Bono and Bob Geldof laud Queen’s speech commitment to global poverty relief
HEADLINE FEED // [READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE]
Campaigning singers praise the government’s promise to enshrine its international development spending in law
He may have been showered with accusations of electioneering from opposition parties and a mixed bag of reactions from the unions, but Gordon Brown managed to get the thumbs up from Bono and Bob Geldof for including a “wonderful thing” in his last batch of bills before the general election – the enshrinement in law of a funding promise to the world’s poorest people.
International aid campaigners welcomed the prime minister’s decision to include in his legislative agenda the international development spending draft bill, which will put the government’s commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on development from 2013 on to the statute books.
But opposition parties accused the prime minister of watering down a promise to enshrine the commitment in law by reducing the bill to draft status only.
Bono, the lead singer of U2 and co-founder of the campaign group One, hailed the decision and urged parliament to ensure the bill is pushed through.
“The proposal to make the 0.7% pledge legally binding is not just a great announcement, it is transformative of real lives, by a government that has led the world in keeping its promises to the world’s poorest people,” Bono said. “The next step is making sure this becomes law as soon as possible, in 2010.”
Fellow One campaigner Geldof said the legislation could be “a rare but wonderful thing” if political parties allow the bill to go through.
“The gains African countries have made over the past decade are under threat from two crises not of their making: global recession and climate change. It’s good to see the British government taking steps to mitigate the impacts of these predicaments, which is why it is important that this legislation is enacted sooner rather than later.”
In principle such a bill should have little problem being pushed through as the Conservative party has also pledged to meet the UN target of 0.7% of national income spent on international aid, though a spokesman for Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary, claimed that the Tories would not back the draft bill.
“Andrew Mitchell has repeatedly refused to back legislation to enshrine our commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on international development from 2013,” he said. “Only Labour has committed to legislate for this promise.”
However, a spokesman for the Tories said the party “would support a bill on 0.7% but clearly the government have stopped well short of doing this themselves”.
The Liberal Democrats pointed to the bill’s draft status, which reduces its chances of becoming law in this session.
Michael Moore, the Lib Dems’ spokesman for international development, accused Brown of stepping back from a promise made at the Labour conference in September to push this piece of legislation through.
“Gordon Brown made a firm commitment to enshrine the 0.7% target for aid spending in statute, but just seven weeks on he has abandoned that promise,” Moore said.
“With a general election only months away, and the Tories’ commitment to development issues far from certain, this Queen’s speech is nothing but another broken promise to the world’s poorest people.”
Say no to asbos for downloaders | Charlotte Gore
HEADLINE FEED // [READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE]
The internet is such a huge part of life that Mandelson’s plans to cut people off for copyright breach is a clear restriction of liberty
At 33 years old I’m more Generation X than Generation X-Box. I’m too old to be one of the new wave of “digital natives” who’ve never known life without the internet, but I’m just about young enough (and geeky enough) to consider myself an enthusiastic immigrant. I moved in about 13 years ago, and if I could swear an oath of allegiance to some Head Of The Internet State, I wouldn’t hesitate.
Sadly there is no president of the internet, which is a shame because it means I’m stuck with my British passport instead. And relations between Britain and the internet have been strained of late.
Lord Mandelson is seeking to grant himself significant powers in the fight against copyright infringement – the ability to do just about anything so long as it’s in the interest of protecting copyright, and without having to go through parliament.
This is disturbing not just because it represents a triumph of executive power over the normal democratic process, but also because it also reflects the increasing hunger our politicians have to control the internet. For the politicians that’s a hopeless dream, but the damage they can do in the trying is real.
The beauty of the internet is the egalitarianism of it. It is empowering, enriching and liberating in the most literal sense: freedom of speech, freedom of association, access to knowledge and access to the most exciting and glorious marketplace in the world.
We organise our social lives with it, we do our banking and pay our bills through it. We access public services and news and we express ourselves creatively through it. Politics has been opened up and democratised through blogging, Twitter and access to information and debate.
Despite this, Mandelson wants to be able to ban individuals from it as punishment for copyright infringement. It’s an idea that has the media giants rubbing their hands together with glee. Yet what they want is impossible – at least, not possible yet. First, the vast majority of home wireless connections aren’t secure. Our internet connections can be easily hijacked and used by other people without our permission or knowledge, and the owner of the phone line will get the blame for what they do.
Second, people do not have their own personal connections to the internet – households share them. By banning the person who owns the phone line, they ban the entire family (and, of course, the neighbour who’s been downloading episodes of Lost through it).
All this together means Mandelson’s plan violates the fundamental principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that only the guilty should be punished. His system would see parents thrown off because of their children, children thrown off because of their parents and all thrown off because of a stranger.
So here’s the key question: do we want to live in a society where people can be cut off from the internet without a trial, without a jury and without proving they committed any offence at all?
How to answer that depends on how you view the internet. Is it like a hi-fi that the council can confiscate if you disturb your neighbours, or is it more like being banished from the town you live in?
I vote banished. I know enough people who don’t have friends in the real world, who socialise exclusively online. I know people who depend on access to the internet for their careers and livelihoods. It’s become such a huge part of our lives, of the way we live and interact with each other that cutting people off from it is a clear and severe restriction of their liberty.
This is the case we need to make – that the government should not be able to restrict people’s liberty on a whim. If copyright infringement is a crime, it needs to be treated like any other crime. What we’re getting instead – asbos for downloaders – is a powerful reminder that when it comes to civil liberties we can’t let our guard down against this government, no matter how close to the end it may be.
Posted
November 20th, 2009
Filed
Comment
Crime
Downloads
File sharing
Guardian Music
Human rights
Internet
Law
Law and technology
Peter Mandelson
Politics
Technology
UK news
World news
guardian.co.uk
Comments Off