5 Nov 2018

Continental Reinsurance Pan-African Re/Insurance Journalism Awards 2019

Application Deadline: 30th November 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Mauritius

About the Award: Sponsored by Continental Reinsurance, the Pan-African Re/Insurance Journalism Awards recognise the outstanding work of journalists on re/insurance from across the continent. Successful candidates have to demonstrate how their articles have raised awareness and understanding of the re/insurance sector in Africa.
The awards are an extension of Continental Reinsurance’s continued commitment to the advancement of excellence in the industry. The Pan-African Re/Insurance Awards were launched in April 2015.

Fields: The categories in the 2019 awards are:
  1. Pan-African Re/Insurance Journalist of the Year
  2. Best Re/Insurance Print Article
  3. Best Re/Insurance Broadcast (TV/Radio) Article
  4. Best Re/Insurance Online Article
Type: Award

Eligibility: Submission can be either a published article (print or online)or a broadcasted radio/television clip in English or French. The review period is the 12 months leading up to the submission deadline date. Entrants have to be based in an African country. Only 1 article can be entered for each category. 

Selection Criteria: The judging panel will evaluate all submitted material according to the quality of information and how it contributes to raising awareness of the insurance and reinsurance sector in Africa.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

How to Apply: 
  • Explanatory Brief: A 250-words motivation note explaining the reason for creating the article/clip.
  • Personal: Include your name, media organisation, the publishing/broadcasting date, a brief profile and a photo.
  • Award Categories: Submission can be either a published article or (print or online),a broadcasted radio/television clip in English or French. The review period is the 12 months leading up to the submission deadline date. Entrants have to be based in an African country.
Submit entry to embera@continental-re.com

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

World Conference of Science Journalists (WCSJ) 2019 International Travel Fellowships for Journalists

Application Deadline: 15th November at 12 noon EST

Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (country): Lausanne, Switzerland


About the Award: Many travel fellowships are reserved for those attending one of the four pre-conference workshops  on July 1st. Before applying for those, check the program and the eligibility criteria.

Type: Conference

Eligibility: International Science writers are eligible.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Successful journalists are funded to attend the WCSJ in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Duration of Programme: 1-5 July 2019

How to Apply: APPLY NOW FOR A TRAVEL FELLOWSHIP

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Time to Dump Blasphemy Laws

Subhash Gatade

Mera azm itna bulund hae, Parae sholon se dar nahin.
Mujhe dar hae tu atish e gul se hae, Ye kahin chaman ko jala na dein
(my confidence in self is strong, I’m unafraid of foreign flames
I’m scared those sparks may ignite, that in the blossom’s bosom lay )
— Shakeel Badayuni’s couplet which was very dear to Salman Taseer who was assassinated by Islamists
Know Meilana, a 44-year-old ethnic Chinese Buddhist from Indonesia, whose conviction under Indonesia’s controversial blasphemy laws, caused an uproar in the country, merely few months ago. The only ‘offence’ registered against her was that this woman from Sumatra had merely complained about ‘the volume of adzan or call to prayer, from her local mosque’. Her complaint was considered ‘blasphemous’ and even triggered an anti-Chinese riot in which several Buddhist temples were burnt.
While the world at large was contemplating the fall-out of this sentence, and the way in which a Muslim majority country which celebrates pluralism – where religious freedom is stipulated in the constitution – the law has been increasingly used to ‘suppress freedom of expression’, there have been two pieces of news from different parts of the globe worth discussing.
Ireland, a deeply conservative country, dominated by the Roman Catholic church till recently, which merely six years back denied medical termination of pregnancy to a dentist of Indian origin named Savita Halappanavar despite threat to her life, as it was a ‘catholic country’, and let her die, has voted to oust this ‘medieval’ blasphemy law. Remember this law was added to the country’s Constitution in 1937 and included in the country’s statue books merely a decade ago  and had been conveniently used by the Islamic countries to put pressure on the United Nations that it should adopt the wording of Ireland’s blasphemy law.
The referendum to this effect saw 64.85% vote ‘yes’ to remove the prohibition on blasphemy, with 35.15% in favour of retaining it.  Considered part of the ‘quiet revolution’ of ‘seismic, social and political changes in the country’ by its openly Gay Prime Minister, the country has already legalised abortion and gay marriage via similar referendums held earlier.
The second news came from neighbouring Pakistan, where the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar, who headed special three-judge bench, acquitted Asia Bibi — a Christian woman accused of blasphemy in 2010 and sentenced to death — by quashing an earlier judgment passed by the trial court as well as high court.
The case had attracted national-international media attention because she was the first woman who had been charged under this controversial law. The intervening period also saw assassinations of two leading politicians, namely, Salman Taseer, then governor of Punjab, and Shahbaz Bhatti, a federal minister – by Islamists for demanding rescinding the false charges against Asiabi and also repeal of this anti-human law.
One can just recall the death of Mashal Khan, a journalism student at the Khan Abdul Wali Khan University in Mardan in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, who was stripped, beaten and shot in the head and chest by a mob under the charges of blasphemy. The Centre for Social Justice, a Lahore-based research and advocacy group, had then collated information about such killings and according to it
‘at least 62 men and women have been killed on mere suspicion of blasphemy between 1987 and 2015. So far, no one has been executed by the state. ‘
Looking at the violence which has been unleashed under the name of blasphemy, it need be emphasised that the Asiabi judgement is definitely a ray of hope for all those people who believe in a more inclusive, humane, plural Pakistan but there is no denying that the fundamentalist forces in Pakistan have not taken kindly to this verdict and have held violent demonstrations all over Pakistan. A few fanatic formations have even declared judges Justice Saqib Nisar and his colleagues Wajib Ul Katl (worth to be killed) making it very clear that the challenge of Islamist fanaticism is not going to disappear easily.
Anyway while one celebrates this judgement — where one finds that despite all the dangers which stood in its way, Supreme Court there stood its ground and refused to bow down before vigilante justice and that is definitely a silver lining to the unfolding dark scenario, one discovers to one’s dismay that people/formations belonging to this part of South Asia — namely India –are in a miraculous way  trying to rediscover virtues of blasphemy.
It has been more than two months that the Punjab cabinet, led by the Congress, took steps towards introducing blasphemy laws in this country. It approved amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) to make sacrilege of all religious texts punishable with life imprisonment. With this new Bill, Section 295AA will be inserted in the IPC to provide that, “whoever causes injury, damage or sacrilege to the Guru Granth Sahib, the Bhagvad Gita, the Quran and the Bible with the intention to hurt the religious feelings of the people, shall be punished with imprisonment for life.”
As rightly put by commentators the law which is being pushed through “[w]ill make punishable by a life term any attempt to hurt the religious (we can’t definitely say what that is) sentiments (a fuzzy area) of people.”
An open letter written by a group of retired civil servants explains how “blasphemy provisions, such as the one planned, go against the very grain of the secular character of our Constitution” and how instead of reducing the “role of religion from the matters of the state” would “further consolidate the hold of sectarianism, and strengthen the hands of religious extremists on all sides.”
The statement emphasised how the “Experience of the implementation of blasphemy laws the world over, point to their being particularly prone to misuse against minorities and weaker sections, to harass them, exact revenge and also to settle personal and professional quarrels, all matters entirely unrelated to blasphemy. (Pew Research Centre, 2016, US Commission on International Religious Freedoms, 2017)” and making sacrilege a major offence has “fostered an environment of intolerance and impunity, and led to violations of a broad range of human rights”.  (Freedom House, 2010), it demanded withdrawal of the law.
What happens next is still hidden in future but one can get a glimpse of things if blasphemy law is not rescinded from what happened before.
Not very many people even know that before this issue of blasphemy entered the statue books of Punjab, it has witnessed deaths of two women – both shared the same name Balwinder Kaur, accused of desecrating religious books. Remember Punjab witnessed many cases of desecration of Guru Granth Sahib – during 2015-16 – when Akali Dal ruled the state, which had led to much turmoil in the populace.
Balwinder Kaur, a 47-year-old from Ghawaddi village in Ludhiana, had spent few months in jail accused of ‘desecrating’ Guru Granth Sahib and was on bail when she was killed (July 27,2016) near a Gurudwara Manji Sahib Alamgir allegedly by a Khalistan sympathiser.
The other Balwinder Kaur faced death in her home only (September 9, 2016). She was also released on bail and had similarly spent some time in jail accused of desecration of religious books. The fact that she had entered a Gurudwara inadvertently wearing her slippers andthe issue had got sensationalised, that she was arrested. Her family even faced social boycott for months together. Her husband was arrested for the crime who was agitated that she had brought disrepute to the house.
Much like neighbouring Pakistan where people who are accused of blasphemy and acquitted by judiciary also face death at the hands of Islamists, it then becomes free for all.
Are we ready for that ?

Closing Loopholes: Taxing the Digital Giants

Binoy Kampmark

The treasurers of various countries seem to be stumbling over each other in the effort, but taxing the digital behemoths has become something of an obsession, the gold standard for those wishing to add revenue to state coffers.  Back in May, when Australia’s then treasurer Scott Morrison oversaw the purse strings of the country, it was declared that, “The new economy shouldn’t be some sort of tax-free environment.”  (Low tax environment was not be confused with a no-tax one.)  He had his eye on the $7 billion in annual Australian sales recorded by Google, eBay, Uber, Linked-In, and Twitter.
As always, such statements must be seen for all their populist worth.  A treasurer keen to secure more revenue but happy to compress the company tax base must be regarded with generous suspicion.  Trickle-down economics, with its fanciful notions of job creative punch, still does the rounds in certain government circles, and Morrison, both as treasurer and now as Australian prime minister, is obsessed with the idea of reducing, let alone imposing company tax.  But the Australian Tax Office has not been left entirely out of pocket: the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law (MAAL) and Diverted Profits Tax have both done something to draw in some revenue from the likes of Facebook and Google.
What is lacking in approaches to the digital company environment is consensus.  At the specialist level, there has been no end of chatter about how to rein in cash from the earnings of the digital world.  But action has been tardy, inconsistent and contradictory.  The OECD-G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Plan (2015), the product of 12,000 pages of comments, 1400 contributions from interested parties, 23 drafts and working documents and two years of deliberation, is one such imperfect effort.
According to the OECD, “Under the inclusive effort framework, over 100 countries and jurisdictions are collaborating to implement the BEPS measures and tackle BEPS.” Their enemy is a phenomenon described as “tax avoidance strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in the tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax situations.”
The tech giants, however, remain examples of singular slipperiness.  The idea of a digital tax, undertaken in the absence of international understanding will, it has been said, be not merely problematic but dangerous.  The European Commission, for one, has also considered the prospect of a 3 percent tax on the turnover off digital revenue, estimated to yield some 5 billion euros.
In making the March announcement, the Commission conceded that the growth of social media companies, digital businesses and “collaborative platforms and online content providers, has made a great contribution to economic growth in the EU.” The tax regime, however, was obsolete, creakingly incapable of covering “those companies that are global, virtual or have little or no physical presence.”  Profits derived from the sale of user-generated data and content fell outside current tax regulations.
A two-pronged approach was suggested: the first, aiming to “reform corporate tax rules so that profits are registered and taxed where businesses have significant interaction with users through digital channels”; the second, a response “to calls from several Member States for an interim tax which covers the main digital activities that currently escape tax altogether in the EU.”
When the plan surfaced, opponents closed ranks.  Ministers from Luxembourg and Malta expressed their displeasure at a meeting of EU ministers in Sofia in April.  German finance minister, Olaf Scholz, was obviously cognisant of the disagreements and confined his remarks to claiming that digital companies had to pay more tax as part of a “moral question”.  His proposed answer, however, remained vague.  The pro-taxing grouping was hedging.
Two prongs essentially became one: the interim measure might be implemented in the absence of a global strategy, one featuring a temporary levy on corporate turnover.  Companies would merely be charged on their profits but no tax in their absence. (This remains the great loophole of company tax: where there are losses, there can be no tax revenue.) “The idea,” claimed economy minister Ramon Escolano, “is to introduce it as soon as possible and for it to take effect from 2019 onwards.”
Unilateral tax approaches have been considered the enemy in this debate.  Not aligning the system with those of other states might, for instance, stir US anxiety and trigger a trade war.  But we live in an age of vibrant, aggressive unilateralism, exemplified by that man of bullied deals, US President Donald J. Trump.
The British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, is one who has gotten impatient with the foot-dragging over an international agreement on how best to cope with tax avoidance on the part of the digital giants.  A “narrowly targeted tax”, coming into force in April 2020, is intended to raise more than £400 million a year for the public purse.  The Office for Budget Responsibility is less optimistic even on that projection, suggesting, in all likelihood, that the figure is more likely to be a mere £30 million.  This will provide little cheer to the campaign and research group Tax Watch, which has argued that the digital giants deprive the exchequer of some £1 billion annually.
All taxes are pot-holed matters, fabulously effective on initial inspection, but worn on a closer inspection.  Hammond’s digital services tax is aimed at online advertising revenue generated from Twitter, Google and Facebook.  Direct sales (the likes of Amazon, in this regard) are not the subject of the measure. As Martin Vander Weyer of the conservative Spectator noted, “I doubt it will make a jot of difference to the ragtag rearguard of bricks-and-mortar shopkeepers.”
Nor to the digital tax giants, given the versatile tax avoidance strategies they have proven more than adept at deploying.  Tax avoidance remains the forgiven misdemeanour, the dirty dispensation.  As if to prove this finest of points, Facebook has appointed a previous Liberal Democrat leader, former deputy-prime minister and pro-tax figure, the now knighted Nick Clegg, chief of its global policy and communications.  Brazenly cunning, but expected.

Anwar Ibrahim wins seat and returns to Malaysian parliament

John Roberts

The return of Anwar Ibrahim, former opposition leader, to parliament last month will only heighten tensions within the unstable ruling five-party coalition, Pakatan Harapan (PH), which presented its first state budget last week.
Anwar was jailed on trumped up charges by the previous United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)-led government, which suffered a historic defeat in the May 9 general election. UMNO had clung to power since formal independence from Britain in 1957 as a result of an electoral gerrymander and its use of police state measures against its opponents.
Anwar returned to parliament after winning a by-election on October 13 in the west coast town of Port Dickson with 72 percent of the vote. He was able to stand after Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad obtained a pardon from the head of state, King Sultan Muhammad V, for his conviction on sodomy charges.
The pardon was part of a deal worked out in January, in which, if the PH won the election, Anwar, now 71, would enter parliament, and then in the latter half of 2020, succeed the 93-year-old Mahathir as prime minister.
Anwar has made clear that, for now, he was sticking to the deal. He told the media he was not seeking a cabinet post and that Mahathir should be given “the space and latitude to continue unaffected by the constraints of time or pressure.” Anwar added that the decisions that have to be made by “Doctor Mahathir” must have “total unequivocal support by Pakatan Harapan, and that includes me.”
Such effusive expressions of loyalty should not be accepted at face value. After all it was “Doctor Mahathir” who first framed-up and jailed Anwar on sodomy and corruption charges in 1999 after the two fell out over how to respond to the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998. Anwar was physically beaten by the country’s police chief while in custody leaving him with lifelong injuries.
The differences over economic policy that erupted in 1998 remain. Both were members of the UMNO-led government at the time—Mahathir as prime minister and Anwar as deputy prime minister and finance minister. Mahathir, who was intent on imposing currency and capital controls to protect the crony businesses associated with UMNO, expelled Anwar and his supporters after Anwar sought to follow the International Monetary Fund’s demands for an opening up of the Malaysian economy.
The defeat of UMNO this year was driven by widespread concerns over the cost of living, low wages and salaries, housing, and hostility towards corrupt and anti-democratic government and its racialist policies of preference for the ethnic Malay elite. UNMO’s policy, which Mahathir had long supported, was pursued at the expense of the country’s Chinese and Indian minorities and the working people as a whole.
Anwar and the parties closest to him in the ruling coalition—his own People’s Justice Party (PKR) and the ethnic Chinese based Democratic Action Party (DAP)—represent layers of the ruling class more oriented to international investors and markets that are seeking an end to preferences for Malays in jobs, business and education, and pro-market policies.
In the May election, the PKR gained support from urban Malays on the more developed west coast of Peninsular Malaysia and in Johore, while DAP depended largely on the votes of ethnic Chinese. Mahathir and his United Malaysian Indigenous Party (PPBM) won support among rural Malays in more economically backward areas.
The new government has made limited economic concessions aimed at defusing anger over deteriorating living conditions. It has abolished the floating price for RON95 petrol and diesel and fixed prices at 2.20 Malaysian Ringgit (RM) and RM2.18 per litre until the end of the year when it will move to implement the fuel subsidy policy in the PH manifesto.
In addition, the government has replaced the goods and services tax, which hit lower-income families hard, with a sales and service tax, and changed the arrangements for student loan repayments. At the same time, it is reviewing all expenditures on unpopular mega-infrastructure projects connected to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
In an interview in September, Mahathir warned that the 2019 budget would entail sacrifices due to the RM1 trillion in debts and liabilities incurred under Prime Minister Najib Razak which include up to $US6 billion allegedly looted by Najib and his cronies from the 1MDB state investment fund. “Everyone will have to sacrifice. We can’t spend more than our earnings.” Mahathir declared.
While the financial elite was expecting the government to rein in spending after Najib’s 2018 election budget of RM280.25 billion ($US67.35 billion), Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng handed down a budget last week with a record expenditure of RM314.5 billion, with some limited assistance to low income households. As a result, the budget deficit is set to rise to 3.8 percent of GDP, up from 2.8 percent.
Prior to the budget, Ramon Navaratnam, chairman of the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute’s Centre of Public Policy Studies, told the media that he agreed with budget restraint and helping the poor. But what was needed, he said, was to ensure qualitative growth was the reduction of, or better, the elimination of, monopolies, protective policies and race-based programs.
This is the program favoured by the PKR and DAP and the more competitive sections of Malaysian capital which is likely to bring about conflict with Mahathir, who retired as prime minister in 2003 after 22 years in the job. However, he re-entered politics in 2014 and ended his support for Najib after the government signed up to the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership. Mahathir declared that it would turn Malaysia into an economic colony of the United States.
Mahathir latched onto the 1MDB scandal in which Najib was directly implicated to build an alliance to topple the UMNO-led government. He offered Anwar and the opposition coalition a common platform to exploit the mass discontent, and formed his United Malaysian Indigenous Party (PPBM) to garner enough Malay votes from traditional UMNO voters to defeat the gerrymander. These offers were accepted in January by the PKR and DAP and the Muslim based Amanah at Anwar’s insistence. A deal done by Mahathir brought the Sabah-based Warisan party into PH before the election.
As well as his economic concessions, Mahathir has sought to appease mass discontent by prosecuting Najib and his cronies in the courts. At the same time, he has presented his purge of hundreds of senior police officials and public servants with close connections to UMNO as “democratic reforms”. In reality, these moves are to strengthen Mahathir’s position both against UMNO and also Anwar and his supporters.
While there is an uneasy truce in the ruling coalition, factional warfare is likely to break out, sooner rather than later, as the contradictions inherent in the deal struck between Mahathir and Anwar are by worsening global economic instability and sharpening geopolitical rivalry, particularly between the US and China.

Inviting Trump to Paris, Macron evokes the specter of fascism and the 1930s

Alex Lantier 

As he prepares to host US President Donald Trump on Saturday in Paris for the centenary of the armistice that ended World War I, French President Emmanuel Macron gave a long interview last week to Ouest France. In it, he warned that Europe faces the same threats today as 100 years ago, in the years between World War I and the rise of fascism and the eruption of World War II in 1939.
Amid rising working class anger at his policies, the “president of the rich” continued his empty posturing as a “progressive” opponent of nationalism and of far-right critics of the EU like Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. With protests called against Trump’s visit on November 11, and against austerity and fuel price hikes on November 17, he tried to speak to popular concern over the danger of dictatorship and war.
He declared: “I am struck by the resemblance between the era we live in and the inter-war period. In a Europe that is today divided by fears, nationalist resentments, the consequences of the economic crisis, we are seeing the almost methodical re-emergence of everything that shaped the life of Europe between the end of World War I and the 1929 stock market crash. We must keep this in mind, be lucid, and know how to resist this.”
Macron’s statement amounted to an acknowledgment from the French head of state of what millions of workers worldwide sense: the danger of war and authoritarian rule is real and growing. Yet Macron, a so-called “progressive” investment banker, only proposes policies that intensify these dangers, rooted in the grotesque social inequality and historic bankruptcy of capitalism. The only force that can offer a way forward in the struggle against the danger of a relapse into the barbarism of the 1930s is the working class.
Macron did not even try to reconcile his criticisms of nationalism with his invitation to Trump, the parasitic billionaire who personifies more than anyone the attempt to stir up fascistic nationalism and anti-immigrant hatreds to pursue militaristic and anti-social policies.
Less than two weeks before, Trump had cancelled the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Shortly before that, US Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson had threatened to bomb Russia in order to “take out” Russian missiles she claimed violate the treaty. As he scrapped the INF treaty, a measure expected to produce nuclear arms races both with Russia and China, Trump was also deploying thousands of US troops to the Mexican border to set up mass prison camps and threaten to shoot defenseless migrants seeking asylum.
Yet Macron warmly greets Trump in Paris while hypocritically denouncing Salvini and Orban.
These denunciations are essentially false, as Macron makes them in the service of the same class interests as Trump or Macron’s neo-fascist rivals in Europe. His plans for the European Union (EU) to spend hundreds of billions of euros more on the army, and for pension cuts, rail privatization and austerity targeted against workers aim to fuse the EU into a militarized imperialist bloc. As Macron then explained to Ouest France, verbal criticisms of nationalism in Europe aim to preserve this bloc’s crumbling unity and to advance its geopolitical interests.
He said: “Ours is an era of great powers who develop their policies on a planetary scale; rules for competition and order still have to be established. Europe faces a danger: to be torn apart by the nationalist cancer, thrown about by foreign powers, and to lose its sovereignty. This means having its security depend on US decisions, having China more involved in key infrastructure, Russia sometimes tempted by manipulation, big financial interests and markets sometimes going beyond the weight that states can have.”
In fact, Macron’s presidency marked the breakdown of the EU’s ability to posture as a democratic alternative to the far right. Last year, Macron was elected by default against neo-fascist candidate Marine Le Pen, who had hailed Trump’s election. And Macron was hailed as part of a tandem with German Chancellor Angela Merkel that would make the European Union (EU) the new “leader of the free world,” perhaps through an alliance with the US Democratic Party, after Trump’s election.
A year later, these pretensions are in tatters. Merkel has announced her retirement as chancellor amid a furious campaign to rearm Germany, legitimize German militarism and promote German fascist traditions. Interior Minister Horst Seehofer declared that he would have joined a neo-Nazi riot in Chemnitz, amid growing evidence of collusion between the state and far right circles and mass protests mobilizing hundreds of thousands across Germany.
German intelligence also placed the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGP, the German section of the International Committee of the Fourth International) on a list of “left extremist groups” for opposing far-right militarism, while acknowledging that the SGP did not engage in violent activity.
As Macron’s allies in Berlin chart a far-right course and threaten to suppress oppositional sentiment at home, Macron is on essentially the same course. His forced privatization and wage cutting at the National Railways (SNCF), first proposed under a state of emergency suspending democratic rights and imposed despite strike action and overwhelming opposition by rail workers, has discredited his austerity agenda and shattered his presidency.
His raids on La France insoumise (LFI), an organization whose presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon received 20 percent of the vote, signaled that the vast police state powers built under the French state of emergency can and will be mobilized against peaceful political opposition.
This evolution vindicates the position taken by the Parti de l’égalité socialiste (PES, the French section of the ICFI) during the 2017 presidential election. It called for an active boycott of the run-off between Macron and Le Pen, in order to give a political line for the building of a movement in the working class against whichever candidate won. In doing so, the PES was not in the least unmindful of the danger of authoritarian rule in France. However, it warned correctly that Macron is no alternative to the far right danger and xenophobic nationalism represented by Le Pen.
And in Ouest France, Macron insisted that his model is Georges Clemenceau, the French president at the end of World War I. A ferocious defender of the Versailles peace treaty aiming to cripple and humiliate Germany, Clemenceau also demanded the execution of anti-war soldiers and draconian suppression of socialist, anti-war sentiment. Hailing “Clemenceau’s message,” Macron said he was “the father of victory, when all seems lost and the troops are in despair, he does not submit.”
In fact, the international upsurge of protests and strikes is an indication that masses of workers are moving into opposition to the European bourgeoisie’s militarism and austerity. The emerging movement against far right politics across Europe can only be waged as a political struggle, posing the issue of the transfer of power to the working class and the building of workers states pursuing socialist policies. This signifies, as the European sections of the ICFI insist, the struggle against the EU and for the United Socialist States of Europe.

Catalan separatists indicted for rebellion, facing jail for up to 25 years

Alejandro López

On Friday, Spain’s public prosecutor filed its written accusation against Catalan secessionist leaders in pre-trial detention for their role in the Catalan independence referendum last year and the unilateral independence declaration that followed.
The referendum was deemed illegal by the Popular Party central government in Madrid and utilized to carry out brutal state repression in Barcelona and throughout Catalonia.
Public prosecutors are seeking a 25-year prison term for former deputy, regional vice-premier and leader of Left Republicans of Catalonia (ERC) Oriol Junqueras and to bar him from holding public office for the next 25 years. Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart, former heads of the Catalan National Assembly and Òmnium Cultural, face 17-year jail terms and a 17-year ban on holding public office, as does former Catalan Parliament Speaker Carme Forcadell. Former regional ministers Joaquim Forn, Dolors Bassa, Raül Romeva, Josep Rull and Jordi Turull, are facing 16 years in prison.
They are all charged with rebellion for using “the necessary violence to ensure the criminal outcome sought”—organising an unauthorised secessionist referendum. The crime carries a 30-year maximum sentence. For the three former regional ministers not in pre-trial jail, Carles Mundó, Maritxell Borrás and Santi Vila, the requested sentence has been dropped to seven years on embezzlement charges.
In a separate court case, the National Court is investigating four officials in charge of the Catalan police last year. Prosecutors announced they are asking for 11 years imprisonment for the former regional police chief, Josep Lluis Trapero.
Both trials are expected to begin in early 2019.
During the Catalan crisis the real violence came from the Spanish state, which deployed 16,000 police who violently assaulted voters, including the elderly, with over 1,000 injured. It then proceeded to jail Catalan nationalist politicians in pre-trial detention and impose an unelected government on the region. At the height of the crisis, the PP central government threatened direct military intervention.
Last year, 120 jurists, most openly hostile to the Catalan secessionist cause, signed a manifesto describing the rebellion and sedition charges as a legal fraud. The manifesto stated, “Only if violating legal principles very seriously can it be affirmed that the accused, in view of the facts that have been attributed to them, could have carried out this crime, or that of conspiracy for rebellion that requires a joint agreement to carry it out with violence.”
Courts outside Spain have also rejected the charge of “rebellion.” Earlier this year, the German High Court in Schleswig-Holstein ruled that former Catalan regional premier Carles Puigdemont, who fled last year to avoid arrest, could not be extradited to Spain on the equivalent German charge. The court argued that “violent clashes with the Civil Guards or the National Police did not reach a point where the constitutional order was under threat in Spain.”
A month later, a Belgian court ruled that the three Spanish European Arrest Warrants for three exiled former Catalan ministers, Meritxell Serret, Antoni Comin and Lluis Puig, were “irregular.” Since then, Spain’s High Court has withdrawn all the European Arrest Warrants against the Catalan separatists who fled Spain to avoid more embarrassing rulings.
June saw the installation of a minority Socialist Party (PSOE)-led government, backed by the pseudo-left Podemos and the Catalan and Basque nationalist parties. However, though Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has urged dialogue with the separatists to solve the crisis, repression against the Catalan leaders continues.
On the same day the Public Prosecutors office laid its charges against the secessionists, state attorneys, representing the Sánchez government, called for the defendants to be charged with sedition. This is a lesser charge for suspects accused of subverting the Spanish state or constitution, but still carries a 15-year sentence. This epitomizes the supposed “progressive” agenda of the PSOE—holding political prisoners for 15 years instead of 30!
In addition, to placate rightist accusations that the government was “appeasing” the Catalan nationalists, Justice Minister Dolores Delgado stated, “This is not an issue of gestures [towards the separatists]. It’s a judicial and technical issue of applying the law in a professional manner.”
Catalan premier Quim Torra has accused Sánchez of missing “a golden opportunity to remove the Catalan conflict from the courts and put it back in the political arena, which is where it belongs.” He added that Sánchez had “decided not to act, which amounts to complicity with repression.”
The separatist parties have announced they will now not back the government’s budget in the Spanish parliament. Without their support, the budget will fail to pass as it faces opposition from the right-wing parties, Citizens and the PP.
The political right, including the far-right VOX, is nevertheless mounting a political offensive, utilizing the PSOE’s bankrupt posturing and refusal to mount any genuine defence of democratic rights to prepare its social base for a renewed offensive against the working class.
Attacking the decision of Sánchez to drop the rebellion charges as treachery, PP leader Pablo Casado tweeted, “Months ago Sánchez argued that the separatists committed a crime of rebellion. He now uses state law to do Catalan leader Torra a favour. A hostage of the coup leaders, he is too discredited to continue presiding over the government and must call elections.”
Citizens Secretary General José Manuel Villegas accused Sánchez of “acting like the defence attorney for the coup plotters” in an interview with radio station SER.
Editorials of the main right-wing newspapers also attacked the government. El Mundo called for snap elections “as soon as possible,” stating that “the serious institutional crisis opened by this irresponsible government threatens to undermine the credibility of the judicial power and weaken the action of the state in the face of the most serious attempt to destroy our democracy.”
For El Español “there is no doubt that the executive uses this criminal lawsuit as an element of barter and political marketing with the separatists … though for the insatiable separatists, their gifts are never enough.”
For ABC , “The reaction of Catalan separatism to the indictments … proves to the Prime Minister that the appeasement tactic is sterile against out-of-control separatist coup plotters.”
The pseudo-left party, Podemos, has, as could be expected, registered a polite complaint at the PSOE’s continued prosecution of the separatist leaders, while making clear this will not cut across their collusion with Sanchez.
General Secretary Pablo Iglesias stated that “those of us who defend dialogue have to continue to work for a political solution and put an end to the judicialisation of the conflict. It’s difficult, but it’s possible and we have to continue this path.” He carefully omitted any mention of the PSOE governments’ state attorney’s sedition charges.
The following day, Iglesias made clear that his main concern is the fate of the PSOE government. He framed his remarks as a defence of the government’s budget, which includes a handful of social reforms within a framework of continued austerity that are so minimal they have even been approved by the European Union. He attacked the secessionists for announcing they would not support the budget, asking, “Why do working people have to pay for the authoritarianism of the PP and the lack of courage of the PSOE?”
This pose of concern for workers is a fraud. Sanchez made clear, at an event organised by Reuters September 27, that he is ready to abandon his plans for a minimal increase in spending and abide by the deficit targets set previously by the PP if this avoids a snap general election. “If we are obliged to present a draft with the former commitments we will do it,” he said.
Iglesias is declaring his loyalty to the PSOE to further plans for a place for Podemos in a coalition government following an increasingly likely snap election. In the process he is making clear his party’s readiness to help implement continued state repression and austerity.

German Social Democrats demand right-wing replacement for Merkel

Peter Schwarz

The German Social Democrats (SPD) hope that a right-wing candidate will become the new leader of their coalition partner, the Christian Democrats (CDU), after Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that she will not stand for re-election as party leader at the CDU congress in December. The SPD argues that a shift to the right by the CDU would give the SPD the necessary leeway to regenerate and regain support.
Kevin Kühnert, chair of the SPD youth organisation, has called Angela Merkel’s withdrawal from the CDU presidency an opportunity for the SPD. In recent years, many people have had the feeling that the CDU/CSU and the SPD were two wings of a party moderated by Merkel, he told the ARD morning show. That is why he favours a conservative candidate as successor. In this way, the contrast between the two parties would become clearer, he said.
Kühnert would prefer if the CDU/CSU gave a clear signal that it was “returning to conservatism in a broad way.” He said he was convinced that many rank-and-file members of the CDU/CSU want this.
It is hard to say whether the cynicism or the arrogance of this reasoning is more repulsive. A further shift to the right by the CDU/CSU would be accompanied by stepped-up attacks on democratic rights and social programs and would lead to the inclusion of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the government, sooner or later.
The three candidates most likely to succeed Merkel are Friedrich Merz, Jens Spahn and Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.
Merz embodies the amalgamation of finance capital and social reaction in its purest form. This Catholic from the Sauerland region takes an ultra-conservative stance on socio-political issues and is head of BlackRock Germany, the world’s largest asset manager.
Spahn, together with Alexander Dobrindt, the CSU’s regional group chairman, is striving for a “conservative revolution” modelled on the extreme right in the Weimar Republic. He is friends with Trump confidante Richard Grenell, the US ambassador in Berlin, and with Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, who governs in alliance with the extreme right-wing Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ).
Kramp-Karrenbauer is Merkel’s favourite. If she is elected, Merkel might possibly remain Chancellor for some time and continue the much-hated policies that have been repeatedly rejected by the electorate.
The election of either Merz or Spahn, which would lead to a rapid end to Merkel’s chancellorship, and the continuation of the grand coalition in its present form, would have devastating social and political consequences for the vast majority of the population. But that does not concern the SPD.
It is not interested in “renewal,” but rather in preventing a broader mobilisation against the political shift to the right at all costs. Both Kühnert and other SPD politicians emphasize that the SPD will remain loyal to the grand coalition to the last and that it does not want new elections under any circumstances.
On the ARD morning show, Kühnert, who had led the #NoGroKo campaign against the continuation of the grand coalition in the spring, said, although he did not assume the grand coalition would last its full term until 2021, the question was “who will find a shrewd exit option at some point.”
Sigmar Gabriel, who led the SPD from 2009 to 2017, expressed himself more clearly in a guest article for the weekly Die Zeit. He assumes that Merkel will vacate the chancellery after the European elections in May 2019 at the latest and “clear the way for a ‘Jamaica coalition’ of the CDU/CSU, FDP and Greens.” Nevertheless, Gabriel insists the SPD should not leave the grand coalition of its own volition and should support it until the CDU/CSU has put together a new, more right-wing government.
“Simply running away panic-stricken from the government out of fear of the voters would not make the SPD stronger,” writes Gabriel. He openly admits that this puts the SPD in a “tricky” position: “While the CDU is on its way to personnel and programmatic renewal with the change at the top after 18 years, for the time being, everything must remain the same with the SPD. Keeping the government stable in order to give the political competitor time to renew itself, and then probably be replaced as a coalition partner: That is pretty much the most ungrateful and uncomfortable situation you can get into in politics.”
Nevertheless, Gabriel recommends his party follow this path. The reason is his fear of new elections, which he calls “an existential danger for the SPD.” In other words, the SPD is willing to pave the way for Merz or Spahn to become Chancellor and for the AfD to join the government to prevent new elections.
New elections would allow broad sections of the population to intervene in political events. The SPD, the CDU and all other parties would have to justify themselves for the policies of social austerity, state armament and militarism that they are currently pursuing in a conspiracy behind the scenes. The socialist perspective of the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party) would be heard. The SPD wants to avoid this at all costs. Not because, as Gabriel writes, it is “afraid of the strengthening of the right-wing populist AfD,” but because it fears a mobilization against right-wing politics, which the SPD not only supported, but decisively advanced.
All the social measures of the past two decades bear the signature of the SPD—Agenda 2010, the Hartz IV labour and welfare “reforms,” the raising of the pension age to 67, etc. The SPD has also played a leading role in the return of German militarism. Gabriel himself pioneered the view that Germany must see the supposed retreat of the USA as an “opportunity” to once again become a world power itself. And in refugee policy, the grand coalition has already adopted the AfD’s line, not least at the instigation of the SPD.
The coming weeks will mark the one hundredth anniversary of the November Revolution in Germany. After the slaughter of the First World War, millions of sailors, soldiers and workers rose up against the Kaiser’s regime. At the time, the SPD under Friedrich Ebert, Philipp Scheidemann and Gustav Noske allied itself with the most reactionary forces in the military to defeat the revolutionary workers who aspired to a socialist society. Under the pseudo-democratic guise of the Weimar Republic, the SPD preserved the basis of existence of the finance and big business barons, the landowners and military caste who, 15 years later, then helped Hitler to power.
One hundred years later, the SPD stands just as far to the right. The time when it could combine the defence of capitalism with social concessions has long since passed. But unlike 1918, the SPD no longer has a mass base and is in free-fall. The growing popular repudiation of the SPD can only be mobilized into a struggle against the resurgence of fascism, militarism and war if it is armed with a socialist perspective. This means building a genuine socialist mass party of the working class—the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei.

Europe and America clash over Washington’s economic war on Iran

Keith Jones

Washington’s imposition of sweeping new sanctions on Iran—aimed at strangling its economy and precipitating “regime change” in Tehran—is roiling world geopolitics.
As of today, the US is embargoing all Iranian energy exports and freezing Iran out of the US-dominated world financial system,so as to cripple the remainder of its trade and deny it access to machinery, spare parts and even basic foodstuffs and medicine.
In doing so, American imperialism is once again acting as a law unto itself. The sanctions are patently illegal and under international law tantamount to a declaration of war. They violate the UN Security Council-backed 2015 Iran nuclear accord or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCOPA)—an agreement that was negotiated at the behest of Washington and under its duress, including war threats.
All the other parties to the JCOPA (Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the EU) and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is charged with verifying Iranian compliance, are adamant that Iran has fulfilled its obligations under the accord to the letter. This includes dismantling much of its civil nuclear program and curtailing the rest.
Yet, having reneged on its support for the JCOPA, Washington is now wielding the club of secondary sanctions to compel the rest of the world into joining its illegal embargo and abetting its regime-change offensive. Companies and countries that trade with Iran or even trade with those that do will be excluded from the US market and subject to massive fines and other penalties. Similarly, banks and shipping insurers that have any dealings with companies that trade with Iran or even with other financial institutions that facilitate trade with Iran will be subject to punishing US secondary sanctions.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who like US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran and ordered military strikes on Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard forces in Syria, has hailed the US sanctions as “historic.” Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two other US client states, are pledging to ramp up oil production to make up for the shortfalls caused by Washington’s embargoing of Iranian oil exports.
But America’s economic war against Iran is not just exacerbating tensions in the Middle East. It is also roiling relations between the US and the other great powers, especially Europe.
On Friday, the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany and European Union (EU) Foreign Policy Chief Frederica Mogherini issued a statement reaffirming their support for the JCOPA and vowing to circumvent and defy the US sanctions. “It is our aim,” they declared, “to protect European economic operators engaged in legitimate business with Iran, in accordance with EU law and with UN Security Council resolution 2231.”
They declared their commitment to preserving “financial channels with” Iran, enabling it to continue exporting oil and gas, and working with Russia, China and other countries “interested in supporting the JCPOA” to do so.
The statement emphasized the European powers’ “unwavering” “collective resolve” to assert their right to “pursue legitimate trade” and, toward that end, to proceed with the establishment of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that will enable European businesses and those of other countries, including potentially Russia and China, to conduct trade with Iran using the Euro or some other non-US dollar medium of exchange, outside the US-dominated world financial system.
Friday’s statement was in response to a series of menacing pronouncements from Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top administration officials earlier in the same day. These fleshed out the new US sanctions and reiterated Washington’s resolve to crash Iran’s economy and aggressively sanction any company or country that fails to fall into line with the US sanctions.
In reply to a question about the European SPV, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, said he had “no expectation” it will prove to be a conduit for “significant” trade. “But if there are transactions that have the intent of evading our sanctions, we will aggressively pursue our remedies.”
Trump officials also served notice that they will sanction SWIFT, the Brussels-based network that facilitates secure inter-bank communications, and the European bankers who comprise the majority of its directors if they do not expeditiously expel all Iranian financial institutions from the network.
And in a step intended to demonstratively underscore Washington’s disdain for the Europeans, the Trump administration included no EU state among the eight countries that will be granted temporary “waivers” on the full application of the US embargo on oil imports.
Germany, Britain, France and the EU are no less rapacious than Washington. Europe’s great powers are frantically rearming, have helped spearhead NATO’s war build-up against Russia and over the past three decades have waged numerous wars and neocolonial interventions in the Middle East and North Africa, from Afghanistan and Libya to Mali.
But they resent and fear the consequences of the Trump administration’s reckless and provocative offensive against Iran. They resent it because Washington’s scuttling of the nuclear deal has pulled the rug out from European capital’s plans to capture a leading position in Iran’s domestic market and exploit Iranian offers of massive oil and natural gas concessions. They fear it, because the US confrontation with Iran threatens to ignite a war that would invariably set the entire Mideast ablaze, triggering a new refugee crisis, a massive spike in oil prices and, last but not least, a repartition of the region under conditions where the European powers as of yet lack the military means to independently determine the outcome.
To date, the Trump administration has taken a haughty, even cavalier, attitude to the European avowals of opposition to the US sanctions. Trump and the other Iran war-hawks like Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton who lead the administration are buoyed by the fact that numerous European businesses have voted with their feet and cut off ties with Iran, for fear of running afoul of the US sanctions.
The Financial Times reported last week that because they fear US reprisals no European state has agreed to house the SPV, which, according to the latest EU statements will not even be operational until the new year.
The European difficulties and hesitations are real. But they also speak to the enormity and explosiveness of the geopolitical shifts that are now underway.
Whilst European corporate leaders, whose focus is on maximizing market share and investor profit in the next few business quarters, have bowed to the US sanctions threat; the political leaders, those charged with developing and implementing imperialist strategy, have concluded they must push back against Washington.
This is about Iran. But also about developing the means to prevent the US using unilateral sanctions to dictate Europe’s foreign policy, including potentially trying to thwart Nord Stream 2 (the pipeline project that will transport Russian natural gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea and which Trump has repeatedly denounced.)
As Washington’s ability to impose unilateral sanctions is bound up with the role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and US domination of the world banking system, the European challenge to America’s sanctions weapon necessarily involves a challenge to these key elements of US global power.
The European imperialist powers are taking this road because they, like all the great powers, are locked in a frenzied struggle for market, profits and strategic advantage under conditions of a systemic breakdown of world capitalism. Finding themselves squeezed between the rise of new powers and an America that is ever more reliant on war to counter the erosion of its economic might and that is ruthlessly pursing its own interests at the expense of foe and ostensible friend alike, the Europeans, led by German imperialism, are seeking to develop the economic and military means to assert their own predatory interests independently of, and when necessary against, the United States.
Those developing the SPV are acutely conscious of this and have publicly declared that it is not Iran-specific.
Speaking last month, only a few weeks after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker had used his State of the EU address to called for measures to ensure that the Euro plays a greater global role, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire declared the “crisis with Iran” “a chance for Europe to have its own independent financial institutions, so we can trade with whomever we want.” The SPV, adds French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Agnes Von der Muhl, “aims to create an economic sovereignty tool for the European Union … that will protect European companies in the future from the effect of illegal extraterritorial sanctions.”
The strategists of US imperialism are also aware that the SPV is a challenge to more than the Trump administration’s Iran policy. Writing in Foreign Affairs last month, former Obama administration official Elizabeth Rosenberg expressed grave concern that the Trump administration’s unilateral sanctions are causing the EU to collaborate with Russia and China in defying Washington, and are inciting a European challenge to US financial dominance. Under conditions where Russia and China are already seeking to develop payments systems that bypass Western banks and the future promises further challenges to dollar-supremacy and the US-led global financial system, “it is worrying,” laments Rosenberg, “that the United States is accelerating this trend.”
With its drive to crash Iran’s economy and further impoverish its people, the Trump administration has let lose the dogs of war. Whatever the sanctions’ impact, Washington has committed its prestige and power to bringing Tehran to heel and to making the rest of the world complicit in its crimes. The danger of another catastrophic Mideast war thus looms ever larger, while the growing antagonism between Europe and America and descent of global inter-state relations into a madhouse of one against all is setting the stage—absent the revolutionary intervention of the international working class—for a global conflagration that would dwarf even the world wars of the last century.

3 Nov 2018

Losing Users: Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook Problems

Binoy Kampmark

His detractors and enemies have been waiting some time for this, but it must have given them moments of mild cheer.  Facebook, the all-gazing, accumulating system of personal profiles and information, poster child, in fact, of surveillance capitalism, is losing users. At the very least, it is falling to that mild phenomenon in business speak called “flat-lining”, a deceptively benign term suggesting that the fizz is going out of the product.
This week, Mark Zuckerberg has been more humble than usual.  The latest figures show that 1.49 billion users hop on the platform daily; monthly active users come in at 2.27 billion.  While both figures are increases from previous metrics, these fall shy of those bubbly estimates Facebook loves forecasting: 1.51 billion in the former; 2.29 billion in the latter.  “We’re well behind YouTube”, he observed; in “developed countries”, Zuckerberg conceded that his company was probably reaching saturation.  While security features of Facebook had improved, there was at least another twelve months before the standard was, in his view, up to scratch.
The user market in North America is flat, while in Europe, FB has experienced a loss of 3 million daily active users.  The process was already underway after 2015.  The moment your grandparents start using a communications product with teenage enthusiasm, it’s time for a swift, contrarian change. But social media, as with other forms of communication, is a matter of demographics and class.
YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat have been beating down doors and making off with users.  A May study from the Pew Research Centre found that half of US teens between the ages of 13 and 17 claim to use Facebook.  But YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat are bullishly ahead with usage figures of 85, 72 and 69 percent respectively. To locus of this move is as much in the type of technology being used as behavioural change, with 95 percent of teens claiming to have access to a smartphone. A mind slushing statistic stands out: of those, 45 percent are online constantly in numb inducing ecstasy.
The company, in an effort to plug various deficiencies in the operating systems, has been busy hiring content moderators, a point that has not gone unnoticed by users.  This, in of itself, is a flawed exercise, and one imposed upon the company in an effort of moralised policing.  Various legislatures and parliaments have gotten itchy in passing legislation obligating Facebook and similar content sharers to remove hate speech, extremist subject matter and state-sponsored propaganda.  (Where, pray, is that line ever drawn?).
This raises a jurisdictional tangle suggesting that local parliaments and courts are getting ahead of themselves in gnawing away at the extra-territorial nature of tech giants.  This year, a German law was passed requiring social media companies to remove illegal, racist or slanderous content within 24 hours after being flagged by users or face fines to the tune of $57 million.  Such legislation, while localised in terms of jurisdiction, has international consequences.  Content otherwise permitted by the US First Amendment will have to be removed for offending regulations in another country.
This is a far from academic speculation.  Canada’s Supreme Court in June last year ruled that Google had to remove search results pertaining to certain pirated products.  The natural consequence of this was a universal one.  “The internet has no borders – its natural habitat is global,” claimed the trite observation from the majority.  “The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates – globally.”
This precipitated a legal spat that proceeded to involve a Californian decision handed down by Judge Edward J. Davila, who turned his nose up at the Canadian judiciary’s grant of the interlocutory injunction.  To expect companies such as Google to remove links to third-party material menaced “free speech on the global internet.”  The emergence of a “splinternet” – one where online content is permissible in one country and not another – has been given a dramatic shove.  Police, in other words, or be damned.
By the end of September, an army of some 33,000 labouring souls were retained by Facebook for the onerous task of sifting, assessing and removing errant content.  But this whole task has come with its own pitfalls, a preoccupation of danger and emotional disturbance.  Those recruited have become content warriors with a need for a strong constitution, a point that has presented Zuckerberg with yet another problem.
Former moderator Selena Scola, who worked at Facebook from June 2017 till March this year, has gone so far as to sue the company for post-traumatic stress disorder after witnessing content depicting graphic violence “from her cubicle in Facebook’s Silicon Valley offices”.  Scola, through her legal counsel, claims that the company did not create a safe environment, instead working upon the practice of having a “revolving door of contractors”.  Moderators, according to the legal suit, are “bombarded” with “thousands of videos, images and livestreamed broadcasts of child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality, beheadings, suicide and murder.”
Facebook ushered in a remarkable form of dysfunction between users, and the actual platform of communication.  This is very much in the spirit of a concept that lends itself to a hollowed variant of friendship, one based on appropriation, marketing and a somewhat voyeuristic format.  If you can’t make friends in the flesh, as Zuckerberg struggled to do, create facsimiles of friendship, their ersatz equivalents.  And most of all, place the incentive of generating revenue and profiles upon them.  Facebook is not merely there for those who use it but for those who feel free to be used.  This point is all too readily missed by the political classes.
Facebook makes everyone a practitioner, and creator, of surveillance, and anybody with a rudimentary understanding of totalitarian societies would know what that does to trust.  Split personalities and hived forms of conduct manifest themselves.  Unhealthily, then, the number of users globally is still increasing, even if it is dropping in specific parts of the world.  Much like the Catholic Church, reliance is placed upon the developing world to supply new pools of converts.
Zuckerberg’s company faces investigations from the European Union, the FBI, the FTC, the SEC and the US Department of Justice.  Such moves are not necessarily initiated out of altruism; there is the prevailing fear that such a platform is all too readily susceptible to manipulation (the horror, it seems, of misinformation, as if this was ever a new issue).  Fake ads can still be readily purchased; campaigns economic with the facts can still be run and organised on its pages.  But to attribute blame to Facebook for a tendency as ancient as politics is another distortion.  Not even Zuckerberg can be blamed for that.