A while ago, we presented y’all a documentary on the early 1980s origins of warehouse raves and techno, Real Scenes: Detroit. Now, get ready to submerge in the following documentary on its British successor movement: acid house!
During the late 1980s, acid house, with its distinctive sound produced by Roland bass synthesizers and drum machines such as the TB 303 and TR 808, presented the first full-blown electronic dance music movement in Europe, including a booming underground scene. It also presented the first coming to the surface of ecstasy, which contributed to the summers of 1988-9 being called the second Summer of Love (after the lsd-fueled first one in 1969). Acid house parties took place in warehouses and out in the open, thus continuing the Detroit phenomenon of the “rave”. Fueled by sensationalist media reporting, however, British authorities came crashing down on the acid house scene.
This great documentary from the BBC’s World in Action strand is like a full blown acid house flashback. Broadcast in 1988 at height of acid house fever, it follows the typical weekend rituals of a group of very young fans, tracks the working life of an illegal party promoter, speaks to some of the producers of the music and charts the the then-growing moral panic which surrounded the scene and its copious drug taking. Raving, and acid house, had a huge (if subtle) effect on British culture, bringing people together in new, democratised contexts free of class and social boundaries, opening people’s ears up to a new world of music and opening their minds to new ideas.
So here’s the entire documentary. Enjoy!
More electronic music history documentaries on LSD:
While Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte attended the oh-so-mainstream Dance Valley festival last week (you know your festival is dead when a conservative prime minister shows up), British PM David Cameron apparently knew what was cool in 1988.
Here’s footage supposedly showing a long-haired Cameron, then 22 years old, at an acid house rave. We, of course, are wondering, if it is him, whether he also used some stimuli to get in the mood. Look at that eyes and smile…
One rightwing blogger who previously organized raves unfortunately doesn’t want to let go a thing. More here and here.
Eén van de betere duidingen van de rellen in Groot-Brittannië die ik de afgelopen tijd heb gelezen is van Peter Giesen in de Volkskrant van afgelopen zaterdag. Vanwege de combinatie van cultureel-psychologische en sociaal-economische factoren die hij aanhaalt, zonder enerzijds apologetisch te worden, of anderzijds te vervallen in het simpele conservatieve moralisme op rechts.
Aan de ene kant valt deze plunderaars van alles te verwijten, zoals een trieste levensinstelling, doordrongen van materialisme, nihilisme en egoïsme. Aan de andere kant zijn ze net zo goed onderdeel van een doorgeslagen kapitalistische samenleving met een verdwenen civil society en een afgebroken verzorgingsstaat, waarin de sociaal-economische (en culturele) verschillen alleen maar groter worden – vooral in de VS en Groot-Brittannië, maar ook hier.
Deze mensen geven nergens meer om, en waarom zouden ze? Het enige dat nog waarde voor ze heeft is wat ze op tv zien, en materiële producten. Maakt niet uit hoe je eraan komt. Klinkt heel conservatief en treurig, maar volgens mij is het waar. Een gemakzuchtig verhaal over normen en waarden houden, zoals Cameron nu doet, is dan ook niet voldoende. Het probleem zit veel dieper.
Verbaast me trouwens ook niet dat de plek in Nederland waar iets van een herhaling op microniveau van deze rellen plaats lijkt te vinden, Rotterdam is.
Zo ziet een westerse revolutie in de 21ste eeuw eruit: een intifada van consumenten. De relschoppers in Londen vielen geen overheidsgebouwen aan, maar plunderden winkels en liepen naar buiten met sportschoenen, flatscreens en blu-rayspelers. Toch leek hun motivatie niet louter materieel. Voor even waren kruimeldieven en kleine krabbelaars uit Tottenham of Peckham de meesters van hun universum. Underdogs werden topdogs die de samenleving uitdaagden: kom maar op, wij hebben schijt aan jullie! ‘Dit is vrijheid’, zoals een van de relschoppers op televisie zei.
De hooligans vormden een tamelijk diverse groep. Er werd zelfs een miljonairsdochter opgepakt, en een jonge atlete die als ambassadrice van de Olympische Spelen was benoemd. Maar het gros leek toch tot de onderklasse te behoren, zwart, wit of Aziatisch. De meesten waren jongens, hoewel er opvallend veel meisjes meededen. Sommigen waren doorgewinterde bendeleden, anderen opportunisten die de kans op een gratis trainingspak niet wilden laten lopen.
Voor hun gedrag kunnen allerlei verklaringen worden aangevoerd, van slechte opvoeding tot sociale ongelijkheid en preventief fouilleren door de politie. Maar de meest overtuigende verklaring is toch de sterke behoefte aan erkenning door een onderklasse. De relschoppers wilden laten zien dat ze er zijn. Heel even werden de rollen omgedraaid en waren zij de baas.
(…)
De meeste hooligans zijn niet uitgesloten in de klassiek-linkse zin. Veel mensen die deze week moesten voorkomen, hadden een baan. Ze waren niet erg welgesteld, maar waarschijnlijk beschikten ze gewoon over een iPod of laptop, in elk geval over een BlackBerry.
Maar hun leven steekt pover af tegen hun dromen van welvaart, status en beroemdheid. Ze zijn opgegroeid in een popcultuur die snelle auto’s, mooie vrouwen en bling verheerlijkt. De celebrity-cultuur is in Engeland nog sterker dan in de meeste andere landen. Voetballers en hun wags (wives and girlfriends) zijn krachtige rolmodellen, gewone jongens en meisjes die rondrijden in Bentleys en Range Rovers, Louis Vuitton-tassen dragen en in een landhuis wonen. Reality-tv suggereert dat iedereen op slag beroemd kan worden, zonder iets te kunnen, gewoon door je zelf te zijn. Helaas vinden de meeste mensen aan de onderkant zichzelf terug in een saaie werkelijkheid, waarin ze hooguit klassenassistent zijn, winkelbediende of hulpje in de sportschool. Het echte leven mist de status en de glamour van het medialeven. Dat verschil was altijd al een krachtige stimulans voor criminaliteit, en nu voor de rellen in Londen en andere steden.
Met de rellen liet deze postpolitieke onderklasse zien dat zij niet uit te vlakken is. Bovendien waren de onlusten ook gewoon bad fun, schreef columnist David Aaronovitch in The Times. Straffeloos konden jongeren ‘de straat op gaan, verwoestingen aanrichten, geld verdienen, geweld plegen, dronken worden, zich gedragen alsof ze de tirannen en koningen van hun buurt waren – de mini-Sopranos van Enfield of Croydon, de gangstas van Chalk Farm’, aldus Aaronovitch. Gedurende een paar spannende, broeiende nachten hadden ze ‘dat ene ding dat ze in hun leven missen: macht’.
(…)
Net als de rellen in de Franse banlieues van 2005 laten de onlusten in Engeland zien dat de samenleving zich nauwelijks raad weet met de onderklasse. Links noch rechts is goed in staat het leven aan de onderkant een zekere waardigheid te geven.
Links is geneigd de onderklasse te beschouwen als de slachtoffers van een onrechtvaardige samenleving, waardoor het in brand steken van de buurtwinkel weliswaar niet goed te praten, maar wel te begrijpen is. Het woord ‘achterstand’ suggereert een situatie die kan worden opgeheven. Maar hoeveel ook wordt geïnvesteerd in buurten, sociale voorzieningen onderwijs, er zullen altijd mensen aan de onderkant van de samenleving zijn. Sommigen zullen altijd een achterstand houden, anderen worden afgelost door nieuwe groepen. Maar de retoriek van links suggereert dat het leven aan de onderkant eigenlijk een misstand is, die bijna onvermijdelijk tot criminaliteit en ordeverstoring moet leiden.
Rechts heeft geen moeite met sociale verschillen. Die zijn onvermijdelijk en zelfs nuttig, omdat ze mensen tot harder werken aanzetten. In een moderne samenleving krijgt iedereen de kans om iets van zijn leven te maken, zeggen liberale en conservatieve politici. Wie desondanks aan de onderkant bungelt, had maar beter zijn best moeten doen.
Los van het feit dat de kansen niet zo gelijk zijn als rechtse politici graag beweren, denken sommige personen aan de onderkant daar anders over. Zij voelen zich de verliezers in een wereld die zo sterk om status en materieel bezit draait, zeker als de top schaamteloos misbruik maakt van zijn positie om zichzelf verder te verrijken. In de hedendaagse cultuur worden zij gebrandmerkt als de sukkels en de knoeiers, die onvoldoende talent en wilskracht hebben om hun armoedige leefwereld te ontstijgen.
Natuurlijk geldt dat niet voor iedereen aan de onderkant. Ook in wijken als Tottenham leiden veel mensen een keurig leven met een laag inkomen. Maar bij sommige jongeren vormen verongelijktheid en sensatiezucht een brandbaar mengsel.
Zoals een jongen voor de BBC zei: ‘Wij laten de rijken zien dat we kunnen doen wat we willen.’
- Edit: En hier een goed stuk uit The Guardianvan iemand die zelf ooit meedeed aan half-politiek, half-puur gewelddadig “protest”, dat min of meer hetzelfde zegt. Again: geen verexcusering of begrijpelijk maken, maar wel een perspectief. Het argument tegen de politici en bankiers, dat door ‘links’ nu veelal gemaakt wordt, slik ik overigens niet, omdat het geen enkel excuus is. Maar het is wel waar dat er van de bovenklasse meer crimineel gedrag getolereerd wordt dan van de onderklasse.
En vooral de laatste opmerking is zeer, zeer op zijn plaats.
I found those protests exciting, yes, because I was young and a bit of a twerp but also, I suppose, because there was a void in me. A lack of direction, a sense that I was not invested in the dominant culture, that government existed not to look after the interests of the people it was elected to represent but the big businesses that they were in bed with.
I felt that, and I had a mum who loved me, a dad who told me that nothing was beyond my reach, an education, a grant from Essex council (to train as an actor of all things!!!) and several charities that gave me money for maintenance. I shudder to think how disenfranchised I would have felt if I had been deprived of that long list of privileges.
That state of deprivation though is, of course, the condition that many of those rioting endure as their unbending reality. No education, a weakened family unit, no money and no way of getting any. JD Sports is probably easier to desecrate if you can’t afford what’s in there and the few poorly paid jobs there are taken. Amidst the bleakness of this social landscape, squinting all the while in the glare of a culture that radiates ultraviolet consumerism and infrared celebrity. That daily, hourly, incessantly enforces the egregious, deceitful message that you are what you wear, what you drive, what you watch and what you watch it on, in livid, neon pixels. The only light in their lives comes from these luminous corporate messages. No wonder they have their fucking hoods up.
I remember Cameron saying “hug a hoodie” but I haven’t seen him doing it. Why would he? Hoodies don’t vote, they’ve realised it’s pointless, that whoever gets elected will just be a different shade of the “we don’t give a toss about you” party.
Politicians don’t represent the interests of people who don’t vote. They barely care about the people who do vote. They look after the corporations who get them elected. Cameron only spoke out against News International when it became evident to us, US, the people, not to him (like Rose West, “He must’ve known”) that the newspapers Murdoch controlled were happy to desecrate the dead in the pursuit of another exploitative, distracting story.
Why am I surprised that these young people behave destructively, “mindlessly”, motivated only by self-interest? How should we describe the actions of the city bankers who brought our economy to its knees in 2010? Altruistic? Mindful? Kind? But then again, they do wear suits, so they deserve to be bailed out, perhaps that’s why not one of them has been imprisoned. And they got away with a lot more than a few fucking pairs of trainers.
These young people have no sense of community because they haven’t been given one. They have no stake in society because Cameron’s mentor Margaret Thatcher told us there’s no such thing.
These Photoshopped picture from some UK looting scenes have been going around a lot of news media, but still, can’t resist… Via Photoshop Looters tumblr:
- Update: Wow, this is heartwarming. While scum is looting the streets at night, during the day Londoners come together using social media to clean up the mess. Check the photos here.
It’s not the first time: sanity from Great Britain in the drugs debate. The Liberal Democrat party – currently in government – is expected to pass a motion calling for an independent inquiry into the decriminalization of drug possession at its fall conference. This is supported by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
The motion is based on Portuguese drug reforms (blogged about those here and here) enacted a decade ago, which through decriminalization have succesfully pushed back problematic drug use, whilst leaving alone unproblematic users. Drugs are considered a health issue instead of a criminal one, except in the case of big-time dealers.
That is not to mention the Global Commission on Drug Policy, consisting of the former presidents of Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, former UN Secretary Kofi Annan, former EU High Representative Javier Solana, former US Secretary of State George Shultz, Richard Branson and former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, among others. It’s noteworthy that a lot of politicians come out in favor of drug decriminalization after their tenure.
It has by now been established that lsd and xtc are less dangerous in pretty much every respect than alcohol. The international War on Drugs is an absurdly costly and harmful affair that has led absolutely nowhere (except for the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of people). It’s seriously time to start considering an end to Prohibition.
Drug reform advocates could be about to secure a significant victory in their campaign to liberalise the law after a Liberal Democrat motion for full decriminalisation was submitted.
The party is likely to overwhelmingly back the motion to establish a panel to urgently consider the decriminalisation of personal drug use at its conference this autumn.
The move would likely prompt friction with the Lib Dems’ Conservative coalition partners, whose rank-and-file membership are strongly opposed to any change to drug laws. The party would need Conservative support before the panel could be established.
David Cameron’s record as a backbencher was distinctly liberal when it came to drug reform. He called for heroin ‘shooting rooms’ and a public health approach to drug use before taking the leadership.
Drug liberalisation views are surprisingly popular in Westminster circles, but it has been considered politically impossible for several years, mostly due to fear of the tabloid reaction and the views of ‘middle-England’ voters.
Former defence secretary Bob Ainsworth quickly came out against the “disaster” of drug regulation after leaving his front bench position.
Nick Clegg is understood to be distinctly relaxed about the motion, however, suggesting the Lib Dem leadership will not back down in the event of a yes vote.
There is “increasing evidence that the UK’s drugs policy is not only ineffective and not cost-effective but actually harmful, impacting particularly severely on the poor and marginalised”, the motion reads.
“Individuals, especially young people, can be damaged both by the imposition of criminal records and by a drug habit, and… the priority for those addicted to all substances must be healthcare, education and rehabilitation, not punishment.
“One of the key barriers to developing better drugs policy has been the previous Labour government’s persistent refusal to take on board scientific advice, and the absence of an overall evaluative framework of the UK’s drugs strategy.”
The demand comes amid unparalleled change internationally on drug laws, with several highly-respected figures and institutions calling for a more liberal policy on narcotics.
The Global Commission on Drugs Policy, headed by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan recently called for world governments to consider regulating the drug trade.
Under decriminalisation, people caught with drugs would no longer be given fines or jail sentences but rather treatment and counselling. Dealers would still face the current legal penalties, however.
A similar policy was recently adopted in Portugal, and led to surprising results, with some sources suggesting cannabis use has decreased by 50%.
The Lib Dems have a long track record of an evidence-based policy on drugs and called for the legalisation of cannabis in 2002. But with the party now in power, their vote is likely to play a much more significant role in the public debate.
The motion will be put forward by Ewan Hoyle, founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform, and backed by Lib Dem MEP Sir Graham Watson
Editors of the Oxford English Dictionary have uncovered a use of “OMG” that predates the Internet by many decades. Even better, it was deployed, in writing, by an eccentric British admiral, John Fisher, who was prone to taking offense and running away in anger.
(“I am unable to remain any longer your colleague … I am off to Scotland at once so as to avoid all questionings,” he wrote to Winston Churchill, in May 1915. Prime Minister H. H. Asquith ordered him back.)
The use of the abbreviation that’s become synonymous with teenagers’ text-speak comes from Fisher’s memoirs: “I hear that a new order of Knighthood is on the tapis—O.M.G. (Oh! My God!)—Shower it on the Admiralty!”
While we attended you to the sale of former Dutch Navy landing crafts, hi-tech motors and fire trucks before, here’s the first prize: the HMS Ark Royal! Yeah that’s right, the Royal Navy’s finest, pride of the seven seas, is now on public auction at the site of the ‘Disposal Services Authority’.
So if you wanna buy your own aircraft carrier, here’s your chance. If you’re not sure, you could’ve inspected it on May 3 and 4 in Portsmouth. Here’s the specs:
Vessel ARK ROYAL R07
Light Aircraft Carrier
Length: 210m
Beam: 36m
Draught: 5.8m
Current Displacement: 19000 tonnes
Estimated Metal Weight: 10000 tonnes inc. machinery
Estimated metal %: 95% steel
Location: HM Naval Base Portsmouth
Date and time for viewings:
8am Tuesday 3rd May
8am Wednesday 4th May
It’s official now: the global War on Drugs has failed. So says the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a transnational body consisting of the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, former UN Secretary Kofi Annan, former US Secretary of State George Shultz, Richard Branson and former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, among others.
Their report states that “the global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.”
The report also calls for an end to the “criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others,” and for governments to experiment with ways to regulate drugs so as to undercut organized crime and improve public health.
But tell all this to the tenaciously stupid governing parties in the Netherlands today (Christian Democrats and conservative liberals, of course), who are taking a country that for forty years has been on the vanguard of a sane, rational drugs policy now back into retrograd repression.
While in the rest of the world, increasingly voices are heard calling for an end to a hyper-costly, completely failing War on Drugs; while in more and more countries in Europe, with proven success possession and use of small amounts of drugs is decriminalized, and public policy starts to revolve around health issues; in the Netherlands, the government is closing down coffee shops and implementing a nationwide system for the registration of drug users. It’s not hard to see what the next step will be.
And of all of this out of a mistaken sense of ideology. Because they don’t like you to take drugs. It would be saddening if it wasn’t so maddening – and maddeningly irrational.
The Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes several former heads of state and UN officials, has released a report calling the global war on drugs a failure.
“The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world,” the report reads. “Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.”
Among the members of the commission are former presidents of Columbia, Mexico and Brazil, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Secretary of State George P. Shultz and former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, among others.
The report calls for an end to the “criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others,” and for governments to experiment with ways to regulate drugs so as to undercut organized crime and improve public health.
“Begin the transformation of the global drug prohibition regime,” the report says. “Replace drug policies and strategies driven by ideology and political convenience with fiscally responsible policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights - and adopt appropriate criteria for their evaluation.”
In a comment to The Guardian, a spokesman for White House drug tsar Gil Kerlikowske disagreed with the report’s conclusions.
“Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated. Making drugs more available – as this report suggests – will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe,” the spokesman said.
I didn’t watch the marriage ceremony of Prince William and Kate Middleton today. Frankly, I’ve been baffled the last few days (when the subject intrusively pushed itself into the realm of my involuntary attention) about the whole fuss about it. This afternoon, when by chance I did get to watch a couple of minutes of the spectacle, I was most amused by William’s increasing and by now apparent baldness, which offers Schadenfreude to common people like your blogger truly (not to mention that other guy), who cope with similar cosmetic problems.
So I’m pretty pleased with this article by Matt Soller Seitz on Salon.com, who points out the mind-numbing stupidity of the whole affair, particularly the fact that it is apparently watched by two billion people worldwide. Wtf. Of course, ‘critical’ articles like Seitz’s are about as predictable as the royal ceremony itself, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said. Because the guy is right.
If you’ve been watching and drooling about this thing: please grow up.
I’m off, getting drunk in an orange lion-tailed jump suit on Queens Day.
The hours of breathless coverage about Britain’s monarchy played into our collective serf mentality.
So Prince William and Kate Middleton, now Duchess of Cambridge, are married. They exchanged vows before the Archbishop of Canterbury at Westminster Abbey on the morning of April 29, 2011, with planes roaring overhead and Union Jacks waving and hundreds of thousands of people in the London streets and millions upon millions upon millions of people watching on international television.
“It really is something special,” anchor Diane Sawyer said on ABC a few minutes after their first public kiss. Then she added a few minutes later, in a rundown of factoids, “He knows how to line dance!”
The moment capped four straight hours of continuous coverage on every major broadcast network and cable news channel. The news organizations never cut away except for commercials. And they managed to forgo those breaks when it seemed as if something exciting, or “exciting,” was about to happen – such as the newly-hitched royal couple’s first kiss, which was so brief that the TV organizations played it back in slow motion, and their second kiss, which presumably was an attempt to improve on the first one.
“I’m a hard-hearted old cynic, but I must admit I did shed a tear,” said ABC’s Buckingham Palace correspondent Nick Watt, who then stopped just short of taking credit for the chant in the crowd that pushed William and Kate to kiss a second time. “I’d like to think I played a small part in that,” Watt said, beaming.
I wish the royal couple the very best. They seem like nice people, truly. Fellow human beings, at the very least. And that’s why I hope that when in the unlikely event that they ever read this, that they won’t take it personally when I say that the coverage of this whole ceremony and its run-up was revoltingly obsequious and almost entirely devoid of news value, and so altogether bubble-brained that it makes me think that if there is such a thing as karmic payback for wrong priorities, we’re due for some major trauma.
As you read this, the big three morning shows — “Good Morning America,” “Today” and “The CBS Morning News” — are continuing to re-hash, analyze and replay the ceremony on tape while going live to various correspondents and experts in England and elsewhere. The morning shows usually run two hours — more if an affiliate takes their built-in spillover, but for the sake of argument let’s just say they did two hours’ worth, and add that to the overnight coverage, which ran four hours, bringing the total to six. And then let’s ask ourselves this question: When’s the last time the top guns of the American electronic media covered an event, any event, for six hours straight without any significant interruption, at any hour of the day or night?
So say a group of prominent British public figures, including former heads of MI5, the Crown Prosecution Service, the BBC, the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council. The group also includes Members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords, including Conservatives. Together they have formed an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform, which calls for new drug policies in the United Kingdom based on scientific evidence.
Since Britain’s prisons, like those in the United States, are overcrowded and full of people convicted on (small) drug charges, it’s possible that the parliamentary group’s calls will receive a ‘sympathetic audience’ in Whitehall, where the government is trying to cut the numbers and costs of the prison population.
In that respect, they can look to Portugal, where a rather succesful experiment with decriminalization of drug possession has reached its tenth year. Here, there has been a 63 percent increase in drug users getting treatment, and a 499 percent increase in amount of drugs seized (by focusing on the big fish).
Either way, present UK (and US) policy – the full criminalization of drug possession and use – is a very costly disaster. A big societal issue that some people should finally start to think rationally, rather than ideologically about.
Leading peers – including prominent Tories – say that despite governments worldwide drawing up tough laws against dealers and users over the past 50 years, illegal drugs have become more accessible.
Vast amounts of money have been wasted on unsuccessful crackdowns, while criminals have made fortunes importing drugs into this country.
The increasing use of the most harmful drugs such as heroin has also led to “enormous health problems”, according to the group.
The MPs and members of the House of Lords, who have formed a new All-Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform, are calling for new policies to be drawn up on the basis of scientific evidence.
It could lead to calls for the British government to decriminalise drugs, or at least for the police and Crown Prosecution Service not to jail people for possession of small amounts of banned substances.
Their intervention could receive a sympathetic audience in Whitehall, where ministers and civil servants are trying to cut the numbers and cost of the prison population. The Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, has already announced plans to help offenders kick drug habits rather than keeping them behind bars.
The former Labour government changed its mind repeatedly on the risks posed by cannabis use and was criticised for sacking its chief drug adviser, Prof David Nutt, when he claimed that ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol.
The chairman of the new group, Baroness Meacher – who is also chairman of an NHS trust – told The Daily Telegraph: “Criminalising drug users has been an expensive catastrophe for individuals and communities.
“In the UK the time has come for a review of our 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. I call on our Government to heed the advice of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that drug addiction should be recognised as a health problem and not punished.
“We have the example of other countries to follow. The best is Portugal which has decriminalised drug use for 10 years. Portugal still has one of the lowest drug addiction rates in Europe, the trend of Young people’s drug addiction is falling in Portugal against an upward trend in the surrounding countries, and the Portuguese prison population has fallen over time.”
Lord Lawson, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1983 and 1989, said: “I have no doubt that the present policy is a disaster.
“This is an important issue, which I have thought about for many years. But I still don’t know what the right answer is – I have joined the APPG in the hope that it may help us to find the right answer.”
Other high-profile figures in the group include Baroness Manningham-Buller, who served as Director General of MI5, the security service, between 2002 and 2007; Lord Birt, the former Director-General of the BBC who went on to become a “blue-sky thinker” for Tony Blair; Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, until recently the Director of Public Prosecutions; and Lord Walton of Detchant, a former president of the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council.
Current MPs on the group include Peter Bottomley, who served as a junior minister under Margaret Thatcher; Mike Weatherley, the newly elected Tory MP for Hove and Portslade; and Julian Huppert, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge.
(…)
The peers and MPs say that despite governments “pouring vast resources” into the attempt to control drug markets, availability and use has increased, with up to 250 million people worldwide using narcotics such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin in 2008.
They believe the trade in illegal drugs makes more than £200 billion a year for criminals and terrorists, as well as destabilising entire nations such as Afghanistan and Mexico.
As a result, the all-party group is working with the Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust, to review current policies and scientific evidence in order to draw up proposed new ways to deal with the problem.
Now that the military intervention in Libya is entering its third day, some doubts about the whole action are beginning to arise in the mainstream media and online. Well, actually, on the blogosphere, notably in the US, the enthusiasm doesn’t seem to have been great to begin with. Also, here, the legitimacy and even domestic legality of the military actions are being called into question. The NYT, though, now also has a good piece about what is the fundamental problem with this intervention: what conclusion do we want it to have? What is the purpose of this intervention?
Basically, two answers to that are possible. One is the removal of Colonel Ghadafi by coalition military might. The other is the implementation of the no-fly zone (and, by now, it seems, also the destruction of the Libyan military), thus either allowing the rebels to topple Ghadafi, or pushing for negotiations between them and Ghadafi. I have the impression that the second option is what the coalition is pretty explicitly pushing for - although some (French) officials have also hinted at the first option, and Obama has indicated that to him the only outcome of negotiations can also be the removal of Ghadafi. The problem is, though: what if the second option doesn’t work out, and either the rebels are defeated, unable to conquer the entire country, or Ghadafi remains in (partial) power? Then we have an open-ended military commitment; and that is something we do not want to have.
The first option, though, is evidently outside of the scope of UNSCR 1973.
So this military intervention is predicated on a huge gamble, namely that the rebels will be able to swiftly re-conquer the country. If not, then we have a problem – the West is then embroiled in a third war in a Muslim country, and public support for this undertaking, both in the West and in the Arab world, will quickly ebb away. The model seems to be Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance doing the ground work (and then letting them install a government), rather than Iraq 2003. The comparison with the Iraq War, though, is already now increasingly being heard online. I would like the main point of this blog post to be that while the pitfalls of this mission (as stipulated above) must be recognized, any comparison with the Iraq War falls flat and is completely unfair. Let’s compare the two.
The Iraq War was a US-led war of aggression, against a state that posed no direct threat to the US. It was based on a fraudulent case about so-called weapons of mass destruction, that was embarassingly argued for by Colin Powell in the UN – a top aide later admitted this to be the lowest point in his career. There was a doctrine called ‘pre-emptive war’, which was up till then unheard of in international relations, and was accepted only in US neocon circles. There was no substantial international coalition backing this invasion, and what’s more, it was illegal: the UN resolution that was in place at the time did not provide for a full-scale war and toppling of the government.
The Libyan intervention, on the other hand, is a UN-instigated, UN-backed mission primarily meant to prevent the massacre of thousands of people. The pretty strong-worded Resolution 1973 fully, legally provides for everything that is happening right now. As co-blogger blsd has also argued here, this is what the Security Council was set up for! Only because of the Cold War did it never come around to do so. The international coalition supporting this mission is much broader than in the case of Iraq (ranging from Europe to the Arab League), and while Russia, China and India may be bitching now, they could’ve prevented this intervention in the Security Council if they’d wanted to, yet they didn’t. The Arab League is also still on board. The military action up till now may have been bold, but it effectuated what was stipulated in the Resolution: implement a no-fly zone.
I’m not saying this is without enormous risks, or even that it’s the best thing to do; but to compare it with Iraq is to demonstrate an Americentric worldview that supposes that once again this is an American mission with the rest of the world merely looking on. The US may bear the brunt, true; but the rhetorical lipservice being paid to this being an international coalition, and most importantly the fact that this is a circumscribed, UN-mandated mission, makes this an essentially different thing. It’s the reason that I, for one, can back this thing for now, as I suspect a far larger percentage of the European populace does than in the case of Iraq.
Of course this thing may be running out of hand, and then I’ll hate it was ever started and pound my head and ask, ‘Have we learned nothing?’ But for now, to me it seems that if there ever was a reason for an intervention, and a process to give it legitimacy and an international coalition, it’s this one and now. Let’s hope that it essentially stays limited, that there’s a quick way out, and that it doesn’t blow up in everybody’s faces.
- Update – 17:11: At 2:00 PM EST (19:00 Dutch time) President Obama will deliver a speech on Libya.
- Update – 15:19: What will it take to establish a no-fly zone in Libya? CNN’s John King explains. The first target will be Qaddafi’s air defence system on the coast, which contains some relatively advanced anti-aircraft missiles like the French Crotale SAM, the Russian S-200/SA-5 Gammon missiles and the portable SA-7, as well as the ancient stuff we’ve seen the rebels using.
- Update – 15:07: There are serious doubts about Qaddafi’s claim that he has ordered a ceasefire. Apparently, the city of Misrata is still being shelled.
- Update – 13:58: The Libyan government has announced an immediate ceasefire, in order to comply with U.N. resolution 1973!
The Libyan announcement of a unilateral ceasefire made by foreign minister Moussa Koussa leaves several important questions unanswered. Is it simply a ploy to divide the UN after the approval of the security council resolution? And how will a ceasefire be monitored and verified? Will the UN be allowed in? Fighting was reported from the port of Misrata shortly before his press conference in Tripoli. His offer of dialogue has already been rejected by the Benghazi-based rebels. The Gaddafi regime is pretty low on credibility so there will be plenty of scepticism about this statement. And Koussa pointedly refused to answer any questions after dropping his bombshell.
I’m wondering what this means for the rebels. Can they keep on fighting? Is there gonna be like a dialogue between them and Gadhafi?
- Original post: So the UN, in a probably way too late, yet nevertheless pretty strong resolution, has installed a no-fly zone above Libya. This is not just some gesture: it means that Libyan military airplanes will be shot down by Western ones to actually implement and enforce this no-fly zone. This is what the worries of Chancellor Merkel are about (and why Germany abstended in the Security Council vote). In other words: we’re potentially in for a long, protracted military conflict with Colonel Gadhafi. No idea what the aftermath of that will be like.
Meanwhile, British fighter jets are under way; the French are getting ready; Belgium (yes, Belgium) will send 4 F-16′s; Denmark will send 7 F-16′s; the Netherlands wants to join in as well, but is waiting for a request; and Egypt is supplying the Libyan rebels. So, the international community is now actively taking sides in this conflict. Gadhafi ordered the biggest bombardments as of yet on the city of Misurata, so he ain’t backing down. Guess we’ll have to wait until the bombs start falling.
I’m probably not gonna be able to liveblog what’s happening (maybe other LSD bloggers are), but here’s some links to follow, and some analysis.
Only hours after the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize military action and the imposition of a no-flight zone to try to avert a rout of rebels by forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, French officials said on Friday that military action would start soon. News reports said British and French warplanes would spearhead the attack.
Eurocontrol, Europe’s air traffic control agency, said in Brussels on Friday that Libya had closed its airspace.
(…)
On the ground, forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi unleashed a barrage of fire against the rebel-held town of Misurata in the west of the country while one of the colonel’s sons, Seif el-Islam, was quoted as saying government forces would encircle the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in the east.
François Baroin, a French government spokesman, told RTL radio that airstrikes would come “rapidly,” perhaps within hours, following the United Nations resolution late Thursday authorizing “all necessary measures” to impose a no-flight zone.
But he insisted the military action “is not an occupation of Libyan territory.” Rather, it was designed to protect the Libyan people and “allow them to go all the way in their drive, which means bringing down the Qaddafi regime.”
The action seemed to have divided Europeans, with Germany saying it would not participate while Norway was reported as saying it would. In the region, Turkey was reported to have registered opposition while demanding ceasefire, but Qatar said it would support the operation.
Like it or not we are now in it for the long-haul. The history of UN-mandated missions does not support the notion that this will be a quick or easy campaign. The UN is still present in Bosnia and Kosovo and it seems quite possible, even if this mission achieves its stated goals, that it will be in Libya for years to come. That’s probable, surely, even if or perhaps especially if the end result is the partition of Libya. Indeed,a Kosovan-style outcome may now be the best available.
The question naturally becomes: what’s victory? How does this end? The United Nations has approved a tactic. It hasn’t set out a strategy. The fact that France showedmore enthusiasm than the U.S. for the no-fly zone underscores the lack of agreement about just how far this intervention will go. Logically, the endstate implied by the U.N. vote is the end of Gadhafi’s rule over Libya. But it’s far from certain that’s what nations signing on to a no-fly zone are committed to bringing about, especially if Gadhafi proves to be resilient.
OK. So what now? First, Assange may win the trial in Sweden. That’s perfectly possibly. Second, I honestly doubt he’d be extradited to the US from a EU country. That’s because on the one hand, there have been no charges filed against Assange in the US yet (as it’s not even sure he committed any ‘crime’ that’s currently in the books), and on the other hand, if there will be, there are of course serious concerns about his life and health.
The United States today ranks among the developmental countries in the world when it comes to treatment of prisoners (especially political prisoners, like Assange would be); in that respect, the US is on par with Libya and China. Just consider the treatment of detainees on Guantánamo Bay, and that of the WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning. These people are being deprived of basic human rights, being solitarily confined for months or years on end (which amounts to torture). They come out of it scarred for life. So, if European norms and values with respect to the rule of law mean anything at all, there will be no extradition to a country like the United States.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. Assange will appeal, his legal team confirmed. If this is unsuccessful, he will be extradited to Sweden in 10 days.
(…)
Assange has been fighting extradition since he was arrested and bailed in December. He has consistently denied the allegations, made by two women in August last year.
At a two-day hearing earlier this month, his legal team argued that Assange would not receive a fair trial in Sweden. They said the European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by Sweden was invalid because the Australian had not been charged with any offence and that the alleged assaults would not be legitimate extraditable offences.
Assange fears that an extradition to Sweden would make it easier for Washington to extradite him to the US on possible charges relating to the release by WikiLeaks of leaked US embassy cables.
If this was to happen, Sweden would have to ask permission from the UK for the onward extradition. No such charges have been laid, though the website’s activities are under investigation in the US.
Een gevoelig verlies voor de verdedigers van privacy en burgerrechten in Nederland, en winst voor de betuttelende, controlerende overheid. De rechter in Den Haag heeft de zaak van burgerrechtenorganisatie Privacy First en 21 andere eisers niet-ontvankelijk verklaard. Dit omdat burgers volgens de rechter ‘zelf’ naar de rechter kunnen stappen wanneer zij zich in hun vrijheid aangetast voelen door het opslaan van hun biometrische gegevens in een centrale databank. En zich blijkbaar niet kunnen laten vertegenwoordigen door een organisatie.
Nogal een formalistische uitspraak, als je het mij vraagt. Op deze manier kunnen gedupeerden (en de gehele Nederlandse bevolking is door deze wetgeving gedupeerd) zich nooit verenigen. En dit terwijl de 21 mede-eisers er toch namens zichzelf zitten. Nu is al het werk van Aaron Boudewijn, Paul Cuijpers en vele anderen voor niets geweest. Ik ben benieuwd hoe het nu verder gaat; en ik neem aan dat er doorgeprocedeerd wordt.
Let wel: het betreft hier geen geweeklaag van overgevoelige burgers. Er is geen land in Europa dat verder gaat dan Nederland in het grootschalig, gedwongen opslaan van biometrische gegevens van alle burgers (inclusief kinderen) in een landelijke database, voor de ‘veiligheid’. In nazi- en Oost-Duitsland zou de staat haar vingers hebben afgelikt bij de wijze waarop in het eenentwintigste-eeuwse Nederland door de overheid omgesprongen wordt met de persoonlijke gegevens van een gehele bevolking – en dat is niet overdreven.
De Europese Commissie, bij monde van Eurocommissaris Viviane Reding (Justitie en Grondrechten), heeft gisteren bekend gemaakt een onderzoek te starten naar de houdbaarheid van de Nederlandse wetgeving in het licht van Europese wetgeving voor de bescherming van data. Alleen in Nederland worden de vingerafdrukken, verkregen bij de uitgifte van paspoorten (en dus noodzakelijk voor de uitoefening van je burgerrechten), opgeslagen in een centrale databank. In Groot-Brittannië werd een vergelijkbaar project door de nieuwe conservatieve regering stopgezet, na zorgen over de privacy van burgers. Ook de WRR, en de Mensenrechtencommissie van de VN hebben hun zorgen geuit over de Nederlandse situatie.
Uit onderzoek van een consortium van Britse privacyorganisaties, uitgevoerd in opdracht van de Europese Commissie, blijkt dan ook dat Nederland onderaan de ranglijst in de EU staat als het gaat om de bescherming van privacy.
Dat krijg je, met jarenlang het CDA en de VVD in de regering.
De enige zaak die nog loopt is die van Louise van Luijk. Hopelijk redt deze het wel, en kan deze zaak doorgang vinden, wellicht tot aan het Europese Hof.
In de zaak van Privacy First en 21 mede-eisers tegen de Nederlandse staat over de opslag van vingerafdrukken zijn de eisende partijen niet-ontvankelijk verklaard door de rechter in Den Haag. Belangrijkste argument van de rechter is dat burgers zelf naar de rechter kunnen stappen bij bezwaren van de centrale opslag van biometrische gegevens als de vingerafdruk in het paspoort. Privacy First vertegenwoordigt in deze zaak geen eigen belang, maar dat van iedereen van 12 jaar en ouder die een paspoort aanvraagt, of aan kan vragen, aldus de rechter.
De volledige uitspraak is vandaag gepubliceerd op rechtspraak.nl.
(…)
Privacy First en de andere partijen spanden de zaak tegen de Staat der Nederlanden aan vanwege een aanpassing in de paspoortwet. Die aanpassing maakt het mogelijk dat de vingerafdrukken die van iedere Nederlander die een paspoort aanvraagt worden afgenomen, worden opgeslagen in een centrale database. De eisende partijen vinden dat te ver gaan, en zijn bang dat de privacy van burgers in het geding komt, doordat de database gehackt zou kunnen worden, of gebruikt zou kunnen worden voor opsporingsdoeleinden.
Het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken zegt dat er genoeg maatregelen zijn genomen om dat te voorkomen.
Hoewel het nieuwe paspoort – dus met vingerafdruk – Europees geregeld is, is het niet verplicht om een centrale database aan te leggen.
(…)
Juist gisteren maakte de Europese Commissie, het dagelijks bestuur van de Europese Unie, bekend zich te buigen over de Nederlandse paspoortwet. Eurocommissaris Viviane Reding (Justitie en Grondrechten) gaat onderzoeken of de wet in strijd is met Europese wetgeving over bescherming van data.
Reding handelt op aandringen van D66 in het Europees Parlement. De Nederlandse overheid behandelt burgers als potentiële criminelen omdat vingerafdrukken van onschuldige Nederlanders worden opgeslagen, aldus D66-Europarlementariër Sophie in ‘t Veld gisteren.
(…)
Nederland gaat met de opslag veel verder dan andere Europese lidstaten. De overheid vraagt vier vingerafdrukken, die in een database op het gemeentehuis komen en vervolgens in een centrale database terecht moeten komen. Ook de Mensenrechtencommissie van de VN is heel kritisch over de mogelijke kwalijke gevolgen voor de privacy, aldus In ‘t Veld.
(…)
Naast de bodemprocedure die Privacy First en de andere eisers aanspanden tegen de Nederlandse staat, loopt nog een zaak van Louise van Luijk. zij heeft op dit moment geen paspoort, omdat ze weigerde haar vingerafdruk af te staan. De eerste zitting in die zaak is op 15 februari.
Kijk, VVD en CDA, zo kan het óók. De Britse regering, bestaande uit conservatieven en liberalen, gaat over tot vernietiging van biometrische ID-kaarten en de nationale vingerafdrukkendatabase. Dit omdat zij de balans tussen het garanderen van “veiligheid” door de staat en burgerrechten willen herstellen.
De Conservatieve Minister of the Interior Damian Green noemt het een “eerste stap in het proces van herstel en behoud van onze vrijheden”, en noemde het hele project “het slechtste wat de overheid heeft kunnen doen. Het is opdringerig, intimiderend, niet effectief en duur”.
In Nederland word je al snel weggezet als randfiguur wanneer je je druk maakt om privacy. Het bespioneren van burgers en het systematisch door de overheid opslaan van hun biometrische gegevens wordt hier, vooral door conservatieven, veelal neergezet als een nu eenmaal onvermijdelijke, noodzakelijke ontwikkeling. De staat heeft toch het beste met ons voor? En wie niets fout doet, heeft toch niets te verbergen?
Deze nieuwe Britse wetgeving bewijst dat daar internationaal toch wel anders over wordt gedacht. De surveillancestaat is niet noodzakelijk, en kan weer worden afgebroken. Hopelijk komen we in Nederland ooit ook nog eens zo ver.
De Britse regering vernietigt binnen twee maanden de centrale vingerafdrukkendatabase, die is gekoppeld aan de identiteitskaart. Die wordt ongeldig. “We willen onze burgers hun vrijheid teruggeven.”
De minister van Binnenlandse Zaken Damian Green noemt de zo geheten Identity Card Scheme “het slechtste wat de overheid heeft kunnen doen. Het is opdringerig, intimiderend, niet effectief en duur.” De Identity Card Scheme is een uitvloeisel van een wet uit 2006 en voorziet in het verstrekken van identiteitskaarten als vervanger voor het duurdere paspoort. De kaart is geldig in heel Europa.
De identiteitskaart was niet zozeer het probleem. Dat was de koppeling met een centrale database waarin biometrische gegevens als vingerafdrukken werden verzameld. Die database wordt nu binnen twee maanden vernietigd. De identiteitskaarten zijn binnen een maand ongeldig. De Britse overheid gebruikt de komende maand om reisorganisaties en de andere Europese landen te informeren.
(…)
De wetswijziging werd gisteren van kracht nadat koningin Elisabeth II haar handtekening onder de Identity Documents Bill zette. Minister Green zei daarbij dat de nieuwe coalitieregering van liberalen en democraten de macht van de staat wil terugschalen en de burgervrijheden wil herstellen. “Dit is de eerste stap in het proces herstel en behoud van onze vrijheden”, zei Green.
Op de website van de Identity and Passport Services staat een klok die aftelt tot het moment dat de kaart niet meer geldig is. Burgers die naar Europa willen reizen, wordt verzocht een paspoort aan te schaffen. Volgens het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken heeft de Identity Card Scheme de Britse belastingbetaler al 292 miljoen pond gekost. Daarentegen levert het schrappen ervan 835 miljoen pond op dat gereserveerd was voor toekomstige investeringen.
(…)
De discussie over invoering van een centrale database met biometrische gegevens van burgers is daarmee in de UK voorlopig ten einde. In Nederland woedt die echter nog volop. De Nederlandse regering bouwt op dit moment aan een centrale database om de vingerafdrukken die nu nog worden bewaard op gemeentelijk niveau op te slaan. Over die centrale opslag hebben diverse politieke partijen op gemeentelijk niveau, in de Tweede Kamer en bij de Europese Commissie vragen gesteld. Daarnaast loopt er een rechtszaak van privacyorganisatie Privacy First tegen de Nederlandse staat.
Lees ook de analyse van de Nederlandse burgerrechtenorganisatie Vrijbit.
Free Pussy Riot
Peaches, the twenty-first century torchbearer of feminist punk, just released a video and track in support of Pussy Riot, the Russian female anarc...
EHRM handhaaft SGP-uitspraak Hoge Raad
Dat ging nog best snel: het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens (EHRM) heeft zich uitgesproken over de vrouwen uitsluitende praktijk van de S...
cid house parties took place in warehouses and out in the open, thus continuing the Detroit phenomenon of the “rave”. Fueled by sensationalist media reporting, however, British authorities came crashing down on the acid house scene.
