Click for .svg

‘Yes To AV’ Poster for http://www.takebackparliament.com/sites/takebackparliament/index.php/blog/wanted-posters-to-win-the-yes-campaign/

UPDATE: Here’s another -

A second poster, showing the majority of MPs with less than 50% support

Under the AV system, voters rank the candidates in preference order. If no candidate achieves 50% of First Preferences, then the candidate with the lowest first preference share is eliminated, and the ballots for that candidate are redistributed according to the next preferences. This is repeated until one candidate finally has 50% and is duly elected.

Whilst this isn’t proportional, a majority system is still preferable to a plurality system as it means that on average the least-bad candidate wins, although you’re still going to disagree with them. It also means that the divided left, and minor parties, who are vastly under-represented in all levels of government, would stand more chance of gaining a seat.

Regardless of outcome of the referendum, it is likely that the Conservative Party, and those opposed to reform, will use it to quell desire for proportionally representative electoral reform for a generation – as if AV is supported, they will likely say we already have it, and that the cost of successive reform creates excessive cost that would ultimately hit their beloved private sector; and if it’s rejected they’ll claim that there isn’t the public appetite for proportional reform. All arguments that I reject, since AV is barely a stepping stone towards a fairer electoral system, and the democratic deficit is far worse than the financial one created by gross under- and de-regulation of the private sector.

Ideally, I would rather we adopt AV+, AMS, or STV, but in the absence of these options on the referendum ballot, and the potential of losing our one chance for electoral reform for a generation, I will be supporting the introduction of the Alternative Vote.

Originally he was charged under Criminal Law Act 1977 for a bomb hoax, however the CPS decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence for this, and instead opted for the rarely used s127.

But just what did Paul Chambers do? He tweeted a joke. A crap joke, but a joke all the same.

“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

For this, he now has a criminal record, and faces a £1000 fine.

Just to be clear, here, a British citizen is now a criminal for making a completely non-serious comment on twitter. This is yet another example of the ridiculous restrictions we have on freedom of speech in the UK, joining the growing list of heavy-handed offences such as Incitement, and the infamous Libel law; as well as yet another example of the erosion of our liberties under the authoritarian New Labour party.

Keep checking #twitterjoketrial for updates, and possible link to a whip-round to pay for his fee.

The controversial bill would see the death of public wi-fi, houses being disconnected on allegation of copyright infringement – with them having to prove innocence by paying for an appeal after the fact, photographers and works creators having work taken and exploited by industry without consent, or as one MP put it (in an endorsement of the bill!) – “putting creativity before freedom” – despite the fact the bill mentions not once the content creator or artist, and instead refers only to the rights holders – most often record labels or publishers, not the artists who created the works.

Understandably there has been outrage over the bill itself, and the government’s insistence on passing it without true scrutiny and debate: Over 20,000 letters and e-mails to MPs, over 35,000 signatures on the Number 10 petition against the bill, 100,000s of tweets, campaigns against the bill from consumer groups, business groups, ISPs, the  public, and the Pirate Party; concerns from the JCHR and the Law Society of Scotland that the bill breaches human rights, one of the  most discussed topics on social media worldwide, even on the day of the declaration of the election.

Guess how many of our great ‘Representatives’ turned up to the debate today?

Democracy In-action

To begin with, approximately 40 – about 5% of MPs; and as the speeches became more impassioned from both sides of the debate, the numbers dwindled and dwindled; down to just 9 at one point. So that’s hundreds of thousands of complaints about this bill, and the people who claim to represent us instead follow their vested interests and only turn up, on this last chance at democracy, if their private sector allegiances benefit from the bill. Democracy is dead.

The Digital Economy Bill has been a perfect showcasing of the corruption and undemocratic nature of 20th Century politics. It starts with a promising White Paper, proposing investment in telecoms infrastructure and reviews of law; then the unelected Minister in charge has a nice little trip on a media oligarch’s yacht; meanwhile other unelected officials have words with the out-dated distribution industries they work for and represent, having them draft law on their behalf; then the government tries to downplay the rights issues in the bill, even when challenged by their own commissions on human rights; then the opposition parties attempt point scoring by saying they oppose the bill, all the while supporting it and actively engaging in the corrupt activities surrounding it; and then, despite all public outcry and dispute from business and academics, the bill is passed without any real scrutiny or debate.

Everything about Parliament and the way it works revolves around these corrupt, undemocratic models, and voting for the 3 main parties at the upcoming election on May 6th isn’t going to change that. We need massive political upheaval and reform, and we need it now. So when you go to your polling station, I urge you to ignore LIB-LAB-CON, and instead put a cross besides any of the other candidates, be they Green, UKIP, Pirate, Jury Team, TUSC, BNP, Socialist, or Independent. If we can achieve a more representative Hung Parliament, then we have a basis to bring politics kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.

One section of the bill (known as #debill on twitter); the controversial clause 17 – which would have given untold power to the Secretary of State to amend copyright however he, or lobbyists, saw fit. – was today replaced by a Liberal Democrat amendment, Amendment 120a. Whilst it’s good that the original clause is gone, what we now face in its stead is possibly even more terrifying.

This new clause 17, tabled by Lord Clement-Jones, adds a new section to the Copyrights, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, and allows copyright holders to file an injunction requiring ISPs to restrict access to websites and services that allegedly infringe their copyright, or link to said alleged infringements. So now, rather than the usual “this video has been removed due to copyright claims by Mediacompany Inc.”, when you try to view your favourite video on youtube, you’ll find “This website has been blocked in its entirety due to unauthorised hosting of copyrighted material” So then, maybe you try to go to google to find an alternate link to it, right? Wrong. “”This website has been blocked in its entirety due to unauthorised linking to sites hosting copyrighted material.” – This new clause has the potential to ban every single person in the UK from accessing search engines, youtube, or even social networking sites like facebook or twitter, if copyright holders make an allegation of copyright infringement.

The Liberal Democrats compared such a system to the Internet Watch Foundation – a small group who blacklist alleged child porn websites. You may recall the controversy over them restricting access to wikipedia for millions of people a couple of years back. What they don’t seem to grasp is that not only are copyright infringement, and child pornography fundamentally different, but that policing the net based on allegations of copyright infringement is no better than the content restriction we see in countries like Iran and China.

With the addition of this new web censorship clause, the Digital Economy Bill continues to become a larger and larger threat to liberty, rights, the internet, and somewhat ironically the ‘Digital Economy’ itself. If it passes into legislation, we are putting so much at risk, and we can’t afford to let that happen. The Bill will be going to the commons soon, and I urge you all to write to your MP about the bill, to inform them of the issues and hopefully have them oppose the bill in parliament. You can also help by fighting the bill, and fighting for your rights, by joining both the Pirate Party, and the Open Rights Group. Pirate Party UK stands for the reform of copyright, and protecting your privacy and freedom of speech, and costs just £10 a year (£2 if you’re under 21) to join.

The amendment can be seen in full below:

Amendment 120a

LORD CLEMENT-JONES

LORD HOWARD OF RISING

Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new Clause—

“Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement

In Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, after section 97A insert—

“97B Preventing access to specified online locations for the prevention of online copyright infringement

(1) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, requiring it to prevent access to online locations specified in the order of the Court for the prevention of online copyright infringement.

(2) In determining whether to grant an injunction under subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the following matters—

(a) whether a substantial proportion of the content accessible at or via each specified online location infringes copyright,

(b) the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both),

(c) whether the service provider has itself taken reasonable steps to prevent access to the specified online location,

(d) any issues of national security raised by the Secretary of State.

(e) the extent to which the copyright owner has made reasonable efforts to facilitate legal access to content,

(f) the importance of preserving human rights, including freedom of expression, and the right to property, and

(g) any other matters which appear to the Court to be relevant.

(3) An application for an injunction under subsection (1) shall be made on notice to the service provider and to the operator of each specified online location in relation to which an injunction is sought and to the Secretary of State.

(4) Where—

(a) the Court grants an injunction under subsection (1) upon the application of an owner of copyright whose copyright is infringed by the content accessible at or via each specified online location in the injunction, and

(b) the owner of copyright before making the application made a written request to the service provider giving it a reasonable period of time to take measures to prevent its service being used to access the specified online location in the injunction, and no steps were taken,

the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner’s costs of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider’s failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner.

(5) In this section—

“copyright owner” includes a licensee with an exclusive licence within the meaning of section 92 of this Act,

“infringing content” means content which is produced or made available in infringement of copyright,

“online location” means a location on the internet, a mobile data network or other data network at or via which copyright infringing content is accessible,

“operator” means a person or persons in joint or sole control of the decisions to make content accessible at or via an online location, and

“service provider” has the meaning given to it by section 97A(3) of this Act.

(6) Subsections (1) to (5) shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint not less than 3 months and not more than 12 months after subsections (1) to (5) have been notified to the Commission of the European Communities (“the Commission”) in accordance with the obligations of notification imposed by Directive 98/34/EC.

(7) If any comments are received from Member States of the European Union or the Commission after subsection (1) to (5) have been so notified and the Secretary of State reasonably considers amendments are necessary to give effect to such comments, he may make the necessary regulations within the period referred to in subsection (6)(a), to amend subsections (1) to (5).”"

“The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.  Beheadings, electrocutions, hangings, lethal injections, shootings and stonings have no place in the 21st century” – Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Akmal Shaikh, the first EU national killed in China in over half a century

You’re probably not aware of it, but this morning, whilst you slept, some time around 02:30UTC; China executed a mentally ill man, Akmal Shaikh, a 53 year old British citizen; the first EU national to be executed in China since 1951. Akmal, who dreamed of being a pop star, and had written a song he hoped would bring about world peace, was killed after being exploited into trafficking 4kg of drugs into the country; carrying just 50g is enough for China to execute a person.

But Akmal is not alone in his extreme treatment by the Chinese legal system – in 2008, China executed at least 1,718 people, accounting for some 72% of recorded executions worldwide. In the country, you can face the death penalty for some 68 offences, ranging from murder, to drug trafficking, to financial offences. Until recently, execution was carried out solely by firing squad, although China has now started to utilise lethal injection. Appeals against the death penalty are almost always unsuccessful, and cries for mercy ignored.

In my mind there is never justification for man to kill fellow man (excluding DR/provocation/justified self-defence), and most certainly not for governments to kill citizens, their own or otherwise. China asks us to respect that Akmal was guilty under their law, and was executed under their law; to that I say that I can not, and will not accept, nor respect, any law or country that will allow the state to get away with what amounts to murder. China, as an emerging superpower, and with one of the largest populations in the world, needs to be leading the way on human rights, not executing fellow man; and the world; government and public, should be condemning them for their actions.

We can only hope that as we move forward into a new decade, the world takes a step towards abolishing such inhumane acts.

The standard logo of Pirate Parties worldwide

43 Countries, 12 Official parties, 2 MEPs,  3rd biggest party in Sweden, 6th biggest party in Germany, tens of thousands of members worldwide; and all just 4 years after the founding of the original Piratpartiet in Sweden – but just what is the Pirate Party, what does it stand for, and why is it one of the most rapidly growing political movements of this century?

Raising the Pirate Flag

On January 1st, 2006, the original Pirate Party was founded in Sweden by Rick Falkvinge, now 37, a former Microsoft employee; with the desire to address the imbalances and injustice imposed by current copyright and patent law, as well as providing a powerful opposition to all attempts to destroy privacy. By the end of the summer, the party had over 4000 members.

In the following years, the movement would continue to grow, and transcend national borders, leading to the establishment of the Pirate Party International umbrella organisation, which served to facilitate discussion and organisation of pirate politics across the globe. But it wouldn’t be until 2009, with the infamous Pirate Bay Trial, and success in the European Elections, that the party would truly become a global phenomenon.

In a landmark case decided in April 2009, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm and Carl Lundström, all involved in the operation of The PirateBay torrent tracker website, were sentenced to a year in jail, and ordered to pay a fine of $3.8 million (US Dollars) across multiple entertainment companies. Within 10 days of the decision, over 25,000 had joined the Pirate Party in Sweden, bringing the total to over 40,000, and making them the 4th largest party in the country, and by September 2009, the party had already become the 3rd largest in Sweden.

The summer of 2009 also saw the official registration of Pirate Parties across the world, inspired by the success of Piratpartiet, and the rising threats from the media industry and governments on file-sharers and fans; sporting similar policies but tailored to their individual countries. One such party, of which I am a member, is Pirate Party UK.

PPUK Logo

PPUK was established over the summer, becoming officially registered on 30th July, 2009; and now touting over 500 members. Lead by Andrew Robinson, Pirate Party UK revolves around its “3 core policies” of reforming copyright and patents so that “it’s the artists who benefit, not monopoly rights holders.” and to bring about “a patent system that doesn’t stifle innovation or make life saving drugs so expensive that patients die.”, ending excessive surveillance , profiling, tracking, and monitoring of innocent people by government and business; and to ensure true freedom of speech.

It’s the 21st Century, Charlie Brown

Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or working for one of the Big 4?) for the past decade, you’ll have noticed that we’re now into the 21st Century – a time of significant social, economic, and technological reform and progress. Digital distribution and social media have ushered in a period where more than ever before, entertainment and information can be supplied to and shared between millions easily, and cheaply; and with it a rise in piracy. This rise, the record labels, and film distributors say, has cost the entertainment industry millions, if not billions of dollars in lost sales – but is this really the case?

Graph courtesy of Times Online

This graph, using data from BPI and PRS for Music, shows UK music revenue from 2004 to 2008.  What is clearly shows that not only have total earnings in this industry increased in this period of increased piracy, but the distribution of this money is far fairer, with a greater share going to the artists who created the works being sold/pirated.

So when the record industry say piracy costs millions and is destroying music, what they’re actually saying is “we think original artists do not deserve to be paid for their work, and profits belong to us”.

The problem for them is in this day an age, artists are able to easily produce, publicise, market, sell, and distribute their own work without the need to enter into wholly unfair contracts with exploitative corporations. Whilst artists and fans have adapted and evolved with technology, the record labels are being incredibly stubborn about doing the same; after all, it means even less revenue for them.

So to try to protect the label’s falling revenue, and stop the artists getting their fair share of the profits, the Big 4, and their puppets such as Lily Allen, have lobbied governments across the globe in an attempt to curtain progress and control the entertainment industry as they see fit, whilst the consumers pay extortionate fees just so that their fellow fans can be criminalised and persecuted in the name of undeserved profit.

And here in the UK is a prime example of where they are succeeding in their goal to penalise fans and artists alike. Following the Digital Britain report, and some meetings with media moguls, the unelected, corrupt, dangerous Peter Mandelson seeks to criminalise up to 7 million people in the population. The Digital Economy Bill would also force ISPs to disconnect alleged pirates (and by extension, their entire family), and not only are ISPs reluctant to do so, some even loudly opposing it, but based on the prior figure and the average number per household, this could mean potentially up to 21 million people – approximately 1/3 of the UK population – have their internet access revoked, something that recently the European Courts have been considering a fundamental right to have access to.

And just today it was leaked that under new proposals, the Secretary of State would be given additional powers to tackle piracy, and would even be able to give authority to any business to force ISPs to aid in the persecution and prosecution of innocent fans. This alone is a disastrous set-back for the freedoms of the British people, and would be a terrible precedent that would be sure to follow in other countries.

There’s also the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secretive treaty which serves to undermine the privacy and rights of the public across the globe.

All of this, just because a single industry refuses to modernise or die? That is why the Pirate Party movement exists.

What can you do to help? Check out these sites:

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/

http://www.pp-international.net/ to find your country’s PP

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

http://www.dontdisconnect.us/

http://a2f2a.com/

Remember – together, fans, artists, and the public can bring about the reforms needed to allow the industries to flourish even more, and protect the rights of the individual.