• He can’t use a camera
• He can’t use any device with a camera built in (so pretty much every mobile phone)
• He can only use the internet in relation to employment (but must get the police constable’s permission first)
• He can’t be in any contact with anyone under the age of 18
• He can’t enter any area predominantly used by children
• He can’t be in any house if there is a child there
• He can’t take any job without asking permission of the police constable
• He can’t hire a car without notifying the police

Why take a mentally disturbed man, cripple him of any possible chance he has to function in a modern society, and then release him back into such a society?

(BBC News article)

It’s a rather upsetting fact that my government are equally as nosey. But I’m certainly not going to go out of my way to have a government look through my private files.

With the US elections now in full swing, I have to wonder if any of the candidates support freedom.

It’s sad. I liked the United States when I last travelled there. It would be nice to return one day.

Click the image.

There any many conflicting reports as to the extent of the killings over the Burma protests, but there was enough blood spilt to make the international community take notice…

The Telegraph writes:

At the height of the government’s brutal crackdown last week there were widespread rumours that some troops in Rangoon had refused orders to fire on unarmed protesters. Rumours also suggest that Than Shwe was sufficiently worried as the street protests grew to send his family to safety in Dubai.

An online awareness campaign is set to take place on the 4th October. You can get involved here.

Although highly suppressed, protests are still occurring (from Mizzima):

Despite the Burmese military junta having imposed night curfews, residents in parts of Rangoon protested by putting their lights off for at least 15 minutes last night.

Residents in North Okklapah said, many of the residents in ward (2) switched-off their lights at 8 p.m. (local time) for 15 minutes as token of dissent.

“As there is tight security preventing us from marching on the streets, we are doing this as a symbol that we the people of Burma are being kept helplessly in the dark,” a local resident of ward (2) of North Okklapah township told Mizzima.

Another petition here

The boycott of the Beijing Olympics continues to be mentioned again and again.

Personally, I have decided I will be boycotting the Olympics, unless China stands up to its responsibility.

In the meantime, I feel it is my duty to get better informed about human rights abuses around the world.

These days I mostly read my news via the internet. It’s becoming a totally different experience to consume the news in this way rather than through traditional means. Today I scanned through the Daily Mail to find just one report on Burma, buried deep within the paper. It had a full page, but it was hardly front page news. On the Internet, however, I have about 20 articles coming through every day. It’s a completely different weighting.

On the other hand, these reports tend to swamp news of other issues.

The reason is that I am have more control. I can choose to follow one issue in particular and follow other stories less so. It is becoming more customisable.

One part of that is my recent adoption of Google News. I googled ‘Burma’ a few days back to try and get some back story and Google News was the top result. I clicked on it, and found a stream of news stories covering the issue. Most importantly I could subscribe to the RSS feed, directing this stream into my feed reader.

Now, everyday, I’m receiving news reports from a wide variety of publishers each with their slightly different take on the subject.

Currently it is a little overwhelming, since there are so many reports. And it tends to drown out other reports. But it is a great way to get up to speed on an issue and stay committed to following it.

I’ve just signed up to the Darfur feed too.

A large number of nations and companies with economic interests in Burma are defending their moral position. If they were not there, they say, others would take their place (and in some cases they declare this would make the situation worse). If this is indeed the case, we should support them. However, for organisations that are supposedly doing good, they are suspiciously quiet on the matter. Are these organisations negotiating more rights for their workers? Are they offering them pay above the poverty line? Are they protecting them from the fear of persecution, rape or execution?

What exactly are they doing?

If a government or company is doing good in Burma or any other oppressed company then I think they should be proud of that, and report on their effect. Label me a naysayer, but I have a feeling their silence isn’t about modesty.

Silence, or statements that are spun into effective silence, are no longer good enough.

In this 21st century, the first world populace no longer has an excuse to be ignorant. It is our duty to learn the effects of our consumption, and to hold each other to a higher standard.

I am as guilty as anyone of sitting back, and being idle.

And most of you are are guilty of letting me.

Is it better to put pressure on a corrupt ruler through sanctions, or to continue doing business for the good of the common people?

Not only is China receiving pressure to impose sanctions on Burma, but individual companies dealing with Burma are also being put under pressure. The Independent reports:

Paris, and the company, argue that Total’s presence is, on the whole, a force for good. Withdrawal would allow carte blanche for Chinese or other companies which would be “less respectful of ethical issues”.

“Our departure would threaten a worsening of the situation for the (Burmese) population,” Total said ina communiqué.

But if this is true, why are they also urging a freeze on new investments in the area? From the same article:

President Nicolas Sarkozy has also drawn criticism this week for urging French companies to “freeze” new investments in Burma. No other French company operates in the country. Total, as the President presumably knew, has not made new investments in Burma for years.

A French diplomat told the newspaper Liberation off the record yesterday: “Annoucing a freeze of what is already frozen is hardly revolutionary. It allows (the president) to surf on the notion of a French ‘new deal’ for human rights, while protecting French economic interests.”

The Australian government is coming under similar criticism:

Greens senator Kerry Nettle said Prime Minister John Howard has rejected trade sanctions against the south-east Asian country because Australia did not “have a lot of trade with Burma”.

“We now find that there is a Liberal Party-linked company that is doing business with the Burmese military regime in oil and gas exploration,” Mr Nettle said.

[...]

Senator Nettle called on Prime Minister John Howard to ask his “Liberal Party friends” to discontinue their investment in Burma until human rights conditions in the country improved.

“For Alexander Downer to say China isn’t taking action (against Burma) because of their trade relationship with Burma, at the same time as his Liberal Party family are making money out of their relationship with the Burmese military dictatorship, is great hypocrisy,” she said.

The arguments for investment in the country are not without merit. However, it is difficult to take them seriously when actions point more towards economic interests back home than the good of the Burmese people.

Politicians have a habit of ruining good arguments with too much spin. The latest report on Bush’s campaign for the Iraq war is a particularly worrying example. Even minor offences of this should be brought to account and challenged.

Straight talking and honest politicians? Almost makes the bid for world peace seem trivial.

World Changing has an article titled ‘How Mobiles and Blogs Don’t — and Do — Help Human Rights‘. The author, Emily Gertz, writes:

In the world of online activism, expectations have not inflated to the level of a few years ago, when a wave of techno-utopian optimism swept the activist ‘net that maybe a “technical intervention,” that is blogging, could stop the mass killings in Darfur — an effort which, on those terms, failed.

I think the mistake here is to believe that one story will suddenly change the world — and if it doesn’t it means failure. Change happens slowly, but each story raises awareness and gets people talking and thinking about it. One particular trait of the Internet over traditional media, is that it is active; and becoming much more so. It’s easy to move from story to story on TV news; with the sport or weather sticking as the last thing in your head. But the way we engage with the Internet (comments, Facebook groups, our own blogs, and even hyperlinks) encourages more of us to actively engage with it.

Meanwhile, globalisation is becoming ever more important; meaning every country that depends on it must think about the economic consequences before doing so.

It is difficult to make solid predictions based on Darfur or other historical events, because so much is different. Although it is a good reminder that we can sometimes get a bit carried away with our optimism.

Heading back into their archives, I also discovered this excellent interview with Ethan Zuckerman from mid-2004, discussing technology and the developing world. A few quotations:

In Ghana in 2000 we had a pretty critical presidential election. The leader who’d taken power in 1979 was stepping down. For the first time an opposition had a chance to stand and there was widespread fear — for good reasons — that there would be election fraud and intimidation.

The coping strategy that everyone came up with was fascinating. It basically involved cellphones and talk radio. What happened is guys would go out to polling places with their cellphones, they’d see someone obstructing access to the polls, and then they’d call a talk radio station and describe what was going on. That put enough pressure on the police that they had to show up and investigate. It proved remarkably effective.

and

It’s pretty hard to expect technology to turn non-democracies into democracies. Where I think technology can make a huge difference is where you have a young and fragile democracy. In those cases, I think what helps is finding ways to empower individuals.

and

It’s corruption when you’re a shopkeeper trying to get your shipment of widgets in and the guy won’t let them through unless you pay him a thousand dollars under the table. But it’s not corruption when you’re a farmer and you’re trying to buy a piece of land and literally no one knows who owns it. That’s just incompetence and bureaucracy and the challenges of dealing with legacy systems. In many developing nations, those challenges are at least as substantial as the problems of corruption.

Well worth a read.

More rough notes.

I received an invitation today to join a group to support the democracy effort in Burma. There are currently 118,461 members. 3 of them are my friends. Of course it’s really easy to join a group, but I think it is noteworthy nonetheless.

The Facebook group lead me to a petition for a boycott of China’s Olympics, should they not support sanctions. This is for UK citizens only, of course. Link. (Elsewhere discussion is surfacing of individual companies who do business in Burma)

Also a video from a Japanese News report showing video of journalist Kenji Nagai being shot. Also look here

And the comments are interesting. Some are wondering if the West should impose military force. The first comment I read was from someone declaring they were against the Iraq War, but considered this might be a good idea. This could so easily fall into a bloody revolution. But I don’t think any country really considers military support to be a good option. Putting aside the problem of spreading troops out too far, I think any arrogance that we can play superhero and make everything better with our super army was laid to rest in Iraq. War is a hard decision to make. It would be long-term and brutal. I honestly think everyone wants to avoid it if at all possible.

But can peaceful diplomatic efforts really help? If we try, we at least learn something.

Personally, I’m leaning towards a boycott of Chinese products and the Olympics if they don’t agree to help. Although that is easier said than done, of course. Their products are everywhere! I have slight doubts about whether this is the right thing to do, but we will see. It can no longer be acceptable to allow any country (including our own) to prop up evil regimes for economic gain. But we must also not be as naive to believe we can just ignore the economic issues or pretend they are unimportant.

A documentary film also surfaced in my look through the Facebook. Here is the trailer. It’s interesting what it takes for people around the world to take notice (including me). I’m aware of many horrible regimes around the world, and yet it takes a special news event to make it a big story and for me to pay particular attention. One reason is surely attention span. My financial concerns, are much more important to me than poverty the other side the of the world (if we are honest, that’s how most of us think, and it’s a pretty sensible way of thinking too). But another reason may be that we simply don’t know what to do when we learn of these issues. We don’t know how to solve them.

But at least we are paying attention and trying. That is significant progress, even if it may not seem that way.

Meanwhile my RSS lead me to read that there was actually an excuse for the Internet going down in Burma:

Internet cafés have been closed and the state ISP is claiming that a damaged cable has led to a total internet shutdown across the country.

Right then.

Finally, the Guardian has a good write-up on the current state of Burma and a little of its history. You can read that here.

I’ve read blog comments that describe the extent of the brutality as far worse than what has been confirmed. There is no way to know how accurate these reports are, so I’m a little unsure what to make of them.

I keep coming across interesting reports. Further to news that the junta military have cut off Internet access, it seems that they are taking much more of a proactive response to technology and the press.

From The Age:

Meanwhile, Government pressure and unresthas forced several of Burma’s private newspapers to stop publishing, an industry leader said today.

“Some publications may have been forced to close down because they refused to carry the government’s propaganda,” he said on condition of anonymity.

Censors in Burma, also known as Myanmar, always exert tight controls over the media to limit their reporting, but pressure has become unusually high.

People found with mobile phones or cameras were beaten by soldiers yesterday, witnesses said, while a Japanese photojournalist died after being shot.

The newspapers were also struggling to operate because unrest in the streets over the last two days made it impossible for vendors to sell papers, the source added.

“Their people can’t get out there selling them because of the problems,” he said.

Four weekly newspapers printed by the Eleven Media group, two weeklies by Yangon Media, and three weeklies titled Kamudra, Voice and Market have all stopped publishing, he said.

Another newspaper group, Pyi Myanmar, was planing to completely shut down, he added.

The Myanmar Times newspaper indicated it would continue publishing.