THE DEVIL'S BITCHES A.K.A BLOGGERS FROM HELL

Events of recent weeks have highlighted the difficult question of what should be the legitimate scope of freedom of expression in culturally diverse societies. Raja Petra was arrested under Section 73(1) of the ISA, alleged to have posted articles deemed to belittle Islam and seditious in nature. Sin Chew Daily reporter Tan Hoon Cheng was arrested over her report on former Bukit Bendera Umno division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail’s racist remarks while campaigning for the Permatang Pauh by-election last month. She was released after a one-day detention under the ISA. DAP’s Seputeh MP Teresa Kok is believed to have been picked up in connection with a residents petition in Puchong over a mosque.

While different societies have drawn the boundaries of free speech in different ways, the controversies brought about by these individuals shows how, in today's increasingly global media space, the impact of actions by a few can be felt by many. Today, more than ever, societies are faced with the challenge of asserting universal human rights principles in an area where there has traditionally been a tendency to defer to the domestic laws of a particular state and the values they enshrine. Set against the backdrop of the rising climate of intolerance and suspicion between races and religious groups, two conflicting sets of principles are being advanced in this controversy.

1. The right to freedom of opinion and expression should be one of the cornerstones of any society. This right includes "the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers" (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19).

2. The right to freedom of expression is not absolute - neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such "hate speech" should be prohibited by law.

In the light of the above, I am deeply troubled by the growth of irresponsible alternative media. In the name of freedom, many websites allow the broadcast of slander, lies and swearing, use of harsh, degrading language and racial slurs without regard for the reader or those concerned. It cannot be denied that many of the postings, even though these may or may not be articles by the bloggers, are inflammatory. Many are downright racist, slanderous and libellous. The use of four-letter words has been allowed to go through without any moderator to delete them. Bloggers cannot criticise our Members of Parliament for using unparliamentary languages when they themselves allow such obscenities on their blogs. Their victims have rights too, and bloggers should not assume that they have the monopoly over civil rights. Like print and electronic journalists, they must live by the same rules when it comes to defamation, libel and other laws relating to national security. But there is a difference: they don't need to answer to the Internal Security Ministry for a printing permit. Bloggers must admit that freedom of speech does not mean freedom to slander or to libel. If civil suits are taken against them, it is simply because others have been offended, if not emotionally or financially affected, by their words.

SCREW POLITICS, LET’S TALK ABOUT POLE DANCING

I've always been somewhat fascinated with politics. Whether it's local or international, I've always believed in the philosophy that we can change the world we live in. I also believe that today, most Malaysians are completely uninformed when it comes to who candidates are and what they believe in.

Politics in Malaysia has degenerated into a modern war of name calling and it's disgusting. Sadly, I think that victories of our newly appointed MPs had nothing to do with their political positions but EVERYTHING to do with modern politics. Smear others, and if you have less sludge on you in the end, you will win. The fiasco during the Permatang Pauh By Election week between BN and Pakatan Rakyat reminds me of 2nd graders calling each other names and tattle-tailing when the other does something bad. What is it about the exercise of democracy that prompts politicians to indulge in toe-curlingly embarrassing behaviour? How often does the behavior of politicians remind you of unruly eight-year-olds? Put that another way, how often does the behaviour of politicians not remind you of unruly eight-year-olds? Indeed.

The drama, the shock and awe, the political explosions, the allegations, the missing PI, the statutory declaration with a 24-hour lifespan, the conspiracy, the ploys, the accusations, the homo, the Mongolian girl, the Turkish embassy, the UMNO general elections, the September 16 deadline, the unanswered questions, the suspense! If voters think that any of the candidates can TRULY do anything about some huge problem in this country than they are sadly mistaken. If history has proved anything it's that politicians will say and do anything to get elected but when they take office they often forget the promises they made to voters. All that I see now is corruption, money-mongering, stealing public money, scandals (though I do like those), nepotism, faulty elections, manipulation of the masses during elections etc... Malaysian politics is indeed at its ‘BEST’.

This is not the Malaysia I know and loved over the last 33 years of my existence. I just can’t believe that this is what politics has come to. What democracy has come to. I don’t agree with politicians when they say, ‘That’s just politics’. No. That’s how you’ve made politics. That’s the direction you have taken politics. You are the leaders of this country. And you should be ashamed in turning democracy into the laughing stock of the world. And you should be ashamed of not inspiring people to participate anymore. You are the reason for the failure of democracy in Malaysia. It is no wonder why many people refuse to vote. It is no wonder that younger generation feel that it is not worth it. Their innocence led them believe that politics should be about leadership, honor and truth. But when they look up at ‘their’ political leaders all they see is corrupt souls. People with vested interests. A city of sin. And the lies they tell and the stories they spin. You should be ashamed of yourself for lying to the people of Malaysia. No reason is good enough reason to lie and be dishonest. After all, Karma can be a bitch. Oh! almost forgot, we’ll talk about pole dancing some other day ok?

FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE PEOPLE MAKE LOVE... NOT WAR!

For much of the last century, Russia (then known as the USSR) was one of the most feared countries on Earth. Seemingly indifferent to the desires of the rest of the world, and aided by a huge nuclear capacity, the USSR was a country few wanted to tangle with. However, the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 unleashed forces that continue to affect life there to this day. Long forgotten feuds were apparently not so forgotten, and conflicts that lay dormant for years, once again rose to surface. Below is a glance at the legality of what recently happened between Russia and Georgia. The most important questions are:

• Was there an armed attack against Russia?
• Was the Russian use of force in response necessary?
• Was it proportional?

Russian History 101

When Georgia declared its independence from the Soviet Union, South Ossetia was an autonomous unit within the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia. As was often the case with autonomous regions, the ethnicity of the majority South Ossetia’s population was different from the titular ethnicity of Georgia. When Georgia separated from the USSR, South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia, which sent troops to keep South Ossetia from breaking away. Russia brokered an agreement to end the war in 1992.

Russia stationed its troops in South Ossetia in 1992 under the deal with Georgia and South Ossetia. The troops had a peacekeeper status and a mandate to separate Georgians and South Ossetians. The latter have been de facto independent from Georgia for 16 years. During this time most of them received Russian citizenship.

The Little Artist Seeks a Bigger Canvas

Georgia initiated a military assault on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, on August 8, 2008 following a week of clashes with South Ossetian troops. Georgian military shelled the city of Tskhinvali with heavy artillery including MRLS (multiple rocket launcher system) and the Georgian air force conducted bombing raids of Tskhinvali. The city fell to Georgians soon after the attack. According to the Russian defence ministry, 12 of its troops stationed in South Ossetia under the 1992 agreement with Georgia were killed and 30 wounded. Their base in Tskhinvali was destroyed.

On August 8 following the Georgian shelling of Tskhinvali, Russian troops entered South Ossetia from Russia. In five days they repelled the Georgian troops and forced them out of South Ossetia. Russian air force systematically destroyed Georgian military infrastructure in various parts of Georgia and bombed the port of Poti. Russian military entered or occupied several towns in Georgia for various lengths of time declaring its intention to destroy or remove abandoned ordnance and maintain security.

Would the Great Grotius approve?

Jus ad bellum - the law of entering into war, is generally based on the UN Charter. A state can use force either with permission of the Security Council or in response to an armed attack under Article 51 of the Charter. The use of force must pass the test of necessity and proportionality.

In their attack on Tskhinvali Georgian forces used weapons designed to inflict maximum destruction and casualties in a large area. The Georgian military was aware of the civilian population in the city and the Russian military contingent present in Tskhinvali under the 1992 agreement. Most residents of Tskhinvali are Russian citizens. South Ossetia is not Russian territory, and it is internationally recognized to be a part of Georgia although South Ossetian authorities dispute South Ossetia’s status within Georgia. Georgians acted in violation of the 1992 agreement and either targeted the civilians and the Russian military or attacked the city with reckless disregard for their safety and lives.

Even if we accept that the Georgian shelling of Tskhinvali was an armed attack on Russia, the legality of the Russian response by force depends on whether the use of force would be necessary for a legitimate goal under the UN Charter, and whether the cost of the response in civilian lives and damage to civilian property would not outweigh the benefit. For example, if Russians responded by destroying international oil pipelines in Georgia to eliminate competition to its energy transit routes, such use of force would be unnecessary and illegal. If Russia carpet-bombed Georgian cities (like Georgia bombed Tskhinvali) declaring its intention to destroy military bases, it would probably also be illegal because the massive loss of civilian lives in Georgia would be disproportionate to a potential loss of lives, had Georgia continued unfettered.

Russia did none of these things when it used force against Georgia. Instead, its troops appear to be systematically degrading Georgian military. Initially this was accomplished by artillery and air force with a small number of civilian casualties, and later the preferred method appears to be occupation of Georgian military bases and controlled detonation or removal of ordnance, military vessels, aircraft and infrastructure. At some point the Russian military stopped running into any significant resistance from the Georgian troops.

Are Russian actions necessary to protect the civilian population of South Ossetia and its contingent stationed under the 1992 agreement? Three facts stand out: the fierceness of the Georgian attack on Tskhinvali, continuing declarations of resolve to reintegrate South Ossetia into Georgia, and the intransigence of the Georgian leadership in accepting any responsibility for the war buoyed by the strong diplomatic support from the United States. To infer that Georgia will attempt another attack on South Ossetia if it retains significant military capability is reasonable.

The biggest question mark over the Russian response to the Georgian attack is its proportionality. To the Russians’ credit, the civilian casualties of their military operation appear minimal, especially compared to some of the recent examples of international use of force unauthorized by the Security Council. However, large numbers of Georgian refugees and the destruction of dual use facilities in Georgia weaken the Russian case. Still, the Georgian attack on South Ossetia also displaced many civilians and, if unfettered, could produce many more in the range comparable to the number of Georgian refugees. The bombardment of the Georgian port of Poti may go some way against assessing the Russian action as proportional although the use of the port to resupply the Georgian military is possible. The Russians can also argue that their air force refrained from destroying the Tbilisi International Airport for humanitarian reasons despite the strong possibility that its runway could be used to resupply the Georgian army or to bring back the Georgian troops from Iraq as reinforcements.