Oscillating Tones

Freedom of speech is under attack, but maybe not forever.

Freedom of speech is struggling. The ability to openly discuss our thoughts has long been an important value in western democracy. Yet internet echo chambers and the dismissal of news as 'fake' by politicians mean that we as citizens are beginning to casually reject facts and principles that we disagree with.

One psychology experiment, for instance, found that we are willing to forgo money in order to avoid experiencing opposing opinions such as on gun control or gay marriage (more here). This is inflamed by silent algorithms, subtly influencing what we see on social media.

If you can't handle criticism of minorities,
short of inciting direct violence,
then grow a thicker skin

Because the internet, for the first time in the modern era, allows us to actively avoid neutral fact and contrary opinions, making us more hostile when opposition does surface. 
It also means everything we say can be picked apart for the smallest reasons, making us quickly feel morally engulfed or uncertain. 

These effects act as a brake on the freedom to ask questions and talk about the day's key issues. Better to stay quiet than get dragged into endless, unwinnable, comment wars.

The Importance of Being Earnest

This is alarming. There's a reason free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It allows criticism of politicians and government failures; a Nobel Laureate once pointed out that 'no democracy with a free press ever endured famine'. Free debate inspires innovation and creativity, with the killing of bad ideas and the encouraging of good ones. This explains why Silicon Valley has sprung up in America, 'land of the free'.

So is society doomed to collapse into petty squabbles for the foreseeable future?

Maybe not. A similar trend often occurs in high-stress periods. For example, during the Vietnam War, Max Hastings, a historian, has pointed out that opposition to the war quickly mutated into young people admiring 'Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara...heedless of the oppression their heroes promoted' (e.g. Mao's actions killed 20-45 million people). 

Apparently, if you're pro-war, you're a fascist

In this case, vague anti-war beliefs quickly evolved into support for North Vietnam, a nation which impoverished 8 million of its own people under 'rent controls'. 

Because everyone was/is so determined to get across their opinion, they shout more loudly and more radically to get attention. Anything in the middle ground is savaged by both sides, ergo, a loss of freedom of speech.

Yet in Vietnam, Saigon was overrun, the war ended and society returned to suburbia. The spite died down, and normal returned.

That holds promise for today. Freedom of speech is under threat. But it may not be permanent.

Theo

What happens in Cameroon stays in Cameroon

Special Report

Anglo-French-German wars are a thing of the centuries past; times of armoured warfare, moral conflict, and Blitkreig. But their legacy, or more specifically their languages, are grappling fiercely once more in Cameroon, and protests are threatening to turn into long-lasting violence.

But I imagine you have little idea what I’m talking about. 

The Country that sounds like my cousins' middle name

According to the BBC, Cameroon is so diverse that it’s called an ‘Africa in miniature’, describing it as having ‘one of the highest literacy rates on the continent...but hampered by the persistent problem of corruption’. 

Indeed in 1998, it was ranked as the most corrupt country in the world to do business with.

German troops in 'Kamerun'

Initially discovered by the Portuguese, by 1884 it was in German hands during their desperate scramble for Empire. 

Expanded in 1911, then annexed by neighbouring French and British colonies in 1916, it was divided after the First World War: 80% to the French, 20% to the British.


By 1961, the two parts had decolonised and joined, forming modern Cameroon. In 1983, Paul Biya became President and has fiddled the constitution to give him extra terms since. 

Meanwhile, the Anglophone (English-speaking) West grew slowly more resentful at the disproportionate dominance of the Francophone (French-speaking) majority, who hold top posts in government, receive more funding for public projects, and are better treated.

Map outlining the spread of English and French.
The Anglophone region is visible in the West

In November 2016, the Government tried to impose French upon local courts in West Cameroon. 

In doing so it offended the English-speaking population, proud of not being of the 64% who speak French. Protests followed.

If you can't beat 'em...shoot them.

The rallies grew and grew in size, joined by teachers too. The campaigns began to focus on still-rampant corruption and poor governance, alarming Biya. Separatism became a semi-serious prospect, hoping for the independent state for ‘Ambazonia’.

The security forces reacted harshly, firing live rounds and teargas into a market in Bamenda, the region's largest city, killing four. 

The internet was then shut down in the area, with local campaigners, lawyers, and human rights activists detained. In response a separatist bomb attack was launched, wounding three policemen.

So the military was deployed. Which always goes well. A peak day of demonstrations were planned in late September. Business were closed; gatherings of over four people were banned, movement around English-speaking regions was forbidden. Tensions were high.

The army watches over Anglophone prisoners

Guess what? The military killed eight people at those protests, with more wounded.

It then deployed teargas to deter from approaching the regional governor's office, clashing with separatists. 

By the end of October, 40 were dead, 100 injured, and between 7,000 and 20,000 had fled to Nigeria.



Counter-protests were held in Douala, Cameroon's commercial capital, but then counter-counter violence erupted when protestors killed four Cameroonian soldiers. Opposition Parties lodged their complaints during a budget debate, using...vuvuzela horns. 

(I thought they'd gone away after the 2010 World Cup - apparently not.)

Oh, and they did some wonderful singing (link here)

President Biya...not looking anxious at all.

Despite the persecution, the movement has grown stronger and stronger. Biya is next in a procession of African leaders 
(read: dictators) who are struggling when social protest meets social media. 

Mugabe couldn't keep a lid on it; Zuma faced expose after expose; Desalegn (Ethiopia) was thrown out by constant anger. 

The elections later this year will see the opposition fired up and making life awkward for him - that is, if the country is peaceful enough to hold a vote.

The good news is that Biya has suggested that he's open to dialogue and the decentralisation of power. Unfortunately, he hasn't addressed the blatant illegality of the security forces' behaviour. Instead he's praised them, ignoring the huge casualties and refugees involved in their crackdown.

Violence at the October protests in Bamenda

But depite this, Agbor Nkongho, a leader of the protesters, is calling for the radicals on both sides to cease their violence, reminding them that “We can still live as one; unity in diversity,”. This is a strikingly different tone to the leaders of other, often-militant, civil campaigns elsewhere.

The media is only slowly waking up to the unrest in Cameroon. Wearied of seemingly constant hotspots all over the continent, there's little appetite in the industry or at home for yet another story about a failing African country. 

But this is important. 

It may spiral into civil war or turn into a long-running insurgency - neither are remote possibilities. But there's a chance it will be settled peacefully; both leaders could be open to dialogue, with a mind for a peaceful settlement. 

And that would be a wonderful thing indeed for Africa.

Pride of the continent one day soon?

Big Thanks to the Guardian, whose section on Cameroon I plundered for this post. If you want more information, they have great articles on the whole saga.

As a side note, the Easter holidays are approaching, so I'm afraid can't guarantee a post in two weeks time, as other commitments take priority.

Happy Easter!

Theo

The British Brexit Biased Brilliant Betraying Boorish Brazen Bought-off Broadcasting Corporation

There’s a persistent belief among many that the BBC is inherently biased. That’s nonsense.

No group the size of the British Broadcasting Corporation can be absolutely impartial at all times, but to claim that the largest broadcasting organisation in the world has deep-rooted and deliberate bias is a bit off.

BBC or Stalin?

A royal charter and 95 years...all down the pan?

Impartiality is one of the BBC’s core values, and has been since they were invented as a radio network in 1922. The Royal Charter - which lays out the principles and way they’re run - opens with the importance of neutrality. It's physically is built into the BBC's constitution. But does that mean anything?

In clause 3 of 72, the BBC demands absolute independence

A lot of people would say 'no'. The most common anti-BBC claims are made by the tabloid newspapers (Mail, Sun, Express, etc.), and they say the 'beeb' is anti-Conservative and anti-Brexit.

The flaw with these claims is that the papers are owned by a pro-Conservative, pro-Brexit media tycoon: Rupert Murdoch. Obviously, he's biased against neutral news. But also, he doesn't like the BBC.

Pro-Tory...

He wants his media empire (including Fox, Sky, The Times and the Mail) to control all news broadcasting so he can make more money. As long as the BBC is powerful, it'll attract his audience away, and keep revenues low. 

So there's a hidden agenda in their anti-BBC-ness?

A bigger flaw with the way people attack the BBC is that they all have different issues with how it reports. 
A quick search on Twitter and hundreds of people believe the BBC is anti-Tory (Conservative) and hundreds more believe it’s pro-Tory. 
Same again on Brexit (although quite a few more believe it’s anti-Brexit).

Or anti-Tory?

There's often a basic ignorance of facts. The Sun went crazy over the BBC inviting 'vocal defenders of the EU' to its proms. This includes 'remain-supporters' Theresa May, Phillip Hammond, Jeremy Corbyn, and Sadiq Khan. The Sun sees this as further proof the BBC is deeply anti-Brexit. 
OR, maybe they were invited because they’re three of the most important politicians in the country...?

These arguments are often poorly researched, have a hidden agenda, and can be disproved or explained easily. The BBC is built on rules, regulations and principles that means it’s very hard to be consistently biased.

Laura Kuenssberg

The first female political editor at the BBC

This is Laura Kuenssberg. She’s the BBC’s Political Editor. And she comes under more abuse than probably any other journalist nationally. 

She had to have a bodyguard at Labour’s party conference in autumn, and has faced online petitions demanding that she's sacked.

All this because she's apparently biased.



Depending on who you believe, she's either an arrogant Conservative, disgusted by Corbyn, or an anti-Tory, out to stop Brexit.

Text is too small to read, but it's slamming her coverage
of the Labour manifesto

While bloggers and the Labour Party yell at her for being against Corbyn, the newspapers defame her for apparently attacking anything vaguely right-wing.    

I can't believe she's pro-Tory: her most recent blog posts on the BBC website have been over Brexit, and she’s definitely not supportive of the government. A lot of her articles remind us of the weakness of the Conservative majority: ‘Theresa May’s government...[has been] folding, budging, or making new promises to avoid losing actual votes’. 

Daily Express attacks an interview with Theresa May

And the weakness of Theresa May’s government, and their incompetence at Brexit negotiations, is fact, and Kuenssberg is only reporting the news in saying so.

On the other side, her distaste of Corbyn may be explained by the fact that she’s more used to working with more efficient, personal, MPs. 

Corbyn, for all his strengths, is neither efficient nor personal, despite his show persona. She got into hot water over editing an interview with him poorly, but the response from his supporters and the Labour Party has been disproportionately aggressive. Many question whether, as a woman, she's suitable for the role.

Angering both sides is very common in journalism. That's what journalists do, after all; they pose annoying questions and uncover uncomfortable reports. It's clearly a measure of her success and tenacity at balanced reporting that she won the Press Gazette's ‘Best Journalist of the Year’ award in 2016.

She said that she would ‘die in a ditch for BBC impartiality’. That says it all, really.

I honestly can't believe that the BBC is biased. It works so hard to maintain press impartiality, and in doing so has infuriated all sides of the political spectrum. 

Maybe it's the critics who are biased; do they need to learn some hard truths about their own point of view?

Harvey vs. The Monsoon

Special Report

Massive flooding.

High rebuilding costs. 

Livelihoods destroyed.

The devastation across the Caribbean, Florida, and Texas in Hurricanes Harvey and Irma is nothing compared to this year's rains in Asia.

Over a hundred people died in the two storms: roughly 70 in Hurricane Harvey, and over 50 in Hurricane Irma. These figures are alarming, but seem paltry compared to the wreckage across South Asia:

• At least 1,200 people across North India, Bangladesh, and Nepal have been killed by the monsoon so far this year.(1)

• A third of low-lying Bangladesh is reported to be underwater (3).

• The International Red Cross has said that the floods are the worst for forty years - including the rains in 2014 and 2005 (which brought Mumbai to a standstill).

Flooding in India's western Gujarat state

The monsoon is the yearly rain season in South Asia, stretching from July to September. The concentration of rain is 70% of India's yearly rainfall; it's vital to maintain agriculture and farming, in order to supply one billion people with food. Not enough rain means less food, potentially causing an economic crisis (2). Yet too much rain is also a problem. 

While monsoon rains are often violent and destructive – they tend to occur in poorer states where infrastructure to handle the rain isn't available – this one is devastating even by normal standards, and surpasses the ruin from 2014. (6)

1.8 million children are unable to go to school; whole states are flooded; clean water is scarce: people are forced to drink disease-infested, filthy water, which leads to epidemics of cholera and typhoid. Mumbai, a city in West India and the country's financial hub, has seen buildings collapse and electricity cut. (7)

It’s not hard to grasp that this is a major problem.      

Mumbai underwater

What's worse is the lack of attention that such a disaster has caused. This is far from the lavish social media attention following the United States' natural disasters, which have caused fewer fatalities and far more international sympathy.

Houston underwater  

The total GDP of the USA is $18.57 trillion. The total GDP of India/Bangladesh/Nepal is just over $2.5 trillion, so it's the Asian nations which have less capability to handle the crisis, and are working on a yearly deadline to repair and rebuild.

Where’s the 24-hour news coverage and donations from across the world? (8)

(N.B. This isn’t to say that the hurricanes were over-exaggerated or their effect was minimal - nor the people who died in them were unimportant and meaningless. Few would deny that they caused massive disaster.)

Most news organisations only began to show an interest when two toddlers died in the floods (5), reckoning that stories of dead children would ‘sell’, but general destruction and chaos wouldn’t. Leading up to the end of August, Texan floods secured three times as much media attention as the Indian monsoon - this was non-American media alone.  

Within America, Harvey was mentioned one hundred times more than India. (9)  

Why is there such a disparity in the media? Do they think that we care more for the affairs of white, 'civilised' nations more than Asian 'peasant' countries? Is it less effort to report from New York than New Delhi? Or do they simply not care? 

A more famous case of media bias, in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, when terrorism in France dwarfed more serious bombings in Beirut, even though casualties were significantly less.

Of course, it's less common for hurricanes to hit the USA - and never in such a short space of time - but already people are rebuilding and rehousing. There's little more to be gained from covering the States.

But the monsoon still hasn't finished.

There needs to be a very good reason for this bias, because right now it's ensuring that hundreds of people are dying and without the slightest flicker of concern from our media - and consequently, us.