The original story:
“Turkey mourns dead Gaza activists”
BBC Online
4 June 2010

Summary of the story:
The BBC reports on  Turkish mourners at the funerals of the “nine activists killed in Israel’s raid on a Gaza aid flotilla”. It then went on to major on the reaction of the Turkish government and the activists. It mentioned that the Israeli’s believed the ships were aiming to break the contoversial Israeli blockade of Gaza.

livingissues comment:
The following comments are intended to be valid whatever the reader thinks about the state of play between the Israeli government and the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip. Equally, they don’t depend on one’s point of view as to Israel’s blockade of Gaza. 

Israel offered to let the ships fulfill their aid mission by unloading most of their material at a port of the government’s choosing. So had the delivery of aid been the flotilla’s primary ambition, it could have been achieved without difficulty. So it is unlikely that this was primarily an “aid” mission.

It seems silly of the Israeli’s to pretend that the ships had a terrorist ambition as some spokesmen claimed. It isn’t even clear how the ships could seriously be thought to be attempting to break the blockade (as though forcibly), as seemed to be the Israeli’s main claim. It’s true of course that the activists wanted to break the blockade in a political sense (in the long term, for instance).

The flotilla might have been allowed through and in that sense might have “broken” the blockade. But isn’t it more likely that the flotilla intended or expected to be stopped and that there would be a lot of filmable outrage as the blockade was enforced and the aid didn’t get through to Gaza? One may say that that the Israeli’s over-reacted to resistance from some of the activists. But that’s what often happens when an armed force under-estimates the opposition and then has to retrieve the situation.  

What seems to be going on here is, in one way, quite commonplace in the world of protest: some naive, strong-headed activists get duped by people with much more sinister motives. Much protest is intended to provoke state violence, just as much terrorist activity is.  

 Also, of course, the level of violence contemplated by the hard-nuts on the Mavi Maramar was quite different to most protests. But this case is complicated by the involvement of the Turkish authorities. This seems almost to have been a government stunt by proxy.

The original story:
“Lord Rogers’ attack on the Prince of Wales is outlandish”
Telegraph View
Daily Telegraph
17 June 2009

Summary of the story:

A crisp Teleraph leader opines that Lord Rogers is wrong to criticise Prince Charles’s intervention which led to the Qatari power elite pulling out of a London architectural scheme they were funding.

livingissues comment:

It is possible that the majority of people don’t like the Rogers scheme which Charles has scuppered. But it got through the democratically-mandated planning system ordained by the the British people speaking through Parliament. If people don’t like the scheme, they need to use the existing system. If they don’t like the system they need to fight to change it.

Of course, Charles can’t argue for those sorts of changes except discreetly. Not that being argumentative is his game. As Lord Rogers says, and it’s a secondary issue: Charles never debates the issues he chunders on about. Maybe his opining from on high is the luxury we have to allow him granted that he has watch his words (at least a bit).

But we really should not permit to Charles to stitch things up behind our backs: that is a serious abuse of his being heir to a constitutional monarchy.

More to the point, it’s amazing to think that the Daily Telegraph doesn’t see any of that and would rather celebrate the outcome of Charles’s intervention because architecturally it suits them. Oh, and theirs is the populist view – which again is hardly the point of a being an intelligent right-winger.

The original story:
“Trudie Styler: Saving the world one jet at a time”
Marina Hyde
The Guardian
15 May 2009

Summary of the story:
Ms Hyde is making something of a profession discussing the absurdity of celebrity conscience and here’s a good installment in the saga. It’s a tale of extravagant flying in jets and helicopters by a woman with lots of homes and a mission to save the planet.

livingissues comment:
Ms Tyler responded to the piece with an interesting assessment of the trade-offs to be made. Every square mile of rainforest that’s saved, saves a good deal of greenhouse gas and so a bit of jet fuel to save a lot of forest is a good deal.

I have no idea how much rainforest Trudie Styler has saved and how much her flying was indispensable to her saving it.

In principle, she could be right. Similarly, the airmiles of a person like Sir Nicholas Stern might well be worth it, if what he achieves needs face-to-face contact.

In her response, she mentioned her part in the campaign against Chevron and its supposed involvement in destroying Ecuador’s wildernesses. It happens the Economist had a little piece on the background to this saga and it’s well worth a look. One way of looking at things is to say that the Ecuadorian government squandered its own assets and it’s far from sure that any US company has much to blame itself for.

The original story:
UN backtracks on claim that deadly IDF strike hit Gaza school
Amos Harel
Haaretz
3 February, 2009

Summary of the story:

Haaretz’s reporter began his story:

The United Nations has reversed its stance on one of the most contentious and bloody incidents of the recent Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza, saying that an IDF mortar strike that killed 43 people on January 6 did not hit one of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools after all.

livingissues comment:
[This is slightly amended from earlier versions of this blog - apologies, RDN 14.45hrs, 4 February 2009.]

Haaretz’s story mostly checks out at a site referred to by the UN as an official source, ReliefWeb. See their story here. The story is buried by the UN low down in a document, without headline or signposting. So it looks like multiple apologies are in order.

The British media pushed out powerful elements of the original untruths with a great deal of emphasis, and presumably they believed that such allegations if true would do real hard to Israel’s reputation. Using that logic the British media ought to put the record straight – and with a great deal of emphasis.

Of course, the 43 dead remain dead and their families’ grief won’t be diminished by this “news”. Nor, perhaps, their sense of grievance.

It is worth noting that early reports of the incident on 6 January 2009 were often headlined in terms of an attack on a school (for instance, the Independent‘s). But the stories themselves (including the Independent‘s) often then noted that the shells fell outside the school. It was then often left ambiguous as to whether the fatalities and casualties from those shells were inside or outside the school.

Some accounts did report at least one UN official saying that the shells were outside the school and that there were no fatalities (but some casualties) inside it as a result. Indeed, the UNRWA seems to have got itself into a muddle and reversed its account quite early on. So the latest UN account confirms what some said, and corrects others. Namely, that the shells definitely landed outside the school, killing no-one.

One is now looking forward to evidence on the two other main allegations against the Israeli military and its New Year operations in Gaza: that they used phosphorus and “herded” a group of civilians into a building and then shelled it and them.

The original story:
“This is indeed a class war, and the campaign against the Aga starts here”
George Monbiot
The Guardian
14 January 2009

Summary of the stories:
George Monbiot’s column criticises middle class consumption habits and asserts that the climate damage they will cause will mostly afflict poorer people. He cites the Aga (an expensive cooker and room-heater). But he also takes on the “no frills” flying revolution. He quotes authoritative data that whilst all classes are flying more than they used to, there hasn’t been much change in the share of flying done by the well-off.

GM also looks at the class warfare aspect of the argument over climate change and notes that the Marxists at spikedonline seem to be caught in a paradox as they defend the rights of middle class people to damage poor people.

livingissues comment:
George Monbiot is surely right that the better-off do much more climate damage than poor people (and he might have stressed the degree to which most damage by well-off people is discretionary whilst much of the damage done by poor people is unavoidable).

However, whilst it is popularly believed that the main effect of low-cost flying was to unleash a working-class flight to the sun, in fact almost everyone in all classes is doing more flying. It really ought not to be a surprise that the proportion of poor and rich people flying has not much changed.

The data GM seems to be using says that about 60 percent of leisure flying is done by people earning over £46,000. About 40 percent is done by those earning less. This may not be hugely just, but it is not very surprising.

Interestingly, the data also suggests that much of the increase in flying is amongst people travelling on business, and it seems that the big increase here is amongst the less well-off passengers.

GM is right that spiked online are vigorous – and seemingly paradoxical – in defending the freedoms of consumers (rich or poor) against the anxious nay-saying of the environmentalists. But he perhaps overlooks the value of spiked online as squib-merchants. Besides, spiked and others are surely on the money when they argue that environmentalism is in large degree an argument between affluent greens and affluent consumers, and that these are often really the same type of person and even the self-same person.

But then much protest has a middle class accent. Does now, allways has. See here for a wonderful video about a charming protest at Heathrow.

The original story:
“Legal move to crack down on climate protesters”
Afua Hirsch and John Vidal
The Guardian
18 December 2008

Summary of the stories:
The Guardian has got wind of moves by the UK government’s Attorney General to challenge the legal loophole” (“lawful excuse”) whereby people charged with criminal damage can assert that their admitted acts were damaging but not criminal because they were designed to avoid a greater damage. Thus, you can kick down the door of a neighbour’s house if it is on fire. Likewise, lawyers are arguing with great success, that protesters are invading military airfields, trashing trials of genetically modified crops and damaging power station chimneys so as to head off the greater damage of war or environmental damage. Judges and juries have mostly accepted the argument.

livingissues comment:
There is great merit in protest but there need to be limits especially when the protest is against activity which has been thoroughly debated and democratically agreed. There is no obvious parity between the modern use of the “lawful excuse” argument and the circumstances which originally spawned it.

The difficulty looks like being this: there is a superficial attractiveness in the “lawful excuse” argument and confronting it will perhaps require a deliberate change in the law. The A-G may lose his appeal to a higher court. That would only leave a Parliamentary decision – an overt display of will by the government which might be unpopular.

The original story:
Not guilty: the Greenpeace activists who used climate change as a legal defence
John Vidal, environment editor
The Guardian, 
11 September 2008

The story in brief
Six Greenpeace activists have been cleared of causing criminal damage during protest over coal-fired power. The activists were charged with causing £30,000 of damage after they scaled Kingsnorth power station in Hoo, Kent.

One of the cleared activists described the verdict as “a tipping point for the climate change movement”.

He said: “When 12 normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet then where does that leave government energy policy?”

This, as the Guardian usefully points out, follows a spate of other such cases in which activists  - with diverse causes – were cleared of what would normally be classified as illegal acts.

livingissues comment:
Nobody wants to take away the right of defendants to claim that an illegal act had a lawful excuse. However the question is, is that right and the interpretation of what constitutes a lawful cause being abused? There is a strong argument to be made that is precisely what is happening. Take the latest case of the six Greenpeace protesters.

They caused damage worth £30 000.  Their aim, they said, was to prevent damaging emissions that cause global warming. The plant’s owner claimed lives were put at risk, and there was no dispute between the parties that costly damage was caused to a chimney stack.  In normal circumstances a guilty verdict was inevitable.  The sentence might well have – and should have – reflected that the protesters were not mindless vandals and had no real criminal intent in the normal sense of the term.

In contrast, the logical consequence of this verdict is that other protesters can take the law into their own hands with relative impunity to occupy, disrupt and damage any facility that legally emits global warming gases. That represents a challenge to democracy. It is an outcome that must be interrogated closely.

If, as the protesters claimed, they were saving the planet and that this one coal-fired power station alone threatened the existence of 400 species, then they should be able to persuade the public to force lawmakers to change the law. But their protest suggests that they are not so confident of their arguments.  Otherwise why take the law into their own hands? In the words of the coal-fired spokesperson: “That’s a debate that shouldn’t be taking place at the top of a chimney stack.” Moreover, it is not for juries to help protesters circumvent the democratic process.  

Given the frequency of such cases there is a case to had for strengthening and clarifying the legal definition of what constitutes a lawful cause to break the law.

The original stories:
Georgia’s PR agency lashes out at Russian ‘propaganda’
Matt Cartmell
PR Week
14 August 2008

Russia-Georgia War: The PR Battle
Mark Stone,
Sky News Reporter
13 August 2008

Georgia has won the PR war
Peter Wilby
The Guardian
18 August 2008

Summary of the stories:
The success of the Georgia PR campaign following Russia’s military intervention has been widely noted. The front page of PR Week and The Guardian highlighted how Georgia’s PR company Aspect launched its own broadside against PR rivals advocating Russia’s case. “I’m on the side of the angels,” Aspect’s founding partner, James Hunt, told the magazine. “There are agencies (GPlus) that work for Russia. But I don’t know how they can be comfortable about that.”

The original stories:
International law on trial
John Lloyd
Financial Times Weekend Magazine
26/27 July 2008

International courts are undeniably flawed but…
Letter to the FT
Chris Stephen
2/3 August 2008

The stories in brief:
John Lloyd (a distinguished senior journalist) wrote a piece which wasn’t by any means antagonistic to the idea of international courts of justice. However, focussing on the trials of Serbian nationalist leaders, Mr Lloyd found many senior legal figures (several deeply involved in the trials) who have severe doubts on various grounds.

Chris Stephen replied robustly that that courts had found serious culprits and (apart from serving justice) had usefully removed them from regional politics.

livingissues comment:

This is a very difficult area and the arguments in these two pieces of writing do at least clearly show how sharp the collision of valuable views can be.

The main prejudice against international courts is a sub-set of the prejudice against the United Nations and other attempts at world government. This is that such bodies erect a powerful sense that they are more right, more liberal, than national governments. But it is interesting how often the UN is found wanting, and certainly found wanting in democratic respectability. So there may be merit in reminding ourselves of the value of sovereign countries (preferably strongly rooted in democracy or some other accountability), warts and all. 

One difficulty (not really stressed here) is that one might argue that the legitimate leaders of legitimate causes should not be be held solely responsible for the activities of their willing and well-informed followers.

There is also the problem that many leaders of causes who recommend or carry out violent acts and then go on to become heroes or at any rate legitimate leaders. Modern Israel and South Africa were both formed in part as the result of vicious terrorism. The IRA recommended and carried out violent acts as it fought for its goals. What ensures that the leaders of these groups are not war criminals? That they won? That it is inconvenient to prosecute them? That their wickedness was not as great as the Serbian leaders’?

One might argue that these are matters for the countries concerned, and that if they can’t bring themselves to prosecute their own villains, then the “international community” ought to do it for them. In practice, the countries concerned often have to facilitate the arrest and delivery of their own villains. Again, that will often be a matter of political convenience – which may well coincide with justice but isn’t necessarily the best driver of criminal proceedings.

The original story:
When peace and justice collide
Gideon Rachman
Financial Times
8 July 2008

Summary of the story:
Gideon Rachman, a senior FT columnist, looks at several modern cases of villainous national leaders and warriors who have ended up in the International Criminal Court in the Hague. He looks at the difficulties in making these cases work. But he points to a worse dilemma. Even if things go well in the Hague, punishing bad leaders may backfire. This is especially sharp in the case of Zimbabwe’s future. There is a gang of people around Robert Mugabe who deserve punishment. But it may be that they can’t be got rid-of unless they believe that they are safe from prosecution.  

livingissues comment:
It is natural to look for rules in international affairs. It is also tempting to believe that international institutions can provide and police them. And yet in the real world, deals have to be struck and the best can often be the enemy of the good. There is a lot to be said for an appreciation of pragmatism over principle.

It is also worth remembering that the kind of liberal campaigners who dominate our airwaves are drawn to principles and ideals, and like to bash the politicians and other realists who have to try to run the world as it actually is.