(25 March 1946 – 23 April 1979)
"...When called for an identity parade some (SPG) officers grew facial hair whilst others shaved off their beards. Uniforms were dry cleaned before forensic tests could be done."
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Blair Peach - Not Forgotten
Although investigators believed police killed Peach, they said there was "insufficient evidence" to bring charges over his death. via web
SPG officers lied to seniors during Blair Peach inquiry. The Met wanted them prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. None were.
Blair Peach report says he was “almost certainly” killed by a Special Patrol Group officer from carrier U.11.
Blair Peach report: “it can reasonably be concluded that a police officer struck the fatal blow”.
SPG officers lied to seniors during Blair Peach inquiry. The Met wanted them prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. None were.
Blair Peach report says he was “almost certainly” killed by a Special Patrol Group officer from carrier U.11.
Blair Peach report: “it can reasonably be concluded that a police officer struck the fatal blow”.
New Zealand-born Blair Peach died after a blow to the head during a demonstration in Southall, London, against the National Front in April 1979. Photograph: Public Domain
The anti-fascist protester Blair Peach was almost certainly killed by police at a demonstration in 1979, according to a secret report released today.
Documents published on the Metropolitan police's website shed new light on the death of Peach, a 33-year-old teacher from New Zealand, whose death marked one of the most controversial events in modern policing history.
A campaigner against the far right, Peach died from a blow to the head during a demonstration against the National Front in Southall, west London.
A crucial report into the death, which Peach's family have campaigned to see for more than 30 years, was finally released today. It said it could "reasonably be concluded that a police officer struck the fatal blow". A police van carrying six officers was identified as having been at the scene when the fatal blow was struck.
The 130-page report was produced by Commander John Cass, who ran the Met's internal complaints bureau and led the investigation into Peach's death. It reveals:
• Peach was almost certain to have been killed by an officer from its elite riot squad, known as the Special Patrol Group (SPG). A number of witnesses said they saw him being struck by a police officer, and the report found "there is no evidence to show he received the injury to the side of his head in any other way";
• despite concluding Peach was killed by a police officer, Cass said there was "insufficient evidence" to charge any officer over the death, a decision echoed by the director of public prosecutions, to whom his report was delivered. An inquest into the death later returned a verdict of "death by misadventure";
• suspicions centred on the SPG carrier U.11, the first vehicle to arrive on Beechcroft Avenue, the street where Peach was found staggering around and concussed. Cass said there was an "indication" that one officer in particular, who first emerged from the carrier but whose name has been redacted from the report, was responsible;
• the criminal investigation into Peach's death was hampered by SPG officers, who Cass concluded had lied to him to cover up the actions of their colleagues. He "strongly recommended" that three officers should be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, giving detailed evidence to show how they were engaged in a "deliberate attempt to conceal the presence of the carrier at the scene at that time". None were ever charged;
• from the outset, the Cass investigation appeared unlikely to find an officer guilty. He defined Peach as a member of a "rebellious crowd" in his terms of reference, adding: "Without condoning the death I refer to Archbold 38th edition para 2528: 'In case of riot or rebellious assembly the officers endeavouring to disperse the riot are justified in killing them at common law if the riot cannot otherwise be suppressed'."
Along with the Cass report, the Met has released more than 3,000 pages of supporting forensics documents, witness statements, interviews with officers and legal analysis.
They include all the detailed evidence gathered by police in the weeks and months after Peach was killed. The nature of his injuries led at least one pathologist to conclude Peach's skull was crushed with an unauthorised weapon, such as a lead-weighted cosh or police radio.
It was already known that when Cass raided lockers at the SPG headquarters he uncovered a stash of unauthorised weapons, including illegal truncheons, knives, two crowbars, a whip, a 3ft wooden stave and a lead-weighted leather stick.
One officer was caught trying to hide a metal cosh, although it was not the weapon that killed Peach. Another officer was found with a collection of Nazi regalia.
In his report, Cass said the arsenal of weapons caused him "grave concern", but claimed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the officers involved.
A total of 14 witnesses told investigators they saw "a police officer hit the deceased on the head" but, according to Cass, there were discrepancies in their evidence and most could not identify the officer.
The Met has resisted publishing any material relating to the death of Peach for almost 30 years.
That decision was reversed last year after an investigation by the Guardian into the parallels between events surrounding Peach's death in April 1979 and the death of Ian Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor who died during last year's G20 protests in London.
The Met commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, intervened to support the release of the report after Tomlinson's death.
Peach's long-term partner, Celia Stubbs, said she was "relieved" to see the report after so long. Along with other relatives of Peach, and the officers named in the report, she first received the documents on Friday.
"This report totally vindicates what we have always believed – that Blair was killed by one of six officers from Unit 1 of the Special Patrol Group whose names have been in the public domain over all these years," she said.
Her lawyer, Raju Bhatt, said he was still examining the documents, but his initial reading indicated Cass had tried but struggled to "undermine" evidence, suggesting one of his officers killed Peach.
"What I read in this report is a senior investigating officer desperately trying to explain away this death, but despite himself, he is driven by the weight of the evidence to conclude that the death was caused by one of his officers," he said.
Names of officers and witnesses are blanked out of the report, but their identities can easily be established from published material, including several unofficial reports into Peach's death and transcripts from his inquest, where several officers gave evidence.
Bhatt said friends of Peach would gather outside Scotland Yard today, and read out the names of the six suspected officers inside the SPG carrier U.11.
The names include five officers serving under Alan Murray, the SPG inspector in charge of the carrier. Aged 29 at the time at the time of the death, Murray resigned from the Met in anger at what he believed was an unfair inquiry by Cass.
Last night Murray, who is now a lecturer in corporate social responsibility at Sheffield University, declined to comment on the Cass report, saying he had not been given time to digest its findings.
Deborah Coles, co-director of Inquest, an organisation that was set up in 1981 partly in response to Peach's death and provides advice on contentious deaths, called on the Met commissioner to concede that the force was responsible for Peach's death.
"The whole police investigation into what happened on 23 April 1979 was clearly designed as an exercise in managing the fallout from the events of that iconic day in Southall, to exonerate police violence in the face of legitimate public protest," she said. "The echoes of that exercise sound across the decades to the events of the G20 protest and the death of Ian Tomlinson in 2009."
Paul Lewis @'The Guardian'
I was there at the protest against the Naional Front that day in Southall and witnessed a lot of police brutality...another time at a Rock Against Racism march I saw a NF sticker on the inside of a police car windscreen!
Conservative promises to protect the arts remain unconvincing
Hurrah for the more than 40 performers – on the website at least Stephen Frears has signed twice – who wrote to the Observer last weekend pointing out that an incoming Conservative government is likely to serve the interests of the BBC's commercial rivals. No slogan in this election is more chilling than Vote Cameron, Get Murdoch.
My purpose in having coffee with Jeremy Hunt, the personable young shadow culture secretary, was to obtain reassurance, not least because mention of the arts, culture and broadcasting is entirely omitted from the 118-page Conservative party manifesto. Hunt sees nothing sinister in this. "There are lots of things which aren't in the main manifesto," he says. But he is humorously resigned to the suspicion aroused by Tory arts spokespeople. "Rupert Murdoch is not responsible for Conservative media policy. I am responsible, with David Cameron."
What did he feel about the letter? "I thought it was a shame that a group of artists for whom I have great respect were taken in by Labour party spin. I wish they'd written to me. The Conservative party are strong supporters of the BBC. We founded it in 1927, not a fact that widely known, or widely admired by certain elements of the Tory right. We are as proud of founding the BBC as Labour is of founding the NHS."
There are questions, Hunt says, about the specific ways the licence fee is spent. "We don't think it's right that the director general is paid £840,000." But he promises that the Tories "have set the principle. Because of changes to technology, we may have to think of new ways to collect the licence fee, but there will be a household tax which pays for public service broadcasting. That's something we accept".
He adds: "David Cameron will protect the BBC, he sees it as a very important part of his brand of modern conservatism. He loves the BBC programmes. He's a huge fan of Top Gear."
Talking about broadcasting, Hunt is pragmatic. But when he addresses arts subsidy, then, to my old ears, his fantasies of changing an entire culture seem as sweeping and unrealistic as those of any 70s Trot.
Are you ready to use the words 'subsidy works', I ask. "Yes. I'm very happy to say 'subsidy works', although I would tend to say 'public support works'. In fact because I'm feeling quite combative this morning, I will say that I believe funding for the arts will be significantly greater under a Conservative government than it would be under a Labour government."
How is that possible? As soon as Hunt answers by referring to "things in the tax system we can do to boost private giving", I tell him that I see flashing red lights. In the US there is a strong tradition of people making fortunes during their own lifetime and therefore expecting to give something back. But also, Americans have a religious notion of tithing which our culture lacks. The aristocracy here sets an atrocious example by holding on to everything it's got. Or stolen.
'I think, if I may say, David, that's quite an old-fashioned view. My concern is that people who do make their own money aren't, with some exceptions, as generous as they might be. And I would like to encourage them. I don't see it as a panacea. I see it as a 20-year project. If we could make it a social norm that people gave 10% of their legacy to an artistic or charitable organisation, that would be wonderful."
Jeremy Hunt comes across as cleverer than David Cameron, and on first meeting he's certainly way nicer. But I fear his fundamental analysis is wrong. Explaining why Thatcher's government was always so hostile to the arts, he claims we've moved out of a sharply ideological time. But surely, on the contrary, we're just about to move into one. If public service cuts are as severe and damaging as predicted, inclusive politics will soon belong to the past.
The first deal done in a smoke-filled room by representatives of a hung parliament should be as follows: the monarchists get to keep the monarchy, everyone else gets to keep the BBC.
David Hare @'The Guardian'
Dozens Walk Past Dying Hero Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax On New York Sidewalk
Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax was stabbed several times in the chest while saving a woman from a knife-wielding attacker. Then he bled to death while dozens of people walked by -- one stopping to snap a picture of the dying man with his cameraphone before leaving the scene.
Tale-Yax, 31, a homeless Guatemalan immigrant, collapsed at 144th Street and 88th Road in Jamaica, Queens, while in pursuit of the woman's attacker around 5:40 a.m. on April 18. He was pronounced dead by medical workers who responded to a 911 call around 7:20 a.m. But surveillance video obtained the New York Post, which the New York Times got the NYPD to confirm is genuine, shows that plenty of people saw Tale-Yax lying there in his death throes and did nothing.
The police said they were looking for the man who was in the altercation with the woman. He was described as 5-foot-6, with a medium build, wearing a green short-sleeved shirt and a green hat.
The police were not sure if the woman knew what happened to Mr. Tale-Yax, but they said it was possible she knew the suspect. They are waiting for her or a third party to come forward with more information.
Australia shelves key emissions trading scheme
The Australian government has shelved plans for an emissions trading scheme (ETS), the centrepiece of its environmental strategy. It has made repeated attempts to get the measure through parliament, but has been blocked in the Senate, where the government does not enjoy a majority. The government will now not start the scheme until 2013 at the very earliest. PM Kevin Rudd blamed the opposition for withdrawing its support for the measure and slow global progress on emissions. Previously, Mr Rudd has called climate change the "greatest moral challenge of our generation", and pledged to curb pollution by bringing in a comprehensive emissions trading scheme. But his attempts to enact the measure into law have repeatedly failed because his party does not command a majority in the upper house, Senate, and the opposition Liberal Party is now led by a climate change sceptic who won the leadership of his party by vowing to block the reform. In announcing his decision to shelve the measure until at least 2013, when the present Kyoto climate pact expires, Mr Rudd blamed the opposition and the slow progress from other countries in combating global warming. "These two factors together inevitably mean that the implementation of a carbon pollution reduction scheme in Australia will be delayed," he said. "The implementation of a carbon pollution reduction scheme in Australian will, therefore, be extended until after the conclusion of the current Kyoto commitment period, which finishes at the end of 2012." This is a major climb-down by the Rudd government, and also reflects the changing politics of climate change in Australia. Ahead of the Copenhagen climate change conference, Mr Rudd looked set to fight - and win - this year's Australian election on the emissions trading issue, but polls have pointed to an erosion of public support. Given its reliance on coal, Australia has the highest per capita emissions of any developed country, and this decision could draw strong criticism from abroad.
M.I.A. vid already banned in the US
Already removed by YouTube in the U.S., the video for M.I.A.'s "Born Free" was released this morning. Directed by Romain Gavras and available on M.I.A's website (also embedded below), this is one of the most violent videos I've ever seen. It is unapologetic in its critique of American military actions, and it depicts a strange and horrific allegory. Definitely not safe for work, and take special care if you're a redhead. Gingercide, anyone?
Carrie Brownstein @'NPR'
(Thanx Anne!)
The iPhone Leak Gets Ugly: Police Raid Gizmodo Editor’s House, Confiscate Computers
Wow. Last week, Gizmodo published a massive scoop
when they got their hands on what is mostly likely the next iPhone. At the time there was plenty of talk about the legality of Gizmodo’s actions (as they admitted to paying $5000 for the device). Now Gizmodo has just published a post saying that editor Jason Chen had four of his computers and two servers confiscated last night by California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, who entered the house with a search warrant.
when they got their hands on what is mostly likely the next iPhone. At the time there was plenty of talk about the legality of Gizmodo’s actions (as they admitted to paying $5000 for the device). Now Gizmodo has just published a post saying that editor Jason Chen had four of his computers and two servers confiscated last night by California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, who entered the house with a search warrant. Gawker’s COO Gaby Darbyshire responded to the actions by citing California Penal Code 1524(g), which states that “no warrant shall issue for any items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code”, which protects information obtained in protection of a news organization. Darbyshire also points out that the California Court of Appeal has previously found that these protections apply to online journalists (O’Grady v. Superior Court).
In Gizmodo’s post, Chen recounts last night’s events. Chen wasn’t home when the raid began, and came home after officers had already been in his house for hours. Chen’s door was broken open because he wasn’t home to open it. He wasn’t arrested, but police seized external hard drives, four computers, two servers, phones, and more.
The document detailing what police intended to seize refers to Apple’s “prototype 4G iPhone” and is also referred to as “stolen” (Gizmodo has contended that the device was found in a bar, not stolen). Also note that all of this went down on Friday night, and Gizmodo didn’t say anything until today.
(Click to enlarge)
Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists.
Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted
about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists.You couldn't make this up!
An Australian restaurant has been forced to apologize and pay compensation after refusing to let a blind man enter because they thought his dog was gay.
In May 2009, Ian Jolly, 57, was attempting to dine at the Thai Spice restaurant in Adelaide, when he was refused entry after staff misheard his female companion, and thought his "guide dog" was a "gay dog."
"The staff genuinely believed that Nudge was an ordinary pet dog which had been desexed to become a gay dog," the owners said in a statement to South Australia's Equal Opportunity Tribunal.
Jolly is now set to receive a written apology and $1,400 compensation.
However, Jolly said that the situation had made him embarrassed about going to restaurants.
"I just want to be like everybody else and be able to go out for dinner, to be left alone and just enjoy a meal," he told Australian press.
Panama's Noriega is extradited from US to France
The former Panamanian leader, Manuel Noriega, has been extradited to France by the United States after spending more than 20 years in a prison there.US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a "surrender warrant" after all judicial challenges were resolved.
French officials later confirmed he was on board an Air France flight to Paris.
A court in France convicted Noriega in his absence in 1999 for laundering money through French banks, though it says he will be granted a new trial.
The 76-year-old had wanted to be sent back to Panama after finishing his 17-year jail sentence in 2007.
But in February the US Supreme Court rejected his final appeal against extradition to France.
Panama's government said it respected the "sovereign decision" the state department took to extradite Noriega.
But it insisted it would seek his return to serve outstanding prison sentences there.
Noriega was escorted onto an Air France passenger jet at Miami International Airport on Monday afternoon, shortly after Mrs Clinton signed the extradition order, US officials said.
French prison officials took custody of him once he was on board, sources in Paris told the AFP news agency.
A spokesman for the French justice ministry, Guillaume Didier, said that when Noriega arrived in Paris on Tuesday morning, he would go before prosecutors to be notified of the arrest warrant against him.
A judge would then decide whether to place him under temporary detention until his case was referred to a criminal court, he added.
Mr Didier said France had been notified of the extradition two weeks ago.
But Noriega's lawyer in Miami, Frank Rubino, told the BBC he had not been notified and had only learned of his client's transfer from the media.
"Usually the government has - does things in a more professional manner and respects common courtesy and we're shocked that they didn't," he said.
"I'm surprised that they didn't put a black hood over his head and drag him out in the middle of the night," he added.
'Prisoner of war'
Noriega was Panama's military intelligence chief for several years before becoming commander of the powerful National Guard in 1982 and then de facto ruler of the country.
He had been recruited by the CIA in the late 1960s and was supported by the US until 1987.
But in 1988 his indictment in the US on charges of drug trafficking left frayed relations.
After a disputed parliamentary election the following year, Noriega declared a "state of war".
A tense stand-off followed between US forces stationed in the Panama Canal zone and Panamanian troops.
By mid-December, the situation had worsened so much that President George H W Bush launched an invasion - ostensibly because a US marine had been killed in Panama City, although the operation had long been planned.
Noriega initially took refuge in the Vatican embassy, where US troops bombarded him for days with deafening pop and heavy metal music.
He eventually surrendered on 3 January 1990 and was taken to Miami for trial.
In 1992, he was convicted of drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering.
He was handed down a 40-year prison sentence, later reduced to 30 years, and then 17 years for good behaviour.
Noriega was convicted in absentia in France in 1999 for allegedly using $3m (£1.9m) in proceeds from the drug trade to buy luxury apartments in Paris, and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Shortly before the completion of his US jail sentence, the French government sought Noriega's extradition.
When his lawyers attempted to fight the request, he was forced to remain in US custody in Miami.
His legal team argued that he should not have been extradited to a third country such as Franc.
They said that as a prisoner of war of the US, the Geneva Conventions required Noriega to be returned to Panama.
But the US Supreme Court upheld a federal appeals court ruling that the US government could send him to France without violating his rights as a prisoner of war.
French officials later confirmed he was on board an Air France flight to Paris.
A court in France convicted Noriega in his absence in 1999 for laundering money through French banks, though it says he will be granted a new trial.
The 76-year-old had wanted to be sent back to Panama after finishing his 17-year jail sentence in 2007.
But in February the US Supreme Court rejected his final appeal against extradition to France.
 | ANALYSIS  Steve Kingstone, BBC News, Washington Manuel Noriega had been in US custody since 1990, after the US military invaded Panama during the administration of the first President Bush. Convicted of cocaine trafficking and racketeering, he served a sentence that ended three years ago. But he had remained in custody pending extradition to France, where he was convicted - in his absence - of money laundering in 1999. Noriega's lawyers say his trial in America breached the Geneva Convention, as he had been classified as a prisoner of war when he was brought to the US. His legal team had also opposed his extradition to France, but the US Supreme Court ruled against him. His lawyers hope that once he's landed in Paris he'll at least be granted a second trial. Noriega is expected to be brought before a judge later on Tuesday; his lawyer will probably argue he should be bailed pending further proceedings, though one suspects that is extremely unlikely. |
But it insisted it would seek his return to serve outstanding prison sentences there.
Noriega was escorted onto an Air France passenger jet at Miami International Airport on Monday afternoon, shortly after Mrs Clinton signed the extradition order, US officials said.
French prison officials took custody of him once he was on board, sources in Paris told the AFP news agency.
A spokesman for the French justice ministry, Guillaume Didier, said that when Noriega arrived in Paris on Tuesday morning, he would go before prosecutors to be notified of the arrest warrant against him.
A judge would then decide whether to place him under temporary detention until his case was referred to a criminal court, he added.
Mr Didier said France had been notified of the extradition two weeks ago.
But Noriega's lawyer in Miami, Frank Rubino, told the BBC he had not been notified and had only learned of his client's transfer from the media.
"Usually the government has - does things in a more professional manner and respects common courtesy and we're shocked that they didn't," he said.
"I'm surprised that they didn't put a black hood over his head and drag him out in the middle of the night," he added.
'Prisoner of war'
Noriega was Panama's military intelligence chief for several years before becoming commander of the powerful National Guard in 1982 and then de facto ruler of the country.
He had been recruited by the CIA in the late 1960s and was supported by the US until 1987.
But in 1988 his indictment in the US on charges of drug trafficking left frayed relations.
| WHO IS MANUEL NORIEGA?  Became de facto ruler of Panama in 1983, head of defence forces Formerly one of Washington's top allies in Latin America US later accused him of drug-trafficking and election-rigging Surrendered to invading US troops in 1990 and was flown to the US Also faces a 20-year sentence at home imposed by Panama court  |
A tense stand-off followed between US forces stationed in the Panama Canal zone and Panamanian troops.
By mid-December, the situation had worsened so much that President George H W Bush launched an invasion - ostensibly because a US marine had been killed in Panama City, although the operation had long been planned.
Noriega initially took refuge in the Vatican embassy, where US troops bombarded him for days with deafening pop and heavy metal music.
He eventually surrendered on 3 January 1990 and was taken to Miami for trial.
In 1992, he was convicted of drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering.
He was handed down a 40-year prison sentence, later reduced to 30 years, and then 17 years for good behaviour.
Noriega was convicted in absentia in France in 1999 for allegedly using $3m (£1.9m) in proceeds from the drug trade to buy luxury apartments in Paris, and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Shortly before the completion of his US jail sentence, the French government sought Noriega's extradition.
When his lawyers attempted to fight the request, he was forced to remain in US custody in Miami.
His legal team argued that he should not have been extradited to a third country such as Franc.
They said that as a prisoner of war of the US, the Geneva Conventions required Noriega to be returned to Panama.
But the US Supreme Court upheld a federal appeals court ruling that the US government could send him to France without violating his rights as a prisoner of war.
Black Dog Fact Mix
The Black Dog FACT MixTracks:
01. Purity Device – The Thought Police (Bitten By The Black Dog)
02. The Black Dog – Tunnels Ov Set (Autechre Remix)
03. The Black Dog – Dada Mindstab (Live Mix)
04. The Black Dog – Future Delay Thinking (Live Mix)
05. Grievous Angel – Billy Preston (Bitten By The Black Dog)
06. The Black Dog – Floods (Surgeon Remix)
07. The Black Dog – Siiiipher (Bass Soldier Remix)
08. The Black Dog – Northern Electronic Soul (Claro Intelecto Remix)
09. The Black Dog – CCTV Nation (Redshape Remix)
10. The Black Dog – CCTV Nation (Slam Remix)
11. The Black Dog – Skin Clock (Silicon Soul Remix)
12. The Black Dog – Train By The Autobahn (8 Mile Remix by Rob Hood)
13. LFO – LFO (Bitten On The Sly By The Black Dog)
14. Slam – Azure (The Black Dog’s Corned Beefy Remix)
Download
You should always know in which corner you celebrate your goal!
Croatian footballer Tomislav Bosec celebrates his goal in front of the antagonistic fans and gets the answer...
or as the Croatian says:
"Na utakmici 26.kola Prve HNL između Zadra i Intera, Tomislav Bosec je nakon što je postigao pobjednićki gol za Inter, išao ga je proslaviti, no na krivoj tribini, na kraju je dobio samo šamar od jednog navijaća Zadra."
Greetings
Hi. I just wanted to say hello to y'all with this first post. Mona invited me to blog w/ you, so I'm going to give it a shot. I'll probably lurk for a short time until I get a feel for this thing.
Monday, 26 April 2010
This is...frightening (Thanx Stan?)
Wanna see what you're friends are liking on the internet at the moment?
Of course you do!!!
http://likebutton.me
(Actually my son just went into the html and if you log out of FB, nothing happens)
http://likebutton.me
(Actually my son just went into the html and if you log out of FB, nothing happens)
Net filter patronises the digital generation
Illustration: Robin Cowcher
Would somebody please not think of the children. At least not while we are discussing internet censorship. This may sound like an odd request given that, historically, almost all censorship debates have pivoted around children and the need to protect them. But moral panics and fear-mongering campaigns concerning "the helpless children" often muddy what could otherwise be rational, evidenced-based debates.
And there is no easier way to get an otherwise progressive, reasonable parent to endorse an illogical, anti-democratic censorship regime than by appealing to (and exploiting) their deep-seated fears concerning their children.
But here's the thing. Censorship debates over child safety have little to do with actual flesh and blood children. If they did then they would acknowledge and include the voices and views of young people and they would recognise the competencies and strengths that children bring to online interactions.
After all, while children may be vulnerable to certain elements of the internet, they are typically more digitally savvy than the rest of us, precisely because they have grown up with the World Wide Web.
But conservative moralisers rarely acknowledge this. Instead they tend to hinge their arguments on the patronising, victimised view of children as inherently vulnerable and corruptible. Even worse, by using the figure of the innocent child as a political pawn to advance their own agenda, conservatives are guilty of exploiting children.
And when you think about it, it is a cunning move because anyone who disagrees with the censorship plan is instantly cast as being anti-child welfare, or worse, pro-paedophilia. But this only silences and skews debate.
As someone who lobbies fiercely for the rights of survivors of sexual assault and young people in general, I can say that the best way to protect children is to stop talking about them as though they are vulnerable Oliver Twist-type caricatures awaiting corruption by the big bad world. Instead, we should start talking with our children and empowering them by building on their strengths and by providing them with practical tools to negotiate the online world.
And here is the sad reality. The proposed censorship plan is not going to stop paedophilia or child exploitation. This is because most paedophilia is committed by a person who is known to the child and who has direct access to the child — most often this is a family member.
Similarly most of the illegal pornographic content on the internet is actually being transmitted through decentralised, peer-to-peer networks and these networks will continue to operate irrespective of the proposed filter.
In short, Senator Conroy's proposed censorship plan is not going to succeed in what it has been designed to achieve. It will be an expensive, unpopular mistake.
It is important, though, that we continue to have conversations about children, pornography and unwanted sexual advances.
In recent years the stereotype of the trenchcoat-clad paedophile who lurks around public parks armed with lollies and other enticing sweets has been replaced by the equally cliched image of the internet-addicted paedophile who trolls chatrooms looking for vulnerable children.
There is no question that sexual predators use the internet to groom potential victims. There is also no question that paedophiles are using the internet to network and to share resources as well as the hideous tips and techniques they use.
But when talking to young people about online interactions, it is important that we keep in mind the fact that the most frequent unwanted sexual advances made against young people online, are actually being made by their peers.
As adults we often dismiss such advances as being harmless sexual socialisation and flirtation. But there is no reason to assume that it is easier for young people to negotiate and deflect the unwanted advances made by peers compared to those made by strangers — no matter how calculating those strangers are. It is also problematic to assume that those advances are not experienced as intimidating and coercive, simply because they are being made by their peers.
On the contrary knowing how to negotiate a sexual advance made by a peer or a friend may be far more difficult than telling a complete stranger to back off.
Fear of rejection, fear of ostracism within peer networks, and fear of appearing prudish make it very difficult for young people to navigate the complex social dynamics that frame their online lives.
While it's important that we remain vigilant about adult sexual offenders then, it is also important that we acknowledge the wide range of experiences that young people have, and that we do not ignore certain behaviours simply because those behaviours don't conform to out stereotyped views of what sexual offences look like.
It is also important that we don't demonise the internet. For young people everywhere online communication and social networking sites form an important part of social identity construction and it's not realistic to simply ban children from connecting and communicating online.
The answer, as usual, is that we should talk with young people, listen to their concerns and allow them the space to think through and reflect on their own experiences. Navigating internet traffic and sexual encounters is never easy, but that's precisely why we need to start young by arming children and teens with as much age-appropriate information as possible. Most importantly, it's vital that hysteria and panic is replaced by education and reasoned discussion.
Nina Funnell @'The Age'
'Merely a man of letters'
On April 14, 1976, Denis Dutton and Michael Palencia-Roth, both editors of Philosophy and Literature, along with their colleague, Lawrence I. Berkove of the University of Michigan – Dearborn, interviewed Jorge Luis Borges at Michigan State University, where he was visiting professor for the winter term. The transcript below contains the central and substantive portions of that conversation, which was conducted in English. It has recently been re-edited for greater detail and accuracy from a newly digitized version of the 1976 recording. This Philosophy and Literature interview is made available online here for the first time. You may listen to an MP3 file of the original conversation HERE. Listening time is just over fifteen minutes.
Denis Dutton: Why don’t you tell us about some of the philosophers who have influenced your work, in whom you’ve been the most interested?
Jorge Luis Borges: Well, I think that’s an easy one. I think you might talk in terms of two: those would be Berkeley and Schopenhauer. But I suppose Hume might be worked in also, because, after all, of course Hume refutes Berkeley. But really, he comes from Berkeley — even if Berkeley comes from Locke. You might think of Locke, of Berkeley, and of Hume as being three links in an argument. But when somebody refutes somebody else in philosophy, he’s carrying on the argument.
Michael Palencia-Roth: Where would Schopenhauer come in?
Borges: Schopenhauer is very different from Hume. Of course, Schopenhauer had his idea of the Will. That is not to be found in Hume. But of course in the case of Berkeley it is different. I suppose he thought of God as being aware of all things all the time, I mean if I don’t get him wrong. If we go away, does this room disappear? No, it doesn’t, of course, because God is thinking about it.
Now, in the case of Schopenhauer, I was rereading Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung, The World as Will and Idea, and I was rather taken aback, or rather baffled I should say, or puzzled by something that keeps on recurring in Schopenhauer. Of course it may have been a slip of the pen, but as he goes back to it, and as he was a very careful writer, I wonder if it is a slip of the pen. Well, for example, Schopenhauer begins by saying that all this, the universe, the stars, the spaces in between, the planets, this planet, those things have no existence, except in the mind which perceives them — no?
MP-R: Yes.
Borges: But then, to my surprise — and I suppose you can explain this to me, since you are philosophers and I am not — what Schopenhauer says is that all those things have no existence except in the brain. And that the universe — I remember these words, I don’t think I’m inventing them now — “ist ein Gehirnphänomen,” that the world is a cerebral phenomenon. Now, when I read that I was baffled. Because, of course, if you think of the universe, I suppose the brain is as much a part of the external world as the stars or the moon. Because the brain after all is a system of — I don’t know — of visual, of tactile, perceptions. But he keeps on insisting on the brain.
MP-R: Yes.
Borges: But I don’t think, for example, that Bishop Berkeley insists on the brain, or Hume, who would have insisted on the mind, consciousness….
DD: People sometimes say that they see Berkeley in stories like “Orbis Tertius.”
Borges: Yes, I suppose they do. Well, of course. But in that story I was led by literary means also.
DD: How do you distinguish the literary from the philosophical means in that story? Could you explain that?
Borges: Oh, well, yes, I’ll explain very easily…. Encyclopedias have been, I’d say, my life’s chief reading. I have always been interested in encyclopedias. Well, I used to go to the Biblioteca Nacional in Buenos Aires — and since I was so shy, I felt I could not cope with asking for a book, or a librarian, so I looked on the shelves for the Encyclopædia Britannica. Of course, afterwards, I had that book at home, by my hand. And then I would pick up any chance volume and I would read it. And then one night I was richly rewarded, because I read all about the Druses, Dryden, and the Druids — a treasure trove, no? — all in the same volume, of course, “Dr–.”
Then I came to the idea of how fine it would be to think of an encyclopedia of an actual world, and then of an encyclopedia, a very rigorous one of course, of an imaginary world, where everything should be linked. Where, for example, you would have, let’s say, a language and then a literature that went with the language, and then a history with it, and so on. Then I thought, well, I’d write a story of the fancy encyclopedia. Then of course that would need many different people to write it, to get together and to discuss many things — the mathematicians, philosophers, men of letters, architects, engineers, then also novelists or historians. Then, as I needed a quite different world from ours — it wasn’t enough to invent fancy names — I said, why not a world based on, let’s say, Berkeleyan ideas?
DD: A world in which Berkeley is common sense instead of Descartes?
Borges: Yes, that’s it. Then I wrote that story, “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” that day, which has attracted many readers. And of course, the whole thing was based on the theory of idealism, the idea of there being no things but only happenings, of there being no nouns but only verbs, of there being no things but only perceptions.…
Lawrence I. Berkove: “Tlön” is a good example of one of your stories where, however the story ends, the reader is encouraged to continue applying your ideas.
Borges: Well, I hope so. But I wonder if they are my ideas. Because really I am not a thinker. I have used the philosophers’ ideas for my own private literary purposes, but I don’t think that I’m a thinker. I suppose that my thinking has been done for me by Berkeley, by Hume, by Schopenhauer, by Mauthner perhaps.
MP-R: You say you’re not a thinker…
Borges: No, what I mean to say is that I have no personal system of philosophy. I never attempt to do that. I am merely a man of letters. In the same way, for example that — well, of course, I shouldn’t perhaps choose this as an example — in the same way that Dante used theology for the purpose of poetry, or Milton used theology for the purposes of his poetry, why shouldn’t I use philosophy, especially idealistic philosophy — philosophy to which I was attracted — for the purposes of writing a tale, of writing a story? I suppose that is allowable, no?
DD: You share one thing certainly with philosophers, and that is a fascination with perplexity, with paradox.
Borges: Oh yes, of course — well I suppose philosophy springs from our perplexity. If you’ve read what I may be allowed to call “my works” — if you’ve read my sketches, whatever they are — you’d find that there is a very obvious symbol of perplexity to be found all the time, and that is the maze. I find that a very obvious symbol of perplexity. A maze and amazement go together, no? A symbol of amazement would be the maze.
DD: But philosophers seem not content ever to merely be confronted with perplexity, they want answers, systems.
Borges: Well, they’re right.
DD: They’re right?
Borges: Well, perhaps no systems are attainable, but the search for a system is very interesting.
MP-R: Would you call your work a search for a system?
Borges: No, I wouldn’t be as ambitious as all that. I would call it, well, not science fiction, but rather the fiction of philosophy, or the fiction of dreams. And also, I’m greatly interested in solipsism, which is only an extreme form of idealism. It is strange, though, that all the people who write on solipsism write about it in order to refute it. I haven’t seen a single book in favor of solipsism. I know what you would want to say: since there is only one dreamer, why do you write a book? But if there is only one dreamer, why could you not dream about writing a book?
DD: Bertrand Russell once suggested that all the solipsists ought to get together and form a solipsist association.
Borges: Yes, he wrote very cleverly about solipsism. And so did Bradley in his Appearance and Reality. And then I read a book called Il Solipsismo by an Italian writer, where he says that the whole system is a proof of the egoism, of the selfishness of this period. That’s idiotic. I’ve never thought of solipsism in that way.
MP-R: How do you think of solipsism?
Borges: Well, I suppose that solipsism is unavoidable.
MP-R: Avoidable or unavoidable?
Borges : I should say, it’s unavoidable in a logical way, since nobody can believe in it. It is a bit like what Hume says of Berkeley: “His arguments admit of no refutation and produce no conviction.” Solipsism admits of no refutation and produces no conviction….
DD: Do you think that it is possible then for a story to represent a philosophical position more effectively than a philosopher can argue for it?
Borges: I have never thought of that, but I suppose you’re right, Sir. I suppose you — yes, yes, I think you’re right. Because as — I don’t know who said that, was it Bernard Shaw? — he said, arguments convince nobody. No, Emerson. He said, arguments convince nobody. And I suppose he was right, even if you think of proofs for the existence of God, for example — no? In that case, if arguments convince nobody, a man may be convinced by parables or fables or what? Or fictions. Those are far more convincing than the syllogism — and they are, I suppose. Well, of course, when I think of something in terms of Jesus Christ. As far as I remember, he never used arguments; he used style, he used certain metaphors. It’s very strange — yes, and he always used very striking sentences. He would not say, I don’t come to bring peace but war — “I do not come to bring peace but a sword.” The Christ, he thought in parables. Well, according to — I think that it was Blake who said that a man should be — I mean, if he is a Christian — should be not only just but he should be intelligent ... he should also be an artist, since Christ had been teaching art through his own way of preaching, because every one of the sentences of Christ, if not every single utterance of Christ, has a literary value, and may be thought of as a metaphor or as a parable.
DD: What do you think ultimately, then, separates the philosophical from the literary temperament, if they share these things in common?
Borges: I suppose a philosopher goes in for a rigorous way of thinking, and I suppose a writer is also interested in narratives, he’s telling tales, with metaphors.
MP-R: Can a narrative, especially a short narrative, be rigorous in a philosophical sense?
Borges: I suppose it could be. Of course, in that case it would be a parable. I remember when I read a biography of Oscar Wilde by Hesketh Pearson. Then there was a long discussion going on about predestination and free will. And he asked Wilde what he made of free will. Then he answered in a story. The story seemed somewhat irrelevant, but it wasn’t. He said — yes, yes, yes, some nails, pins, and needles lived in the neighborhood of a magnet, and one of them said, “I think we should pay a visit to the magnet.” And the other said, “I think it is our duty to visit the magnet.” The other said, “This must be done right now. No delay can be allowed.” Then when they were saying those things, without being aware of it, they were all rushing towards the magnet, who smiled because he knew that they were coming to visit him. You can imagine a magnet smiling. You see, there Wilde gave his opinion, and his opinion was that we think we are free agents, but of course we’re not….
But I would like to make it clear that if any ideas are to be found in what I write, those ideas came after the writing. I mean, I began by the writing, I began by the story, I began with the dream, if you want to call it that. And then afterwards, perhaps, some idea came of it. But I didn’t begin, as I say, by the moral and then writing a fable to prove it.
Denis Dutton: Why don’t you tell us about some of the philosophers who have influenced your work, in whom you’ve been the most interested?
Jorge Luis Borges: Well, I think that’s an easy one. I think you might talk in terms of two: those would be Berkeley and Schopenhauer. But I suppose Hume might be worked in also, because, after all, of course Hume refutes Berkeley. But really, he comes from Berkeley — even if Berkeley comes from Locke. You might think of Locke, of Berkeley, and of Hume as being three links in an argument. But when somebody refutes somebody else in philosophy, he’s carrying on the argument.
Michael Palencia-Roth: Where would Schopenhauer come in?
Borges: Schopenhauer is very different from Hume. Of course, Schopenhauer had his idea of the Will. That is not to be found in Hume. But of course in the case of Berkeley it is different. I suppose he thought of God as being aware of all things all the time, I mean if I don’t get him wrong. If we go away, does this room disappear? No, it doesn’t, of course, because God is thinking about it.
 |
Jorge Luis Borges, mid-1970s |
MP-R: Yes.
Borges: But then, to my surprise — and I suppose you can explain this to me, since you are philosophers and I am not — what Schopenhauer says is that all those things have no existence except in the brain. And that the universe — I remember these words, I don’t think I’m inventing them now — “ist ein Gehirnphänomen,” that the world is a cerebral phenomenon. Now, when I read that I was baffled. Because, of course, if you think of the universe, I suppose the brain is as much a part of the external world as the stars or the moon. Because the brain after all is a system of — I don’t know — of visual, of tactile, perceptions. But he keeps on insisting on the brain.
MP-R: Yes.
Borges: But I don’t think, for example, that Bishop Berkeley insists on the brain, or Hume, who would have insisted on the mind, consciousness….
DD: People sometimes say that they see Berkeley in stories like “Orbis Tertius.”
Borges: Yes, I suppose they do. Well, of course. But in that story I was led by literary means also.
DD: How do you distinguish the literary from the philosophical means in that story? Could you explain that?
Borges: Oh, well, yes, I’ll explain very easily…. Encyclopedias have been, I’d say, my life’s chief reading. I have always been interested in encyclopedias. Well, I used to go to the Biblioteca Nacional in Buenos Aires — and since I was so shy, I felt I could not cope with asking for a book, or a librarian, so I looked on the shelves for the Encyclopædia Britannica. Of course, afterwards, I had that book at home, by my hand. And then I would pick up any chance volume and I would read it. And then one night I was richly rewarded, because I read all about the Druses, Dryden, and the Druids — a treasure trove, no? — all in the same volume, of course, “Dr–.”
Then I came to the idea of how fine it would be to think of an encyclopedia of an actual world, and then of an encyclopedia, a very rigorous one of course, of an imaginary world, where everything should be linked. Where, for example, you would have, let’s say, a language and then a literature that went with the language, and then a history with it, and so on. Then I thought, well, I’d write a story of the fancy encyclopedia. Then of course that would need many different people to write it, to get together and to discuss many things — the mathematicians, philosophers, men of letters, architects, engineers, then also novelists or historians. Then, as I needed a quite different world from ours — it wasn’t enough to invent fancy names — I said, why not a world based on, let’s say, Berkeleyan ideas?
DD: A world in which Berkeley is common sense instead of Descartes?
Borges: Yes, that’s it. Then I wrote that story, “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” that day, which has attracted many readers. And of course, the whole thing was based on the theory of idealism, the idea of there being no things but only happenings, of there being no nouns but only verbs, of there being no things but only perceptions.…
Lawrence I. Berkove: “Tlön” is a good example of one of your stories where, however the story ends, the reader is encouraged to continue applying your ideas.
Borges: Well, I hope so. But I wonder if they are my ideas. Because really I am not a thinker. I have used the philosophers’ ideas for my own private literary purposes, but I don’t think that I’m a thinker. I suppose that my thinking has been done for me by Berkeley, by Hume, by Schopenhauer, by Mauthner perhaps.
MP-R: You say you’re not a thinker…
Borges: No, what I mean to say is that I have no personal system of philosophy. I never attempt to do that. I am merely a man of letters. In the same way, for example that — well, of course, I shouldn’t perhaps choose this as an example — in the same way that Dante used theology for the purpose of poetry, or Milton used theology for the purposes of his poetry, why shouldn’t I use philosophy, especially idealistic philosophy — philosophy to which I was attracted — for the purposes of writing a tale, of writing a story? I suppose that is allowable, no?
DD: You share one thing certainly with philosophers, and that is a fascination with perplexity, with paradox.
Borges: Oh yes, of course — well I suppose philosophy springs from our perplexity. If you’ve read what I may be allowed to call “my works” — if you’ve read my sketches, whatever they are — you’d find that there is a very obvious symbol of perplexity to be found all the time, and that is the maze. I find that a very obvious symbol of perplexity. A maze and amazement go together, no? A symbol of amazement would be the maze.
DD: But philosophers seem not content ever to merely be confronted with perplexity, they want answers, systems.
Borges: Well, they’re right.
DD: They’re right?
Borges: Well, perhaps no systems are attainable, but the search for a system is very interesting.
MP-R: Would you call your work a search for a system?
Borges: No, I wouldn’t be as ambitious as all that. I would call it, well, not science fiction, but rather the fiction of philosophy, or the fiction of dreams. And also, I’m greatly interested in solipsism, which is only an extreme form of idealism. It is strange, though, that all the people who write on solipsism write about it in order to refute it. I haven’t seen a single book in favor of solipsism. I know what you would want to say: since there is only one dreamer, why do you write a book? But if there is only one dreamer, why could you not dream about writing a book?
DD: Bertrand Russell once suggested that all the solipsists ought to get together and form a solipsist association.
Borges: Yes, he wrote very cleverly about solipsism. And so did Bradley in his Appearance and Reality. And then I read a book called Il Solipsismo by an Italian writer, where he says that the whole system is a proof of the egoism, of the selfishness of this period. That’s idiotic. I’ve never thought of solipsism in that way.
MP-R: How do you think of solipsism?
Borges: Well, I suppose that solipsism is unavoidable.
MP-R: Avoidable or unavoidable?
Borges : I should say, it’s unavoidable in a logical way, since nobody can believe in it. It is a bit like what Hume says of Berkeley: “His arguments admit of no refutation and produce no conviction.” Solipsism admits of no refutation and produces no conviction….
DD: Do you think that it is possible then for a story to represent a philosophical position more effectively than a philosopher can argue for it?
Borges: I have never thought of that, but I suppose you’re right, Sir. I suppose you — yes, yes, I think you’re right. Because as — I don’t know who said that, was it Bernard Shaw? — he said, arguments convince nobody. No, Emerson. He said, arguments convince nobody. And I suppose he was right, even if you think of proofs for the existence of God, for example — no? In that case, if arguments convince nobody, a man may be convinced by parables or fables or what? Or fictions. Those are far more convincing than the syllogism — and they are, I suppose. Well, of course, when I think of something in terms of Jesus Christ. As far as I remember, he never used arguments; he used style, he used certain metaphors. It’s very strange — yes, and he always used very striking sentences. He would not say, I don’t come to bring peace but war — “I do not come to bring peace but a sword.” The Christ, he thought in parables. Well, according to — I think that it was Blake who said that a man should be — I mean, if he is a Christian — should be not only just but he should be intelligent ... he should also be an artist, since Christ had been teaching art through his own way of preaching, because every one of the sentences of Christ, if not every single utterance of Christ, has a literary value, and may be thought of as a metaphor or as a parable.
DD: What do you think ultimately, then, separates the philosophical from the literary temperament, if they share these things in common?
Borges: I suppose a philosopher goes in for a rigorous way of thinking, and I suppose a writer is also interested in narratives, he’s telling tales, with metaphors.
MP-R: Can a narrative, especially a short narrative, be rigorous in a philosophical sense?
Borges: I suppose it could be. Of course, in that case it would be a parable. I remember when I read a biography of Oscar Wilde by Hesketh Pearson. Then there was a long discussion going on about predestination and free will. And he asked Wilde what he made of free will. Then he answered in a story. The story seemed somewhat irrelevant, but it wasn’t. He said — yes, yes, yes, some nails, pins, and needles lived in the neighborhood of a magnet, and one of them said, “I think we should pay a visit to the magnet.” And the other said, “I think it is our duty to visit the magnet.” The other said, “This must be done right now. No delay can be allowed.” Then when they were saying those things, without being aware of it, they were all rushing towards the magnet, who smiled because he knew that they were coming to visit him. You can imagine a magnet smiling. You see, there Wilde gave his opinion, and his opinion was that we think we are free agents, but of course we’re not….
But I would like to make it clear that if any ideas are to be found in what I write, those ideas came after the writing. I mean, I began by the writing, I began by the story, I began with the dream, if you want to call it that. And then afterwards, perhaps, some idea came of it. But I didn’t begin, as I say, by the moral and then writing a fable to prove it.
****
This ends the recorded portion of the conversation with Borges, though that conversation began earlier and also continued for several minutes more in the room, as well as later over lunch.In fact I am very, very happy!
SageFrancisSFR Last night I did a short set @ the Prospector in LBC. Upon entering the club I went to the restroom. A guy was in there. I apologized &...
SageFrancisSFR I waited for him to get out. Once he got out he asked me if I was gay. He was all mad I saw him standing at a urinal. So I said "yes"
Result! Virginia Revokes Hitler-Saluting License Plate
Virginia Revokes Hitler-Saluting License PlateThe Virginia DMV recalled this now-infamous racist Ford F-150 license plate after negative buzz on the web pointed out the coded pro-Hitler message. Seriously, Virginia, you needed the Internet to realize this guy might be racist?
See previous post
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
