Main menu:

Recent posts

RSS in Arts

Categories

Archives

Donate

To help keep HP running

Another blow to freedom in Hungary

Some time ago I had an interesting brief exchange with a Hungarian acquaintance after he read a post I’d written about Jobbik.  He cautioned that, although Jobbik was clearly appalling, the real worry was Fidesz.

Klubrádió, a left leaning radio station in Hungary, is a thorn in the side of the Orbán government. Recently it’s been involved in a protracted battle over its broadcasting licence, following the expiry of its frequency rights. You can read more about this here (although I’m not sure this article is compliant with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines.)

Eve Balogh, writing on Hungarian Spectrum, describes a series of apparently underhand attempts to force through legislation which will make it impossible for Klubrádió to continue broadcasting. (Hungary has faced heavy criticism for its new media laws, and is now only classed as ‘semi-free’ by Freedom House.)

The full detail of what happened is quite complicated, but essentially it seems that the first plan was to introduce amendments which would change the status of the frequency Klubrádió was bidding for, meaning that the radio station would have to pay a hefty fee.  These amendments were disallowed on a technicality, but a new amendment was devised which would spell still worse news for Klubrádió:

Since it seemed that these amendments would not pass muster, Szabó withdrew them. In their place Erzsébet Menczer (Fidesz), one of the original sponsors of the media law, submitted new amendments that dim Klubrádió’s prospects of ever obtaining a license on any frequency. According to the pertinent Menczer amendment, if the Media Authority didn’t change the status of a media outlet from commercial to public before it applied for a frequency, the station cannot have a contract even if it is willing to pay the fee. In this way Klubrádió couldn’t broadcast on the 92.9 MHz frequency–period. The amendment would also immediate end temporary licensing, a practice that allowed Klubrádió to remain on the air in the last year or so.

Not surprisingly, Jobbik was fully supportive of this move:

The far-right Jobbik was pleased to support the Fidesz proposal and Gábor Vona, head of the Jobbik caucus, announced that once they are in power they will close ATV, the only opposition television station, as well. Nice prospects.

Here’s a nicely sardonic comment on another blog:

No, no, Leto’s right on this one.

I’m tired of having to choose, or think, or anything like that.

I want every radio station to play the same 20 or 30 songs (Hungarian only, no foreign rubbish), and to only hear good news about how wonderfully the economy is doing this week, and how Orban is beating the EU into submission. And I’m very happy, also, to hear advertising for Kozgep’s many comercial interests, because it’s great to hear about a successful business enterprise doing well.

Hungary needs *more of the same*. Clearly. In fact, why have more than one radio station at all? Just one would be fine. We could call it the People’s Radio.

You can read more about Hungary’s diminishing freedoms here.

Hat Tip: Hungarian Spectrum



Discuss…

In Tablet magazine:

The problem for the left today is that it has gone over largely—but not, Geras and others insisted, wholly—to the negative view of Judaism as an obstacle to human progress. Israel, Geras held, “has been an alibi for a new climate of anti-Semitism on the left,” a development whose full venomousness can only be seen in Europe. (“I don’t think people here realize,” he said mournfully, “what it’s like to be a Jewish leftist in Britain today,” comparing it to living in a sea of poison.) This is the atmosphere that the Anglo-Jewish novelist Howard Jacobson evoked so powerfully in his recent novel The Finkler Question: one in which hostility to Israel is a reflex and insinuations about Jewish power and the “Jewish lobby” go unchallenged.

If the left in Europe and, increasingly, the United States is so hospitable to anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic ideas, what does that mean for the future of “Jews and the Left”? Michael Walzer explained the historical Jewish affinity for the left as a straightforward matter: “We have supported the people who support us.” The historical insights of the “Jews and the Left” conference suggested that things were never so simple—or mutual. So, when that basic equation no longer holds—if the left are no longer “the people who support us”—will we continue to support them? The “rising generation” of the left will contain its share of Jews, maybe even more than its share; but whether it will be a Jewish left, as it was in the past, is very much in doubt.


Men Only

This is a guest post by Stevie

It’s not a completely happy world, by any means, and the crones are wise enough to mourn sometimes the absence of old farts. But in the end it was found necessary. There was no other way to end the warring that threatened total extinction. The boys play, squabble and labour. The elder boys are used for pleasure and baby-making. The forms of ritual and remembrance for dead boys are highly elaborate, but most women grow out of devotion to such cults and direct their passions into their work and their relationships with other women. They may enjoy boys now and then but they don’t break their hearts over them, having as they do the record of devastation wrought by men in the centuries preceding “the Change”, the “Pause o’ Men”. It had been argued among the designers of the fatal strain that if things didn’t work out, the technology was there to engineer men back into being, but this had been found unnecessary. The further away in historical time those wars became, the more unimaginably fearful and oppressive the lives of the ancestral mothers had seemed. Man and his once necessary ultraviolence: this whole tradition had been excised by the Change.

The crones teach that it was largely a question of technological development, which had revealed humans to be the greatest single natural hazard to their own continued existence. But it had also provided an opportunity to neutralise the threat while reaping the rewards of millennia. Men, although locked into a historical nightmare of seemingly endless war, each peace gestating something more terrible still, were able by the end to work through the logic of their “Enlightenment” and see that new technology had made them not only redundant but fatally dangerous: negative-sum-gamers. The fruit of this Enlightenment known broadly as “feminism” was already evident in the writings of Mary Wollstonecraft – as a dialectical conjugate to the patriarchal skepticism of Edmund Burke. Yet 200 years later, at the opening of the 21st century “CE”, few legislatures had anywhere near a representative proportion of women among their members. Politics and statecraft were driven by strategic conflicts between large standing military organizations. Alongside the blooming of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons technology in the century preceding the Change, there emerged a slow synthesis of the feminist and the courtly, as the phrase “women and children first” was modified into an understanding that, if there was to be anything like a human future, it would have to be women and children only. To their credit, the last men did not much resist this outcome. They hoped a better life would await their daughters, and that their sons would have happier, though shorter, careers.

Naturally, there is still criminality: boy-fight pits are occasionally exposed and shut down. Any women attending or organizing or profiting from such enterprises are barred for life from both public office and TV.

There are jealousies and rivalries and even murders; there are accidents and catastrophes but there has been no war for a hundred years. Disease levels are also markedly down, while food surpluses and biodiversity are up. An average middle-grade technician in an ordinary agripolis makes enough to run a household, raise a daughter and perhaps keep a boy of her own, or sponsor one or more in the boy-pool. They are funny, the boys: they make up songs and stand on their heads. They work hard but they don’t have studies to worry about and have plenty of playtime – and as they mature, they are all too happy to help with the baby-making, profoundly consoled by this work, before the genetic switch shuts them down, makes them safe, usually within weeks of their 20th birthdays.

On its release, the pauseomen virus had attacked adult men (women too spluttered and sneezed for a few days, but were otherwise unharmed). It got them right in the balls, inserting a set of dominant alleles into male spermatozoa that would truncate the lifespans of all subsequent generations of human males. The viral agent targeted Y chromosomes only, and introduced a suite of genes designed to bring about sudden multiple organ failure in men at an age which today averages 19.8 years.
The effects of the pathogen only became apparent 20 years after its release, as boys began to reach the critical age and die in their hundreds of millions. At first, some geneticists, hampered by a subtle campaign of sabotage and occasional assassination, had raced to produce a “cure”. But this proved awfully difficult to do with societies collapsing all over the place, as it became clear that all boys and young men carried the deadly alterations in their chromosomes. Not many years after this threshold was crossed, the world’s military forces had begun to disintegrate: there were few effective infantry units left among the great armies. After a decade or so, what fighting fraternities remained were made up of the middle-aged, the senile and numbers of doomed and distraught adolescents. These militias quickly faded altogether and the world’s military hardware lay idle and unloved. Terrorist cadre greyed and mellowed or despaired, their ideologies washed up.

Priesthoods and patriarchies of all kinds began finally to dissolve.

Over the following decades there was a population crash without precedent and many of the megacities were abandoned altogether.
The world was, to a large extent, laid waste. Population stabilised, however, and a new form of social organization emerged as the last old farts died off. Some thousands of women had been clandestinely recruited to the pauseomen cause, and trained and prepared secretly in the years before the Change. These women bravely founded new worlds. The horror of the Change was submerged under oceans of tears; the last men vanished from the face of the earth, leaving women, girls and boys. These new societies did not, to be sure, dominate the earth and world population more or less levelled out in the low billions. Then it began to grow, ever so slowly, as woman’s longevity extended year by year to the point where global average life expectancy for a new-born girl has passed 70 years.

And they all live happily enough, for now. Sometimes a fretful soul will scan the stars and imagine an alien fleet, carrying brute armies of thugs and goons, pederasts and parasites, to bring ruin and degradation. She shivers at the thought of her society’s inverse: a world where her sex are doomed to die before they are 20, used for pleasure, breeding and drudgery and then tossed aside by their masters and fathers, whose monosexually male adult world… but then she catches herself, laughing quietly at this grisly counterfactual as someone refills her glass.


“Mad Max” conditions in Venezuela’s prisons

At ForeignPolicy.com, blogger Francisco Toro writes about violent clashes between armed inmates and security forces at La Planta prison in Caracas, forcing authorities to shut down a major highway.

Stories about conditions in Venezuelan prisons often have an other-worldly, Mad Max feel to them; with nearly 50,000 inmates crammed into jails built to hold 12,500, overcrowding in Venezuelan jails is cinematographic in scale. Overwhelmed by the number of people, prison guards long ago gave up trying to control what happens inside, limiting themselves to guarding the perimeter to prevent breakouts. The result is a Hobbesian state of nature inside the prison, a never-ending war of all against all that left 560 inmates dead last year.

Making things worse is the rampant corruption of prison authorities, who make a profitable trade selling anything you can think of to the inmates: marihuana, handguns, stereos, assault rifles, blackberries, girls, waterbeds, DVD players, cocaine, laptops, even military-grade grenades. Anything you can think of, you can smuggle into a Venezuelan jail — at a price.

As you’d expect, a hyper-violent gang culture has developed in the jails, with the most ruthless, violent gang-dealers slowly rising to the top of the heap and becoming de facto dictators over their own little realms. In several prisons, these "pranes," as the top gang leaders are known in prison slang, end up holding run-of-the-mill prisoners as de facto hostages, preventing the authorities from moving them in and out of jail to attend their trials, or forcing inmates to participate in knife fights while gang leaders and even guards gamble on the outcome. Mad Max stuff, right?

Venezuelans are largely numbed to the extreme violence that’s become routine in the country’s jails. Suffering under one of the world’s highest murder rates, many find it hard to work up much compassion for the thugs who end up in jail. Little does it matter that nearly half the inmates haven’t been convicted of any crime, but are awaiting trial instead. Trials that, of course, are repeatedly postponed because the local pran won’t allow prisoners to be bused to court. Few stop to worry about those kinds of details — in fact, few worry about it at all.

The clashes ended as hundreds of inmates agreed to be transferred to other prisons. La Planta is to be shut down, but changing the culture of corruption and violence within Venezuela’s prisons may prove more difficult.

And yes, Venezuela is hardly the only country with horrific prison conditions. On a lesser scale, conditions in many US prisons are nothing to be proud of.

But remember: these conditions exist more than 12 years into the presidency of Hugo Chavez (still regarded by deluded fools on the Left as some sort of hero) who– with billions of dollars in oil revenue to spend– has utterly failed to control violent crime while his nation’s prisons have descended into brutal chaos.


NHS issues

I mentioned the Carillion dispute, involving workers at Great Western Hospital in Swindon, in this postHere Todd Hamer reports on serious allegations against the private service provider:

Carillion bosses made the workers give them “gifts” in exchange for booking their entitled leave and shift requests.

And here is a report of how one worker’s name was apparently put on a blacklist by Carillion, allegedly because of his trade union activism:

“So workers like myself, whose only crime was to be a member of the trade union or raise concerns about safety or unpaid wages, suffered long periods of unemployment. It is absolutely appalling.

“I think Carillion have a pathological dislike of trade unions. In the construction industry, repeatedly, they sacked any of the union stewards and safety reps. Now with PFI they’re bringing the same practices into the health service. They’re an absolute disgrace.”

Carillion has identified possible inaccuracies in the accusations.

Hamer also mentions shift changes at Addenbrookes – this Cambridge News account offers a fuller account of the impact on workers.

Phil Gooden, Unison representative, said: “Currently staff working in the evening work a six-hour shift, but get paid for nine hours as more than half of the shift falls within unsociable hours.

“However, the proposal is to bring forward their start time from 6pm to 5pm and so the extra pay is lost. So for every evening that is worked one and a half hours is lost. That’s obviously seven and a half hours per week.”

All 600 staff will also lose pay for tea breaks, for which they are currently paid.

Mr Gooden added: “They are going to lose another hour and a quarter pay in virtue of five times 15-minute breaks.

“It’s in excess of £60 a week and £3,000 a year, and for some people it is double that because a number of couples are facing the same losses.”

Although it is not directly related to these issues, I’d also like to draw attention to Sue Marsh’s recent appalling experience at Addenbrookes.  She was given Fentanyl following an operation on her bowel despite wearing a bracelet indicating that she was allergic to the drug and despite being reassured by her surgeon that this it would not be used.

Hat Tip: Todd Hamer


Eurovision and Gay Rights in Caucasus

Twenty twelve never was going to mark Eurovision’s return to its roots of reconciling previously warring countries, and Armenia’s withdrawal in March from the event due to be held in Azerbaijan was unsurprising.

Within Azerbaijan, the authorities are keen to use the upcoming contest to dispel notions of political intimidation of opponents – not just singers – as Government spokesman, Ali Hasanov insists the civil rights norms do not lag far behind that of European countries. Presumably he is using Belarus as contrast.

One point on which the two previously warring countries could agree, however, is on an official policy towards gays which is, at best, frosty; at worst, openly hostile. Although, as Gene discussed, Azerbaijan currently has to compromise somewhat with Eurovision in town, no restrictions are placed on Armenia.

Last week, the DIY Rock gay bar in Yerevan was firebombed by self-identified Dashnaq sympathizers who were caught on CCTV camera. First Artsvik Minasyan, a Dashnaq MP provided bail for the culprits; followed by congratulations from fellow Dashnaq member and deputy speaker, Eduard Sharmazanov who called their actions a justified response.


Sanctions on Iran: UK and US dither

The last couple of days have seen both Democrat and Labour politicians voicing exasperation at their opposite numbers’ apparent lack of toughness on the question of sanctions against Iran.

It seems that Britain, concerned by the possible impact on global oil prices, is trying to delay implementing a ban on providing protection and indemnity insurance for Iranian oil tankers, an important element in the sanctions against Iran’s nuclear programme.  When questioned by John Woodcock in the House of Commons on 15 May, William Hague did not deny this. The Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander, pressed him on this:

There were many words, but not many answers. Given the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, I think that oil prices are a material consideration in determining the timing on when Britain chooses to impose sanctions on Iran. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm where the balance of authority on this lies within Government and whether this is a decision being led by the Treasury or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because many allies and many in the international community will have been troubled by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks. If some of the reports—they are only reports—are to be believed that Britain is one of the back markers and that this is being driven by a view from within the Treasury, that would be of great concern to Members on both sides of the House.

Meanwhile in the US Republicans have been delaying signing a new agreement on sanctions, aimed to close loopholes:

“Time is of the essence,” declared Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), who has been championing the bill. “We must send to the Iranians a clear message that you cannot just forestall negotiations and have negotiations thinking that you are buying time. We must show them that notwithstanding their intentions to buy time, there are consequences.”

Republican Senator Rand Paul wanted to introduce an amendment to ensure that nothing in the bill “shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of use of force against Iran or Syria.”


Assad and the devils

A great poster held by a brave demonstrator in the Syrian town of Kafranbel, near Idlib.

There’s Nasrallah on my left,
And Putin on my right,
And Ahmadinejad’s the one,
That I’ll be with tonight

(With apologies to Dion.)

Via EA WorldView


Matthew Offord MP, MP for Hendon: Loves Dogs, Has A Problem With Gays

Some of you may know Matthew Offord, the Member of Parliament for Hendon, who beat Labour’s Andrew Dismore at the last election.

He cares an awful lot about dogs, and the human rights of their owners:

A Tory MP is invoking human rights laws to overturn a ban on taking his dog to work at Westminster.

Matthew Offord is taking the extraordinary action after officials told him he cannot bring his pet Max into his Commons office.

Mr Offord, who has been given a one-week ultimatum to leave the six-month-old Jack Russell at home, said: ‘This is a ridiculous rule. Max doesn’t do anyone any harm. He doesn’t bark, my staff have no complaints and he’s great for taking the stress out of the day.

‘If they try to push this, I will invoke the Human Rights Act because they’re breaching my right to a private, family life.

However, as far as gays, and their equally reasonable interest in, ahem, a private, family life – well, apparently, they don’t count.

Thank you for contacting me with your views regarding Same Sex Marriage.

My own position is that I will not be voting for legislation that extends marriage for same-sex couples. Having waited many years to get married I acknowledge the value the commitment brings. It is my strong personal, moral and religious belief that the institution of marriage is to provide the foundation of a stable relationship in which those two people of the opposite sex procreate and raise a child. That is physically not possible for same-sex couples so I don’t see the point of introducing a law to allow this. I strongly believe in same-sex couples having the right to a civil registration, in order that they receive the same benefits as opposite-sex couples but not marriage.

To many this might seem like a trivial matter, particularly since the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2004 means that same sex couple already enjoy the same rights that married couple do. However the institution of marriage is woven into the fabric of our nation – it affects our courts, inheritance rights and even our schools. And it is the effect on our schools, children and teachers that is worrying so many. Close to 100,000 people have signed the one man, one woman equals marriage petition.

In regard to education, Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 places a legal requirement on schools to teach children about “the importance of marriage”. If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school. So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons? It is simply inconceivable in today’s world where political correctness runs a mock in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views. Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA, or from being a governor. Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for two thousand years. And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same sex marriage. Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers? Will same sex marriage be covered under such subjects as citizenship forming part of the main curriculum taught to our children and tested through examination? These are just some of the questions that the Government has so far failed to answer.

I do not believe that same sex marriage would serve to enhance British society or its values.

Yours sincerely,

MATTHEW OFFORD MP
Member of Parliament for Hendon
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Matthew Offord MP. A clown.

With any luck, he’ll be off at the next election.


Tories For Marriage Equality

I have some concerns that marriage equality will stall.

It should pass. It would be a popular measure. The latest polling data from March suggests that this is a reform which is supported by 65% of the population: parents, partners, siblings, children and friends of gay people, who are not prepared to tolerate discrimination.

However, in the last week or so, there have been some rustlings which may suggest that the energetic campaign against gay marriage may have found some support within the Tory Party. The Daily Mail ran the following story:

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond – increasingly tipped as a future Chancellor – became the most senior member of the Government to suggest plans to allow gay couples to marry should be shelved.

Conservative Party chairman Baroness Warsi also said Lords reform was not a priority, saying not one voter had raised the issue on the doorstep with her in the last six months.

Mr Hammond told the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme that proposals to legalise gay marriage should be delayed to ensure ministers focus on ‘the things that matter’.

He said: ‘Clearly it’s not the number one priority. If you stop people in the street and ask them what their concerns are, they’ll talk to you about jobs and economic growth, they’ll talk to you about the level of the wages they’re earning, wanting to see real growth in wages again.

Mr Hammond’s comments came after Tim Loughton, the children’s minister, wrote to a constituent to say he was opposed to gay marriage.

‘Marriage as a religious institution cannot be anything other than between a man and a woman.

‘I do not see why we need to change the law, especially at this time when there are so many other important matters for the government to be addressing,’ Mr Loughton wrote.

However, at the highest levels of the Tory Party, there is still strong support for marriage law reform:

Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles yesterday gave his backing to gay marriage, urging colleagues not to get themselves ‘hot under the collar’.

‘We’re still out to consultation. It was never intended that we would legislate this year,’ Mr Pickles told the BBC’s Sunday Politics programme.

‘It just seems to me to be a question of good manners and if you’ve got something like civil partnership, which are for all practical purposes a marriage, let’s drop the hypocrisy and go all the way.’

Mr Cameron recently said: ‘I ask myself the question, ‘why is it that we deny gay couples the ability to get married?’ And, I don’t think that’s right.

‘Obviously this is a controversial issue. I feel the time for change has come. If you ask, particularly young people, they say this feels like a very natural change to make. We are not changing what happens in church.’

The danger is that the supporters of marriage equality are complacently assuming that it will simply pass, while the opponents are working overtime to ensure that it doesn’t. I also have a sneaky suspicion that Stonewall hasn’t put as much effort as it should have into the campaign – it was always luke warm – because it doesn’t want the Coalition to claim the prize of  - and the credit for – completing Labour’s reforms.

Fortunately, there’s a new cross party coalition to support the reforms. It is called Out4Marriage:

A new cross party and cross media campaign, Out4Marriage.org, to support changing the law to allow gay couples to marry has launched to help spread the message that most people in Britain and indeed the Western world, are happy to “come Out4Marriage”.

Out4Marriage is modeled on the hugely successful ‘It Gets Better’ YouTube project launched by the US agony uncle Dan Savage, where politicians, celebrities and members of the public gave hope to teenagers coming to terms with their sexuality.

Over the coming weeks, videos from high profile UK politicians from all political parties and global A-list celebrities will be published online. Each video will allow the politician or celebrity to explain why they’re “coming out for marriage” and will ask viewers to join them too. It is aimed that although launched from the UK, the campaign will spread globally to ensure gay couples around the world have the same rights to marry as straight couples.

The project was conceived by PinkNews.co.uk founder Benjamin Cohen and Mike Buonaiuto, the director of the Coalition for Equal Marriage viral video. It is ‘powered by’ the Coalition for Equal Marriage, PinkNews.co.uk and digital agency Remarkable. An ever growing global team of volunteers are helping to recruit new video makers, moderate submissions and engage with politicians.

Mirroring the strategy of the Coalition for Equal Marriage, Out4Marriage has been backed by the largest names in UK LGBT media already including Attitude, Gaydar, GT (Gay Times), PinkPaper, Diva, Boyz, QX Magazine, Gay Star News and SoSoGay with US partners to be announced shortly.

It is heartening to see support from Tories for this campaign.

The website has been tweeted this morning by Tim Montgomerie, of Conservative Home – who is also a church-goer – and who has also written a strong piece advocating marriage equality.

There’s also this video putting forward the case for gay marriage from a young Tory activist:

The Tories would be foolish to fail the country on marriage equality. All parties have their weaknesses: for the LibDems, it is silliness, for Labour it is extremism, and for the Tories it is nastiness. A strong Tory campaign for marriage equality confounds that stereotype: against it, only confirms it.