Silenced: the choice between dissidence or living a 'normal' life

Here's a thought worth reflecting on: if you had the choice to make a decent wage, live a 'normal' untroubled life in exchange for silence and lack of political expression, would you do it? Is it worth fighting for a cause if it means the end of your livelihood, the harassment and blackmail of your family members, possible detention, torture, or even your death? This is the choice many people face every day living under repressive regimes and many choose the security of a maintaining a 'normal' life to openly challenging government malpractices, abuses, and corruption.

The New York Times published two stories recently illustrative of the costs of the choices dissidents face. In one story Azeri blogger and opposition activist Emin Milli was freed from prison only to find that his entire life had been robbed from him. Those who feared government retaliation for association to Milli cut off ties with anyone remotely linked with him. "His wife’s father had been fired from his government job because of Mr. Milli’s political activities. His own father had died while he was in prison. His wife, her own future in turmoil, had asked for a divorce. Mr. Milli spent much of this spring in his apartment, free time gaping before him like a chasm." More recently, the release of Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei appears to be a victory, however, the New York Times added that the artist has since "muzzled" himself. The New York Times quoted Nicholas Bequelin, a Human Rights Watch researcher in Hong Kong, as noting that the artist “has a Damocles sword hanging over his head. That means any time he opens his mouth, he puts himself in danger.”

Given the costs of challenging a repressive and corrupt government one would have to weigh when the benefits of posing a public challenge to the status quo outweighs the costs. Everyday, opposition activists, bloggers, and other dissidents in countries with limited freedoms are detained or killed with little outside support and only with a few international NGOs advocating campaigns on their behalf. Burma has a particularly nasty track record on the index of civil liberties according to Freedom House, garnering one of the worse ratings for freedom by the rights' organisation. More recently, in Syria and Bahrain, arbitrary detentions and torture of suspected opposition activists and their associates have become the norm. Yet the mass movements in the Arab world sparked in Tunisia has resulted in a change of popular consciousness whereby people realize that collectively by casting off fear they have power to cast off bad governments, revolution.

In countries where governments create an atmosphere of public fear through secret police mechanisms, arbitrary arrests and the threat of detainment or violence, individuals are careful not to challenge their governments because they don't know whether their neighbors are informants who would turn them in for dissent. On the flip side, what individuals living in such an atmosphere probably don't realize is that many of their neighbors are probably as equally dissatisfied with the current political state of affairs as they are but given that no one voices it that status quo prevails. Furthermore, repressive governments are usually quick to make examples of individual dissidents as seen in the case of Milli and Ai Wei Wei. Dissidents and opposition activists only have force if they're popularly backed, but this requires collective courage from an entire population and the willingness of individuals to put their neck on the line or an individual with such powerful charisma he or she inspires collective action. Such movements are not always successful as seen from the 2007 anti-government protests in Burma, the so-called 'Saffron Revolution' which ended with the military junta willing to talk to the opposition but unwilling to cede any power. A pyrrhic victory. More recently, Libya portrays the potentially heavy costs of challenging a dictator, all out bloody civil war.

We hail individual courage and martyrdom for a cause. In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi has become an international hero for wanting to bring democracy to her country and having paid the price with nearly 15 years of house arrest until her release in 2010. The more iconic image of Buddhist monk, Thích Quảng Đức, committing an act of self-immolation in protest of the persecution of Buddhist monks in Vietnam back in the 1960s is also very telling of the sympathy popular consciousness has for those dying for an idea, a human sacrifice in the name of protest. The public reveres those who can and will sacrifice their lives and livelihood if it means saying 'No' to a system which does not acknowledge the uniqueness of human individuality and giving us a life worth living.  It is the choice of defining what type of life is worth living and what gives us meaning through the recreation of our political systems and the right to express our beliefs openly.

Not everyone is willing to take the risks. When the choice is between your life, the life of your family and friends, keeping the roof over your head and having the job which will feed your children, most of us would pick survival over challenging a repressive regime or they would challenge the status quo but only from the apparent safety of exile. The question all dissidents must ask themselves is if what they believe in is worth the costs and, if it is, whether they have the courage, tenacity, and creativity to inspire others to join them.

The Dangers of Revolution

Keeping track of developments in Egypt and Tunisia post-revolution is watching history unfold and wondering if it will repeat itself or utterly pull a black swan. Revolutions have an uncanny way of developing and no one can ever predict what happens after the revolution. I am immensely happy to see the people of Egypt and Tunisia overthrow the yokes of their long-ruling dictators but I'm also aware toppling a dictator was the 'easy part.' Establishing political stability in these countries as well as a stable democracy will be the biggest challenge yet. A good dose of realism is necessary in regards to the political process in lieu of a power-vacuum. Democracy will require constant vigilance and public accountability, human security and economic prosperity to truly be stable. At worse, if democracy does not prevail these countries will end up the pickings between corrupt strongmen vying for power.

Right now, Egypt and Tunisia are in transition, a slow going, fragile and tense process with Egypt due to have parliamentary elections in September and Tunisia in July. Bahrain and Syria are under dictatorial pressures and major crackdowns with little being said and done by the international community in their regard, albeit today the US imposed sanctions on Syria in response to the ongoing violence. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are playing major balancing acts trying to satisfy their own discontent groups and seeking out regional stability. Libya is in civil war and Yemen has the potential to explode into a bloodbath as Saleh keeps pressing his time-buying tactics with the GCC.

Iraq is a vision of things that could potentially happen in these other countries if revolution succeeds. US forces are officially due to pull out of Iraq at the end of this year but what they leave behind is potentially disconcerting.  Iraq's leaders are still divided as to US troop withdrawal at the end of the year. Iraq has had to contend with its own local protests and often news from Iraq has been drowned out amid everything else going on in the region as well as recent limitations placed on free media. The curbing of press freedoms in Iraq either through legal means or outright intimidation and violence is already an ill omen for the country.

One might argue Iraq is a bad case to which to compare Egypt, Tunisia, and the other Arab countries in the middle of revolts or, in Libya's case, civil war. After all, Saddam Hussein was toppled by a foreign military intervention not by a revolution. Yet with its sectarian, tribal, and ethnic divisions and its energy resources, Iraq is a good deal similar to the other countries currently amid uprisings of the so-called Arab Spring and may well foreshadow the potential political arena these countries could face after downing their current governments. In theory, Iraq has a 'democracy' in place but in practice sectarian violence is ongoing as different groups continue to vie for power over the country. Corruption is rife and institutional structures to bring about much needed stability and enhance nationwide security are still weak. Consider the recent news: a wave of assassinations across the country has been blamed on Shi'ite militias. Security forces and police are divided by factions with set loyalties and the current problem lies in having control over security across the country. As of today, no consensus exists and no stable government has been formed.

Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt emphasize the need to be wary. The transitional 'unity' government established by PM Mohammed Ghannouchi in Tunisia leaves many of Ben Ali's former allies in key posts and opposition leaders are critical and impatient with the slow pace of change. On a positive note, Ghannouchi has announced reforms for total freedom of press, the release of prisoners of conscience and corruption investigations for those who amassed wealth under Ben Ali. It's been almost 100 days since Mubarak's ouster in Egypt,  the country has been in a state of lawlessness, emergency laws haven't yet been lifted, and the population look expectantly to Mubarak's prosecution. The ruling party was dissolved in April, but Egypt remains under military rule while in transition and many Egyptians fear a counter-revolution. Tensions between Christians and Muslims led to clashes at the over the alleged conversion of a Christian woman to Islam and tensions between pro-Mubarak supporters and anti-Mubarak protesters still exist.  Furthermore, liberal or secularist Tunisians and Egyptians cast a wary eye at Islamist parties who are beginning to exercise their political participation in each respective country.

The question is will these countries be able to balance freedom of political participation while still affording religious rights, protections for minority groups and women, anti-corruption measures, and freedom of the press? Or will the political processes taking place in Tunisia and Egypt degenerate to violence, or, God forbid, another dictatorship?

In the words of Alexander Herzen, a 19th-century Russian writer: "Beware the oppressors, beware the liberators." Political transformations are always riddled with chaos, in them lie both risk and opportunity.

Condoning Domestic Violence? TV, Books, & Silence - Why We All Should 'Tell Somebody'

This week Glamour magazine published the results of a national survey conducted to measure the extent of relationship violence against women. The survey concluded that 60 per cent of young women in America have been subject to some form of relationship abuse or violence. Moreover, 24 per cent have not told anyone they've been abused and 37 per cent of women who know someone in an abusive relationship never said anything to that person or law enforcement authorities about it. In lieu of these results, Glamour has kicked off a campaign called 'Tell Somebody' to raise awareness of domestic violence in America and to encourage friends to keep tabs on friends in potentially violent relationships.

Violence against women is a phenomena that transcends culture, race, and religion. If 60 per cent of women in a country that has made significant social and legal advancements on their behalf are subject to relationship violence, one can only imagine the actual statistics in countries lacking any such protections or support for women.

To make matters worse, recent publications of teen fiction are equating love to violence, not to mention certain controversial episodes of TV series based on the books that seem to highlight misogyny. Two years ago, criticisms were launched against the vampire Twilight series, noting that the protagonist Bella was engaged in an abusive romance with vampire Edward. More recently, Jezebel writer Margarett Hartmann, reported on the criticism the most recent episode of Gossip Girl garnered for equating violence as romance. Gossip Girl is another teen book series made into a TV show. In the most recent episode aired on May 2nd, a male character, Chuck, lunges a punch at his ex-girlfriend, Blair, misses and smashes the window behind her cutting her face. "Yet this isn't a story about relationship abuse," Hartmann reports, "the writers say it shows how much he loves her."

Yes, you read that right, the Executive Producer of Gossip Girl is defending the scene not as abuse but as the intensity of love. "The way we viewed it, I think it's very clear that Blair is not afraid in those moments, for herself. They have a volatile relationship, they always have, but I do not believe—or I should say we do not believe—that it is abuse when it's the two of them. Chuck does not try to hurt Blair. He punches the glass because he has rage, but he has never, and will never, hurt Blair. He knows it and she knows it, and I feel it's very important to know that she is not scared—if anything, she is scared for Chuck—and what he might do to himself, but she is never afraid of what he might do to her. Leighton and I were very clear about that." Let's backtrack for a minute and note that Chuck's character doesn't have a brilliant record. In the Season 1 pilot he attempts to rape two other female characters.

If this series is about love then love has gotten mixed up with all the wrong messages to girls and it is desensitizing them to relationship abuse and essentially 'normalizing' bad behavior as 'romantic.' To be fair, a lot of paperback adult romance novels have carried similar themes of rape and initial abuse as romantic.  However, if these shows and books are targeted to teenagers parents should engage their children in discussion drawing the line between fantasy and reality. The reality is 4 women a day die at the hands of their abusive partners in the United States, according to the 2011 Glamour survey.



Now let's consider domestic violence in countries outside the US. In 2008, NPR did a segment called Domestic Violence: A Silent Crisis in Russia. The Russian government estimates 14,000 women die at the hands of their partners each year but Russian police don't even classify abuse as a crime. Because it is culturally considered a 'private matter' no support systems exist in Russia to rehabilitate or protect women who are the victims of abusive relationships. A US Report on Human Rights Practices published in 2006 added that in Brazil domestic violence is 'widespread and underreported' although the government now appears to be taking legal steps to protect women. Spain has one of the highest rates of domestic violence in Western Europe where reportedly 73 women died at the hands of their partners in 2010. Similarly, in Portugal 15,904 complaints were registered concerning domestic violence in 2009, including 16 murders, according to Amnesty International. In 2004, Saudi broadcast journalist Rania al-Baz breached the social taboo and spoke out against domestic violence in Saudi Arabia after sustaining horrific injuries perpetrated by her husband. Her audacity and courage launched public debate in the Gulf on domestic violence.

Violence against women should cease being condoned whether by TV, books, movies, the passivity of governments, and the act of silence. Tell Somebody! Women (and enlightened men) need to fight back not just in the United States but in countries around the world.

_________________

Glamour Tell Somebody: Text TELLNOW to 85944 to make a $10 donation, and the Avon Foundation will match every dollar you donate to the National Domestic Violence Hotline. In 2010, 83,027 calls went unanswered by the hotline due to lack of funding— more than 1,590 calls per week. Glamour, in partnership with Avon, is seeking to raise $200,000.

Osama bin Laden is dead. Now what?

A recent cartoon by Carlos Latuff politically summarizing the impact of Osama bin Laden's death has gone viral. The cartoon depicts bin Laden's coffin wrapped in an American flag with George W. Bush weeping over it declaring he will be missed and Obama consoling him. Reactions to the cartoon vary greatly, some Americans probably even find it offensive. 

But consider the metaphor: for the past decade, Osama bin Laden has been at the center of American policy as the leader of Al Qaeda, the embodiment of terrorism.  Bin Laden gave the Bush administration justification to beat the war drums into Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11.  It created Guantanamo Bay flouting Geneva Conventions, established 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (see, Torture), and the CIA's Extraordinary Renditions.  It left millions of travellers facing long arduous security procedures at airports and Americans watching a fear-mongering conservative media with lack of any real substantial news reporting. It left America with new debates concerning personal privacy, civil liberties, government transparency and disclosure with the passage of the USA Patriot Act and later amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. Not to mention, Muslim Americans became victims of racism, bigotry and racial profiling across the country.

With a lynchpin for most of American policy for the past decade is gone, now what? Are we any safer than they were before? Does having the ambiguous enemy of 'terrorism' make any of us more secure with where American policy is heading for the next decade? 

Bin Laden's death is in some ways a relief. We can hope that many Bush-era policies will be dismantled. We can hope that American media, with recent criticisms by Hillary Clinton earlier this year, will start focusing on reporting facts and cease the spouting of talking heads that has only aggravated bigotry and been divisive rather than remedial in providing greater public accountability. We can also hope the racism and negative biases that have been stamped on Muslims in America will fade out. Ultimately, we can hope that the hatred, enmity, and divisions that Bin Laden created will also die with him.    

Terje Sorgjerd - Photographic Artist

I am in love with photographer and videographer, Terje Sorgjerd, producer of TSO Photography. This is an example of his most recent video on top of El Teide, Spain's highest mountain, one of the best places on earth to photograph the stars and home of Teide Observatories. Click on the links above to see his portfolio of work. Absolutely stunning.


The Mountain from Terje Sorgjerd on Vimeo.

Thrashing Media Freedoms & Arbitrary Arrests: Eye on Syria and Bahrain

The Trump v. Obama bonanza and the recent death of Osama bin Laden (carefully timed to be announced in the middle of The Apprentice) has been drowning out a lot of more important ongoing news. World Press Freedom Day has gone by this May 3rd and, lest we forget, journalists in Syria and Bahrain are facing rough odds. Paris-based Reporters Without Borders issued this year's list of press freedom "predators" this past Tuesday. Who's new to the list this year? The King of Bahrain.

Yesterday, Toby C. Jones published a great piece on the Arab Reform Bulletin, a publication by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, with an analysis and overview of Bahrain's censorship measures. To name a few, Al Wasat, Bahrain's leading independent paper is expected to close down on May 10 and, according to The Media Line, "the Bahrain Center for Human Rights reported on Tuesday that 68 journalists have been laid-off, arrested and threatened." Even medical personnel and staff are not immune to the repression. The Guardian reported that medics have become targets of retribution simply for helping injured protesters. The Media Line further added that about 50 medics would face military trial for 'subversive acts.'

In Syria, a similar pattern of response against media and opposition supporters has taken place. This past Wednesday, Al Jazeera confirmed that one of its journalists, Dorothy Parvaz, was arrested in Syria. Al Jazeera has launched an online campaign on Twitter with the tag #FreeDorothy as well as a Facebook page. Today, the Neiman Foundation, of which Parvaz is a fellow, has also called for her release. For the past month, arbitrary arrests of journalists and suspected opposition supporters has been the norm in Syria with the addition of violent crackdowns against protesters, especially in Deraa, which some observers are calling a 'massacre.'

If these regimes believe that arbitrary arrests, violent retribution, and thrashing media freedoms will maintain the status quo they really ought to reconsider their tactics. Historically, such actions only result in strengthening the resolve of those who genuinely seek political reform for their countries building up international criticism for the regime and sympathy for the victims of crackdowns. Is there any political sense in detaining journalists, bloggers and medics, shooting at unarmed protesters, and even using torture and blackmail to threaten opposition supporters? Do these tactics ever provide a desired outcome in long-run? While in the private sphere individuals are expected to act with civility towards one another, the same ethics and rules of behavior never apply in the political realm which is a sad sight. If the governments of Syria and Bahrain continue to take "desperate" measures against protesters and media representatives they will surely find themselves committing political suicide.

Favorite Coffee Haunts in London

Places I used to loiter in with extraordinary customer loyalty and eventually made some friends engage in my loyalties all for the sake of hours of conversation and good food and drink:

Café Concerto (High Street Kensington): a local chain, to be fair, luxe with some fabulous cake and coffees if you'd like to splurge!
I dig - a slice of the the Strawberry Gateaux.

Pain de Quotidien (South Kensington/Notting Hill): Another chain, however they have a brilliant brunch menu.
I dig - their brunch bread basket with assorted jams and sauces and their giant cup of hot chocolate.

The Troubadour (Earl's Court): famed as a haunt where some famous musicians got started back in the 50s and 60s, the Troubadour boasts an excellent selection of food and drink and an amazing happy hour deal, but be careful - they make their drinks strong.
I dig - the bucket of mussels, any of their cocktails, and they definitely have decent port wine.

Blushes (Chelsea/King's Road): best place to flirt and meet café regulars. I've had many adventures at Blushes. The owner is particularly warm and the staff endearing.
I dig - their milkshakes/smoothies, coffees, champagne

Market Coffee House (Spitalfields): One of the oldest coffeehouses in London, they serve primarily British fare but they have an excellent selection of pastries and deserts. Their breakfast menu is pretty fab too!
I dig - their Belgian hot chocolate, made with real melted chocolate.

Gallipoli Café (Angel): There are three!!! Personally, I recommend Gallipoli Bazaar if only for the shisha. Amazing Turkish fare, all kinds of spiced teas, Turkish coffee, and a complimentary coffee desert shot at the end. Great place to linger for late night conversation.
I dig - the Sucuk Kepab which is Turkish garlic sausage in pita, yogurt sauce and a secret recipe sauce. To die for.

The Tinderbox (Angel): A hole in the wall coffeeshop by the movie theatre but with an expansive menu. Excellent coffee, milkshakes and deserts.
I dig - Any of their coffees, and definitely their chocolate milkshake is great.

'Body Politic': Culture Wars Unveiled

The French niqab ban has aroused a high level of controversy in Europe as well as among women everywhere. Some cheer it on as a defense of feminism and the gains of the feminist revolution, others view it as an attack on Muslims in Europe. Personally, I don't believe a government should have the right to legislate what a man or woman can or can't wear whether it's in Paris or Riyadh yet we often take for granted norms concerning clothing (i.e. you can't go out naked, it's socially unacceptable and even illegal in most countries). I would like to think the niqab ban is more of a security issue than anything having to do with sexual mores as it's far better reasoning to ban a face-veil than arguments for 'female emancipation.'

What's interesting about the debate is the ire it's rousing among different groups of feminists who frame female emancipation in entirely different terms. Personally, I believe in a woman's free will and her right and responsibility to exercise it. Yet, ironically, 'free will' may not exist at all given that we are social creatures often taking for granted the fact that one of our chief motivations is to 'fit in' with whatever group our identities are pegged. But shouldn't adult women be allowed the right to define their identities and values? It's easy for many academics to quickly tack women to a certain set of socio-cultural circumstances based on what religion, ethnicity, or family political leanings they were born into and try to neatly divide them between the 'oppressed' and the 'liberated.' I believe these generalizations, and dare I say stereotypes, underestimate the ability of humans to reshape or cast off identities at will.

The counter-argument is that 'free will' is exceedingly limited or even perhaps an illusion. When a girl grows up and is subjected to community standards and peer pressure to 'cover up', harassed by men and threatened with 'hell fire' by right-wing preachers if they don't do so, where is 'free will'? Yet women are not powerless and voiceless. A woman can take risks to fight against anything they don't like or agree with. When a woman reaches adulthood she is neither an incapable puppet of her family or community nor is she a victim unless she chooses to be one. She is not bound by circumstance or culturally-determined. One can turn this argument around and equally say that in a hyper-sexualized liberal Western culture women face peer pressure to be thin and sexy and compete with each other in these terms. Does that make them 'victims' objectified by men?

A really interesting story came out today on the first Turkish woman to pose for Playboy in Germany. The Turkish actress and model, Sila Sahin, was raised Muslim. The author of the Die Welt article notes: "Because the legitimate debate over if or when the display of naked female bodies starts to hurt female dignity or, on the contrary, promotes it, presumes the ability of the woman to decide for herself whether she wants her naked body to be depicted or not."

In regards to her decision to pose for Playboy, she stated:

"For me, these pictures are an act of liberation from the cultural constraints of my childhood," says Sahin. "I have tried to please everybody for too long. With these images I want to show young Turkish women that it is OK to live the way they are; that it is not cheap to show skin; that you should pursue your goals instead of bowing down to others."

Some feminist groups are aghast at this statement and see Sahin's actions as an act of bowing down to please men. I see Sahin's actions as an exercise of her ability to reshape her identity. Can we identify Sahin as a Turk, a Muslim, an actress and a nude model? Or do we view her as hypocritical for having identities that are apparently inconsistent with one another? Why does a nude female body provoke such controversy? Equally, on the other end of the spectrum, why should covering up a female body arouse such controversy?

Conservative Muslims would declare Sahin no longer a Muslim by virtue of not following regulations on modesty - she's a blasphemer. She has drawn criticism not only from her own family but also from the conservative Turkish Muslim community. Yet, there are Catholics who use condoms and engage in sex before marriage, yet still identify themselves as Catholics. There are also Christians who are pro-choice and pro-gay, and still identify themselves as Christian. Identity is not a neat little box where all our beliefs need be consistent with each other. People pick and chose every day what they believe in and what defines who they are and many don't care to be pinned down by social or cultural conventions based on their birth, family origins, or religion. In regards to women, society always seeks to define her in terms of the mores framing her sexuality, whether implicitly or explicitly. 

Many arguments and laws on abortion, dress, or regulating sexual behaviour assume women are incapable of making their own adult decisions or of wielding responsibility over their own free will. Yet, our judgments concerning a woman's choices over her sexual determination are not solely culturally-defined, but the result of hard-wired by evolutionary biases. Those biases inform our cultures, social mores, and even religious regulations. They are the cause of a collective madonna/whore complex across cultures. 

Different groups have entirely opposing views as to what 'oppresses' or 'liberates' women, values seemingly at odds with one another but I would argue there is a striking similarity in the histories of double standards globally. These arguments have historically been defined by men and more recently women who believe they know what's 'right' for other women. The danger lies that if the other side is right then the social mores of one's own side is worthy of stigmatization - a flawed logic. 

When discussing 'women's liberation' fingers often point at conservative countries such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. Yet consider that in the United States, in Texas, up until 1974 there was a law in the books that allowed a husband the right to kill his wife if he caught her in flagrante delicto with a lover. But this law did not function the other way around. A woman did not have the right to murder her husband or his paramour if he was caught cheating on her. Sexual double standards transcend cultures. Cultures around the world are  similar in their sexual double standards, distinctions existing only in gradations.

We shouldn't rely on experts to make blanket-statements defining any one group, especially in regards to women. It's easy to forget that individuals can cast off their former identities and recreate new ones and chose to live by entirely different values that may have been anathema to the communities to which they were born. It may not be a simple matter to drop one's family values for new ones but it's not an impossible task. Women are free agents of their own destinies and not necessarily bound by culture, religion, or politics.

CNN's Freedom Project: Ending Modern-Day Slavery

CNN is hosting a special investigative blog dedicated to ending modern-day slavery. The Freedom Project contains video clips, articles, and resources to better inform the public concerning the facts of human trafficking, child, and sex slavery.

Even better, CNN has a section titled How You Can Help emphasizing the role technology plays to raise awareness and also raise money to help the organizations taking on this cause.

The Internet in Society: Empowering and Censoring Citizen?

First saw it on Mahmood's Den, another brilliant gem by RSA Animate:

Story Highlights: Anti-Corruption Warriors & More Blogger Arrests

Really loving some of the investigative pieces The New Yorker has come out with this month:

A Murder Foretold: The story of the murder of lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg who fought against Guatemalan corruption and violence. Rosenberg was murdered while hotly pursuing justice for the violent murder case of Lebanese businessman, Khalil Musa. Upon his death he left a video recording with a former spy chief accusing the Guatemalan President and his wife for the murders of Musa and himself. The video was posted on YouTube and tweeted resulting in public protests and launching a major investigation by the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) Absolutely riveting.

Net Impact: The story of Alexey Navalny, lawyer and blogger, who is fighting Russia's government corruption head on through his blog RosPil which utilizes the Russian public examine documents and to call out dodgy business deals and government tenders.

Recent news clippings of interest:

UAE blogger who called for reform taken from his apartment - CNN reported that Ahmed Mansoor was abducted from his apartment by 10 men who also confiscated his lap top and his passport.

Egypt blogger arrests set "dangerous precedent" - Reuters reported that Maikel Nabil was arrested for "insulting the military" and faces three years in prison.

'Jasmine' Blogger Arrested - The Standard reported the arrest of writer and blogger Ran Yunfei for challenging the Communist Party.

Crowd Intelligence: The Case for Supporting a Free Web Globally

In a previous post regarding civil liberties, I mentioned that philosophically one could argue that total freedom of information could reasonably be dangerous to society especially in democracies where lines can be blurred between what constitutes a criminal action versus what is simply freedom of expression (the ambiguous term 'terrorist' being one such issue). Although, I suggested we should look at what actions constitute the intent to actually harm or impede on the rights of others versus actions that promote public accountability of one's government policies.

Currently, in Bahrain where protests are ongoing, the government has violently cracked down on opposition supporters and the media. The Bahrain Human Rights Council claims that 370 people have been arrested since the imposition of the emergency law on March 15. These include bloggers, human rights activists, and journalists. On March 28, the military public prosecutor imposed a media gag, banning "any publishing, through print, audio, video and online media, based on the requirements of discretion and commitment to the principle of confidential investigation." Here we have a government which instead of empowering and serving its people seeks to serve its own selfish interests by suppressing them. This is an unwise policy that is likely to backlash in the long-run. Moral realism and political karma will eventually prevail. No government can succeed or have stability for the long-term without seeking to serve the population on which its legitimacy depends, whether it's a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy.

Consider this, right now the Internet is not a free medium globally. Censorship imposition and information regulation varies in different countries and government monitoring is quite common. I am not against monitoring the web if it is to prevent crime with proper privacy laws in place to protect innocent individuals. However, if monitoring is utilized to root out, blackmail, arrest, or even kill political opposition leaders such technology should not be sold by democratic countries to non-democratic ones. 

A free web benefits everyone politically, socially, and culturally because it empowers individuals. If people globally were to have open access to information, without political censorship, exchange ideas, have public forums of free debate then collectively the Internet becomes a powerful catalyst to transform societies simply by granting individuals the responsibility to verify fact from fiction and to organize collective decision-making in keeping their own governments accountable. Of course this depends on a population that has access to the Internet and who are literate, something that should be encouraged and promoted. Above all, greater civil liberties on the Internet also means inspiring greater creativity in individuals through collective exchange. This has massive impact not merely among artistic and literary groups, but also among corporate, business, and civil society groups who can connect through the Internet. Problems that have gone unresolved through isolated decision-making can benefit by access to crowd intelligence.

In 2004, James Surowiecki published a fascinating book The Wisdom of Crowds. Surowiecki argues that  the aggregation of information in groups results in decisions that are often better made than any single individual in the group. He argues that four elements are necessary for a 'wise crowd': 1. diversity of opinion, 2. independence of opinion (i.e. one's opinion is not influenced by others), 3. decentralization (i.e. people can draw from their unique local knowledge), and 4. aggregation (i.e. mechanisms are in place to turn private judgments into a collective decision). 

In corporate cultures, even among NGOs and in government departments, decision-making can be easily isolated, 'cliquefied', and threatened by the possibility of group-think. Surowiecki addresses the cases where crowd intelligence has failed: where opinions in a group are homogenous rather than diverse, where hierarchies are too strict, where groups are protective of their 'turf' or specialization and don't allow outsiders to contribute, where decisions are imitated, and where emotionalism or herd instinct can take hold. 

Now consider the massive resource potential of collective intelligence the Internet provides if it were a free medium globally. People across the world could easily provide for at least three of Surowieki's conditions for a 'wise crowd.' Already, mediums such as Wikipedia and Twitter allow people to cross reference information, cite sources, share news and opinion, and debate dubious points. Twitter and Facebook have been cited as factors helping aid the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. Although their influence has been questioned in regards to the current Arab revolutions taking place, one can't underestimate them as powerful tools or organization or to rally public opinion among a younger generation of net users.

Governments do themselves a disservice through the imposition of censorship and fail to tap a significant resource when they limit forums of information exchange. What if these online crowds were properly utilized to resolve major political, social, and economic problems globally instead of relying solely on 'experts'? The possibilities the Internet provides for this is endless. A politically uncensored Internet globally could well transcend language barriers and provide for collective creativity and problem-solving as well as for social, cultural, and political transformation.