Monday, July 27, 2009

Yasmin Ahmad 1958-2009


Dear folks, there seems no end to the bad news and this was one of the worse and saddest. What a shock to all who loved her films and her ads for Petronas.

I have known Yasmin a long time, at least 20 years. I wouldn't say we were friends but we knew each other and certainly have many friends in common. Occasionally we have had disagreements but talent is talent and there is no doubt that Yasmin had oodles of that. Even though some said she could be too soppy, she did have a way of capturing the right note to touch our hearts.

This Petronas ad, the Love of Tan Hong Ming, is one of my favourites:



Perhaps one thing few people knew about Yasmin is that she was also a talented singer and pianist. Long long ago we used to listen to her sing jazzy numbers in that warm sultry voice of hers.

Now she is no more. Most Malaysians I am sure send their condolences to her family and wish that she may rest in peace. Unfortunately there are some truly low creatures at that despicable rag called Kosmo who are determined to defame her and her legacy. The family is devastated. Yasmin has hardly been buried and Kosmo has already started to publish all sorts of trash about her. To what end, except to sell their rag and make their readers even more stupid. Instead of honouring someone who has believed so much in what Malaysia and Malaysians can be, Kosmo has chosen instead to sully her reputation. Is there no decency among the editors and reporters there?

If you are equally disgusted by Kosmo, please protest and call for a boycott of them. Is this how we remember those who have served their country well? Is this OneMalaysia?

Monday, July 20, 2009

Re-Training to Develop Keinsafan?


Re-training for Umno leaders

SHAH ALAM: All Umno leaders, including the top brass, will be undergoing ‘re-training’ programmes aimed at promoting a more dynamic mindset in championing the rights of all Malaysians, party deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said.

Describing it as a “back-to-school session”, Muhyiddin said it was part of the party’s revitalisation plan to ‘inject’ a new spirit into party leaders in preparation for the next general election.

“We want to sensitise the leaders to fight for all Malaysians, not only the Malays.

“We also want them to adopt a people-friendly approach,” he said, hinting that the 13th general election could be held earlier than the March 2013 deadline.

The party’s supreme council members would start the ball rolling by attending a retreat at Ilmu (the Umno Empowerment Training Institute) in Janda Baik in the next few days, he said.

“The top leaders will have a pow-wow session to identify weaknesses and draw action plans to strengthen and revitalise the party,” he said, adding that a self-reflection session was also included in the training module.

Speaking at the opening of the Shah Alam Umno division delegates’ conference, and later when closing the Tanjung Karang Umno meeting yesterday, Muhyiddin said Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi would head a committee in charge of formulating the training modules.

“After the supreme council members, we will extend the programme to all states to train division and branch leaders.

“We hope to train as many leaders as possible within the next two years. We want to project the right image, one that is humble and people-centric,” he said. (So they know they aren't?)

The programme would also promote unity among the members.

Muhyiddin, who is also Barisan Nasional deputy chairman, said all the component parties in the coalition must initiate reform plans to keep it formidable. (Is that 'formidable' in the French meaning ie fantastic?

Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said the training programmes were aimed at preparing the party leaders for the changing political landscape.

Times have changed, and we must change with the times. We want leaders to be more proactive. We want them to think of themselves not only as leaders for Umno members but also for a multi-racial community.

“We must remind the leaders that this is a multi-racial country, and we must be sensitive to what the people want,” he said. (You don't say...!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, I'd actually be excited if I could actually believe that this 're-training' was real. For a start, having Zahid Hamidi work out the training modules doesn't bode well because I haven't seen his track record in this type of thing. Wasn't he made a Minister of Religion in the last Cabinet? Is that suppose to qualify him?

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Could This Be Our Stephen Lawrence case?


Politicians unanimous over setting up of Royal Commission

PETALING JAYA: Leaders from both sides of the political divide were united in calling for the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the death of political aide Teoh Beng Hock.

Wanita MCA chief Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun wants the Government to, not only set up the commission but, release its findings to the public.

She said the police and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) should conduct a thorough investigation into Teoh’s death. He was found dead nine floors below the MACC office on Thursday.

“It is incumbent on the MACC to furnish the public with the entire details and circumstances during the time its officials were with Teoh to show that the commission has nothing to hide,” she said in a statement yesterday.

The details, Chew said, should include from the moment MACC raided his office, seized his laptop, the questioning, his release at 3.45am and till his nap on the settee at the MACC office purportedly at 6am.

MCA spokesman Gan Ping Sieu agreed, saying that the Government should set up an independent committee to investigate the case.

“MACC should take full responsibility over the matter and the police should take immediate action to investigate the case thoroughly,” he said in a statement.

MCA vice-president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said the MACC should quickly clear the air over Teoh’s death to restore public confidence in the commission.

Noting that MCA was “very concerned” about the incident, he added: “The public has the right to know why Teoh’s interrogation had dragged on till after 3am,” Liow told reporters after meeting hawkers at the Bagan MCA division office yesterday.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said a Royal Inquiry was needed to investigate the case in an objective manner.

He said in his blog yesterday that regardless of Teoh’s political stance, the incident should be viewed as a loss of a human life.

MIC Youth said having a Royal Commission to probe the case would help to clear all doubts. Its coordinator T. Mohan said the Government should show that it had nothing to hide.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said Pakatan Rakyat leaders called for the setting up of the commission, adding that they had registered with the MACC director their strongest protest, and condemned the manner in which investigations were carried out.

Speaking to reporters after a Pakatan leadership council meeting last night, Anwar said Pakatan urged the rakyat to pay their last respects to Teoh at 10am at his family home in Alor Gajah, Malacca, on Monday.

DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said the case was an “acid test” to determine whether there was transparency and justice in Malaysia.



Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Are We Helping or Are We Not?

Hi folks, below is an article by Dr Bakri Musa, a Malaysian surgeon residing in the US, who ften writes about education. I think this is one of the more erudite essays on this very emotional subject of the PPMSI.



Chaining The Children of the Poor

M. Bakri Musa

The ancient Chinese bound the feet of their baby daughters so they would grow up with deformed tiny feet, thus limiting their mobility and participation in life outside the little world of their homes. These women would then be totally dependent on their men.

In rescinding the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English, the government is likewise binding the intellectual development of our children. They and future generations of Malaysians would grow up with warped intellect. They would then be totally dependent on the government, just as ancient Chinese women with tiny feet were on their men.

My friend and fellow commentator Azly Rahman has a more apt and colorful local metaphor; we are condemning future generations to the Pekan Rabu economy, capable only of selling pirated versions of Michael Jackson albums. That would be the extent of their entrepreneurial prowess and creative flair. They are only subsistence entrepreneurs and ‘copy cat’ creators.

Make no mistake about it. The government’s professed concerns for the poor and those from rural areas notwithstanding, reversing the current policy would adversely and disproportionately impact them. The rich and those in the cities have a ready escape; the rich through private English classes, urban children from the already high levels of English in their community.

The most disadvantaged will be the poor kampong kids. That means Malay children. Thus we have the supreme irony if not perversity of the champions of Ketuanan Melayu actively pursuing a policy that would ensure Malay children be perpetually trapped economically and intellectually. I thank Allah that I grew up at a time when the likes of Muhyyuddin were not in charge of our education system. Otherwise I would have been trapped in my kampong.

The idiocy of the new move is best illustrated by this one startling example. In 2012 when the new plan will be implemented, students in Form IV will be taught science and mathematics in Malay, after learning the two subjects in English for the past nine years. Then two years later when they will be entering Sixth Form or the Matriculation stream, they will again have to revert to English.

Pupils in the vernacular schools would have it worse. They would learn the two subjects in their mother tongue during their primary school years, then switch to Malay for the next five while in secondary school, and then switch again, this time to English, in Sixth Form and university!

Had these policymakers done their homework and diligent downstream analysis, such idiocies would not crop up. Then again this is what we would expect from our civil servants. They have been brought up with their minds bound up; they cannot think. They have depended on others to do the thinking for them.

Najib Razak’s flip-flopping on this major national issue eerily reminds me of similar indecisiveness and lack of resolve of his immediate predecessor, Abdullah Badawi. No wonder he supports Najib in this policy shift. Najib should not take comfort in that, unless he expects a similar fate as Abdullah’s. Abdullah was kicked out by his party; with Najib, it would be the voters who would be kicking him out. Public sentiments are definitely against this policy switch.

Failure of Policy Versus Failure of Implementation

The cabinet reversed course because it deemed the policy did not produce the desired results. However, in arriving at this pivotal decision the cabinet failed to address the fundamental question on whether the original policy was flawed or its implementation ineffective.

It just assumed the policy to be flawed. Muhyyuddin and his senior officers relied heavily on the 2005 UNESCO Report which suggests that “‘mother tongue first’ bilingual education” may (my emphasis) be the solution to the dilemma of members of minority linguistic groups in acquiring knowledge.

Muhyyuddin and his advisers seriously misread the Report. It was concerned primarily with the dilemma at the societal level of members of a linguistic minority having to learn the language of the majority (“national language”) versus the need to maintain linguistic diversity generally and minority languages specifically. UNESCO was rightly concerned with the rapid disappearance of languages spoken by small minority groups. The report was not addressing specifically the learning of science and mathematics.

Malay language is not at risk of disappearing; it is the native tongue of literally hundreds of millions. To extrapolate the UNESCO recommendations for Malay language is a gross oversimplification and misreading of the report.

The UNESCO Report does not address the issue of when and how best to introduce children to bilingual education. Later studies that focused specifically on the pedagogical and psychological aspects instead of the sociological and political have shown that children are quite capable of learning multiple languages at the same time. Even more remarkable is that the earlier they are exposed to a second language the more facile they would be with that language. They would also learn that second language much faster; hence second language even at preschool.

The acquisition of bilingual ability at an early age confers other significant cognitive advantages. These have been documented by clinical studies with functional MRIs (imaging studies of the brain). Malaysia should learn from these more modern studies and the experiences of more advanced societies, not from the UNESCO studies of backward tribes of Asia.

The other basis for the cabinet’s decision was ‘research’ by local half-baked and politically-oriented pseudo academics. They should be embarrassed to append their names to such a sophomoric paper. The quality is such that it will never appear in reputable journals. As for the Ministry’s own internal ‘researchers,’ remember that they came out within months of the policy’s introduction in 2003 documenting the ‘impressive’ improvements in students’ achievements!

The one major entity that would be severely impacted by the cabinet’s decision is our universities. Yet our Vice-Chancellors have remained quiet and detached in this important national debate. They have not advised the cabinet nor lead the public discussions. Again that reflects the caliber of leadership of our major institutions.

Had the cabinet decided that the policy was essentially sound but that the flaws were with its implementations, then measures other than rescinding it would be the appropriate response. This would include recruiting and training more English-speaking teachers and devoting more hours to the subject.

What surprised me is that when Mahathir introduced the policy in 2003, he was supported by his cabinet that included Najib, Muhyyuddin, Hishamuddin, and over a dozen of current ministers who now collectively voted to reverse the policy. Likewise, the policy was fully endorsed too by UMNO’s Supreme Council then. Like the cabinet, many of those earlier members are still in that body today. Yet today the Council also voted to disband the policy. Muhyyuddin, Hishamuddin and the others have yet to share with us why they changed their minds. The conditions that prompted the introduction of the policy back then are still present today. This reversal will do not change that.

Najib, Muhyyuddin and Hishamuddin are “lallang leaders,” they bend with the slightest wind change. Unlike Margaret Thatcher’s famed resolve of “This lady is not for turning,” with Najib, Muhyyuddin, et al., all you have to do to make them undertake a U turn would be to blow slightly in their faces. Blow a bit harder and they would scoot off with their tails between their legs. These leaders will never lead us forward.

This reversal will not solve the widening achievement gap between urban and rural students. The cabinet has yet to put forth new ideas on ameliorating that problem. So, just as ancient Chinese women were physically handicapped because of their bound feet, rural or more specifically Malay children will continue to be intellectually handicapped by their warped and small minds, the consequence of this policy shift. Perhaps that is the real objective of this policy reversal, the shackling of the intellectual development of our young so they will forever be dependent on their ‘leaders.’


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p/s I am away on holiday with only sporadic internet connections. So please forgive the relatively long gaps between posts. Thanks.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Pi Mai, Pi Mai, Dok Tang Tu Jugak

Published: Wednesday July 8, 2009 MYT 2:42:00 PM
Updated: Wednesday July 8, 2009 MYT 3:55:24 PM

Math and Science back to Bahasa, mother tongues

KUALA LUMPUR: The Cabinet has decided that the medium of instruction for Maths and Science will revert to Bahasa Malaysia in national schools and mother-tongue languages in national-type schools from 2012 onwards.

The reversal of the Teaching of Math and Science in English (PPSMI) policy will be done in stages, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said on Wednesday.

He however added that there will be greater emphasis on learning the English language.

English literature will be re-introduced, as will subjects on grammar and composition.

Beginning 2012, students in Year One and Year Four in primary schools, and Form One and Form Four in secondary schools, will learn Math and Science in Bahasa Malaysia.

The change will not affect those in Form Six and Matriculation.

The two subjects will be taught in two languages until 2014 for other students, he said.

“The gap between rural and urban students has widened since PPSMI started.

Only 19.2% of secondary teachers and 9.96% of primary teachers were sufficiently proficient in English,” he said, explaining the Government’s decision to revert to the old system.

On efforts to emphasise the learning of English, the number of English teachers would be increased by 13,933 -- retirees would be hired, as well as foreigners if need be.

Primary schools will also increase English classes by 90 minutes a week.

There have been calls from various groups for the policy to revert to before 2003, when the subjects were taught in Bahasa Malaysia in national schools, and either in Chinese or Tamil in national-type schools.

The issue has seen a rare alliance between Malay and Chinese educationists, who are against the switch, although there are also calls by many parents and entrepreneurs for English to be maintained.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, this is indeed a sad day. Sad because obviously we don't have visionary leadership in this country, able to see far into the future and determined to do what is best for our children. Sad, because the leadership that we have do not have the spine to stand up to minority interests. Sad, because our children are sacrificed because the BN wants to win one by-election (which they will probably STILL lose anyway).

I have been crying for policies that are based on empirical evidence. So now they throw in some studies they have done on the implementation of the PPMSI and apparently it shows that rural children are not doing as well as urban children. But, when rural schools are not as well equipped as urban ones, is that not to be expected? If you look at performance overall, doesn't that hold true anyway? Why should English be made the excuse for inequal distribution of resources between rural and urban schools? Surely when you see poor results from rural schools, what needs to be done is to improve the teaching in those schools. Not reverse an entire policy and bring urban kids down along with everyone else.

What is this, policy of the lowest common denominator?

I think the Government is being very short-sighted. Reversals of policy are never a good idea, especially when you haven't really seen its final outcomes. If nothing else, it shows inconsistency and lack of commitment to the long run.

The main thing is this: children learn better when they are young. Even if now there is to be more emphasis on English, rural kids will still be disadvantaged because they will simply not have the resources to really learn the language. My older daughter did her primary schooling in a national school entirely in BM but it did not matter because at home we speak English and there are any number of English books for her to read. Now she is trilingual (along with French). But kids out in the rural areas are simply not going to have those resources at home. So if they are poorly taught at school, then there is no hope for them ever to compete with their urban counterparts. That urban-rural gap will persist.

And if they are going to hire 13,933 English teachers, why not make them teach Maths and Science especially in rural areas since proficiency is the language is not the issue with them?

An Indonesian friend of mine just got transfered to Belgium along with her two young children. The older child aged 10 started taking French lessons just before she left and is now fully immersed in a French-medium school in Brussels. Her French is getting better by the day. That is the only way to learn and she is immediately advantaged over my younger daughter of the same age because she has one extra language, besides Bahasa Indonesia and English.

Speaking English is necessary in today's world because it is the global language. Everywhere around the world, people are learning English because that is the only way they can take their place in the world, and communicate who they are. Would we even know what the Japanese are developing every day if someone didn't translate their inventions into English and we could read about them? How would we know what are the latest developments in medicine if we didn't understand English? Would we always have to rely on someone else to translate for us?

I'm not saying that our own languages are not important. Of course they are. But can they compete with English in the world today? Unless we commit to translating every bit of knowledge there is into our languages, then we are cutting ourselves off from knowledge. To what end?

Or perhaps, we should just admit one thing. We don't really want to compete with anyone else in the world. We just want to live in our little kampungs and speak to our neighbours who have to be exactly like us, and be content with that. We don't want to know what's going on in the world and if we need any new technology, well, we'll just take whatever someone else tells us is good for us. Oh, and we won't even go to any international meetings of, say, Muslim scholars, because even those meetings are held in English.

I want to know one thing: if someone suggested that we learn Maths and Science in Arabic, would everyone be falling all over themselves to change the policy again?

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Armed Robber to Sweep Roads, Clean Toilets?



Robber, spared the cane, to start community service next week

KUALA LUMPUR: An armed robber, spared the cane, following a sentence revision by a High Court judge, will start his 200 hours of community service next week.

Sales promoter Muhammad Syafiq Abd Wahab, 20, would first undergo 20 hours of counselling and then 30 hours of motivational counselling, said welfare officer Muhd Razmee Abdul Razak.

This would be followed by 150 hours of skill-orientated programmes which would be done in joint-venture with the City Hall.

"We got the power from the City Hall to let those who were ordered by court to carry out the community service to do painting, cleaning parks, night markets and toilets and many other jobs," he said.

On holidays, he said the department would also aske the offender to carry out community service works at their own shelter home - Rumah Kanak-Kanak Tengku Budriah in Cheras.

"They will engage in programmes which will make the children at the shelter home happy," he said outside the courtroom after the case was called up for mention at the Sessions Court here on Tuesday.

He said he would prepare a progress report after a three-month period based on the community service done by Syafiq and submit it to the Sessions Court to look into his progress.

High Court judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah had on Monday ordered Syafiq to only carry out 200 hours of community service for armed robbery.

Justice Mohamad Zabidin had ruled that the sentence of 10 strokes of light caning together with the community service order meted out by the Sessions Court on June 26 was illegal and that a judge was not supposed to be an executioner.

Sessions Court judge Zainal Abidin Kamarudin had earlier ruled that he would personally cane Syafiq 10 times in the presence of his parents.

Justice Mohamad Zabidin said the Sessions Court judge had erred when he made such an order on the youthful offender.

Justice Mohamad Zabidin remitted the case back to the Sessions Court judge Tuesday on grounds that the community service order was lacking in details.

He ruled that the court must address its mind on what type of community service is appropriate for the offender and specify it in the order.

At the outset of the Sessions Court proceedings Tuesday, Muhd Razmee told judge Zainal Abidin that his department would call Syafiq and his parents between July 13 and 15 to arrange for a meeting with a counsellor.

"The counsellor will observe Syafiq behaviour, whether it is aggressive or passive. We will arrange a schedule for the implementation of the community service order after the counselling sessions," he said.

Muhd Razmee said Syafiq would be punished to carry out the community service during his free time.

Upon hearing this, Judge Zainal Abidin said he would not interfere with the administration affairs and handed over to the welfare department to arrange an appropriate schedule for Syafiq to carry out community service as required under Section 293 (1) (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Zainal Abidin also told Syafiq that "he was lucky".

His lawyer Nik Mohamed Ikhwan Nik Mahamud agreed that it would not be appropriate for Syafiq to carry out the community service before attending the counselling session.

Syafiq's father Abd Wahab Abdul Rahman, 66, told The Star that he would let his son pursue his interest to be a mechanic.

"He is embarassed over the whole thing after being teased by his friends and I believe he has learned his lessons. It is a blessing in disguise for him," said Abd Wahab, who came to court with Syafiq mother Rosnah Mahmud, 61, said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am all for community service as penalty for those committing lesser crimes but ARMED robbery? What exactly was he armed with? A knife? A gun? Therefore the intention was to harm someone while he robbed?

For that, he gets to sweep roads, clean toilets and play with orphans?

People who get caught for khalwat or having peaceful protests have to spend time in jail if they can't pay the fine and this guy goes free, to perform his community service in his free time? And he's only embarrassed at getting caught ROBBING someone??? Not mortified??

What is the matter with these people??

Monday, July 6, 2009

Can (or Should) We Limit Freedom of Speech?

Freedom of Speech Can't be Unlimited

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, The Independent

We must define the boundaries of what is acceptable on the internet

Monday, 6 July 2009

Libertarians and free expression campaigners were jubilant last week. An obscenity case was due to be heard against Darryn Walker, a 35-year-old civil servant who had posted an essay on a website, titled Girls (scream) Aloud, imagining the sexual torture and mutilation of the each of the women who make up the pop group.

In his fantasy, they are slashed and dismembered and, according to Don Grubin a consultant psychiatrist, the singers "are sexually aroused in spite of and, indeed, because of the humiliation, pain and domination". This apparently modern erotica known as "popslash". Cool, man.

The case was dropped and is celebrated as another important knock-back for censorship. Sadly I felt unable to join in with the good cheer. Something is deeply troubling about the validation given to Walker and those who think they have the right to say whatever they wish and excitedly share with others the thrills of extreme violence against women.

The formidable Geoffrey Robertson QC (who rose to fame fighting the case brought against Oz) is very pleased indeed. Jo Glanville, editor of Index Against Censorship (an organisation I support but not blindly) righteously asserts: "The prosecution should not have been brought in the first place. Since the landmark obscenity cases of the 1960s and 1970s, writers have been protected so they can explore the extremes of human behaviour. This case posed a serious threat to that freedom."

Hmmm. Is that so? So If Walker had written, say, the same fantasy but on the sexual torture of Anne Frank, would Index have backed him? Or if a wannabe Muslim fiction writer had done the same, would he have the right to "explore the extremes of human behaviour"? I hope the answer to both these hypothetical questions is No.

Freedom of speech is a precious right, fought for in Europe over many centuries, and still denied to billions of humans – as we have just witnessed in Iran and know to be true of China, African and Arab nations, Burma, and so on. Granted that in countries where the state oppresses and totally controls its populations, the people must find ways to subvert the controllers and criticise their oppressors.

Whistleblowers in institutions must also grab that freedom, so too family members thwarted by their own. But it is never an absolute entitlement, not unless you believe it is worth the resulting social discord and terrible individual wreckage.

We all exercise judgements on what we say or don't say in public. You stop yourself because you don't want to hurt people, or to instigate a street brawl. There are laws that sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater good- harmony between races, public safety, social gentility and so on. We accept libel and defamation laws (hated by hacks of course), national security injunctions and establishment secrets (loved by politicians) and underpinning all that is a general understanding of what would be inappropriate and hateful if expressed in public.

Not everybody agrees on where the lines should be, but most know there are lines. These restraints belong to a pre-internet era and cannot contain or temper the limitlessness of the web. And yet we must, over the next few years, define the boundaries of what is acceptable in this brazen new world.

It is all very well for Mr Walker to feel like a champion of human rights but what about the women in Girls Aloud, who are real, not imagined, and whose slow death can be enjoyed by pervs and killers? They have families, mums, perhaps, lovers, who too will be feeling caught in a web of horrors. The legal state is unsettled. Meanwhile the internet is exploding and explosive, having a real impact on real lives.

Last week I found myself being tailed through town by a weird bloke, who kept stopping me, once or twice seizing my elbow. Why, he demanded, did I want, British soldiers killed and hurt? This question has been coming at me via email for a few months. I couldn't understand why.

Someone told me my Wikipedia entry had quoted the NeoCon Doug Murray, who had attacked me in a book for writing: "There have been times when I have wanted more chaos, more shocks, more disorder to teach our side a lesson". To put this in context, what I actually wrote was: "The past months have been disquieting and challenging for many of us in the antiwar camp. I know and am ashamed to admit this that there have been times when I have wanted more chaos, more shocks, more disorder to teach our side a lesson ... The decent people of Iraq need optimism now not my distasteful ill-wishes for the only hope they have for the future." If this attack has stayed in Murray's book it would have passed but bloggers recently picked it up and it has been hell since.

Peter Tatchell tells me that lies are circulated about him and he receives constant threats. Polly Toynbee and others are subjected to mob fury for no good reason. Are we just supposed to put up with this behaviour because the web must be free?

Internet libel law is building up and internet service providers are put under pressure to remove sites where material is defamatory. Chatrooms and blogs are increasingly expected to be moderated. The defence of "innocent dissemination" may not survive.

In 2006, Ukip's Michael Keith won damages after joining a chatroom where anonymous postings smeared his character and in 2008 a CEO of a housing business got a large payout after a rival company carried out a malicious personal smear campaign against him. As the internet is transnational, awareness is growing that extraordinary care is needed to prevent legal action. Corporate liability, third party culpability are encouraging mechanisms for self-regulation. In my view some of this is necessary.

We don't yet have a really effective way of restraining material promoting racism, sexism, violence (except against children), homophobia, and other group hatreds. It must come if we are to make the best use of this amazing technology and not let it pull us down to a barbarism posing as freedom. That, I fear, is what has happened with Mr Walker and his spurious victory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those of us who live with substantially less freedom of speech than in the UK may chafe at some arguments to limit this freedom. But we need to agree on some values that go along with these freedoms. Racist or sexist speech should not be OK for anyone in whatever medium. There cannot be double standards where some people are let off and others not. Advocating violence is also a no-no, and that should not be limited to blowing up buildings or people but also things like rape or just beating up women. Unfortunately people differentiate between these, as if violence against women is OK but not against public figures.

The thing is if we have freedom of speech in every day life, society will find a way of regulating it by itself. We can all decide what is acceptable and what is not. But if we restrict this freedom, people will find anonymous ways of venting the hate where they will not be held unaccountable. And the Internet unfortunately provides that avenue. So in fact curtailing freedom of speech as we do today is what breeds the type of hate speech that we often see online.

Friday, July 3, 2009

An Impassioned Patriot


There are some people who believe that if you fight for your rights, somehow you aren't patriotic or love your country. That if you have a dissenting view, then you must be disloyal. Marjane Satrapi, who did that wonderful graphic novel 'Persepolis', captures here the passion of someone who truly loves her country even when she is forced to be in exile.


The New York Times


July 4, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor


I MUST GO HOME TO IRAN AGAIN


By MARJANE SATRAPI

PARIS — Six years ago, I went to listen to a man, whom I will not name, in a café in Paris.

He said it had been 24 years since he had been back to Iran, that he had had to leave right after the revolution of 1979 for political reasons.

He talked of many things, and he ended by saying: “Once you leave your homeland, you can live anywhere, but I refuse to die anywhere other than Iran — or else my life will have had no meaning.”

His statement touched me very deeply. I’ve thought about what he said, not just understanding him intellectually but feeling his meaning with all my heart. I, too, was convinced that I must die nowhere other than in my country, Iran, or else my life will also be meaningless.

At the time I heard this man speak, it had already been four years since I had been home.

Yes, I call Iran home because no matter how long I live in France, and despite the fact that I feel also French after all these years, to me the word “home” has only one meaning: Iran.

I suppose it’s that way for everyone: Home is the place where one is born and raised.

No matter how much I am in love with Paris and its indescribable beauty, Tehran with all its ugliness will in my eyes forever be the “bride” of all cities around the world.

It’s a question of geography, of the smell of the rain, of the things we know without ever having to think why we know them.

It’s a question of the Alborz Mountains protecting my town. Where are they? Who will protect me now?

It’s a question of the unbearable smell of pollution, a smell I know so well.

It’s a question of wanting to walk under my own blue sky, of wanting my own sunshine to caress my back.

At the time I heard that man speak it had already been four years since I had been home. Today it has been more than 10 years. To be precise, 10 years, six months and three days.

During all that time, I believed I would live a few more decades without ever being able to walk in my mountains. But 18 days ago, June 12, 2009, something happened, something I never believed I would see in my lifetime: Iranians, crowding into an extremely tiny space of democracy, usually left just large enough for them to vote for a president whom the Guardian Council had already approved, truly voted.

The question much of the media asked before the election was: “Are Iranians ready for democracy?”

“YES!” came the answer, loud and oh, so clear.

With a voter turnout of 85 percent, they started to dream that change was possible.

They started to believe “Yes they can,” too.

It was not the first time Iranians showed how much they love freedom. Look only at the 20th century: They launched the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 (the first in Asia); nationalized the oil industry in 1951 (the first Middle Eastern country to do so); mounted the revolution of 1979; and engineered the student revolt of 1999. Which brings us to now, and that deafening cry for democracy.

Almost 20 years ago, when I started studying art in Tehran, the very idea of “politics” was so frightening that we didn’t even dare think about it.

To talk about it? Beyond belief!

To demonstrate in the streets against the president? Surreal!

Criticize the supreme leader? Apocalyptic!

Shouting “Down with Khamenei”? Death!

Death, torture and prison are part of daily life for the youth of Iran. They are not like us, my friends and I at their age; they are not scared. They are not what we were.

They hold hands and scream: “Don’t be afraid! Don’t be afraid! We are together!”

They understand that no one will give them their rights; they must go get them.

They understand that unlike the generation before them — my generation, for whom the dream was to leave Iran — the real dream is not to leave Iran but to fight for it, to free it, to love it and to reconstruct it.

They hold hands and scream: “We will fight! We will die! But we won’t be humiliated!”

They went out knowing that going to each demonstration meant signing their death warrants.

Today I read somewhere that “the velvet revolution” of Iran became the “velvet coup,” with a little note of irony, but let me tell you something: This generation, with its hopes, dreams, anger and revolt, has forever changed the course of history. Nothing is going to be the same.

From now on, nobody will judge Iranians by their so-called elected president.

From now on, Iranians are fearless. They have regained their self-confidence.

Despite all the dangers they said NO!

And I’m convinced this is just the beginning.

From now on, I will always say: Once you leave your homeland, you can live anywhere. But I refuse to only die in Iran. I will one day live in Iran...or else my life will have had no meaning.

MARJANE SATRAPI is a writer and filmmaker whose works include the book and film “Persepolis.” Her most recent graphic novel is “Chicken With Plums.”