Government surveillance will only strengthen the roots of radicalisation

Posted on June 19, 2015June 19, 2015 by Spotlight Europe

Do you care about your data and privacy?

Why we should all be afraid of the ‘nothing to fear’ brigade

Freedom, tolerance and the rule of law are widely accepted as the foundations of any just, progressive and equitable society. It thus follows from this that governments should have a hard time compromising these values, which would unequivocally be the case were it not for the now globally elusive and seemingly misguided pursuit of national security and safety. Since the commencement of the war on terror, propositions for a series of restrictive and intrusive measures aimed at policing non-criminal activity, behaviour and even thought have become the norm amongst an increasing number of western states.

Most notably and recently amongst European leaders, British Prime Minister David Cameron wasted little time following his party’s electoral success to brazenly deride British society for having been ‘passively tolerant for too long’, arguing that a new era was needed in which simply obeying the law would no longer be enough to stave off government suspicion and intervention. Whilst Cameron’s vision for a big-brotheresque society and proposals for a so called ‘snoopers charter’ have attracted a plethora of criticism from human rights and libertarian groups, the public outcry which has followed is arguably far from proportional to the extent of which its liberty is actually at stake. The root of this apathy is most conceivably rooted in the general public’s collective confidence that they simply have nothing to hide – and as the oft-repeated saying goes, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. After all, why would the amicable and passive majority of a nations population worry about anonymous government institutions analysing the most banal aspects of their life if such measures would ultimately help protect them from the type of violent and organised attacks which have plagued the likes of Paris and London in recent years?

However, as is often the case when contextualising proposals and relations between governments and their publics, the underlying realities are substantially more sobering than what could be concluded at face value. Far from tackling the root causes of extremist violence, intrusive and targeted invasions of privacy in the long-term ultimately serve to reinforce the societal divisions and tensions which have facilitated the rising radicalisation within marginalised sectors of society – essentially strengthening the same vein of disenchantment triggered by conflicts overseas, police brutality and political & economic alienation amongst other factors of varying political and social contexts.

The reformation of privacy and liberty envisioned by the likes of Cameron extends way beyond investigating known terror suspects or groups. Theoretically everyone would be under the spotlight to some varying degree, with profiles being created on the basis of patterns of behaviour, association, political inclinations and thought. Peculiar yet definitive suggestions from Britain’s most senior Muslim police chief that shunning Marks & Spencer’s and abstaining from the celebration of Christmas could be pin-pointed as possible radicalisation alarm-bells amongst young Muslims provides just one case study as to how easy it could be for perfectly innocent, peaceful and law-abiding citizens to find themselves demonised as potential enemies of the state under Cameron’s new vision for British society.

Furthermore, in what can only be described as a worrying and somewhat disturbing sign of the times, the scrutiny under which an East London council has found itself under after asking primary school children to fill in ‘counter extremism’ questionnaires is emblematic of the inevitably discriminatory and divisive nature of the big-brother era. With questions seemingly intent on skewing the religious beliefs and upbringing of the pupils, it has been difficult for Britain’s Muslim community to view this particular incident as anything less than an attack implicitly intent on criminally profiling its youth on the basis of nothing more than personal belief and thought.

Aside from the potentially devastating impact on community cohesion and government-public relations, forsaking our liberty for the sake of state-intervention also poses a grave danger to the rule of law and the provision of fair & impartial justice. If behavioural information extracted from one’s personal life could be viewed as sufficient to provoke suspicion, it in all likelihood may also be used to influence the prosecution of defendants, no matter how ordinarily legal that behaviour may be when considered in isolation.

Legislative measures as reformative as those proposed by Cameron and his peers also help to create a considerable political precedent, and it is far from far-fetched to fear existing legislation being taken advantage of by progressively authoritarian governments to gradually widen the realms of what is understood as ‘extremism’, which as currently re-defined by British Home Secretary Theresa May now includes ‘non-violent extremism’ – a term essentially vague enough to cover everything from hate speech to political anarchism. It conclusively seems that irony is the major theme in the never-ending battle between liberty and security, as embodied by the worn-out tune of ‘free-speech’ being hummed by those same leaders intent on strengthening the chokehold of government monitoring – it was in fact just five months ago that David Cameron joined world leaders for a march in Paris to symbolise the unquestionable sanctity of free-speech in light of the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks.

Is a tightly controlled and highly interventionist society one that an increasing number of governments appear to be aspiring to? Or is it one in which liberal privileges are reserved for the conservative, elite and powerful sections of society only? Either way, it appears that in seeking to protect our supposedly most sacred values from those that aim to destroy them, our governments are intent on destroying them first.

About the author:

Hassan is a 22 year old graduate from Lancaster University, UK. He possesses a considerable interest in human rights, conflict resolution and issues of community cohesion within European societies.

How can we “youth up” European policy making?

Posted on May 28, 2015August 12, 2015 by Johanna Nyman

"Youth up” European policy making! (Flickr: Pete<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" target="_blank">CC BY 2.0</a>) — “Youth up” European policy making! (Flickr: Pete/licensed under CC BY 2.0)

The EU has done a lot for young people: we can move freely (well, quite freely!) to live, work and study in the country of our choice, we are the most mobile generation than any that came before us. Yes, times are tough for us: youth unemployment within the EU is still staggeringly high and this needs to be tackled, but there are some mechanisms in place for this such as the Youth Guarantee, which we at the European Youth Forum fought for sometime. Things can and should though be improved for young people in Europe. That is why it is so vital that young people speak up and have their voices heard!

“By not voting young people are counting themselves out of having a say in the issues that affect them”

But only 27.8% of young people voted in that the last European elections. By not voting young people are counting themselves out of having a say in the issues that affect them and, even worse, by not making our point of view clear, politicians do not target us and therefore do not make policies to help win our vote. It is a vicious circle! That is why, in 2013, a year ahead on the European elections, we launched the League of Young Voters in Europe. The aim was both to encourage young people to vote – to explain why it is important for them to do so and to help them to navigate the rather complicated landscape of EU politics with easy to use online tools. The aim was also to raise up their concerns to those in power. Leagues were set up in pretty much all EU member states by the Youth Forum’s member organisations and many of these have gone from strength to strength: the British Youth Council, for example, had a very vocal and high profile campaign in the run up to the UK general elections this month. And the number of young people that cast their ballot in the British elections stood at 58%, significantly up from the election before (44% in 2010).

“We would like to see civic education about democracy and voting to be compulsory as part of young people’s education”

Beyond encouraging and educating young people about voting, we also want the voting age to be lowered across Europe to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote. We feel that by empowering young people earlier on and granting them the democratic right to vote, they would become more engaged and excited about the whole process and would continue to vote as they grow older. There have been some recent examples which show that by giving young people this power, they take it seriously and turn out at the ballot box in very large numbers! In the Scottish referendum, for example, 16 and 17 year-olds came out in force to make sure that their view was taken into account. This shows that if an issue is important enough, if it matters to young people, then they do vote. This must not, though, happen in a vacuum and we would like to see civic education about democracy and voting to be compulsory as part of young people’s education.

What is very clear from our work in encouraging youth participation is that young people are indeed interested in politics and in the decisions that affect them, but that many of them are engaging in non-traditional forms or outside of the current system. If the traditional media are not keen to hear the youth voice, then young people are turning to social media where they are running viral campaigns to get the word out there about the issues that matter to them! If the system does not take them into account then young people are taking action outside of the system!

That is why this year, the European Youth Forum is launching YouthUP, an open-source campaign aiming to empower and bring together all initiatives for better youth political participation across Europe. We will be looking for young people, partners and activists to build together resources and campaigns to help young people join democracy and political life in the way that they should be able to. This will become a resource for all young people in Europe to use and build on and with which the Youth Forum can help their voice be heard! To become part of this movement, sign up on the website.

About the author:

Johanna Nyman, EYF Board and Secretariat, Brussels. Copyrights www.michaelchia.eu 2014

Johanna Nyman (25) is the President of the European Youth Forum. Johanna lives in Helsinki where she studies environmental change and politics at Helsinki University.

Johanna has a long background in youth organizations. She joined the scouts at the age of twelve and held various positions within the Scouts and Guides of Finland. She was an activist in the school student movement, and acted as Vice-Chair of the Swedish-Speaking School Student Union of Finland. In 2013-2014 she was a board member of the YFJ.

Black Flag Poetry (Part 2/2)

Posted on May 21, 2015August 12, 2015 by Bogomil Gospodinov

Read the second part of Bogomil’s interview on Spotlight Europe and discover this young poet’s thoughts on the future. For his poems, have a look at Bogomil’s blog ‘Black Flag Poetry‘.
1. Is poetry only a hobby of yours or eager ambition to start a career as a poet?
Both ambition and career imply a desire to reach a final destination. I can’t say the same is true of the art of poetry. To be a poet, one has to already be where he wants and ought to be which excludes the possibility of him trying to elevate himself and to reach some kind of an ideal. I don’t think you can learn that art much more than you can learn how to laugh at jokes. You can’t really get much better but you can stop being as bad at it as before i.e. you can manage to say more in less words and thus increasing the presence of the only known to humanity weapon of truth – silence. I’d like to enclose a poem by Basil Bunting right after this sentence:

WHAT THE CHAIRMAN TOLD TOM
Basil Bunting, 1900-1985

Poetry? It’s a hobby.
I run model trains.
Mr Shaw there breeds pigeons.

It’s not work. You don’t sweat.
Nobody pays for it.
You could advertise soap.

Art, that’s opera; or repertory–
The Desert Song.
Nancy was in the chorus.

But to ask for twelve pounds a week–
married, aren’t you?–
you’ve got a nerve.

How could I look a bus conductor
in the face
if I paid you twelve pounds?

Who says it’s poetry, anyhow?
My ten year old
can do it and rhyme.

I get three thousand and expenses,
a car, vouchers,
but I’m an accountant.

They do what I tell them,
my company.
What do you do?

Nasty little words, nasty long words,
it’s unhealthy.
I want to wash when I meet a poet.

They’re Reds, addicts, all delinquents.
What you write is rot.

Mr. Hines says so, and he’s a schoolteacher, he ought to know.
Go and find work.

2. From you view: Will books still be read in 2030 or will everyone read via digital devices like smartphones, tablets etc.?
Whether people will read their favourite novels enclosed in hardcover books or from digital devices remains a trivial subject as long as the content of the book in question remains in the Gutenberg era i.e. a static immutable printed text with fixed positioning on paper or screen. A more important question regarding the future of literature is not how the mediums of reading will change or how the visual representation of a text will evolve, but rather how would the enormous capabilities of our machines affect the way we “encode” and create literary texts. I’d like to think of the future of poetry through an allegory which I’d name “Poetry as a constellation observed in the night sky”.

Poetry can be seen and researched as a natural phenomenon instead of as a dusty artefact in a museum.

The idea is that future literature will have dynamic representation instead of static one, it’s shape will shift and morph with time. Imagine a text which changes everyday because it relies on external input (let’s say on the content of ten different online magazines). In that way poetry can be seen and researched as a natural phenomenon instead of as a dusty artefact in a museum.

3. What advice could you give to other young writers?
I won’t give any advices, but I’d say what I will never do myself and that is I won’t get obsessed with the question of creativity. I consider the very word obscene and preposterous. I believe it’s a meaningless term whose place is in the same category as free will, freedom, the meaning of life and so on. It is an unsuccessful and arrogant attempt by our simple-mindedness to break the intense complexity of human thought into simplistic categories that we like to believe we control, into squares and circles, equators and meridians. Striving for creativity in your writing is like trying to paint a mathematical equation. By desperately trying to match the people’s evaluation of a work and studying how to appease them by fitting into the accepted ideas of originality leads to infertility and disappointment. A much better process, in my opinion, is to instead divert your attention towards deep comprehension, appreciation and contemplation of the world driven by what moves you around. Every time I was advised to read an article on creativity, I’d take my dog for a walk and let it lead me on my own leash.

About the interview partner:

Bogomil Gospodinov - Author at Spotlight Europe — Bogomil Gospodinov – Author at Spotlight Europe

Bogomil (20) participated in the “My Europe” workshop in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 2012. He currently studies Computer Science at the University of Southampton in England. He loves poetry and playing football.

Black Flag Poetry (Part 1/2)

Posted on May 19, 2015August 12, 2015 by Bogomil Gospodinov

Bogomil is a young Bulgarian poet studying in England. He publishes his work on his own blog ‘Black Flag Poetry‘. For Spotlight Europe, he gives an interview on his work and inspiration.

1. Why did you choose this specific name for your blog and poetry work?

The black flag is the infamous insignia of the pirates, the symbol of the rebels during the German Peasant’s War and the Black Guards during the Russian Revolution. Ironically, it is also the flag raised in front of a prison signifying an upcoming execution. It is a flag standing for the absence of a flag, the Mare Liberum of the fleets of national identity. Ultimately, it represents the No Man’s land populated by the minds in exile, by those most unwilling to surrender.

What actually made me choose this title is a quote from the Bulgarian new wave musician Dimitar Voev which goes roughly like this: “Wave a black flag on which it is written without words “It’s filthy inside me”.”

2. What made you want to start a blog about poetry?

My blog is private and not indexed on the Internet. It’s purpose is bibliographical. It is a convenient way of having a holistic view on your work, as one is able to follow his progress through time summarised on a computer screen.

3. All of your poems are in English. That is quite remarkable as your mother tongue is Bulgarian – Why did you choose English as language for your poems?

Most of my poems are not initially written in English, but in Bulgarian. I am gradually translating them into English (following the steps of Brodsky and Nabokov), obviously because it is a lingua franca and because, in my opinion, the successful transition of a poem between several languages is a litmus test of its well-craftedness. It is not a novelty in the scientific or the philosophical world that human thought speaks in an universal language and I believe, ultimately, human languages are an important but trivial matter when it comes to fine literature. Such literature always speaks in strictly humanistic terms and stands on a higher abstraction level then let’s say what we call German or English.

4. What are the main topics of your poems?

Every time you had something on the tip of your tongue but couldn’t find the right words to express or the people to talk to – that is my topic.

As Adrian Mitchell once said:

“We must speak

instead of the poor,

instead of the deranged,

instead of the dying from hunger,

instead of the fighting for freedom,

instead of all children,

instead of all thrown into jail,

instead of the senile,

instead of the unborn, instead of the dead,

instead of the animals and the birds,

instead of the earth, the water and the sky.

These are our brothers and sisters. Every day one of them is being ridiculed. They are being destroyed, oppressed and murdered. The revolution, which could set them free, has just begun. In order to succeed, this revolution must be a revolution of empathy, which will bring us closer to a more peaceful and less vulgar world.”

5. Is there something that especially inspires you?

Strangeness. I always fall in love with bizarre people and circumstances slightly (but not too much) detached from reality – people whose shadows are not copycats

6. How much time does it take you to write a poem?

A poem is not meant to be written. It is to be edited. For a long time. And then either the author and/or the poem dies. People then gather and mourn for a while and start reading it aloud. And then they get some ideas and start writing themselves expanding on the previous one. The original poem has started a long time ago with the first heartbeat of the first broken heart.

7. What do your friends and family think about your hobby?

If life is an exam, my poetry is my private notes. You can look at them on your own risk of being expelled.

8. Do you follow other poetry blogs? (Is there something like a poet network in the internet?)

I don’t follow blogs or magazines or newspapers. I follow my eyes. 21^st gives us an unprecedented opportunity to choose and pick in an extremely fast pace. We have at hand the luxury to filter our information based on the quality of the content and form instead of blindly following blog X or magazine Y.

About the interview partner:

“Teach, Not Preach!”

Posted on May 12, 2015May 18, 2015 by Miguel Carrilho Ribeiro

"My Europe" press conference in Madrid with the speakers of the working groups Anathea, Simona, Alex, Miguel and Leonor, founder Prof. Pohl and Youth Council for the Future chairwoman Alessandra (from left to right), Spotlight Europe — “My Europe” press conference in Madrid with the speakers of the working groups Anathea, Simona, Alex, Miguel and Leonor, founder Prof. Pohl and Youth Council for the Future chairwoman Alessandra (from left to right).

The Get2Gather of all Youth Council for the Future members took place from 23-26 April 2015 in Madrid. Together, the young Europeans elaborated on calls to actions for European decision-makers in order to help build a peaceful and sustainable Europe for future generations. Miguel is the speaker of the working group “Religion” and he held the following speech during the press conference:

Despite our discussions, the Religions Working Group has many questions and few answers – such is religion. Indeed, much of what the things I am about to say will sound like clichés or platitudes, but they remain important and worthy of saying.

I am not religious. Neither are many of you.

I am not a Catholic or a Protestant. I am not a Sunni or a Shi’a. I am not a Mahayana or a Therevada. But religion affects me. It shapes the world I live in, the way I speak, the way I see the world.

“Religion shapes the world I live in”

Since the Enlightenment, Europe has grapples with how to deal with religion. What place does it occupy in society, in public relations? How do we guarantee protection for all faiths?

Whatever answer we give to these questions, and there’s no shortage of answers, we must understand this: religion is not going away, and religion will not be side-lined.

These questions are most pressing when we consider the problem of religious extremism. How do we respond to this threat?

By bringing it out into the open. Religion must be brought into the public forum. And for this we must create an open space – a space in which the youth can become acquainted with various religions and discuss them. We need a comprehensive and objective religious education.

Public education exists to create citizens of a society and of a world. And for that, we must learn about this world of religions, just as we learn about other domains.

Students should become familiar with the history and ideas of major world religions, because these are forces that shape our world, across all continents. Schools must teach, not preach, while collaborating at the same time with religious communities to provide a broad and informative religious education.

In this Internet Age we live in, it is becoming easier and easier to live in a self-imposed bubble. Young people flock to online communities where their views are repeated, and where radicalization can take place. An open, discussion-driven religious education can provide a place for views to be shared and prejudices shattered.

Another matter is radicalization. The causes of religious radicalization are many and quite controversial, but they are not entirely religious. There are social conditions that foster radicalization.

Conditions in low-income neighbourhoods must be bettered. There must be better social care in these areas, and dialogue between communities and police.

“to shy away from a frank debate on religion is to capitulate on one of the present’s most pressing matters”

Stepping back now from the topic of religious education and extremism, we find that society must review the way it talks about religion. There is constant pressure not to talk about sensitive issues in a constructive manner: some rely on provocation, others use euphemisms, most stay silent. However, to shy away from a frank debate on religion is to capitulate on one of the present’s most pressing matters.

So I say: I am not religious.

I am not a Christian, nor a Muslim, nor a Jew. In truth, My creed is irrelevant. What I want, what, indeed, we all want is to have a Europe that is at once more tolerant, more open, and more knowledgeable.

Through education we banish conceit, through integration we weaken discrimination, and through dialogue we encourage a better world and a better life.

There are very few of us here, very few out of a community of 500 million. I wish we had brought more. But perhaps we can do some good. Let us follow the true spirit of religion, let us unite!

Alhamdulillah!

Thank you.

About the author:

Miguel Ribeiro, Spotlight Europe — Miguel

Miguel (18) participated in the “My Europe” workshop in Lisbon in Novemver 2014.

My Name Is Lectrr

Posted on May 7, 2015May 7, 2015 by Lectrr

Lectrr, Spotlight Europe — De Standaard’s cartoonist Lectrr for Spotlight Europe. (Lectrr Official Page)

My name is Lectrr. I’m a professional cartoonist from Belgium, working for ‘De Standaard’, a newspaper with a strong tradition in quality journalism. I’ve been working as a cartoonist for over a decade now and I’ve seen the business change a lot. For better or for worse is something only the future will tell.

Most of the changes have happened slowly and over the years. Budgets for quality journalism and cartoons have been sinking since the day I’ve started working in this field. Media companies have become multi-media brands, and so forth. But the most abrupt change for me happened on January 7th this year. The attacks on Charlie Hebdo.

“Before Charlie Hebdo, cartoonist were not to be taken seriously.”

Before Charlie Hebdo, cartoonist were not to be taken seriously. We were men and women that drew comic book like figurines with silly noses. Things that made people laugh, sometimes think, but mostly help to put things in perspective. Funny, sometimes a bit more than that, but always somewhere on the edge of what newspapers were about. Cartoonists were outsiders, nobody knew how we looked like. We hardly got interviews, never appeared on TV.

But then the attacks took place. In one blink of an eye, the entire world turned to the cartoonists and instead of seeing men drawing silly figurines with big noses, they saw freedom fighters. Something we never intended to be, something most of us aren’t.

We were interviewed on worldwide news channels, invited for debates on live TV, VIP guests at media conferences. When a cartoon exposition opened a prime ministers would even attend, while before we hardly got normal visitors. The outsiders were at the center of attention. But our message never changed, it was only the perception of what we did that changed.

I found that to be dangerous. It is our task, as cartoonists, not to be celebrities. It is our task to be annoying, out of the context, out of the spotlight. As eternal opposition for the ones in power, asking difficult questions. But politicians embraced us! They were all Charlie. Suddenly everybody was supportive of the freedom of speech-idea, even the ones who make the laws or machinations that diminish this freedom of speech.

“My place is behind the drawing desk, not in the spotlights.”

Personally, I backed out. I refused television interviews and media appearances. I found it to be more powerful when I spoke on these current events by making cartoons, not comments on TV. I’m a lousy TV guest but a great cartoonist. My place is behind the drawing desk, not in the spotlights. While a lot of cartoonists worldwide, all Charlie and pro-freedom of speech, became more careful in their cartoons I never found the necessity to give in. I didn’t see the need to draw Muhammad and still be critical about religion and violence, and found my urge to make cartoons very strong the weeks after the attacks. I felt that my pen did become as sharp and powerful as a sword. And a lot of readers found so too: the cartoons I made in response went global. And got the attention of Islamic extremists.

The number of hate mail a critical cartoonist receives is getting more and more substantial over the years. Back in the seventies it was difficult to send a hate letter to a cartoonist: you had to write a letter manually and mail it by post. You had hours to change your mind before the bad letter would leave. But nowadays, with the internet one can literally get mad and reach the person you’re mad at within seconds.

“One morning I received a death threat from an extremist.”

No time to think or to change your mind about something. Just instant hate. By getting a lot of those over the years, cartoonist tend to get numbed. I never respond to or even read hate mail. Sometimes we joke among cartoonists about the bad spelling in hate mail. One morning I received a death threat from an extremist. Didn’t give much attention to it, really. Completely numbed by hate mail.

I can’t go into detail but the threat was serious enough and my family and I lived in fear for weeks. But even fear wears out. I think that’s exactly what happened to Charlie Hebdo: after a while you grow used to the threat. Next time a death threat comes along, and I’m sure it’s not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’, it’ll have less impact on my life and that of my peers. That’s the big danger in things: we grow indifferent of the danger, in the same way we grow indifferent of freedom of speech.

That’s the biggest point I would like to make. Islamic terrorism isn’t the biggest threat to freedom of speech, we are. We’ve been taking our freedom for granted. The danger no longer lies in the idea that someone would want to take it away from us, someone like a dictator or a terrorist mastermind, but within our own behavior.

“Indifference is worse than being forced out of your freedom of speech.”

Nowadays we’re all the media. Information is no longer dominated by newspapers or TV channels. Everybody with a smartphone or tablet or computer has become a media producer. We produce content at an enormous rate: cat videos, instagram pictures of our cappuccinos, selfies with new sneakers, yay! But what we don’t realize is that we have a responsibility as a medium. By producing these enormous amounts of meaningless content, we’re creating an enormous internet diarrhea of images and ideas hardly worth our concentration. True, interesting messages of social importance get swamped in that internet diarrhea: good investigational journalism no longer weighs up to cat videos. Newspapers start to adopt the ’10 ways to’-journalism. Cartoons no longer find their readership to make people laugh and think. Everybody has a responsibility to be critical, but it’s more fun to get a lot of likes. Jihadists don’t need to kill advocates of freedom of speech, we’re burying them ourselves in cat videos and endless lists on how to improve your sex life. Just because we are growing indifferent. Indifference is worse than being forced out of your freedom of speech. When you’re forced out, you at least still have an opinion of your own. A thought. When you’ve grown indifferent, you don’t. Not. Even. A. Thought.

The world isn’t better off with 10 million people saying ‘je suis Charlie’, we need the few that will think for themselves. Now more than ever.

Since 7/1 I’m not afraid of Islamic terrorism, but I’m scared shitless about indifference.

About the author:

Lectrr is a Belgian cartoonist, currently working for De Standaard-newspaper.