Sochi-To Boycott Or Not?

Sochi:

To Boycott Or Not?
The Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics is the Russian Federation's showpiece.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in it's success
by the Kremlin but,like the Olympics of 1936,it's meant to
be a showpiece only for Russian excellence in sports.
With Gays and Blacks being regularly beaten and attacked on the streets
of St Petersburg for even venturing to be present in the city,it is
no wonder that Sochi is being compared to the 1936 Nazi Summer Olympics held
in Berlin,Germany, under the Third Reich.
Just to remind younger readers, before and during the 1936 Olympics
held in Berlin, Jews were being beaten up across Germany by Nazi
thugs and the process of excluding Jewish children from
public and private schools had already begun as well as their parents'
exclusion from all the professions and government jobs
(The Anti-Semitic Legislation-1933-1939) throughout Germany,
a prelude to Kristallnacht on 9th and 10 November 1938 and the
concentration camps for Jews,Gypsies,Communists,Jehovah
Witnesses and anybody else opposing Hitler.
Now there is no comparing President Putin to Hitler but the
intolerance of racial minorities (not to mention Gays and Lesbians)
and the artificial creation of an 'honorary' Gay zone and
'honorary' facilities at Sochi for Gays and Lesbians-which are
'honorary'Gay-friendly for the duration of the Sochi Winter Olympics,
is eerily reminiscent of a hybrid between Apartheid South African and
Nazi Germany -where the legendary Jesse Owens and other African
American athletes were 'honorary White' guests-during the Berlin
1936 Olympics.
You cannot compare the Qatar 2020 Summer Olympics with Sochi
because the Qatar 2020 Olympics, to be held in Doha, will have
no 'honorary' athletes, only equal competitors.
There is no part of Qatar or Bahrain or Oman or indeed
any Gulf nation where 'White' Russians
are afraid to walk the streets in fear of their lives.
The same cannot be said of Qataris,Omanis,Bahrainis
or people of dark skin throughout many parts of the Russian
Federation where racial discrimination is rife and
institutionalised and,as in Apartheid South Africa, the
Police throughout the Russian Federation are the 'enforcers'
of the'Apartheid'code.
So the comparison between the forthcoming Qatar Olympics
has no bearing on the issues in hand.
Likewise the comparison between President Vladimir Putin and
Adolf Hitler is ridiculous.
The Russian Parliament is simply introducing Anti-Gay laws
they know will appeal to a neo-fascist and ultra-nationalist
Russian Orthodox Church - which exercises the same unbridled
powers inherited from it's Communist predecessor.
Is a boycott of Sochi justified?
The apologists for Apartheid South Africa used to say that the
Blacks will suffer more if South Africa was boycotted economically
politically and culturally.
We now know that the boycott helped White Apartheid South Africans
understand that their policies of institutional discrimination
were not acceptable to most of the civilised world and gave
heart to those struggling against oppression in the knowledge that
the world did care about their plight and was prepared to send
a visible signal to the oppressors and the oppressed.
The United States was the leader of the free world's ecomomic
and cultural isolation of South Africa at that time-whilst equally
maintaining it's stance that terrorism was not the way to end
the Apartheid regime.
If Sochi is boycotted by nations will the Russian people
(influenced by the Russian Orthodox Church) blame
Gays and Lesbians and extreme nationalists take revenge
against them?  Of course they will-in the same was as Neo-Nazis
would take revenge against Jews whether or not the 1936 Olympics
had or had not been boycotted.
Personally I am not in favour of a boycott by the West of Sochi-
but for different reasons.
The presence of the world at the Sochi 2014 Olympics should
provide an ample platform for the civilised world to demonstrate
it's opposition to institutional discrimination based on race,
colour,ethnicity,disabilities or sexual orientation.
Indeed I believe it is the duty of every non-Russian Federation
competitor at Sochi from the developed world to show visible
support for their beleaguered Gay and Lesbian colleagues
in Russia and to remember that the civilised world can show
no greater antitheses than introducing laws which promote equality
and justice for all before the law.

Patrick Emek
August 9th 2013

Edward Snowden,Julian Assange,Coproral Bradley Manning

Edward Snowden,Julian Assange,Coproral Bradley Manning:

Drawing A Line In The Sand
I recently watched an interview with someone who motivated
the youth of his day to the highest ideals in journalism,
Daniel Ellsberg.
His view is that all the whistleblowers-Bradley Manning,Edward Snowden
and Julian Assange, are one and the same and should all be
equally supported because not to do so is an abrogation of civic
duty with regard to defending the 4th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution and that, in effect,what they are all exposing for
public scrutiny is Official wrongdoing,sanctioned at the highest
levels of government and indeed all such activities
are illegal.
I beleive the nation is divided on this issue.
The majority may well support Professor Ellsberg's
position on such issues.
The problem I have is this question:
where do we draw a line in the sand?;where is the balance between
freedom and liberty and state security?
I'd actually go further: Every country in the developed world is
competing economically-even against allies.  Without a myriad of
intelligence sources its impossible to gain competitive advantages
over rivals.
Of course in the social,political and economic utopia (which
incidentally more people would like to see evolve than might be
imagined) one would not need competitive advantage because
the world would be trading using parameters where everybody
would benefit.  Unfortunately until we arrive at this Nirvana
we're stuck with the next best thing!;and I don't see these
current issues as milestones on that evolutionary path.
The next argument could well be that I don't 'understand the issues'.
That branches of the military and intelligence continually lie
to Congressional Oversight Committees-with the full knowledge
and blessing of Congressmen and Congresswomen who would
prefer not to be burdened with the fine details about what's
happening at the coalface and in the bowels of the earth.
So,this argument would say, the entire system is 'broken'.
The accountability and transparency spectrums have been
totally compromised leaving (we) the people unprotected against
all wrongdoing by those in high office.
If the NSA were to be completely dismantled tomorrow, this
would only mean it's place would be taken by a more
'efficient' predator-survival of the fittest-if you believe
in the Darwinian theory of evolution.
So would coming under China or Russia's ultra secret surveillance
systems-or perhaps even Iran's or North Korea's be any
improvement?  Of course I have taken the latter two as worst
examples to illustrate a point.
The retort might well be that what Americans require is honest
government and, above all, honest oversight, which is
genuinely accountable to the electorate or,at least, honest
representatives of the people.
With that in mind, I'd like to move on to my last thought
on this matter:
Who listens to planet Earth?
Be assured Russia and China monitor everything going in and out of
their vast empires-but nobody questions their lack of transparency
-perhaps
because their chains of command are so firewalled behind Iron Curtains
so as to make it impossible for intelligence whistleblowers to
ever break surface (alive) - other than through pre-arranged defections
to the West.
I believe that in the near future defectors will 'blow the cover'
on the vast spying edifices China and Russia use to monitor and
control their populations and their use of space technology
to eavesdrop the planet.
When such occurs undoubtly many respected individuals such as
Professor Ellsberg and Professor Noam Chomsky will dismiss
the revelations as irrelevant to the United States on the
grounds that it is up to the Russian or Chinese judicial
systems to deal with such wrongdoing whereas the 'wrongdoings''
committed by the U.S. Government against it's own people are
clearly criminal as they are in violation of the American
Constitution, or, to be more specific,the 4th Amendment.
I believe there is a difference in an open society between the
revelations a journalist and researcher such as Mr Julian Assange
makes and those made by dissatisfied military and intelligence
officers who find it impossible to reconcile their 'orders' with
their personal (or ethical) beliefs.
In third world countries coups are the order of the day when
military and other disaffected officers on tribal, religious,
political, ethical or just sheer greed decide they want to
take it upon themselves to determine the future direction of
the country,independent of the peoples democratically
elected representatives.
The duty of journalists and independent researchers in an open
society is the public interest-this is to whom they are ultimately
and solely accountable. Of course,historically, there always have
been times where the public's 'right to know' has been 'put on hold'
to facilitate diplomacy.
There always has and, in my opinion, always will be a
case for this.
I can think of many instances, historically, where the right of the
public for instant information is not in the national interest, even
if it is the 'scoop of the century'.
Indeed we constantly remind individuals not to blindly follow
orders they believe to be morally and ethically wrong-and the
U.S. system provides ways and means for such grievances to be taken
forward-without fear.
The problem here is that after taking government, intelligence,
military wrongdoing through the system these aggrieved individuals
expect to go back and work for the same system they have become
disillusioned with as if nothing happened-and herein lies the dilemma:
you cannot wish the broken mirror to become unbroken again.
These (now) high-profile individuals cannot now expect to 'pick-up'
their lives and careers exactly where they left off and which,
on grounds of conscience, they have decided to forsake
in the interests of the general public.
They may get a 'thanks' from the general public-who will then,
quite rightly in my view, move on to the next story or scandal
and forget about this one after a relatively short period,
 the broken system having been repaired.
Unfortunately the 'eternal' gratitude of the general public will
only last until the next scandal hits the news.
One would be naive to expect a 'red carpet' to  be laid out by that
same system for the returning 'prodigal' son or daughter anxious
to resume their professional career in government,armed services
or agencies.
'And why in heaven's name not!' I hear many howl in agast.
Because,in,my opinion, a line in the sand has been crossed.
It's not punishment.  It is that their future careers are better
served where they will not have to confront more ethical issues
in a less than perfect official government system where, undoubtedly,
other employees in future times will face the same dilemmas of faith
and belief and decide for themselves which path of accountability
to utilise-the peoples representaives with responsibility
for oversight, or the general public.
Patrick Emek
2nd August
2.30pm

revised 12th August 2013