Category: News and politics

Chances are, you’re asking: "who is Margot Wallström?" Well, if you’re from outside Europe, then you’re forgiven – but if you’re European, then you should know that she is one of the EU Commissioners. (Confession time, I didn’t know that either until today)

Whatever, I think it is significant that she has her own blog, and one that is integrated into her official web pages within the EU Commission web site. She also appears to read the comments pages on her blog as well.

I found the link via the Europhobia blog which has a random roundup of reactions to the EU referenda so far.

Over at A Fistful of Euros is a good summary of the background to the Dutch Referendum on the EU Constitution.

I see that Emily May Blatch, Baroness Blatch of Hinchingbrooke has died. I know I’m being uncharitable, but I can’t say I’m sorry to see her go. She willingly took up the torch of homophobia and anti-gay prejudice from Baroness Young following her death in 2002.

Reading the words of these Baronesses in the records of House of Lords in debates over, for example, Section 28, is a salutary experience. However, bit by bit we move into the 21st Century, and hopefully towards more enlightened views. Though I fear the process is slow and easily reversed.

So the French have given a resounding thumbs-down to the Constitution. I suppose it was only to be expected. I have a feeling that it got caught in the crossfire of at least two opposing groups: those patriotic French who thought that it was anti-France, and those who thought that it did not go far enough.

I expect also that we’ll get a repeat performance this week in The Netherlands, and probably for much the same reasons. Although I said last week that I would vote Yes! (that is if I were to be allowed to vote), on reflection, perhaps it’s not as straightforward as I made it appear. I’ve been reading the full text (available as a PDF from this page). The first thing to say is that it is clearly a camel (i.e. a horse designed by a committee) and overlong (probably because it’s a camel). There are good things in it, but there are some things in it that prickle the socialist hairs on the back of my neck – e.g. the uncritical extent to which privatisation is believed to be a "good thing".

I came across this entry on Steeph’s Blog about the constitution, and I agree with his list of "good things" and "bad things". His conclusion was that the constitution doesn’t go far enough, and hence he will vote No. I suppose I’m more of a "let’s take what we can and work further on it afterwards" sort of person, but I can see where he’s coming from. 

Who knows, a resounding "No" vote may indeed make the politicians wake up and address the shortcomings, but somehow, I’m cynical enough to think that they ain’t going to do any radical surgery.

If you’ve read my profile, you will know that, while I hold a British Passport, I have lived in The Netherlands since 1983. I dutifully pay my taxes, I contribute to the society, I’ve even married a Dutchman. But, in return, does the Dutch Government give me a say in the running of the country?

No way, José.

In the forthcoming vote of the EU constitution, I don’t have the right to vote. Never mind that I believe in Europe and would gladly vote yes! if given the opportunity. Never mind that prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende would like us all to vote yes!

Earth to Jan Peter: your stupid bloody system has prevented me from giving you my vote, so you can go down the toilet for all I care.

Curious Hamster takes a sly dig at Tony Blair with a Thought Experiment. It brought a grin to my face, anyway.

Nope, not Dubya, but George Galloway yesterday, in his appearance before US senators to dismiss allegations he profited from oil dealings with Saddam Hussein.

The BBC has a recording of the complete hearing. And the Daily Kos has the transcript of his opening statement.

A masterful performance. Staring straight at Senator Coleman, and without notes, Galloway absolutely skewers the committee with his opening statement. The resulting cross-examination never really recovers from this opening blast (how could it – the allegations are, as Galloway says, "utterly preposterous"). I wish that there had been some video of senator Coleman’s face – I bet it would have been rather like a rabbit caught in car headlights.

While I don’t necessarily agree with Galloway’s politics, he is not the bogeyman that the media would like him to be. And on the strength of this performance, the knockabout politics of the Mother of Parliaments is more than a match for the milquetoast mewlings of the US system.

…the triumph of Faith over Reason. NBC did a telephone survey recently in the US on religion and American life. I find the answers to question 14 more than a little alarming:

Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on earth: evolution or the biblical account of creation?

Evolution                                  33%  
Total biblical account of creation  57%  
Don’t know/none of the above   10%   

So, let me get this right, nearly twice as many Americans surveyed thought that the book of Genesis is literallly true as opposed to the demonstrable facts of evolution?

Now, that’s scary…

Following the publication today of the Attorney-General’s advice, this should be an interesting show to watch…

Excerpts from a February 2004 letter from Microsoft’s manager of government affairs in the state, DeLee Shoemaker, to Rep. Ed Murray (my emphasis):

"Our employees know that they will be treated fairly, without being subject to prejudice or discrimination. An essential element of those policies includes the company’s anti-discrimination policy that expressly states that it will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

"Unfortunately, not all Americans experience this basic protection in their employment. It remains legal in 38 states to fire someone because of their sexual orientation. This is not only bad for business, it is bad for America. House Bill 1809 would simply and fairly extend to Washingtonians the fundamental right to be judged on one’s own merits. And it does so without any undue burden on our business environment.

"Microsoft strongly supports passage of HB 1809 and the additional protections it provides in our state’s law against discrimination. The principles it fosters are consistent with our corporate principles in treating all employees with fairness and respect."

All good stuff, except when the bill came up again this year, Microsoft switched its stance to one of neutrality, claiming it wanted to focus on issues more directly related to its business. Somehow the statement in the letter from 2004 that discrimination is "bad for business" got lost in the rush to focus.

I find it interesting that, despite Microsoft switching its stance, there were other big-name companies in the Washington area who saw no difficulty in continuing to support the bill. Companies such as Boeing, HP, Nike, Coors and Levi Strauss.

Microsoft folding up its tent in this fashion has left a very nasty taste in my mouth. My MSDN subscription comes up for renewal next month. It’s not going to be renewed. A small gesture, but mine own.

It would have been nice to have been proved wrong.

It would have been good to be able to say, mea culpa, I got it wrong about good old Tony. Forget about the fact that I’ve previously written that I’ve come to dislike and distrust him with a passion – he really is the man for the job of Prime Minister; someone who holds himself to the very highest of standards and who would not, ever, mislead the country.

Except that, it would appear that not only did he mislead the country on the legal basis for taking it into the war in Iraq, he also misled his own cabinet and parliament colleagues. Today, The Guardian has published a leaked version of the summary advice from the Attorney-General given to Tony Blair on March 7. As the Guardian states in its leader today:

It is little wonder the government struggled so hard to keep secret the attorney general’s March 7 advice on the legality of war. It is, in more ways than one, an extremely troubling document. The extracts we publish today bear little relation – in tone or content – to the so-called summary which was presented to both cabinet and parliament as they weighed up the morality and legality of going to war in Iraq just 10 days later. The March 17 document was stripped of all the nuances, qualifications and caveats contained in the March 7 opinion. It could not conceivably be regarded as a summary of the earlier advice. Both cabinet and parliament were – to put it at its mildest – kept unforgiveably in the dark. It looks rather worse than that: it looks as if they were deceived.

As a result of this damning charge, Blair has now released the complete March 7 document – something that up until this point he has adamantly refused to do. And indeed, it is "an extremely troubling document". It bears precious little relation to the dumbed-down final version that was put before the cabinet and parliament on March 17. Something happened in those ten days that changed the almost obsessively careful language of the original document into one that essentially said: "Nothing to worry about, chaps – let loose the dogs of war"…

So, previous Labour voters, the choice is yours – do you ignore the smell of Blair and vote for Labour with a clothes-peg clamped to your nose, as Polly Toynbee advises, or do you look at the alternatives, as Frances Beckett suggests? Increasingly, I would be drawn to the latter (as long as it’s not of a Conservative, BNP or UKIP flavour).

Two weeks ago, I mused on how news was being presented to the public by the media in the context of the "war on terror" and used the reporting on the Kamil Bourgass case as the example. In that piece, I referred to an article, written by Duncan Campbell, that appeared in the Guardian that day.

Now it appears that the article has been pulled from the Guardian’s web site "for legal reasons". At least, that’s what Justin McKeating over at Chicken Yoghurt is claiming. And just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean to say that they’re not out to get you.

Well, at least the article by Jon Silverman is still there on the BBC website, and the article published on the 14th April by The Register makes for interesting reading.

And over at Europhobia is the definitive list of responses to idiots who mouth that tiresome variant of the "If you’re not with us, then you’re against us" rubbish. Absolutely right.

Over at Chicken Yoghurt, Justin McKeating documents the whole sorry tale. Read it and weep. And then politicians wonder why people lose their trust in them…

According to a story in the Seattle Times today, it does seem as though Microsoft has been "surprised" at the strength of the reaction to its decision to switch from a position of "support" to "neutral" on an anti-discrimination bill in Washington State.

Only goes to prove what I thought earlier – they were asleep at the wheel.

However, this may not yet be the end of the story, over at AMERICAblog, there’s a claim that Microsoft has been paying $20,000 a month to Century Strategies, a consulting firm headed up by the less-than-attractive figure of Ralph Reed. Methinks this story has a few more twists and turns to go before it is played out.

Well, the inevitable has happened, Steve Ballmer’s internal memo over the Washington State anti-discrimination bill has been posted to the Internet.

And, while I have some sympathy with what Ballmer is trying to say, another part of me basically says: either you don’t get it, or you are just spouting political bullshit.

Let’s look at some extracts from the memo:

"As long as I am CEO, Microsoft is going to be a company that is hard-core about diversity, a company that is absolutely rigorous about having a non-discriminatory environment, and a company that treats every employee fairly.

I’m proud of our track record on diversity issues. We were one of the first companies to provide domestic partner benefits, or to include sexual orientation in our anti-discrimination policies. And just this year, we became one of the few companies to include gender identity or expression in our protection policies."

This is good stuff. Microsoft does have a right to feel proud of what they have done in this field, and I have no problems in acknowledging that fact.

"When our government affairs team put together its list of its legislative priorities in Olympia before the Legislative Session began in January, we decided to focus on a limited number of issues that are more directly related to our business such as computer privacy, education, and competitiveness. The anti-discrimination bill was not on this list and as a result Microsoft was not actively supporting the bill in the Legislature this year, although last year we did provide a letter of support for similar legislation."

Yes, Mr. Ballmer, but as I’ve said elsewhere, did no-one realise that the change of stance on such a sensitive issue would not go unnoticed? This is such a jaw-dropping change, that if you and your people did not realise the effect, then all I can say is that someone was asleep at the wheel. He goes on:

"On this particular matter, both Bill and I actually both personally support this legislation that would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But that is my personal view, and I also know that many employees and shareholders would not agree with me."

It is very good to hear that Ballmer and Gates would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Three cheers for that. But then, of course, comes the depressing kicker: many employees and shareholders would not agree with me. While on the one hand I recognise that people hold deeply held beliefs, when push comes to shove, some of those beliefs are responsible for much of the evil in this world. And it is the mark of a man, or woman, that they are prepared to stand up and say that.

He goes on to say:

"It’s appropriate to invoke the company’s name on issues of public policy that directly affect our business and our shareholders, but it’s much less clear when it’s appropriate to invoke the company’s name on broader issues that go far beyond the software industry – and on which our employees and shareholders hold widely divergent opinions. We are a public corporation with a duty first and foremost to a broad group of shareholders. On some issues, it is more
appropriate for employees or shareholders to get involved as individual citizens. As CEO, I feel a real sense of responsibility around this question, and I believe there are important distinctions between my personal views on policy issues and when it’s appropriate to involve the company."

I can appreciate what Ballmer is saying here. But, alas, from my perspective, he has been weighed and found wanting. Perhaps I have high ideals. Perhaps I want a Mandela, when all I get is a Ballmer. Pity that, what the world needs is more Mandelas – or at least people who aspire to be such.

The rumblings from Microsoft’s decision to drop support for an anti-discrimination bill in the state of Washington continue. Now the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, which four years ago presented Microsoft with an award for its progressive stance on diversity issues, has asked Microsoft to hand the award back.

In addition, the Human Rights Campaign has sent a letter to Steve Ballmer (Microsoft’s CEO) expressing their profound disappointment over Microsoft’s decision.

Apparently, Ballmer has issued an internal memo to all employees putting his side of the case, but this has not been made public outside of the company. What Microsoft has said publicly, has come through their PR people. Tami Begasse, a senior corporate spokeswoman for Microsoft, said yesterday that the company’s stances on diversity and nondiscrimination had not changed and noted that Microsoft issued a letter in support of the Washington legislation, which has been introduced annually for many years, as recently as the last session.

However, the simple fact of the matter is that Microsoft has indeed switched its position on the bill from one of "support" to one of "neutrality".

Begasse said Microsoft’s government relations specialists chose to focus their legislative efforts this year on more central priorities “that have a direct impact on our industry and our business,” specifically computer privacy, education, competitiveness and transportation.

What I find most dismaying about the whole affair is that Microsoft management appears not to have had the nous  to realise that any change of position on such a sensitive issue would have major reverberations. I mean, d-uuh!  John Aravosis over on AMERICAblog makes the same point with somewhat more colour, but then, I’m just a diplomatic brit. 

There is a storm brewing in the blogsphere and beyond over Microsoft’s action (or rather inaction) over a recent attempt in the state of Washington (Microsoft’s home state) to include reference to sexual orientation in anti-discrimination legislation.

While there’s a lot of "he said, she said" noise foaming up at the moment, once you blow the foam away, it does appear that Microsoft stepped back from supporting the legislation in the state senate. The outcome was that the legislation was lost by one vote, and many are blaming Microsoft’s withdrawal of support for that. 

In the past, Microsoft has been very supportive of diversity and inclusiveness in its company policies, and that extended to its GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered) staff also. It is regrettable that their internal support can no longer be counted on when it comes to society at large.

I was watching the report by BBC Home Affairs editor Mark Easton on the BBC News last night. I was struck by his language, both verbal and body, that seemed to me to be exaggerating the threat of al-Qaeda. Yes, we can all agree that Kamel Bourgass was a dangerous individual, and it is better for us all that he is now behind bars. But was he a highly-trained individual in an al-Qaeda ring, who manufactured poisons? Mark Easton’s report certainly came down heavily, one might say, unrelentingly, on that side, with his theatrical brandishing of jars of Nivea and his language, which seemed to me to be more redolent of the Yellow Press, rather than sober reporting from the BBC.

Because there are still some awkward aspects in the case that Easton played down or skated over completely:

• Four other suspects in the "UK cell" were acquitted this week of any part in a conspiracy, and the trial against a further four has been abandoned.
• Despite Easton’s jars of Nivea, no trace of ricin was ever found in the flat where the arrests were made – in fact, only recipes were found.
• The recipes themselves are apparently direct copies of recipes concocted by the US survivalist Kurt Saxon, and readily available from an Internet web site based not in Afghanistan, but in Palo Alto, California. 

A much more sober assessment of the facts, written by Jon Silverman, is buried away on the BBC News web site. It probably does not make such good tub-thumping television as Easton’s over-the-top report.

As Duncan Campbell, writing in today’s Guardian, puts it: "I do not doubt that Bourgass would have contemplated causing harm if he was competent to do so. But he was an Islamist yobbo on his own, not an Al Qaida-trained superterrorist."

I’m referring, of course, to Michael Howard, leader of the UK Conservative Party. During the press session to introduce the Conservatives’ manifesto, he came out with:

"On May the fifth you can let the sunshine of hope break through the clouds of disappointment we all feel!"

The soundbite is worthy of a particularly oliagious Hallmark card. No wonder many of the assembled hacks of the Press started laughing out loud in an unseemly fashion.