Den åbenlyst partipolitiske komite, der i sin tid valgte at tildele O’Bomber fredsprisen, endnu inden han havde demonstreret sin præference med illegale drab på civile, tildelte tidligere i år prisen til en person med offentligt udtalte præferencer for krig og overgreb. I modstrid med komiteens regne principper, hævder Mzx Blumenthal fra The Grey Zone.
Som det nævnes i interviewet er der en rigtig journalist der har været på arbejde.
Niels Westy har en mindre kritisk tilgang til prismodtageren – du kan se hvad han skrev her.
Det bliver sværere og sværere at opretholde illusionen om en ‘rules-based’ samfundsorden, med et amerikansk regime der tilsidesætter moral og international lov og europæiske regimer der perseverer i krigslysten. Hvad enten det bliver med midler stjålet fra russiske eller ‘egne’ borgere.
Jeg ser ikke Frederiksen-regimet – eller dets efterfølger – kritisere vennerne i Warshington – tværtimod, er EU på vej til yderligere at begrænse det højt besungne demokrati, med flere tiltag til at kontrollere folks ytringer.
Der er naturligvis forskel på folk – ikke alle skal underkastes den samme nidkære kontrol – tak, Peter Hummelgaard.
In the words of Peter Hummelgaard, the Danish Minister of Justice: “Every year, millions of files are shared that depict the sexual abuse of children. And behind every single image and video, there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse. This is completely unacceptable.” No one disputes the gravity or turpitude of the problem. And yet, under this narrative, the telecommunications industry and European citizens are expected to absorb dangerous risk-mitigation measures that are likely to involve lost privacy for citizens and widespread monitoring powers for the state.
The cost, we are told, is nothing compared to the benefit.
After all, who wouldn’t want to fight child sexual abuse? It’s high time to take a deep breath. Child abusers should be punished severely. This does not dispense a free society from respecting other core values.
But, wait. There’s more…
Widespread Monitoring? Well, Not Completely Widespread
Despite the moral imperative of protecting children — a moral imperative so compelling that the EU is willing to violate other core values to advance it — the proposed CSA act introduces a convenient exception. Anything falling under national security, and any electronic communication service that is not publicly available (i.e. available only to elected officials and bureaucrats) would remain entirely untouched. Private chats among citizens require scrutiny — but the conversations of those who claim to protect us are off limits.
As the good minister said, “behind every single image and video there is a child who has been subjected to the most horrific and terrible abuse.” If that is indeed true of every “single image and video,” why would it not also be true of the messages shielded by the CSA’s national security and non-public exceptions? Does the horror somehow dissipate when the users are politicians or bureaucrats? Is the unacceptable suddenly made acceptable when it concerns those who write the rules?
In the EU’s hierarchy of rights, protecting children trumps privacy. But protecting Eurocrats trumps protecting children. In the end, modern technology gives politicians unprecedented opportunities to monitor citizens, while exempting themselves from scrutiny.
Regimet bør afgå – det har mistet forbindelsen til Lov og Ret.