NPR News: 07-01-2024 8PM EDT
Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Categories
Day: July 1, 2024
Categories
Savage Reservations – OpEd
Because we have a need to understand the world around us – some more than others – most people, myself included, tend to look toGeorge Orwell’s1984(published in 1949) as the right model in terms of which one should understand the present drive for suppressive control we see all around us. However, that perspicacious social theorist and universally cognisant thinker,Zygmunt Bauman(Liquid Modernityp. 53) would have us reconsider this, where he offers a revealing comparison between Orwell and Aldous Huxley’s (Brave New World; 1932) alternative visions ofdystopiawhich, in Huxley’s case, one might be forgiven to misidentify, at first, asutopia.
Moreover, Bauman’s insights serve as a valuable heuristic as far as comprehending the dystopia-in-the-making of today is concerned. After all, in order to be able to fight your enemies, you have to understand them, particularly if they operate according to Sun Tsu’s familiar aphorism, ‘All warfare is based on deception,’ of which our current enemies are masters. It is our task to expose them.
Bauman, referring to the (reception of the) different dystopian visions of Huxley and Orwell as adispute, formulates it thus (p. 53):
“The dispute, to be sure, was quite genuine and earnest, since the worlds so vividly portrayed by the two visionary dystopians were as different as chalk from cheese. Orwell’s was a world of shabbiness and destitution, of scarcity and want; Huxley’s was a land of opulence and profligacy, of abundance and satiety. Predictably, people inhabiting Orwell’s world were sad and frightened; those portrayed by Huxley were carefree and playful. There were many other differences, no less striking; the two worlds opposed each other in virtually every detail.“
Considering the crucial differences between the dystopic visions of these two memorable literary works, it should not pose too much of a problem to decide which one accords more with what we witness around us today, or perhaps whether – in light of the variety of ways in which control is exercised by our would-be masters – we are actually confronted by an amalgam of the two. But in case some readers have forgotten the ‘fictional’ scenario of either of them (or both), allow me to refresh your memories a smidgen.
Orwell’s1984is probably better known than Huxley’sBrave New World. Set in a state called Oceania, sometime in the future, it tells the story of Winston Smith, whose work in the Ministry of Truth entails a task that has become all too familiar to us today – think ‘fact-checkers;’ an ironic name, if ever there was one – namely, to make sure that, by falsifying them, historical records do not reflect the truth about the past. His task, by modifying them, is to ensure that the ‘past’ accords with the ideology of the Party. This is the brainwashing society of Big Brother, of Ingsoc, of the Thought Police (which, of all government agencies, is the most feared by citizens), of constant surveillance of every person, monitoring their behaviour for signs of dissatisfaction, or, heaven forbid, of rebellion), and of Doublethink and Newspeak (the language designed to inhibit critical thinking). It is significant to recall that the reign of the Party in1984represents the political dictatorship (of the future) that Orwell wanted to identify and warn against with this novel.
The novel presents a totalitarian society that is a model for any totalitarianism that operates by squashing dissent and independent thought (and action), in other words, it represents totalitarian rule that suppresses and controls unruly behaviour by instilling conformity in individuals through fear and, should they revolt – as Winston and his illicit lover, Julia, learn – through psychological and bodily torture, which is aimed at restoring their unquestioned loyalty to the Party. Ubiquitous surveillance – another familiar concept to us today – is central to the rule of the Party (1949, p. 4-5):
The blackmoustachio’d face gazed down from every commanding corner. There was one on the house-front immediately opposite. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said, while the dark eyes looked deep into Winston’s own. Down at street level another poster, torn at one corner, flapped fitfully in the wind, alternately covering and uncovering the single word INGSOC. In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the police patrol, snooping into people’s windows. The patrols did not matter, however. Only the Thought Police mattered.
Needless to emphasise, critical thinking and action cannot survive, let alone flourish, in this society. The propaganda of the Party is pervasive, and the regularly performed ritual of paying obeisance to Big Brother is a tool to manipulate people into total submission. What gives one hope when reading the novel is that Orwell wrote it in the past tense, with the optimism-inducing implication that Oceania’s totalitarian society no longer existed at the time of the narrative being written. We should remember this.
Turning to Huxley’s science-fictionalBrave New World, as hinted earlier, at first blush, it may seem as if it is a utopian, rather than a dystopian novel, the reason being that the citizens of this society appear to be happy and have no problem with conforming to expectations. Do you already detect a clue to it being dystopian in the last sentence, above? The key word is ‘happy.’ Recall that, in 2020, when one visited the website of the World Economic Forum (WEF), one was greeted by a photograph of a young man together with the caption: ‘By 2030 you will own nothing, but [or was it ‘and’?] you’ll be happy.’ It has since been removed – no doubt because of so many people writing critical commentary on it – but it still crops up intermittently on other websites where individuals were prescient enough to save it. Moreover, it resonates withBrave New World, as I shall show.
Huxley’s novel was written 17 years before Orwell’s and was probably partly inspired by the horrific events of World War I, where soldiers spent long periods in filthy, unhygienic trenches (and partly by the advent of communism in Russia). One might think of the futuristic society that Huxley depicted inBrave New Worldas the complete antithesis of such abject conditions of squalor: people in this imagined world arehappy(think WEF), conditioned according to ‘neo-Pavlovian’ tenets, and have no problem conforming to what is expected of them. Even the pain of giving birth is eschewed in favour of genetically engineered reproduction; they are conceived and bornin vitro– all too clinical to remind citizens of pain and suffering. In other words,Brave New Worldrepresents a benevolent totalitarian state, if you will pardon the oxymoron.
Don’t make the mistake to imagine, from my brief description of a society where conditions are conducive to ‘happiness,’ that citizens in this world are what we would think of as ‘joyful.’ They are not; their ‘happiness’ is more like an induced state of equanimity, with no peaks of excitement or exuberance – if any such occurs, it is immediately counteracted through ‘chemical’ treatment. The point is to avoid extremes of affect and emotion, and the chemical means to achieve this joyless, but satisfied, state, issoma, which individuals take as soon as they tend towards depression, excitement, or anger because it induces a feeling of contentedness, which may vary depending on the amount you take. You can even overdose on it and die.
When necessary, police spray unruly crowds withsoma(a word that means ‘body’ or the inebriating juice from an ancient Indian plant). I would not be surprised if Huxley modelledsomaon mescaline or LSD, of which he was a champion – as espoused in his book,The Doors of Perception, on the title of which the name of Jim Morrison’s band,The Doors, was based.
Huxley took a note from Plato’s book, as it were, by predestining individuals for different social classes, and from totalitarian thought by not promoting critical thinking or action. The individualistic central character, Bernard Marx (who is an Alpha-Plus in the novel), may suggest an oblique reference to Karl Marx as far as rebelling against his own society goes, and his friend, Lelina Crowne, a fusion of Russian sentiment and noble or royal (Czarist?) inclination, in contrast with the kind of society in which they live. But – as in most societies which are structured strictly in accordance with totalitarian principles (which here assume a surprising character, predicated as they are on thehappinessof its citizens) – there is an ‘outside.’
Actually, there is more than one, if one adds ‘Iceland,’ where individuals such as Bernard (who narrowly avoids it) are exiled to, because they are too ‘self-consciously individual’ and too ‘interesting’ to accept the orthodoxy of thisfauxutopia. The main ‘outside’ has the shape of a ‘Savage Reservation’ where people live, minus the standardin vitroreproduction and the conveyor-belt conditioning that is pervasive in the eponymous ‘brave new world,’ where Henry Ford is regarded as a deity.
Having travelled to a Savage Reservation, Bernard and Lelina encounter a savage – later called ‘John’ – whom they find interesting enough to take back to ‘civilisation’ with them. It does not take long before the Savage realises that the society in whichsomareduces people to amoral automata is not for him, and he becomes involved in events that pose serious questions to this society of voluntary conformity, with the consequence that he is perceived (not necessarily favourably) as a symbol of freedom and individuality.
It is predictable what this would lead to, but before that point is reached, something occurs wheresomais hastily distributed among a group of khaki-clad Deltas who are heading for a potential confrontation with John, and when he witnesses this, cannot refrain from intervening by urging them to throw away thesomatablets, which he labels ‘horrible poison.’ This results in him being forcibly taken to a hospital, where this scene unfolds (p. 258):
‘But do you like being slaves?’ the Savage was saying as they entered the Hospital. His face was flushed, his eyes bright with ardor and indignation. ‘Do you like being babies? Yes, babies. Mewling and puking,’ he added, exasperated by their bestial stupidity into throwing insults at those he had come to save. The insults bounced off their carapace of thick stupidity; they stared at him with a blank expression of dull and sullen resentment in their eyes. ‘Yes, puking!’ he fairly shouted. Grief and remorse, compassion and duty – all were forgotten now and, as it were, absorbed into an intense overpowering hatred of these less than human monsters. ‘Don’t you want to be free and men? Don’t you even understand what manhood and freedom are?’ Rage was making him fluent; the words came easily, in a rush. ‘Don’t you?’ he repeated, but got no answer to his question. ‘Very well then,’ he went on grimly. ‘I’ll teach you; I’llmakeyou be free whether you want to or not.’ And pushing open a window that looked on to the inner court of the Hospital, he began to throw the little pill-boxes ofsomatablets in handfuls out into the area. For a moment the khaki mob was silent, petrified, at the spectacle of this wanton sacrifice, with amazement and horror.
I have probably done enough by way of briefly reconstructing these two novels, for people to grasp where the so-called ‘elites’ (a misnomer, if ever there was one) of today are headed with their attempt at transforming extant society into a global totalitarian state. Although the goal in Huxley’s ‘brave new world’ society is the same as in Orwell’s fictional Airstrip One (to wit, a compliant, if not obedient, conformist society) the means for achieving this are vastly different, and most of us would, if given the choice, choose Huxley’s alternative – even if reading thisreview essayof Brave New World would make you realise that it is a far cry from the world we are (or at least, were, until recently) accustomed to.
That does not mean that the ‘elite pigs’ – as inOrwell’sAnimal Farm– would shrink from using draconian,1984-emulating measures to control us today. They may try to create the impression that what they aim for is ‘gentle control,’ as in Huxley’s novel, but make no mistake: as they have already shown during theplandemic, they are every bit as cruel as Orwell’s Big Brother. In other words, what we face today may seem to be modelled onBrave New World, but at best it is a fusion of that with1984.
Recall that I wrote about the ‘outside’ of the pseudo-utopian ‘civilisation’ inBrave New World, above. There are other novels that work with the same literary device, such as Michel Huellebecq’sThe Possibility of an Island, and J.M. Coetzee’sWaiting for the Barbarians– both of these being profound literary works, in my judgement – but more pertinent for my present purposes is the fact that Bill Gates on more than one occasion that those among us who refused to comply with the measures they have in store for us would be ‘excluded from society.’
I don’t know about you, but as for myself, I wouldmuchrather beexcludedfrom a totalitarian society – even one emulating Huxley’ssoma-addicted pseudo-utopia – than to beincludedin 15-minute cities, the digital prison of CBDCs, a regime of regular (non-) ‘vaccinations,’ restrictions on travel, sentenced to eat insects (while the ‘elite’ parasites enjoy their steak and lamb cutlets) and surveillance at multiple levels, including the internet and the physical level, where AI-robots will keep the populace in check. But don’t forget: ‘You will be happy!’
I wonder whether they will use a variant of soma, or if they will keep the compliant herd ‘happy’ with ‘drugs and computer games.’ Whatever the case may be, make no mistake – unless we confront and fight these psychopaths with everything at our disposal, we shall all end up either in their obediently compliant perversion of a society, or in one of the internment camps already being built in all 50 states in America ‘for non-compliant dissidents,’ or – my personal preference – a ‘Savage Reserve’ á la Brave New World, where we can live as humans, and not ‘trans-humans.’
- This article was published at Brownstone Institute
Categories
Why We Hate Each Other – OpEd
This country is more polarized today than it has been at any time in the last half century. That’s the conclusion of pundits on the right and the left.
Bill Maherwrites, “Would anyone ride the New York City subway wearing a MAGA hat, or go to a NASCAR race in a Biden T-shirt? That’s where we are now: Other parts of the country are seen as no-go zones.”Peggy Noonanwrites that we not only hate each other, we are “enjoying hating each other.” You even hear people raising the possibility of civil war.
We’ve been seriously polarized before. Disagreement over the Vietnam war is one example. In the late 1960s, mass demonstrations and clashes with the police became increasingly common. Extreme violence over the issue marred the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 and very probably caused Hubert Humphrey to lose the presidential election to Richard Nixon. Clashes over the repeal of Jim Crow laws, school desegregation and school busing are other instances where people often took to the streets and tempers led to violence of one sort or another.
In each of these cases, there were arguments and (sometimes not so civil) debates over a major public policy issue. What are the major public policy issues that are dividing us today?
I suggest that there aren’t any. What is driving a wedge between us today is tribalism—not government policy.
When it comes to public policy, people today are more tolerant and accepting of views that are not their own than they ever have been. And this is especially true on issues involving race and sex. People can argue and disagree over a good many public policies. But these days, such disagreements don’t typically lead to fist fights.
Think of attitudes people have about a policy issue depicted in the shape of a bell curve. Out on the very right and left tails of the distribution there are people who care about the issue passionately and they viscerally disagree with each other. Abortion and climate change are two examples. But that doesn’t create a polarized society.
Polarization occurs when people in the middle of the bell curve distribution passionately disagree with each other. That’s not true of abortion. Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision, the bulk of public opinion has been in the middle, and consistently so. People might disagree over whether abortion should be allowed up to three or four or five months. But those are differences of degree, and they don’t lead to shouting matches.
The same is true of climate change. At the extremes, you find people who passionately disagree with each other. But in the middle of the public opinion distribution, differences about the importance of climate change are no more significant than differences that lead to betting on a football game. In fact, climate change barely registers as an issue of concern to most voters.
So, how does tribalism explain our polarization?
According to thePew Research Center, more than half of Joe Biden supporters are motivated not by a desire to elect Biden but out of a desire to defeat Donald Trump. Is that because they don’t like Trump’s tax cuts or his policy toward Ukraine? That’s doubtful. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the coming election is not about issues at all.
Biden voters and Trump voters appear to have very different world views. According to aPew Research poll, only 19 percent of Biden voters believe society is better off if people prioritize marriage and children, compared to 56 percent of Trump supporters.
Arnold Kling notes that 50 years ago we all went to the same movies, watched the same TV shows and listened to the same music. Today, technology is creating splinter groups. We can completely immerse ourselves in a culture that is different from the culture others experience. Combine that with the emergence ofidentity politicsand you have a recipe for a complete fracturing.
Biden voters who are primarily motivated by the desire to defeat Trump don’t just hate Trump. Very likely, they hate Trump voters as well.
Many years ago, I saw foreign affairs columnist Robin Wright taking questions from callers on C-Span. One caller politely asked if he should refer to her as “Miss or Mrs.” As contemptuously and as condescendingly as possible, she answered “It’s Ms.”
I didn’t realize then that I was observing a cultural divide that would grow in intensity through time. Today we live in cultures that are worlds apart, and the residents of those worlds don’t like each other.
- This article was also published in Townhall.com
Last week, the High Court issued several blockbuster decisions. In this post, I will focus onSEC v. Jarkesy, which deals with the right to a jury trial in proceedings brought by federal agencies. Some background is necessary to appreciate this ruling.
Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal cases. It is silent on jury trials in civil cases. This silence gave Anti-Federalists an opportunity to attack. For example, the Federal Farmerdescribedjury trials in civil cases as “one of our fundamental rights” that wouldbeputin jeopardybecause of the decision to omit it from the Constitution. The Federal Farmer continued that ratification of the Constitution withouta protectionfor civil jury trials would indicate that the people relinquished the right or simply did not care about it. Patrick Henry wasblunterin the Virginia ratifying convention: “How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone.”
In the face of objections and multiple demands to constitutionally protect civil jury trials, the first Congress submitted theSeventh Amendmentto the states: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
What does the phrase “common law” mean in the Seventh Amendment? According to Justice Story inUnited States v. Wonson(1812), “the common law here alluded to is not the common law of any individual state, . . . but is the common law of England, the grand reservoir of all our jurisprudence.” Consequently, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Seventh Amendment as securing jury trial rights as they existed when the amendment was ratified in 1791. AsProfessor Ann M. Scarletthasnoted: “In other words, a right of trial by jury exists for the legal claims historically pursued in the common law courts, but not for the equitable claims historically pursued in the chancery courts.”
The administrative state poses a challenge to the Seventh Amendment’s right to a jury trial. Litigation is commonplace between citizens and federal agencies. The proceedings look very much like the typical trial except that the presiding officer is an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and there is no jury to determine factual disputes. ALJs decide myriad cases dealing with the enforcement of regulations, claims for benefits, licensing requirements, and the government’s breach of its contracts. The ALJ decides all issues of law and fact. While there is an appellate process, no jury will ever be involved. Asnotedby Southwestern Law School’sRichard Lorren Jolly, “Congress (with the judiciary’s blessing) has developed an extensive system of tribunals that bypass the jury as a constitutional actor.”
InGranfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg(1989), the Supreme Court asserted that when Congress creates a non-Article III tribunal to decide a matter, “the Seventh Amendment poses no independent bar to the adjudication of that action by a nonjury factfinder.” The Court has adhered to this position and stated inAtlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA(1977) that “[t]his is the case even if the Seventh Amendment would have required a jury where the adjudication of those rights is assigned instead to a federal court of law instead of an administrative agency.”
Based on these decisions, George Jarkesy faced an uphill battle, arguing that he was entitled to a jury trial in an SEC proceeding where the agency sought civil penalties for securities fraud. The majority, however, observed that “[t]he SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud, and itis well establishedthat common law claims must be heard by a jury.” The Court accepted the “public rights” exception to the Seventh Amendment, which allows Congress to assign some matters to agencies for adjudication where no jury will be empaneled.
A public right is a matter that historically would have been determined by the executive or legislative branches. In construing the exception, the Court held that Jarkesy was entitled to a jury trial.TheSEC sought a monetary remedy from Jarkesy to punish and deter him. In Anglo-American legal history, only law courts have had the power to order such penalties. The Court distinguishedGranfinancieraandAtlas Roofingby reading them not to extend to traditional legal claims. “In short,” the majority concluded, “‘Atlas Roofingdoes not conflict with our conclusion. When a matter from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law,’ Congress may not ‘withdraw [it] from judicial cognizance.’”
Hence, Jarkesy was entitled to a jury trial.
The dissent would have broadly construed the public rights exception to any action Congress by statute assigns to an administrative agency. The dissent also protested that dozens of agencies impose civil penalties in administrative proceedings andJarkesywill undermine their work.
So, how might Congress get around this decision? Claims sounding in equity do not require a jury. Rather than civil penalties, an agency could seekdisgorgement, which is an equitable remedy. Hence, the SEC could demand that Jarkesy give up all illegal profits that unjustly enriched him. While not a perfect fit, workarounds are available to defeat the majority’s opinion.
Despite possible workarounds, Jarkesy is a significant blow to the administrative state. Agencies are used to exercising quasi-legislative, quasi-executive, and quasi-judicial powers all under one roof. For actions implicating the Seventh Amendment, the agencies now must resort to the federal courts and a jury of the defendant’s peers. Congress is limited in removing cases from the federal judiciary. Jarkesy is a win for the Constitution and citizens in the crosshairs of administrative agencies.
- This article was published by The Beacon
By Luke Allnutt
(RFE/RL) — France’s far-right National Rally (RN) party, led by Marine Le Pen, has secured a clear victory in the first round of parliamentary elections. If the party wins an absolute majority in the July 7 runoff, France would have a far-right government for the first time since World War II.
This result marks another big setback for beleaguered French President Emmanuel Macron, who dissolved parliament and called for snap elections in an attempt to halt the far-right’s progress after RN’s record gains in the June 6-9 European Parliament elections.
So, What Happens Now?
Even if the second round doesn’t lead to a National Rally government, this is perhaps the biggest political turmoil to engulf France in decades.
The key question is whether the RN can secure an absolute majority in the second round in the 577-seat National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament.
Efforts are already under way to form “Republican fronts” — anti-Le Pen alliances aimed at preventing the RN from gaining a majority. Macron has urged voters who supported his centrist Ensemble alliance, which trailed in third place with about 20 percent, to back “clearly republican and democratic” candidates in constituencies where his party finished third.
Similarly, Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the left-wing France Unbowed, part of the second-placed New Popular Front coalition, announced that his alliance would withdraw candidates who finished third in the first round to consolidate the anti-Le Pen vote.
Eric Maurice, a policy analyst at the European Policy Center, said “all will depend on whether the left and center agree to remove candidates who came third and qualified for the second round. The more this happens, the less RN will be able to obtain an absolute majority.”
What Are The Possible Outcomes?
Perhaps the most likely outcome, especially given the strong anti-Le Pen campaign, would be RN winning but unable to achieve an absolute majority, resulting in a hung parliament and political gridlock. This scenario would pit the far-right against the left in parliament, making it difficult to pass legislation.
If RN did win an absolute majority, it would have the opportunity to impose its nationalist, nativist, and conservative agenda and, according to Maurice, “could jeopardize rule of law in France.”
Another scenario could be a government led by Ensemble, the coalition centered around Macron’s party. However, RFE/RL’s Europe Editor Rikard Jozwiak says he is not sure Macron can “muster some sort of government of unity with a technocratic prime minister, as some are hoping for. And if he does, it will be an unstable one that can be voted down quite easily.”
What Would An RN Victory Mean For France?
The RN’s strong election performance shows the effectiveness of Marine Le Pen’s drive to detoxify the party of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, making it more appealing to the average voter in multicultural France.
After taking over the leadership in 2011, Marine Le Pen has changed the party’s name from the National Front and tried to purge it of its neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic elements. She even expelled her own father, who has a history of inflammatory language against immigrants, and who once said the Nazi concentration camps were a “detail of history.”
However, even if the RN did win the second round, there would still be constraints on the party. France has a semi-presidential system, in which the president and the prime minister share power. The prime minister and cabinet are responsible for managing daily government operations and domestic policy, whereas the president dominates national security and foreign policy and represents the country on the world stage.
Jordan Bardella, the RN’s untested co-leader, would become prime minister, awkwardly — and likely ineffectively — sharing power with Macron.
And What Would It Mean For The European Union?
For the far right, it could be an opportune moment to influence the European Union. Hungary, led by Viktor Orban’s national-conservative Fidesz party for more than a decade, has just begun its six-month stint as holder of the bloc’s rotating presidency. Additionally, far-right parties made significant gains in the June 6-9 European Parliament elections, a sign of the growing nationalist and populist sentiments across the 27 countries of the EU.
The RN’s influence could test aspects of the EU’s Green Deal, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, eliminate pollution, and support sustainable industry. The RN has campaigned against EU environmental regulations, arguing that they harm jobs and French industry.
Immigration remains the RN’s primary focus. The party advocates for stricter controls and aims to implement policies that prioritize French nationals for social benefits, housing, and jobs — measures that are currently illegal under EU law.
It is here, according to Philippe Marliere, a professor of French and European politics at University College London, where RN distinguishes itself from other rightist parties in the EU, for example Orban’s Fidesz party.
“Political scientists in France call it far right because it really is far right. If you study its program, it’s the unreconstructed far right,” he says. “Obsessively nativist, anti-immigration, and also obsessively discussing what is it to be French.”
RFE/RL Europe Editor Jozwiak says that the EU is already heading in Le Pen’s direction on immigration.
“Walls and barbed wire are commonplace along the EU’s border, and deals are being struck with third countries to send back asylum seekers and to hold them back from coming in the first place,” he says.
Significantly, the RN victory in the first round could induce a tactical shift among right-wing parties in the EU. Le Pen’s party has moderated its stance on the EU in recent years. Rather than advocating for “Frexit,” it now aims to reform the EU from within, aligning the bloc more closely with its right-wing views. Given the RN’s success, other right-wing parties across the EU may follow suit.
How Could It Affect The War In Ukraine?
Le Pen is a professed admirer of Russian President Vladimir Putin, praising him as a defender of traditional European values against globalization and U.S. influence. In 2014, Le Pen supported Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. And, if it wins power, the RN has promised to halt French deliveries of long-range missiles to Ukraine.
However, Le Pen’s position has softened in recent years, condemning Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and proclaiming her support for the Ukrainian people — all while taking care not to escalate the situation with Russia.
Mark Galeotti, a political analyst and honorary professor at University College London’s School of Slavonic and East European Studies, says it’s unlikely that a France dominated by Le Pen “is going to suddenly break with the mainstream and say, ‘We’re not going to be supporting Ukraine anymore.'”
However, he adds, that “anything that clips Emmanuel Macron’s wings is good news for the Kremlin” in its war against Ukraine, “because Macron has at the moment been trying to present himself as the hawkiest of hawks in Europe, talking about sending ground troops.”
And, in Brussels, foot-dragging can sometimes be as effective as outright opposition. UCL professor Marliere says that a French far-right government wouldn’t actually need to come out against Ukraine outright to have an affect on EU policy.
The drive for Ukraine entering the bloc would essentially be on on ice.
“You just drag your feet. You make it difficult. You waste time,” he says. “And, of course, time is of the essence for Ukraine. They need weapons now and they need support now, so expect something much more messy, much more difficult for Europe.”
With contributions from Dragan Stavljanin and Tony Wesolowsky
- Luke Allnutt is a web producer in RFE/RL’s Central Newsroom in Prague.
The law in Kosovo recognises the ‘right to be forgotten’, but most people in the country don’t know they can seek the removal of their personal data from the internet.
By Florentina Hoti
In 2010, Helsinki-based medical student Juliana Nura returned to her native Kosovo and took part in a beauty pageant. A few months later, an anonymous message arrived: someone had got hold of a video of her having phone sex on WhatsApp with her then-boyfriend, a Kosovo singer, and was demanding money not to publish it.
With the help of friends, Nura raised the money, but the video leaked anyway. The backlash was brutal, pushing her to consider suicide. She was 20 years old.
“No one knows the truth,” Nura said in a 2022 television interview. “They only look at a girl performing in front of the camera. I thought about what I would do, how I would start my life all over again from scratch.”
Nura left Kosovo again, this time for London, and built a career on social media as a lifestyle and fitness influencer. But when she returned as a participant on Kosovo’s edition of Big Brother VIP in 2022-2023, the video – which had never disappeared – began to circulate again online and Nura became the target of ‘slut-shaming’.
Since 2019, however, Kosovo citizens have the ‘right to be forgotten’, after the concept entered the country’s legal framework under privacy and personal data protection laws harmonised with those of the European Union, which Kosovo one day wants to join.
In theory, the right allows individuals, under certain conditions, to request the deletion of their personal data.
In the five years since it was enshrined in law, however, Kosovo’s Agency for Information and Privacy, AIP, has acted to enforce the right in just one case.
In reality, few people in Kosovo know they even have the right to have their data deleted from the internet. Nura has not said whether she has tried to exercise the right in her case.
However, this doesn’t mean that people aren’t concerned about the misuse of their personal data.According to theAIP’sannual report for 2022, the agency received 145 complaints related to personal data breaches, primarily concerning unauthorised data processing, misuse of personal data, and incorrect data processing, according toLevizija FOL, a Kosovo NGO that promotes good governance.
“Exposure of data identifying the data’s subjects has expanded due to technological advances and increased use in society,” the AIP was quoted as saying in a report byLevizija FOL.
The complaints received by the AIP were primarily directed at national and local institutions, banks and microfinance institutions, insurance companies, the healthcare sector and retail companies. The agency issued fines totalling 169,000 euros for these breaches,Levizija FOL’sreportsaid.
Vast majority of people unaware
The ‘right to be forgotten’ is a relatively new concept that has divided opinion between those who support it fully and those who say it must be used cautiously to avoid limiting freedom of expression and media.
But as is often the case in the digital world, the right has its limitations.
The AIP, for example, can order that material be removed from the internet and media outlets in majority-Albanian Kosovo, but not, for example, in neighbouring Albania, where media often cover stories from Kosovo.
Individuals can also contact social media platforms and search engines like Google directly and request that they remove their personal data, but the effectiveness of such requests can vary depending on the platform’s policies and the specific laws in an individual’s country of residence.
The first – and so far only – case in Kosovo was registered in May 2022, when a person identified as A.A. filed a complaint with the AIP over a 2018 decision by the Judicial Council of Kosovo to publish the names of candidates – successful and unsuccessful – for a vacant position in the public prosecution.
The AIP ordered the Judicial Council to remove the names based on the grounds that the purpose of processing such data had expired. The AIP ruling cited the ‘right to be forgotten’.
The AIP did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
That the AIP has handled only one such case so far is hardly surprising given the results of a study by two professors from the University of Pristina.
They found that 78.9 per cent of respondents in Kosovo were unfamiliar with the right to be forgotten. Roughly a third said that their personal data had been published, of which 74 per cent said it was published without their consent.
Abuse of images and private data online
The abuse of images is rife on the Internet, challenging privacy norms.
In Kosovo, for example, the website Sinjali.com publishes photographs of crime or accident victims as well as those accused, but not yet convicted, of crimes. It has 280,000 followers on Facebook alone.
On Telegram, the messaging app, more than 100,000 members of a group called Albkings have been sharing the personal data, photos and ‘deepfake’ images and videos of women and girls. As of February 9 this year, almost 21,000 photos and 20,000 videos had been shared within the group, which went private soon after.
Police moved against Albkings in May, arresting seven people.
The impact on victims can be devastating, particularly in conservative societies like Kosovo’s.
Faton Ismajli, one of the authors of thePristina University study, criticised the lack of public awareness about the right to be forgotten.
“In Kosovo, there is a lack of societal debate and discussion on such a topic,” he told BIRN. “Even the media have not given much importance to such a legal right as the right to be forgotten.”
In such circumstances, he said, the onus is on the state to spread the word.
“If there was more discussion, debate and reports about the existence of the ‘right to be forgotten’ in Kosovo laws, there would likely be more requests directed to the Agency for Information and Privacy, as well as directly to the media, to delete information that is no longer relevant to the public and is requested for removal by citizens,” he said.
“Besides the media, the Agency for Information and Privacy and other higher institutions such as the parliament and government should do more to inform citizens about the right.”
Media quandary
The media, however, tread a fine line when it comes to the right to privacy.
Experts have raised concern about the potential for individuals involved in criminal wrongdoing to cleanse the internet of reports about their misdeeds.
One Kosovo journalist, who declined to be named, said it was also hardly in the media’s interest to publicise such a right given the widespread tendency to publish personal data in contravention of journalistic ethics.
“It would cause us a lot of trouble because people would be informed and could ask us to delete certain publications,” said the journalist at Klan Kosova TV.
Asked how it would respond to a request to remove a text based on the ‘right to be forgotten’, a Klan Kosova spokesperson told BIRN: “We would carefully review all of the arguments to see if they are really right. Certainly, in collaboration with the Agency for Information and Privacy we would strive to do our best about it.”
So far, however, the right has barely been used.
The good governance NGO Levizija FO has been involved in some of the very few attempts to raise public awareness about it. In November last year, Levizija FOL published apractical video guideon Facebook explaining how to lodge a complaint with the AIP.
“Protect your personal data!” it urged.
The video has been viewed more than 34,000 times.
Xhorxhina Bami contributed to this story.