The British Government and the Return of the Double Standard

[WARNING: CONTAINS *SOME* LEGAL JARGON]

So I've just seen something which is absolutely disgraceful. But, the topic also has two sides.

This headline from the Independent sums it up:

"Mass surveillance of UK citizens on Facebook, YouTube and Google is legal, says official"

Now. Before we go into this, let's look at what the article has to say.

"The mass interception and surveillance of UK citizens’ activity on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google is legal, the government’s top anti-terror chief has said. In the first detailed defence of the UK’s surveillance policies since the Snowden revelations, Charles Farr, the director general of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, has said that the surveillance of such popular sites is legal because their US origins means they count as “external communications”*.

The basics of this is, following the revelations from Edward Snowden last year, it appears that the Government can legally access your Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google Searches WITHOUT  a warrant in the name of counter-terrorism.

Now. In this day and age, Counter-Terrorism is a big thing that is now part of life and designed to keep the people of a certain country (and/or area) safe. This I understand, accept and admire. However, as far as this is concerned, this is double standards.

I was under the impression that certain search terms online we red flagged and if someone looked up these terms a number of times, the authorities could apply for a warrant to track the IP address and THEN access Facebook, Google searches and other social network messages etc. But if this article is to be believed, this is evidently not the case. It appears that, in the name of counter-terrorism, GCHQ and other organisations can just look at our Facebook and things willy-nilly without a warrant. 

To me, this amounts to hacking. Now, I understand that hacking is an umbrella term. However: 

"hack. VERB. Gain unauthorized access to data in a system or computer:

they hacked into the bank’s computer[WITH OBJECT]: someone hacked his computer from another location(as noun hacking) outlawing hacking has not stopped it"
Now, for the moment, let's concentrate at the "unauthorized access" part. The article from the Independent says that:
"In a 48-page statement issued in response to a legal challenge brought by Privacy International, Liberty, Amnesty international and seven other civil liberties groups, Farr admits that the government allows the interception of a massive range of online activities without a warrant"*.
With this in mind: 

"warrant. NOUN. A document issued by a legal or government official authorizing the police or another body to make an arrest, search premises, or carry out some other action relating to the administration of justice:

magistrates issued a warrant for his arrestan extradition warrant"
If you remember these two things, you start to realise that the fact that Governments and Security Firms are accessing your personal information WITHOUT A WARRANT, is illegal. Police cannot pursue a suspect in a case without a warrant for their arrest or to search their dwellings. This is a similar case. The authorities in question should be able to access your personal information and social network pages as long as they have a warrant. 
The fact that they do and don't have a warrant is technically illegal and you could, potentially, sue them for invasion of privacy and for hacking.
So why can't we?
Counter-Terrorism. And a major legal loophole that Britain is exploiting in order to do this unchallenged.
"By defining these web services as “external communications," they fall under the general warrants of section 8(4) of RIPA. This means that a range of activities – from emails to Facebook messages to Google searches – can all be intercepted even when the police have no grounds to suspect the individuals of wrongdoing"*.
Basically, because most of the websites they can access were made and based in America, Britain don't have to follow the same rules as the Americans. So they can search through your internet history without challenge in the name of counter-terrorism.
But what would happen if I, for example, were to hack GCHQ?
According to US Law: "This crime is a class B misdemeanor but if the person causes over $2,500 in property damage it is a class A misdemeanor if the person acted with reckless disregard for the consequences of his or her actions and class D felony if the person acted maliciously"**. Otherwise, I get a hefty fine and a possible prison sentence of many years. Possibly even a Treason charge.
Double standards? Well, it depends on how you look at it. I personally believe it is because it's a case of punishing the many for the actions of the few. Not everyone in the UK is a terrorist. Nor is everyone who's a Muslim, a Christian, a Sikh etc so why not stick with the red flag? OR actually find some conventional evidence that someone is participating in terrorism activities?
I know some people might say to this "Well if you're complaining about this then you obviously have something to hide". That as the case maybe, how people like being hacked and watched by their Government, Big Brother stylee?
That's just my opinion anyway...

*James Vincent, The Independent, "Mass surveillance of UK citizens on Facebook, YouTube and Google is legal, says official", http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mass-surveillance-of-uk-citizens-on-facebook-youtube-and-google-is-legal-says-official-9543455.html** Christopher Reinhart, Office of Legislative Research, http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0254.htm

Apple-Ogies

Believe it or not, I still have a blog! Which I haven't actually attended to for some time!

For this I apologise. But please allow me to explain why I have not attended this part of my life for some time.

1. Uni Exams: I had revision and things so any and all non-social focus was place in that endeavour. I got a good result on one of the exams so obviously a wise move!

2. Music: Cardiopath (my music project) is taking off! I have an EP ready to be recorded, a video in the works and a 12+ track album ready to be recorded also. So music's also been taking up a lot of my time recently. (As well as live gig prep too!)

3. Work: I have a job! I'm working 8:30-3:45 5 days a week now so I'm also concerning myself with that and all this entails.

4. Lack of things to write: My Swedish friend, Marion, has asked me when Ducks By The Lake will return. It will at some stage but the fact is that I don't really have that much to write right now. So, if I do write anything, it's likely to be this. DBTL will be finished. I promise!

Anyway, until that time, I hope you're all ok and well!

Speak soon!

Joshua x

Does The Introduction Of The Feminist Agenda Bring Anything New To The Study Of Global Politics? [Essay]

An essay I'm quite proud of. I got a 1st for this. As some of my friends are feminists, I thought I'd share it with you.

Feminism, as a political movement, has been present in the world for many generations. But the idea of equal rights for women has been around for much longer. The first recorded convention for women’s rights was held in 19^th July 1848 in a little chapel in Seneca Falls, New York, with the Declaration of Sentiments also being drawn up around the same time[1]. This declaration stated that men and women were born as equals, something which is the central ideological point for many active feminist groups today. When the women who organised the Seneca Falls Conference all those years ago chaired it, they could not have pictured the traction it would slowly get throughout the world and how their initial ideas would stem into many different versions of the same desire. They could not possibly have realised that their new liberal thinking would start a worldwide movement that would branch out into many different ideologies and influence many different parts of the world in the coming centuries. For example, the suffrage movements right across the world that fought and protested for the right of women to vote. Of course, we now know that women would get the vote but at the time it was a big step for the feminine thinkers of the day. To the point where one of them, Emily Wilding Davison, would (arguably) die for the cause by throwing herself under the king’s horse during the 1913 derby. Showing the lengths that women would go to at the time to achieve what is one of the most basic of rights[2].

As we come into the modern era though, into the age of Globalization, we see feminism as a very topical issue. Not just in the political sphere but in the cultural sphere. Many people are still unsure as to what feminism is or does, or at the very least, many people have a certain idea about what it is. However, in the modern world, there are certain views of feminism coming out that have been seemingly caused partially by feminists themselves. The amount of infighting that has occurred over the past couple of years on social media have made people wonder what the real goal is. Many feminists took to the social networking Twitter in order to try and place the cause further into the public consciousness but it soon turned into a large influx of comments that turned the social media idea “toxic”[3]. The whole debacle made some feminists appear to be like young children who were just fighting for the sake of fighting. Or, as Hadley Freeman for the Guardian described it, the incidents made some “sound like the bitchy babies that sexists have always suggested we are, incapable of being given any position of authority without throwing tampons at one another[4]”. 

Obviously, that is not what feminism is about in the slightest, but this is the image of feminism that some seem to accept. People like this, who are often Marxists critiquing the liberals, often become categorized with the aged thought that women are irrational as all they appear to do is take issue with the logic of other feminists and, thanks to the spread and proliferation of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, this is become much easier to do. But in the process, many other feminists believe that this behaviour is damaging the view of modern feminism. Again, Hadley Freeman sums it up by suggesting “Critiquing and educating is one thing, publicly slamming leftwing feminist writers as "low-level media whores", as one prominent blogger did this weekend, is, I think we can all agree, another[5]”.

However, in the broader context of today’s Globalising world, feminism is starting to percolate further across different cultures and, in some respects, it has started to become implemented in global politics. For example, the idea of a certain number of women that should be in elected positions such as corporate boards and positions of politics has been in many country’s policies since the first UN Conference on Women in 1975 and continue to used today[6]. With this in mind, it is difficult not to suggest that this current form of Globalization has enhanced the spread of feminism due to the fact this version of Globalization, itself, has been partially characterized by the spreading of many different ideas across different nation states[7]. Thanks to this, and to the united implications of the global community, the impact of feminism on world politics has slowly become more recognised. But this doesn’t mean things are by any means fairer.

As a UN Report in 1980 illustrated, “Women make up half the world’s population, perform two-thirds of its work hours, receive one-tenth of the world’s income and less than one-hundredth of its property[8]”. There is still a glass ceiling for women in many different professions because of what’s expected or viewed of them as well as stiff competition that still remains in the job markets. Even in today’s rapidly changing world; men are still more likely to get the promotions to the top jobs than women because many female managers are seen as “deceitful, pushy, selfish, and abrasive” compared to many male managers[9]. Despite this thinking among some, there are still feminist writers who still believe this will change and that the Globalizing world is still a positive thing for many women despite that many institutions around the world are still heavily male dominated. As Myra Marx Ferree says: “Globalization can work to a woman’s advantage-as especially seen in the UN-but also unleash the forces of inequality that will further disadvantage women[10]”.

But as far as to whether the feminist agenda brings anything new to the study of global politics, it depends on the view which you take of feminism itself. There are people who would argue that the feminist agenda does bring something new to the study of global politics due to the influence of many women that are now becoming more prominent in the global political sphere. But there are also those that would suggest that because the global political landscape is still very male dominated that the feminist agenda is being generally over-looked. These people would argue that the current Globalised system has disadvantaged women further because many CEOs are still men. I also refer back to the UN report of 1980 where it also suggests that women own “less than one-hundredth of its property[11]” as another argument as to how Globalization is actually diminishing women’s power in the world. But one argument against THIS notion suggests that Globalization is actually a tool that feminists can use for the better.

As one feminist website explains: “The immediate challenge for the international Women's Movement is to mobilize and take the lead in building a new political order better suited to a world already being reshaped by globalization[12]”, suggesting that the current system is not as disadvantageous to women as many others perhaps make it out to be. But it’s this kind of discourse that does make the study of feminism in global politics interesting. Because the idea of gender equality in the global, political and cultural sphere is constantly being talked about and is ever present on social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter. But it also brings out more discourses with those who demand on having a “politics of equality[13]” based on gender difference, and those who believe that this is a more radical approach to an equal standing of men and women right across the political and industrial world. But, in the long run, you need to study feminism and all of its different elements in order to understand its continuing relevance in the Globalized world that we have today and how the policies they put forward actually can influence many political decisions across the board because, like the study of Global Politics itself, it’s constantly changing and evolving.

---

[1] Watkins, Susan Alice et al, ‘Introducing Feminism’, (New York, Totem Books, 1994), p43

[2] Nancarrow, Sally, ‘Emily Davison: Votes for women's Derby Day 'martyr'’, BBC News Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22725094

[3] Goldberg, Michelle, ‘Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars’, The Nation Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.thenation.com/article/178140/feminisms-toxic-twitter-wars

[4] Freeman, Hadley, ‘Feminist infighting only takes our eyes off the real struggle’, The Guardian Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/feminist-infighting-eyes-off-real-struggle

[5] Freeman, Hadley, ‘Feminist infighting only takes our eyes off the real struggle’, The Guardian Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/feminist-infighting-eyes-off-real-struggle

[6] M Marx Ferree, ‘Globalisation and Feminism’, Globalization and Feminism: Opportunities and Obstacles for Activism in the Global Arena, 1, (2006), 11

[7] M Marx Ferree, ‘Globalisation and Feminism’, Globalization and Feminism: Opportunities and Obstacles for Activism in the Global Arena, 1, (2006), 11

[8] Watkins, Susan Alice et al, ‘Introducing Feminism’, (New York, Totem Books, 1994), p163

[9] Quast, Lisa, ‘Is There Really A Glass Ceiling For Women?’, Forbes Website, 04/03/2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaquast/2011/11/14/is-there-really-a-glass-ceiling-for-women/

[10] M Marx Ferree, ‘Globalisation and Feminism’, Globalization and Feminism: Opportunities and Obstacles for Activism in the Global Arena, 1, (2006), 23

[11] Watkins, Susan Alice et al, ‘Introducing Feminism’, (New York, Totem Books, 1994), p163

[12] Neuwirth, Jessica, ‘Globalization: A Secret Weapon for Feminists’, Feminist.com, 04/03/2014, http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/inter/globaliz.html

[13] Di Stefano, Christine et al, ‘Feminism/Postmodernism’, (New York, Routledge, Chapman & Hall Publishers, 1990)