consequence, Israeli aircraft are shot down, this would provide a boost for European arms sales to other countries, thus enhancing Europe’s arms industry and increasing high-tech exports.
Nothing in this note should be taken as meaning that the EU does not believe that Israel has the right to defend itself. However, sometimes Israel’s actions are grossly disproportionate, and sometimes this results in harm to European foreign policy objectives. When this happens, it would be imprudent for Israel to rely on Europe turning a blind eye.
If Europe sent a note along these lines, what would happen? Israel would have to consider how damaging a European trade embargo would be. The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, amounting to 33% of Israeli exports and 40% of Israeli imports. So a trade embargo would bite, particularly if the EU could persuade other countries to join in. This would lead to rising unemployment in Israel, and if as a result many Israelis, including skilled workers, emigrated to Europe, the Israeli economy would be even more damaged. It is likely that foreign investment would be hit too. If Israel’s population was shrinking, and defence spending was static then defence would be taking up a larger and larger part of the economy, making the economic situation even worse. Eventually the existance of Israel might be called into question. While the consequences might not become that serious, it is likely that the Israeli government would view the prospect of an embargo with extreme alarm.
One factor which might counteract the seriousness of the embargo is the Americans. If the USA were to give additional subsidies to Israel to replace the shortfall of foreign exchange due to loss of Israel’s exports to the EU, this would reduce the severity of the embargo. Would the USA do this? It already subsidises Israel by several billion dollars a year, and with the money being spend on the Iraq war the perception in Washington may be that money is too tight to want to bail out the Israeli economy indefinitely.
Furthermore the USA and EU would be considering their relations with each other as well as with Israel. If the USA was to consider taking Israel’s side in this dispute, European governments might point to the number of European troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq and point out the difficulty of the USA replacing them with Israeli troops if they think Israel is a better ally than Europe.
Israel would not want to back down, but nor would it want sanctions put up against it. In the end, it is likely that the Israeli government would go for a face-saving compromise if Europe offered one.
If the EU were to follow the policy I suggest, what would the outcome be? I suggest the following (all against a baseline of the EU tsking no action):