Water Cannons Turned On Peaceful TTIP Protestors In Brussels As Public Barred From Negotiations

from the first-signs-of-panic dept

The TAFTA/TTIP negotiations remain almost totally lacking in real transparency, with little information about what exactly is happening behind closed doors being released to the public -- and most of that coming from the EU side. This has naturally forced those excluded from the inner circle to speculate about what might be going on -- and, inevitably, to fear the worst. According to the US Ambassador to the EU, Anthony Gardner, and the EU Commissioner responsible for TTIP, Karel De Gucht, that's unacceptable:

The ambassador and commissioner agreed that NGOs and civil society organisations were spreading disinformation about TTIP through social media, such as Twitter and Facebook. De Gucht said that a number of campaigners were "spreading rumours on false grounds."

Gardner added: "There's a void [in information]. The void is being filled more and more by social media."

That's interesting not just for the refusal to admit that it's lack of transparency that is creating this void, but also for the barely-concealed fear of social media, probably because it can't be controlled in the way that traditional media can. Gardner and De Gucht made their comments in Brussels, where they were both speaking at the European Business Summit, which describes itself as:

Europe's key meeting place for business leaders and decision makers, where Business and Politics Shape the Future.

Business, politics -- but not civil society, which, as usual, was not invited to shape the future. So, instead, it was forced to stay outside the meeting, on the streets. Here's what happened while business and politics were busy inside:

This Thursday morning over a thousand people were in the streets of Brussels, attempting to peacefully protest against austerity and the proposed great transatlantic market (TTIP) which were being discussed in the absence of citizens at the European Business Summit.

In an unprovoked move 281 people were violently arrested, including Belgian and European parliamentarians and candidates, senior trade union officials, farmers and many elderly citizens.

As one of those involved noted:

"We came into the streets because our political leaders are not listening. It seems they've only got ears for big business and their representatives who co-organised the European Business Summit. And to be treated so brutally, as if we were violent criminals -- when our actions were entirely peaceful."

Although that press release may not come from a totally objective source -- the D19-20 Alliance is an anti-austerity group -- reports and images on other sites confirm that the Belgian police were extremely heavy-handed, deploying water cannons and tying demonstrators' wrists together behind their backs for what seems to have been a polite and low-key peaceful protest. This extraordinarily disproportionate reaction would indicate an increasing nervousness on the part of the authorities that Europe is about to see a wave of mass demonstrations against TTIP just as happened with ACTA, leading to this brutal and ham-fisted attempt to nip it in the bud.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: brussels, karel de gucht, protests, social media, tafta, ttip

Hundreds Of Thousands Take To The Streets Of Taiwan To Protest Against Trade Agreement's Lack of Scrutiny

from the sound-familiar? dept

One of the key problems with both the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), is the lack of scrutiny. Both deals are being negotiated in almost complete secrecy, with very little information being released officially. The justification for this, such as it is, is that the public will have a chance to see the agreements once they are finished, and that this is the appropriate time for transparency. The emptiness of that promise has been shown by the Polish Ministry of Economy's reply to some questions from the Modern Poland Foundation:

all the information the EU member states obtained from the European Commission is classified and it is not possible to pass it on outside the state administration. This also concerns the Foundation's request to access the text of the chapter on IPR and the Polish stance in this matter.

In compliance with the EU practices, the text of the treaty will be made available only in the final stage of the negotiations, after the signing of the document by both parties.

As that makes clear, the public will only get to see TTIP after it has been signed, when it can no longer be changed. The European Commissioners' idea of transparency turns out to be a cruel joke at the expense of the public that pays their not-inconsiderable salaries.

However, TTIP and TPP are not the only trade agreements being negotiated behind closed doors. Another has been concluded between China and Taiwan, with a similar lack of scrutiny. In scenes that recall the demonstrations across Europe when people found that they had no power to change ACTA, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets of Taiwan's capital city, Taipei:

Large crowds of demonstrators took to the streets of Taipei to protest efforts by the government to approve a trade pact with Beijing and show support for the students who have occupied Taiwan's legislature for nearly two weeks.

Organizers estimated that at least 350,000 people were gathered, as of 2 p.m., on the streets around the Presidential Office Building to express discontent over a pact that would open up dozens of service fields to cross-strait investment. Police counted 116,000 demonstrators by 4 p.m., according to Taiwan's Central News Agency, while some television news stations put the number as high as 700,000.

As the New York Times article quote above explains, a key complaint is the fact that there would be no meaningful scrutiny:

While many demonstrators are opposed to the service trade pact, the most widely held complaint was that the measure has not been sufficiently examined. A poll before the occupation of the legislature indicated that more than 70 percent of respondents supported a line-by-line review of the pact.

That line-by-line review is precisely what granting "fast track authority" to the White House and USTR would make impossible for TPP and TTIP; instead, Congress would have a single "yes" or "no" vote on whether to accept one or both. The ACTA demonstrations in Europe led to the agreement being rejected by the European Parliament two years ago; now it looks like the Taiwanese authorities have also admitted defeat:

On Saturday, [Taiwan's President] Mr. Ma attempted to respond to some of the students' demands, saying he would back an itemized review of the trade pact and a law that would allow the legislature to more closely monitor agreements with Beijing.

In the light of the massive protests that swept through Europe in 2012, and those now filling the streets of Taipei, both of which were triggered by the refusal to allow any meaningful scrutiny of trade agreements that would have major consequences for everyday life, the question has to be: do the USTR and European Commission really want to run the risk of repeating that experience by pushing through TPP and TTIP in exactly the same undemocratic manner?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: china, protests, secrecy, taiwan, trade agreements, transparency

Ukraine Parliament Repeals Anti-Protest Laws As Prime Minister Falls On President's Sword

from the fighting-against-the-tide dept

A while back, we discussed the uprising and protests in Ukraine, along with the almost sadistically Orwellian threats utilized by the government there to attempt to stifle protests. Those efforts, combined with hamfisted legislation rammed through the Ukrainian parliament via the laughable hand-count voting technique, achieved the opposite of their intention and lit a fire under the protesters. We made the argument then that, in this age of technology, ruling with such an iron fist couldn't and wouldn't work, and that the Ukrianian government was ignoring the lessons governments in the Middle East were forced to learn mere years ago.

It turns out not only were we correct, but we were to be proven as much with somewhat shocking speed. The most recent news out of Ukraine is that the parliament has voted to repeal those laws against protests with a near-consensus.

In a first step, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to repeal sweeping anti-protest laws whose passage this month angered anti-government demonstrators. The special parliamentary session is now looking at legislation that might provide amnesty for more than 200 people arrested since the demonstrations began in late November.

This 360 180 degree reversal was brought to you by a popular Ukrainian movement unimpressed with the Orwellian tactics and attempted legal machinations brought against it. It's the quickest expression of the idea that governments should fear their people, rather than the other way around, that I've seen to date. And it's only a first step. Everyone must have known that the reversal of policy wouldn't be enough and that very high level politicians were going to have to lose their jobs over this. The cross hairs for that were rightly pointed at Ukraine President, Viktor Yanukovych, who set all this off by unilaterally ending negotiations with the EU on a trade treaty in favor of a Russian bailout that can only result in more of the same bullying of Ukraine seen in years past.

Unfortunately, Yanukovych appears to lack the gumption to fall on his own sword, so he's let someone else leap onto it instead.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych accepted the resignation of Prime Minister Mykola Azarov and his government Tuesday, amid a political crisis fired by violent protests on the country's streets. Azarov and his Cabinet will continue in their roles until a new government is formed, a notice on the presidential website said.

This, I fear, won't be enough to send the protesters back to their homes. A new government with the same President is only "new" as a method for parody and derision. An attempt to turn on the free speech of a people isn't going to be forgiven in exchange for lesser resignations.

Filed Under: free speech, mykola azarov, protests, ukraine, viktor yanukovych

Ukraine Sending Anyone Near Protests Creepy Text Messages

from the the-texts-are-coming-from-inside-the-country! dept

If you've paid attention to the news recently, you may be aware that there are some impressive protests going on in Ukraine, some of which have been met with violence by the Ukrainian government. I won't bore you with a comprehensive history lesson, but I think we may need a bit of context here.

Ukraine has gone through two revolutions in recent history, the first gaining independence with the fall of the Berlin wall and the second a mere decade ago when they threw out the subsequent government to try again. The reasons for the second were corruption on a near world record level and an economic system that was as stifled as it was depressed. Once under the thumb of the Soviet Union and all of its freedom-less trappings, ethnic Ukranians began leaning towards European ideals in the west of the country. Meanwhile, over in the eastern portion, ethnic Russians had settled areas where the USSR had displaced ethnic Ukranians, and the settlers retained more of a philosophical allegiance to their homeland. Since then, Ukraine has always been a battleground between Russia and Europe, particularly economically, with Russia tending to win out by strong-arming its neighbor through oil delivery prices and cancellations that virtually castrate Ukraine in the colder months.

The recent protests began when the current president, Victor Yanukovych, unilaterally torpedoed a broad trade agreement with the EU, one which had been in the works for years. Instead, Yanukovych bowed to Russia generally and Putin in particular, promising to build closer ties with the country's former master. Protesters protested, as they tend to do. But, rather than engage in a political process, or any true dialogue about the decision, Yanukovych's government has instead embraced the tactics of Middle Eastern nations that have since learned what happens when you attempt to stifle protest by fiat.

The controversial new protest laws have sparked concerns they could be used to put down demonstrations and deny people the right to free speech. They include provisions barring people from wearing helmets and masks to rallies, from setting up tents or sound equipment without prior police permission, and from traveling in convoys of more than five vehicles without authorization. A separate Interior Ministry order allowing riot police to use firearms came into force Tuesday, according to the official Ukrainian legislation website.

Meant to stifle protests, these laws have instead supercharged the revolutionary spirit of Ukranians, who remember all too well what it was like when they allowed themselves to be victims in a similar way. These laws have been tried elsewhere, including the banning of masks, and they generally don't work. Times have changed and you can't put the cat back in the bag. The more you try to re-impose old restrictions on a newly free people, the more backlash you're going to get.

Which is what will make the reaction to this latest tidbit about Ukranian intimidation so interesting. Buried in a story about the protests, we learn that the Ukrianian government has abandoned all pretense in its attempt to rule by fear.

The government’s opponents said three recent actions had been intended to incite the more radical protesters and sow doubt in the minds of moderates: the passing of laws last week circumscribing the right of public assembly, the blocking of a protest march past the Parliament building on Sunday and the sending of cellphone messages on Tuesday to people standing in the vicinity of the fighting that said, “Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a mass disturbance.”

The phrasing of the message, about participating in a “mass disturbance,” echoed language in a new law making it a crime to participate in a protest deemed violent. The law took effect on Tuesday. And protesters were concerned that the government seemed to be using cutting-edge technology from the advertising industry to pinpoint people for political profiling.

In other words, it's as though the Ukranian government had already gotten part of the way through Orwell's collective works as a blueprint for how to set up a government and then picked up 1984. Big Brother, as it were, is watching you. Fortunately, not only will this not work in the long term, it isn't even working in the short term.

The messages appeared to have little effect. Three hours after they were sent, riot police officers pushed past barricades of burned buses at that site and were met by a crowd of protesters in ski masks and bicycle helmets, carrying sticks and ready to fight.

And it was insane to expect any other response. If you back a wounded animal into a corner and threaten it with a stick, expect the claws to be unleashed. And that's an entirely unfortunate state of affairs. With all the avenues for discourse available to us today, seeing what were peaceful protests descend into violence from both sides due strictly to the Orwellian tactics of a government is no longer acceptable. For that government to have so recently been liberated from a gone-nation that had likewise utilized those tactics is insane.

So, despite a lack of sufficient coverage from our major media, keep Ukraine in your mind as the citizens there fight and die for the freedom of speech, assembly and governance.

Filed Under: protests, text messages, ukraine

Copyright And Protest: How Copyright Is Getting In The Way Of Thai Protests

from the copyright-and-expression dept

Thailand has become a focus of international attention again recently due to the big protests on the street against the current government and the upcoming election, which the protesters claim symbolizes the continuing rule of the allegedly corrupted dictatorship of Thai ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. If you haven't been following it, you can read the details elsewhere, since it is quite complex and controversial. However, an interesting copyright issue has actually emerged from these protests.

Since the beginning of the protests, a key symbol of the protesters has been the whistle. The earliest flash mobs of the protest involved a large group of people gathered in public space, who all blew whistles at the same time. Soon after, whistles were used against certain politicians, with protest leaders directing protesters to blow whistles at certain politicians (those they believed were corrupt). In short, the whistle has become the symbol of resistance for the protesters.

Bluesky Channel is the local cable TV channel which is closely associated with the protest and its leaders. It has been broadcasting from the front line of the protest from the very beginning. The channel's logo is a blue lighting bolt. When the protest had grown larger, both the leader and the Channel attempted to change the symbol of the protest from an ordinary whistle to a lightning-shaped whistle in particular. They eventually sold "official" lightning-shaped whistles to the protesters and claimed the revenue would help them finance the protests.

Like just about anything in Thailand that sells well, once the lightning-shaped whistle grew popular, other merchants began to manufacture and sell "unofficial" lightning-shaped whistles to the protesters. Once it found out, Bluesky took to Facebook to angrily claim that it owned the copyright on the lightning-shaped whistle and called for the protest guards to investigate.

On January 15th, Bluesky finally had the protest guards confiscate unofficial lightning-shaped whistles sold in the protest area by the hawkers and proudly posted the "confiscated" stuff on its Facebook page with some statements that basically said: "If you sell it, we will confiscate it." There have been a bunch of different reactions to this. Some are claiming the guards did the right thing since the protest is against "corruption" and immorality -- being immoral can be a legitimate political accusation in Thailand -- and, to them, copyright infringement is also a kind of corruption or immoral act. To them, confiscating it is totally legitimate.

Others, however, say that even if the unofficial lightning-shaped whistles really infringe on Bluesky Channel's copyright, there shouldn't be any confiscation. Their argument is that Bluesky Channel's priority should be broadening the political alliance as widely as possible, not on selling merchandise for profit. Furthermore, there are some ironic comments that the protest itself played unlicensed music and many of the "Anonymous" Guy Fawkes masks used by protesters violated Time Warner's intellectual property. (This issue is quite complicated. The pro-government -- or pro-Thaksin, or pro-democracy as they call themselves -- groups always wear what they call "the Red Shirt." However, anti-Thaksin groups' symbols have changed over time. First, there was the Yellow Shirt, then the Multi-Colored Shirt, the Anonymous wearing Guy Fawkes mask and finally the Whistle as the latest incarnation. All these anti-Thaksin groups have different leaders, but they have roughly the same ideology, and the same goal of overthrowing everything related to Thaksin.)

It's unclear how a Thai court would react should this kind of copyright infringement case go on trial. Product design infringement cases are quite rare in Thailand. Thailand's Copyright Act is quite short and relies a lot on the courts' interpretation of the situation. Therefore, we do not even quite know what is really an infringement by any national legal standard.

Throughout this confiscation process, no actual police have been involved -- just the private protest guards. To some, this suggests that this kind of action is actually theft, which is surely a crime worse than copyright infringement by any international standard. Finally, it is totally understandable why the protesters did not call on the police to arrest those selling pirated whistles, because, as the protest went on, the protesters -- especially the guards -- showed a rather strong hostility toward the police and (not surprisingly) vice versa. In the end, however, there's an odd bit of copyright suddenly becoming an issue in the middle of large political protests.

The author, a copyright scholar in Thailand, has asked to remain anonymous, noting that with the current political climate in Thailand, using your real name in discussing anything related to the protests can be dangerous.

Filed Under: copyright, free expression, protests, thailand, whistles
Companies: bluesky channel

Sen. Feinstein Comes Face To Face With A 'Drone,' Fails To Learn Anything From The Experience

from the 'the-drone,-laden-with-its-payload-of-irony...' dept

Tireless NSA defender Dianne Feinstein apparently had a scary run-in with surveillance technology. Oddly, it bothered her.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein says she once found a drone peeking into the window of her home — the kind of cautionary tale she wants lawmakers to consider as they look at allowing commercial drone use.

The California Democrat offered few details about the incident when speaking about it Wednesday afternoon, during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on drone policy at which she appeared as a special witness. But she used the episode to implore lawmakers to “proceed with caution.”

To be fair, the "drone" (explanation on the scare quotes in a moment) was hovering "inches from her face," right outside her window. To be even more fair, Feinstein likes her surveillance bulk and untargeted, not hovering outside her house. She's pushed for CBP drones to be used only within three miles of the border in California, so it can be said she's no friend of drone surveillance.

Feinstein didn't elaborate on the event during her statement, withholding details on when (recently/several months ago) and where (DC/California) it happened. If she had elaborated, it probably would have undercut the "scariness" of the drone invasion.

The Wire talked to Feinstein spokesman Brian Weiss, who offered some helpful background details.

The Wire spoke by phone with Feinstein's spokesman Brian Weiss, who confirmed that the incident happened at the senator's house in San Francisco several months ago. At about the time, it seems, that Code Pink showed up to protest Feinstein's support for the NSA.

On June 15, the anti-war group held a protest focused on Feinstein, which included activists in disguises and, yes, two remote-controlled helicopters, which might creatively be described as drones.

Here's some video documentation:


Yes, Feinstein's privacy was "invaded" by a tiny pink helicopter roughly the size of a crow that carried no camera. As for her claim that she "startled" the drone causing it to spin around and crash? Well, without a camera, it's pretty hard to "startle" the operator.

For a staunch defender of US surveillance programs to become perturbed at the new face of surveillance technology (even if this particular one didn't have a face, so to speak, or at least couldn't "see") is a bit rich. Sure, Feinstein is working hard to craft regulatory legislation to govern drone usage, but she seems to be more concerned with commercial drone use than government drone use. She has stepped up to keep the CBP from flying theirs all over California, but her scary story of flying eyes was delivered in support of legislation governing commercial drone use. So, even in this case, Feinstein remains more a government surveillance lapdog than a privacy defender. This issue just happens to intersect at a junction privacy activists have been known to frequent.

Too many eyes in the skies -- ones that can fly for hours and provide the sort of long-term surveillance piloted vehicles can't -- is a problem for everyone. This time, it happened to Dianne Feinstein. Unfortunately, the experience failed to impart any understanding as to why the public might be perturbed by the NSA's unguided, untargeted and mostly un-overseen bulk collections programs. Surveillance is surveillance, whether its outside your window or hoovered up from overseas cables, phone records and dozens of other programs operating in complete darkness.

The camera right outside your window is a subjective issue. The many eyes with the access and capabilities to peer into the lives of millions of people seems rather abstract compared to a one-on-one confrontation. But the dangers posed by both are equally real.

Filed Under: code pink, commercial drones, dianne feinstein, drones, privacy, protests, surveillance

In 2009, NYPD Issued 'Surveillance Request' To 'Identify' Anonymous Members During Their Anti-Scientology Rally

from the people-wearing-masks-are-inherently-suspicious dept

Recently, Adrian Chen tweeted out something interesting: a link to an internal NYPD document detailing a "surveillance request" to stake out a rally by Anonymous at the Church of Scientology. Its purpose? To "identify as many members of as possible." The report goes on to note that the difficulty level of this task might be upped significantly.

Please note that members of the group frequently wears masks covering their entire faces.

This is an important distinction, as certain members of the surveillance unit might have been more inclined to snoop on more easily identified, unmasked citizens. Now, I can understand why the NYPD might want to uncover the identities of Anonymous members as the (not really an) organization has wreaked a lot of havoc in various areas, most of them online. But there is something unsettling about a police force attending demonstrations and rallies to perform intel rather than to keep the peace.

But actions taken during Occupy Wall Street show that the PD's agenda usually means treating protesters (as well as anyone with a camera) as criminals. And attempting to "unmask" participants in an Anonymous rally lumps all attendees in with the activist group, even if many of them have never actively participated in any illegal activities. It also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Anonymous' "structure," i.e., there is none. There's no "head" to capture and mount on the metaphorical wall. There's also no "tail" to drag off to HQ and sweat down in hopes of it offering up higher-ranked members.

While it's true that you may find some criminals within the ranks of protesters for any cause, heading into protests with the intent of compiling a "To Arrest" list puts police officers into entirely the wrong mindset. There's enough "us vs. them" attitude floating around already. This simply creates an antagonism that skews the perception of every witnessed activity. Peaceful protests are now just riots waiting to happen. It's not people united for a single cause, it's a hive mind operating under a devious directive. The whole thing is unhealthy for both the police and the public.

Also worth noting is the fact that this occurred before the Occupy protests, when Anonymous targeted the NYPD for its acts of brutality against the protesters, meaning this attempt to unmask members wasn't a retaliatory act (which isn't OK but is at least a rationale) or an attempt to find those who made threats against the department.

That being said, the surveillance request (what there is of it) contains the following sentence, which is notable both for a.) the inventive disgustingness of the act and b.) not being accompanied by a drunk and disorderly citation.

Most recently, a member ran into the church covered in vaseline and pubic hairs.

Yeah. This actually happened. And it also included nail clippings. This extremely random act of civil disobedience was denounced by irritated, non-Anonymous Scientology critics and the greased-up pube delivery system was arrested, briefly investigated and discharged by the NYPD.

Most notably, there's no reason given for the surveillance unless you count Vaseline Man as a valid impetus. The entire form is almost completely blank, giving the whole thing an appearance of "just because." Maybe the NYPD felt No One's Personal Army posed a threat to Mayor Bloomberg's Personal Army. Or maybe the Church of Scientology wields just as much power as people attribute to it.

Filed Under: anonymous, nypd, protests, rallies, scientology

Crowdfunding Protests: Turkish Protesters Raise Over $100,000 To Buy NY Times Ad

from the what-a-world dept

There's been plenty of talk about how social media -- and specifically tools like Twitter and Facebook -- have been useful in organizing various protests around the world, but it's interesting to see how other popular tools are being used as well. For example, with the huge protests in Turkey, some of the protesters are using IndieGogo to finance a full-page ad in the NY Times to tell their story to the world. And it worked. Within a day, they'd raised the amount and it's continued to rise since then (and there are still weeks left). The NY Times has already accepted the ad as well. This strikes me as fascinating on a number of levels, because crowdfunding is just a different kind of platform -- and while most people just focus on its uses for buying products -- one of the key features is how it actually builds a community around the project in question. And, as such, you can see how it can also be such a powerful tool for building further community and support around a political campaign of sorts.

Filed Under: advertisement, crowdfunding, protests, turkey

EU's Chief Negotiator Has Learned Nothing From ACTA, Will Negotiate TAFTA In Secret

from the not-a-good-idea dept

The EU trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, was a driving force behind ACTA, and apparently he's learned nothing about why ACTA failed so spectacularly in Europe. MEP Christian Engstrom pointed out to De Gucht that a big part of the reason why ACTA failed was the lack of transparency, and asked him to be more transparent with TAFTA (the Trans Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, but which many are calling TTIP -- for Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). De Gucht's response was to insist that he cannot negotiate transparently, and then to outright mock Parliament for suggesting that it has a role in the negotiations.

... on the subject of openness, I have no problem saying what we are doing and what we want to achieve and, when not speaking in public, how I want to achieve this. But you are all politicians. So you should know – and I think you do know – that you cannot negotiate openly. You do not do that in your parties either; you do not do that in your constituencies. You need to focus – and yes, of course we have to report on what we are doing, explaining why we are doing things and why we are making some concessions; we will have to make concessions in the course of these negotiations. But you need a certain degree of confidentiality in negotiations. You also need it because your counterpart is asking for it; if not, you cannot negotiate.

It is interesting that it seems that there is a copy of one of the drafts of the negotiating mandate. So what? It is a draft. The Presidency has, of course, to make sure that they come to an agreement within the Council, so they put forward possible ways to get out of any difficulties that we have to deal with. Immediately, very vocal Members of this Parliament say that this is a scandal and that we are traitors and cannot be trusted. Of course you can trust me, because in the end you can say ‘No’. You have done so in the past. You said ‘No’ to ACTA: I am still not convinced that it was the right choice, but you decided to do so and that was how it was. You have the final word.

But a parliament is not created to negotiate. It is not its job. I think I have been in a parliament for a longer time than most of you –25 years. Maybe there are some who have been in a parliament as long – Mr Brok has already left, but he has certainly been in a parliament for more than 25 years – but not very many. I have never sought to negotiate an agreement from within a parliament because it simply does not work.

What you have to do – and you do it in an eloquent way – is indicate the important points that you want to mention, that you want me to look at and which you will question me about. You will scrutinise me and in the end will vote against me if I do not do that. But a parliament cannot negotiate, because a parliament only exists as a body when it votes. Outside of voting you take up individual positions. You cannot negotiate with 20, 30 or 50 different positions. That is not possible. You need to negotiate on the basis of a mandate, and then, of course, you have to demonstrate that you have been following your mandate.

Of course, MEPs weren't asking to let Parliament negotiate the deal, just for some transparency in what was being negotiated in the public's name. De Gucht's answer is misleading. Plenty of international agreements are negotiated with significantly greater transparency than what happened in ACTA, what's happening now with TPP and what's likely with TAFTA/TTIP. Governments can and should reveal the basic things they are negotiating for, to allow for some level of public comment. But that's not what happens. Things are negotiated in secret, in backrooms, with the help of industry lobbyists, and at the end we're given a "take it or leave it" document, which then (in most cases) is rammed through with little debate. It's the opposite of democracy.

Of course, ACTA showed that the public can rise up and take a stand against this, and Engstrom points out that if they did it for ACTA, they can do it again:

The positive thing about the whole ACTA affair was that there are now hundreds of thousands of European citizens who have, at least once, been demonstrating on the streets of various European cities against the trade agreement. There are lots of citizens now who take an interest in these agreements.

This is a very positive thing, but by insisting on the same kind of secrecy – only handing out secret documents to the members of the INTA Committee – the Commission is setting itself up for the same kind of failure. I would urge you to re-think this and become transparent.

It appears that De Gucht has decided not to re-think this, and to take the position that the ACTA response was an aberration. I'm sure that will play well with all the people who fought against ACTA.

Filed Under: acta, christian engstrom, eu, eu commission, eu parliament, karel de gucht, protests, secrecy, tafta, transparency, ttip

Bahrain Bans The Import Of Guy Fawkes Masks

from the building-a-martyr dept

No longer simply a clever story mechanic in a comic book, the Guy Fawkes mask featured in the film V For Vendetta is now a universal symbol of dissent. That dissent was depicted in the film to be primarily targeting overbearing governments and is also the reason many of the real world wearers don it. The very point of the mask, to me, is to at once remain anonymous while also breed solidarity with all who wear it. It says that the wrong being done is being done against all. In that way, the mask has become as sweet as it is admittedly creepy.

Aaaaaaaaaah!
Image source: CC BY 2.0

It's the fact that the point behind the mask was solidarity against oppression that made Dubai's move to outlaw the masks so misguided. But they are no longer the only nation to do so. Bahrain has now banned the import of the masks, trying desperately to stave off a 2-years running protest movement. The ban came from the country's commerce department, because apparently they don't think that masks can be made by their citizens. As The Independent noted:

Sadly, though, it is but a mask. And the thing about a masks is, you can print them, paint them or draw them yourself. Unless the minister plans to ban all such activity it seems an action as futile as the real Guy Fawkes's.

Not so much futile, in my opinion, as mega-back-firing. Bahrain has now perfectly exemplified an oppressive government by taking action against the symbol of resistance to that oppression. If they thought the masks bred solidarity, I'm guessing they haven't seen anything yet.

Filed Under: activism, anonymous, bahrain, free speech, guy fawkes, protests