Unfree labour phantasies in German politics

.

(I'll try to keep my distaste for certain proposals and politicians well enough in check to write this piece objectively. It's a tough challenge, for sure!)

Three debates are raging  in German national politics these days;

(1) Reform of the conscription

(2) A provocative book about migrants in Germany

(3) Extending the operating periods for nuclear power plants

I'll discuss the first one (conscription is about to become suspended apparently).

Conservatives have fought hard for conscription in the 50's. A conscription-based Bundeswehr was part of the governments' Western integration grand strategy. The Bundeswehr was meant to contribute with 12 (of a total of 26) divisions for the defence of Western Europe, in Central Europe,  effectively buying Germany a place as almost normal country in the Western World (in combination European unification and reconciliation and cooperation policies with France) shortly after WW2.

It has apparently turned into a conservative party (CDU/CSU) doctrine and ideology since then, for conservatives are the most fierce defenders of conscription in Germany.

Here's an older blog post about conscription in Germany.

The most extreme and in my opinion despicable attempt to save this kind of unfree labour is a proposal of Lower Saxony's minister of the interior, Schünemann.

Nach den Vorstellungen von [...] Schünemann könnte die Dienstpflicht nicht nur in den Streitkräften, sondern auch in der Bundespolizei oder in Zivilschutzverbänden geleistet werden.

(According to the ideas of [...] Schünemann could the service not only be done in the armed forces, but also in the federal police or in civil defence organisations.)

(source: FAZ)

This would actually be legal under our constitution, but not everything that is allowed needs to be done. The constitution allows a lot, including much that Schünemann and his party would not want at all. In fact, the constitution demands plebiscites - which his party opposes fiercely.

- - - - -

The central problem is habituation.

Humans can get used to the greatest nonsense and damages.

Lean back, relax, free your mind. Imagine a world that hasn't seen conscription for generations. You should really muster your imagination and distance yourself from what you're used to.
No major power threatens our country, in fact no real power does. All is fine.

Suddenly, a politician makes his way into newspaper headlines with the idea to force our youth into unfree labour - underpaid, of course. He also wants to strip those who serve their unfree labour period in the military of some of their free speech rights.

Keep in mind; the military can easily make do without unfree labour, the federal police has never employed unfree labourers and the civil defence organisations don't need that either.

What would our reaction be?

My guess:

* We would draw parallels with the Nazis one year forced labour which they imposed on all young men. Many wouldn't hold back and call him a Nazi.

* We would point out that there's absolutely no necessity for unfree labour.

* We would point out that we want and have a free society, and unnecessary unfree labour is an assault on our civil liberties.

* We would protest as much as necessary to get this irresponsible politician gets fired from office.

Why doesn't this happen?

Simple: Germans got used to the abhorrent concept of conscription. They got used enough to it that many even tolerate it in times of no real threat whatsoever. Myths and lies have been formed and spread around conscription to defend it, the fact that almost only German-speaking country retain conscription in Europe isn't well-represented in news at all.

- - - - -

The German society is increasingly under burden of the long-term consequences of political decisions made in the 50's and 60's (and myths created in that period). This was a period of almost exclusive conservative-liberal governance and thus the conservatives stem against some reforms that would address these problems. Some problems aren't on the to-do list of any party because their roots have become so self-evident and unquestioned that  no party has an internal majority in favour of facing the issue. The export orientation and trade balance surplus is such a problem that has been turned into a strength in federal German mythology.

Conscription on the other hand is a legacy of the early Cold War and the Western integration grand strategy that keeps haunting and hurting us for no other reason than the fact that the party which fought for its introduction fights against its suspension, too.

Sven Ortmann
.

Cracking down on corporate spying ! (?)

.

Germany had in the past few years a row of scandals with an identical theme: Corporations became bold enough to behave as if they were entitled to treat their employees like subjects. This concerned especially the spying on subjects, err, employees at work and in general.

This behaviour did fit well to the seemingly ever-increasing desire of the state itself to spy on the citizens.

This latter trend was stopped when the liberals joined the new federal government as junior partner. The coalition treaty between conservatives and liberals already pointed at this, and the new Minister of Justice was a strong signal that the liberals were serious (the same minister had resigned in the 90's from the same office in protest against a then new wire-tapping law).

The wait was long, but now the government even seems to attempt to turn back the trend a bit. The brazenness of the corporations was an easy target for this. The BMJ (Ministry of Justice) developed a bill to restrict such spying and surveillance.

BMJ speech transcript here.

This is good news, of course. There are some open questions, though.

I) Will this attempt to roll back extend to executive powers or will it be limited to corporate rights?

II) Will the discussion about Google Streetview discredit and distract those who fight for protection against spying too much? It looks like an utterly irrelevant and childish discussion to me.

III) Will the Merkel cabinet be able to act decisively on anything?

IV) Some laws of the aforementioned trend were enacted when conservatives were in power. Can they back-paddle?



Sven Ortmann
.

Gitmo detainees and Germany

.

Germany finally seems to have accepted two Guantanamo detainees. The overall reaction was decidedly unenthusiastic if not phlegmatic. Nevertheless, there are the expected negative voices, such as this post on the Weblog Sicherheitspolitik (a German blog mostly on national security policy) or this on another German blog (Deutsche Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik) with a title that would essentially mean the same in English.

That blog post basically follows the well-known pattern from the U.S.:

These-people-are-dangerous-therefore-we-don't-want-them-in-our-country.

I considered this to be ridiculous when hysterical U.S. right wingers used this talking point and it's not much better in Germany as well, although we'll probably not lock 'em up.

- - - - -

I'm still in opposition to accepting Gitmo detainees in Germany, though. My reason is a very different one, and it's *surprise* not exactly a very common one.

This is my point:

The U.S. fell from the level of Western civilisation with Patriot Act, war of aggression against Iraq, torture, kidnapping people even in allied nations and the "unlawful combatant" scandal treatment of what should have been either criminal suspects or prisoners of war. Well, because of that list and a few more points.

The handful people in Gitmo are quite irrelevant. I do not care about their fate, not any more than I care about the fate of some Papuan village. There are more than six billion people out there and I cannot care about all of them. I can merely insist that life and freedom are rights that must only be violated with really good reasons.

In short: It's about principles. In this case I mean Western civilisation principles.

So why is Germany supposed to take two Gitmo detainees? The reason is simple in my opinion. The U.S. has still not recovered, it is still unable to treat these people right, to admit its error and to correct it. If we can take them, why not CONUS?

The answer is simple; CONUS isn't ready to accept them. It's still in the mad 9/11 shock mode and too much under influence of scaremongers. It's still not back to normal operation, back to the ability to act rationally and coolly.

That's why I am against accepting Gitmo detainees to Germany. The Americans shall do their homework, clean up their own dirt and prove that they're willing to meet the expectations and behave like a civilised nation. I expect them to be able to treat these people either as POW or as criminal suspects - be it in jal or not. I don't care whether they won't be accepted by other countries including their homeland. The Americans catched them - now they got them. Their problem.

Now its their turn to prove that they can do the right, the Western civilisation thing. We shouldn't offer them a cheap way out.

Sven Ortmann

P.S.: It would be possible that some readers use the primitive concepts of "anti-americanism" or "left" as explanations for what I wrote. I can only advise them to take the text more seriously. Even people who don't agree with me usually admit that I have a point.

.

Some articles

.

Fareed Zakaria criticised the U.S. participation in the Afghan Civil War based on the small number of AQ people there. I've read that argument more often recently.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/04/fareed-zakaria...

That's of course a fallacy. The really relevant questions are different, for the mission is for ISAF not to hunt AQ, but to help the Afghans till they're back on their feet and able to (reliably) keep AQ out in our interest in order to deny AQ a base.

My list of questions about that conflict looks very different. Nevertheless, I respect Zakaria as one of ver few really good English-speaking journalists. His greatest failure is that he sometimes interviews idiots.

- - - - -

It's not evil if 'we' do it, or is it?

www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald...

Yes, torture was recognised as a self-evident evil - until the own government began to use it. Then, suddenly, its evil rating became disputed.

It's an interesting article that highlights how civil society can fail and go astray from its own civilisation.

.

Bavaria creates anecdotical evidence for democracy

.

A good amount of evidence, arguments, interests and pressure led to several laws in Germany regarding bans on public indoor smoking.

Bavaria created at first a rather strict version of such a law (still with a loophole, though). The Bavarians are used to single party state governments and more than average rhetoric and political action in their state.

The tobacco and pub lobbies striked back and scored a success after a new election; the Bavarian law was watered down to irrelevance.

Yesterday, the Bavarians had a plebiscite on the whole topic and it looks as if 61% of the votes are in favour of a really strict version (no exemptions whatsoever). The initiative behind this plebiscite had a budget of 70,000 € while the opposing initiative was mostly financed by tobacco industry and the association of pub owners with 600,000 €.

- - - - -

Well, what does this anecdote show?

It shows us anecdotical evidence that representative democracy can be more susceptible to special interest influences than plebiscites.

The anti-plebiscite faction still uses the old and wrong argument that the electorate is very susceptible to manipulation and that professional politicians, not the people themselves, should vote on bills.

Well, that argument was always illogical, for how could you be able enough to vote well on thousands of not even yet discussed topics at once in a general election if you aren't supposed to be able enough to vote well on a single known bill?

The anti-plebiscite faction should be exposed as anti-democracy faction; they don't believe in the voters (= the people = the sovereign in Germany!). They believe in oligarchy or worse.

Sven Ortmann

.

Matt Taibbi seems to think the same about news

.

As to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard?

Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview. God forbid some important person think you're not playing for the right team!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/...

.

The McChrystal affair and the media

.

Loose lips sink ships, and apparently general careers as well.

The McChrystal affair itself looks like a very small episode to me as long as there's no strategy change, but it's a great example.

Let's recall the reaction; McChrystal's competence got questioned because he failed to keep the public ill-informed on the attitudes in his staff and the friction in the chain of command. The journalist got criticised because he supposedly jeopardizes future "access" to important people by reporting the truth once.

This mini scandal was a demonstration about how modern Western media works today: Honest, accurate reporting about the truth is the exception, an accident that jeopardises the author's career.

(the funny version:)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
McChrystal's Balls - Honorable Discharge
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Western democracies are built on the assumption that the media keeps the electorate informed about reality, in order to enable them to make a decision (vote) in their interest. A democracy with a media failure is a failure, the mere illusion of democracy a.k.a. opiate of the masses.

The latter, more harsh view of the role of the media seems quite fitting in light of the low quality of many TV shows and news shows. (Why the heck should news be a show or entertaining at all!?)

- - - - -

We cannot tell the media what to do without giving up even the illusion of democracy, so other forms of correction need to be considered.

An improved power balance is a promising idea.

Let's assume that all those crappy journalist who tell us about press releases instead of about actual news really would love to be good reporters, but they fear repercussions (lost "access") too much. Wouldn't it help then to give them more rights, the right to access, for example?

The really, really bad news here is that exactly the country with the McChrystal/Rolling Stone example has a law of that kind - the Freedom of Infomation Act. Similar laws have been enacted in many countries, including Germany (2005). Obviously, this doesn't seem to suffice.

- - - - -

Another approach than "rights" is power. The classic economic solution against the exploitation of workers by corporations is to allow them to unionise and strike. The union can be roughly as large as the corporation (or the inter-trade organisation) they're facing (members vs. employees). This can roughly balance the previous power asymmetry and lead to greater general welfare.

Similarly, journalists become powerful enough to end their dependence on "access" could as part of a greater mass.

Persistent problems have rarely easy fixes, and this was none as well. Media concentrations have remarkably negative effects on media plurality and the quality of national news. These media concentrations are employer-side concentrations, of course. Would it be possible to build a journalist trade union that can boycott those who use the ability to deny interviews to sanction journalists for no good reason?

- - - - -

Nowadays we have the internet and thus new forms of media that begin to compete with traditional media organisations. Maybe the new news channels could help to inrease awareness of the problem?

Any way; we should fix our media in order to get better informed on relevant issues.

Maybe I'll live to see a nation in which reporter's relations are not about keeping crap secret and "news" interesting, but about keeping the public (= the sovereign) well-informed.

Sven Ortmann
.

ACTA

.
The ACTA (copyright) treaty negotiations have been criticized a lot, and I think the latest allegation justifies an entry here:

The leaked document shows that the EU Member States are willing to impose prison sanctions for non-commercial usages of copyrighted works on the Internet as well as for 'inciting and aiding', a notion so broad that it could cover any Internet service or speech questioning copyright policies.

Hat tip to Boing Boing.

Sven Ortmann
.

The Failure of Surveillance Cameras

.

"When it comes to preventing and solving crimes,

cameras are about as useful as a pet rock."

"The Failure of Surveillance Cameras"

by Steve Chapman

.

Internet Censorship: Wehret den Anfängen

.

"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".

”One day we will have a giant filter that we develop in close cooperation with IFPI and MPA. We continuously monitor the child porn on the net, to show the politicians that filtering works. Child porn is an issue they understand,” Johan Schlüter said with a grin, his whole being radiating pride and enthusiasm from the podium.

Johan Schlüter from the Danish Anti-Piracy Group,

a lobby organization for the music and film industry associations.

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/

2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/

OK, and now let's put an end to this. I'll do my part and inform the member of parliament from my district (both the state and federal parliament's), the German parties (state and federal) and maybe also the Bundesverfassungsschutz (kind of intelligence agency to monitor extremists in Germany). The more people mail them the more likely we can reach their attention threshold.

Such a pro-censorship behaviour of an organisation's representative is showing hostility to our constitution if it's being shared by the German equivalents (and it may be that the Danish organisation is active in Germany anyway).

These people need to be exposed for what they are; dangerous. People in suit and tie don't look as conspicuous as a skinhead or green-haired Antifa activist do, but that only makes them more dangerous.

Internet censorship in Germany

Internet censorship again

Zuerst holten sie die Kommunisten;
ich schwieg, denn ich war kein Kommunist.
Dann holten sie die Juden;
ich schwieg, denn ich war kein Jude.
Dann holten sie die Gewerkschaftsmitglieder unter den Arbeitern;
ich schwieg, denn ich war kein Gewerkschafter.
Danach holten sie die Katholiken;
ich schwieg, denn ich war Protestant.
Schließlich holten sie mich,
und da war keiner mehr, der für mich hätte sprechen können.

(Martin Niemöller)

(First they came for the communists;

I kept silent, for I was no communist.

The they came for the Jews;

I kept silent, for I was no Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists among the workers;

I kept silent, for I was no trade unionist.

Afterwards they came for the catholics;

I kept silent, for I was protestant.

Finally they came for me,

and nobody was left who could have raised his voice for me.)

Wehret den Anfängen!

Sven Ortmann

P.S.: This post was repeated in German due to its importance.

.

Internetzensur: Wehret den Anfängen

.

"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".

("Kinderpornographie ist großartig" erklärte der Sprecher auf dem Podium enthusiastisch. "Sie ist großartig weil Politiker Kinderpornographie verstehen. Durch das Ausspielen dieser Karte können wir sie dazu bringen zu handeln und Seiten zu blockieren. Und sobald sie das getan haben können wir sie dazu bringen, mit dem Blocken von Tauschbörsen-Seiten anzufangen.)

”One day we will have a giant filter that we develop in close cooperation with IFPI and MPA. We continuously monitor the child porn on the net, to show the politicians that filtering works. Child porn is an issue they understand,” Johan Schlüter said with a grin, his whole being radiating pride and enthusiasm from the podium.

("Eines Tages werden wir einen riesigen Filter haben, der in enger Kooperation mit der IFPI und MPA entwickelt wurde. Wir können kontinuierlich Kinderpornographie im Netz überwachen um den Politikern zu zeigen, dass Filtern funktioniert. Kinderpornographie ist ein Thema, dass sie verstehen;" sagte Johan Schlüter mit einem Grinsen und strahlte dabei Stolz und Enthusiasmus vom Podium her aus.)

Johan Schlüter von der dänischen Anti-Piracy Group,

einer Lobbyorganisation von Musik- und Filmindustrieverbänden.

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/

2010/04/27/ifpis-child-porn-strategy/

OK, und nun lasst uns dem ein Ende setzen. Ich werde meinen Teil leisten und die Abgeordneten von Bund und Land meines Bezirks, die Parteien und vielleicht auch den Verfassungsschutz informieren. Je mehr Bürger die mit solchen Informationen bombardieren, desto eher wird die Wahrnehmungsschwelle überschritten.

Solch eine pro-Zensur Haltung ist verfassungsfeindlich und sie wird vielleicht auch von deutschen Lobbyisten und Verbänden geteilt.

Solche Leute müssen bloßgestellt werden als das, was sie sind: Gefährlich. In Anzug und Krawatte sind sie äußerlich weniger verdächtig, verfassungsfeindliche Extremisten zu sein als Skinheads oder grünhaarige Antifa-Aktivisten, aber das macht sie nur umso gefährlicher.

Internet censorship in Germany

Internet censorship again

Zuerst holten sie die Kommunisten;
ich schwieg, denn ich war kein Kommunist.
Dann holten sie die Juden;
ich schwieg, denn ich war kein Jude.
Dann holten sie die Gewerkschaftsmitglieder unter den Arbeitern;
ich schwieg, denn ich war kein Gewerkschafter.
Danach holten sie die Katholiken;
ich schwieg, denn ich war Protestant.
Schließlich holten sie mich,
und da war keiner mehr, der für mich hätte sprechen können.

(Martin Niemöller)

Wehret den Anfängen!

Sven Ortmann

.