Iran, Twitter, and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen

There's an op-ed piece in today's online Telegraph that deals with Iran, those people over there who use Twitter, and - in my opinion - notions of propriety.

From the second and third paragraphs:

"...For Twitter enthusiasts, this has been a bumper year. With a new online tool at their chubby fingertips, they've helped to change the world. Or at least, that's what they think: the so-called Iranian Twitter Revolution recently won a Webby award for being 'one of the top 10 internet moments of the decade'.

"Let me tell you why I find that deeply troubling. There has been no revolution in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has held on to power after a rigged election...."
(Telegraph op-ed)

I've put a more extensive excerpt at the end of this post¹, but as usual I recommend reading the entire op-ed piece.

The author has a point, which he makes later rather deeper in the opinion piece: that people in Iran who disapprove of the Ayatollah's government, and say so, put their lives in danger. Including people in Iran who use Twitter or other online resources.

"There has been no revolution in Iran."

There has been no successful revolution in Iran. I'm quite sure that the Ayatollahs and their followers would be only too happy to agree that Iran's people are completely behind their Islamic republic - and that all the fuss is the work of outside agitators and CIA stooges.

The continuing protests are not, perhaps, quite a revolution in the sense of being a well-defined set of military operations conducted with the stated purpose of replacing Iran's current government with something else.

On the other hand, it's hard to shake the impression that quite a number of people in Iran are quite sincerely put out with their leaders and/or their leaders' actions.

Perhaps it isn't, quite, a revolution. But popular support for Iran's Ayatollahs is far from solid.

"Chubby Fingertips" and That Webby Award

Twitter is big these days: and to blame for quite a bit, if you believe everything you hear. ("Inbound Link Dead! Twitter Did It! (maybe so, maybe not)," Apathetic Lemming of the North (September 22, 2009)) What is quite certain is that Twitter is

• New
• Big
• Growing
  • Fast

'Obviously,' from some points of view, that means that there's something improper about Twitter. I don't see it that way, but being an early adapter runs in the family. One of my forebears, Arba Zeri Campbell, had the first telephone in his part of the world. He waited a long time for his first call.

I'll admit to having a personal bias when it comes to Twitter. I'm one of those people with "chubby fingertips" who use Twitter.

Right now, though, I'm using my "chubby fingertips" to opine about being proper, what's going on in Iran, and responsibility.

The author of that Telegraph op-ed, perhaps magnanimously, says:

"...There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran, but it's horribly naive to think that supporting illegal activity in a foreign country has no ethical dimension...."
(Telegraph op-ed)

The "illegal activity" he's referring to could be either disagreeing with the Ayatollahs, or participating in some of the more violent anti-government demonstrations. The basic idea, though - that confronting a dictatorship has an ethical dimension - is valid.

Just before that, he wrote:

"...If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger...."
(Telegraph op-ed)

I'm not an internet user in Britain. I live on the other side of the Atlantic. The same principle applies, though, I think.

There's been quite a lot written about the false sense of anonymity which many people seem to have when their online, and the equally false sense of immunity from consequences.

It's quite possible that some people who use Twitter - or other online social media - don't realize how profoundly non-anonymous they are when they're online. Even if you're not logged into Twitter or some other website, it's very easy to trace which server you're using - and just about exactly where you are.

I've written before, about how vulnerable the Internet is - particularly in some parts of the world - and how easy it is for repressive regimes to control and track online activity. (December 7, 2009)

Which is one of the reasons why I am so very concerned when I read that someone wants to 'protect' me or my family from the wicked, wicked Web. Remember when the Christian Coalition and the Feminist Majority tried to censor what Americans were allowed to read online? I do. (March 9, 2008)

That Webby Award

The Webby Awards have been around for quite a while, and are more prestigious than many, probably most, Web awards. That said, I'm neither impressed nor appalled that Twitter won a Webby. Since it's well on its way to being one of the Internet's 800-pound gorillas, it would be odd if the Webbys didn't recognize Twitter.

Politely Looking the Other Way

The idea that 'proper persons don't talk about that' isn't a uniquely British notion. I've run into the same idea here in America.

Back in the sixties, the more unreflective conservative types were passionately convinced that nobody, but nobody, should criticize the government. It's not the sixties any more, and there's a new set of taboo topics - but that's another topic.

Politely looking the other way while Iran's Ayatollahs deal with counter-revolutionaries does not seem to be what this op-ed is about: "...There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran...." Although I had to look for that (disclaimer?)

Natives and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen

What struck me, reading "Iran and Twitter: the fatal folly of the online revolutionaries," was what may be an underlying assumption. Repeating an excerpt I quoted before:

"...If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger...."
(Telegraph op-ed)

Factually, there's nothing to quibble about here. It is important to remember that someone living in a country which allows some degree of free expression does not face the same dangers as someone who does not. And people at the 'free' end of a conversation should remember that.

However, it's hard for me to shake the impression that the responsibility is seen as being at the British end. After all, people living in Iran are, by and large, Iranian. They're simply not British.

I think it's laudable that the author be concerned with the well-being of people in a foreign land. But isn't it reasonable to assume some level of personal responsibility at the non-British end of these communications? The words "native" and "white man's burden" don't appear in the Telegraph piece.

But I still can't shake the feeling that there's something of the old condescension that people in "advanced" countries were apt to show toward those in "primitive" lands: although terms like "third world" are more commonly used these days.

Related posts:

• "How to Shut Down the Internet - or - Dealing With Troublesome Ideas, and the People who Spread Them"
  (December 7, 2009)
• "Iran, Protests, Internet Blackout, and Nuclear Bombs"
  (December 7, 2009)
• "Iran's Supreme Leader and God"
  (November 13, 2009)
• "Neda Agha Soltan's Death was 'Staged' - Officially"
  (July 1, 2009)
• "Protesting Election Fraud is 'Waging War Against God' - Ayatollah Khatami"
  (June 28, 2009)
• "Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle"
  (June 24, 2009)
• " 'RIP NEDA, The World cries seeing your last breath ... We remember you.' "
  (June 21, 2009)
• "Iran, YouTube, Twitter, Technology and the Human Spirit"
  (June 19, 2009)
• "Iran: Win the Election, Lose the Country?"
  (June 15, 2009)
• "DC Gun Ban, Online Censorship, Individual Rights, and Power to the People"
  (June 27, 2008)
• "America, Iran, Freedom of Speech, Censorship: Be Careful What You Wish For"
  (June 22, 2008)
• "Odd Allies: Opposition to Waterboarding and Web Censorship"
  (March 9, 2008)

Views:

• "Iran and Twitter: the fatal folly of the online revolutionaries"
  Will Heaven, Telegraph.co.uk (December 29, 2009)

---

¹ Excerpt from today's op-ed in the Telegraph:

"As young men and women took to the streets of Tehran on Sunday to confront the Revolutionary Guard, another very different protest sprang to life all over the world. This one didn't face tear-gas or gunfire. And its participants didn't risk prison, torture or death. It took place on 2009's most trendy website: Twitter.com.

"For Twitter enthusiasts, this has been a bumper year. With a new online tool at their chubby fingertips, they've helped to change the world. Or at least, that's what they think: the so-called Iranian Twitter Revolution recently won a Webby award for being 'one of the top 10 internet moments of the decade'.

"Let me tell you why I find that deeply troubling. There has been no revolution in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has held on to power after a rigged election. Meanwhile, protests continue to be violently suppressed by government forces and unregulated militias, with human rights groups saying that at least 400 demonstrators have been killed since June. Dozens of those arrested remain unaccounted for, and many of those set free tell of rape and vicious beatings in Iran's most notorious prisons...."

"...As a result, the crackdown in Iran has been easier than ever before. Once the Revolutionary Guard intercept a suspect message, they are able to pinpoint the location of a guilty protester using their computer's IP address. Then it's just a question of knocking on doors – and confiscating laptops and PCs for hard evidence.

"Sadly, when this happens, those outside Iran cannot always absolve themselves of responsibility. If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger.

"There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran, but it's horribly naive to think that supporting illegal activity in a foreign country has no ethical dimension. It's equally foolish, of course, to kid yourself that you're on the front line...."
(Telegraph op-ed)

Mumbai, India, Pakistan and a Breath of Common Sense

One article started,

"The Pakistani High Commissioner in London, Wajid Shamsul Hassan, says India was ready to launch a military strike on Pakistan in retaliation for the Mumbai terror attacks, Sky News reported.

"Hassan said British and American officials had to intervene to prevent India from carrying out an attack.

" 'On the day of the Mumbai attacks, I got some information in London that India was going to act very drastically against Pakistan in retaliation to what happened,' Hassan told Sky News...."
(FOXNews (December 7, 2008))

In addition to a serious investigation, there's a whole lot of finger-pointing going on. For the convenience of those who prefer not to read the news in detail, here's how I'd sum the situation up:

• Investigators:
  We don't have all the answers yet
• (Some) Indian leaders:
  Pakistan did it!!
• (Some) Pakistani leaders:
  Did not!!
• British and American diplomats:
  Don't start shooting

I'm pretty sure that some people will see this as America protecting the nasty Pakistanis because they're friends.

I'm inclined to think that it's a case of British and American officials helping to stop a (worse) shooting war in and around Kashmir - which both India and Pakistan want a piece of, or preferably the whole thing.

In the news:

• "Report: 'India Was Ready to Strike Pakistan'"
  FOXNews (December 7, 2008)
• "Gunmen had elite training 'from Pakistan' "
  Times Online (December 7, 2008)

MI6 British Spy Camera Sold on eBay - With Secret Terror Pics

British intelligence officials are trying to find out which MI6 officer sold that Nikon Coolpix camera. On eBay. For £17. That's about $30 USD. Offhand, I think he may be unemployed soon.

An article in The Sun quotes terrorism author Neil Doyle: " 'These are MI6 documents relating to an operation against al-Qaeda insurgents in Iraq. It's jaw-dropping they got into the public domain.

" 'Not only do they divulge secrets about operations, operating systems and previously unheard-of MI6 departments, but they could put lives at risk.' "

British Officials

Displaying the sort of polite consideration that's so typical of the British character, those of Her Majesty's subjects who have come across secret documents and data have been kind enough to return them to the proper authorities. Like in June of this year, when an inattentive took papers out of Whitehall. And left them on a train.

Actually, it was two officials, two sets of secret papers, and two trains ("More secret files found on train" BBC (June 15, 2008)). Similar procedural irregularities had occurred previously, but that double-barrel whammy hit the Brit headlines and made international news ("British police investigating after secret documents about Al Qaeda left on train" International Herald Tribune (June 11, 2008)).

One might have expected that the "UK Top Secret" stamp might have reminded the absent-minded official.

That dodgy matter of documents on the trains, and now this spy camera, suggest that some people employed by the British government haven't quite grasped the importance of the second word in "military intelligence."

Selling State Secrets: For $30.50?!!

I remember, back in my youth, reading of government officials being accused of selling very sensitive information for sums of around $10,000 USD (around £5,500). Although ten thousand dollars was quite a bit of money back then, those people were sitting on information that should have been worth at least ten times that. I remember trying to decide whether I was more upset about them betraying their country, or having such abysmal business sense.

As for the British agent who sold a Nikon Coolpix worth over $100 USD (new) containing MI6 documents on eBay, for about $30 USD: that's so daft, I almost have to assume that he's a twit.

In the news:

"For sale: Second hand camera, good condition, contains top secret MI6 terrorist records and pics"
The Sun (U.K.) (September 30, 2008)
• "A SECOND-HAND camera sold on eBay by a top MI6 agent held secret records used in the fight against al-Qaeda terrorists.
• "Names, snaps, fingerprints and suspects’ academic records were found in the memory of the digital device.
• "Alongside them were photos of rocket launchers and missiles which spooks believe Iran is supplying to Osama Bin Laden’s henchmen in Iraq."

British Jury Doesn't Convict Terrorists: and It's America's Fault!

After a trial including charges that a group of British Muslims planned to blow up airliners, gas terminals, oil refineries, and people, Abdulla Ali, Assad Sarwar, and Tanvir Hussain were found guilty of conspiracy to murder.

All seven terrorists admitted to the charge of conspiring to cause a public nuisance with informative videos. The videos informed Brits that Muslims planned to explode next to them soon. Maybe "threatening" would be a better adjective for video announcements of suicide bombings.

Off-topic: Terrorists distribute 'we will destroy you' videos, and Her Majesty's Royal Courts call it "conspiring to cause a public nuisance." Wonderful understatement!

The terrorists say they didn't plan to blow up airliners: just gas terminals, oil refineries, and other British targets.

As a political statement.

They weren't planning to kill anyone.

And they didn't plan to blow up any airliners.

The British prosecutors said they did, and that it was the Yanks' fault that there wasn't enough evidence.

As CNN put it, "...A former police anti-terror chief and an opposition lawmaker said the arrest of a terror suspect in Pakistan at the behest of the U.S. in August 2006 meant they were forced to move quickly against 20 suspects in Britain before they could gather sufficient evidence...."

Fighting Terrorism: Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

I believe the British prosecutors. Arresting that Pakistani terror suspect probably did keep the British courts from getting enough evidence to convict all the defendants in that trial on all charges.

And I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision. There were quite a few possible outcomes to consider:

• Arresting that terrorist in Pakistan might save lives, by stopping a planned attack
• Letting the terrorist run loose would give British investigators time to collect more evidence
  • The seven (or all eight originally charged) might have been found guilty
  • Keeping them out of circulation for a longer time
  • Maybe saving lives in the long run by possibly allowing some to be killed in the sort run
• Maybe, if they were left alone, all of those terrorists would have had a change of heart and taken up arts and crafts as a hobby
  • Then again, maybe not

All of those 'maybes,' 'might haves,' and 'possiblys' are reasons why I'm glad I don't have to make that sort of decision.

The fact is, there are people out there who want to make "political statements" with explosive fashions and beverage containers full of liquid explosive. Even though they say that they don't want to kill anyone, it's a little hard to imagine that an oil refinery can be blown up without causing a little death and injury.

Stopping terrorists from making "political statements" like that is a good idea. I think so, at least.

Western leaders, law enforcement agents, and everyone else engaged in protecting people from manic Muslims and assorted activists are not omniscient.

Since they don't know everything, sometimes they have to make educated guesses about whether or not to arrest someone.

Or, they could sit around a conference table and discuss the matter until something goes boom.

And, no matter what they do, there will be Monday morning quarterbacks and anonymous 'experts' to say they were wrong.

In the news:

• "Experts: U.S. hindered 'jet bomb plot' probe"
  CNN (September 9, 2008)
• "What the papers say
  (September 9, 2008)
• "George W. Bush Blew the Biggest British Terror Investigation Ever to Score Pre-Midterm Election Political Points... McCain '08!
  Huffington Post¹ (September 9, 2008)
• "Three guilty in bombing campaign plot
  CNN (September 8, 2008)
• "Farce of the airline bomb plot trial: Jury hit by holidays, sickness and golf ball injuries
  MailOnline (September 9, 2008)
• "Three guilty of plotting terror bomb massacre
  The Evening Times (September 9, 2008)

The BBC's page, "What the papers say", may change by the time you get there. It contains a lot of off-topic material, anyway. Here are the BBC's excerpts from UK papers, on the terrorists and their trial, from September 9, 2008:

"The Independent calls them 'the terrorists who changed air travel for- ever.'

" 'You will be destroyed' reads the chilling threat on the front page. The headline is below a picture of the convicted bomb-plotter Abdulla Ali.

"Ali and his accomplices Tanvir Hussain and Assad Sarwar make the front of other papers, including the Daily Telegraph, which reports the fears of MI5: that up to five potential suicide bombers may be at large in Britain.

"The Times calls the case 'a severe blow to Britain's anti-terrorist campaign', because the jury did not entirely accept what prosecutors believe was one of the strongest cases they'd ever presented.

"The Guardian reports the plea from airlines and airport owners to review current security procedures and lift the ban on carrying large amounts of liquids, but according to the Times, there will be no let-up at airport check-in counters as a result of the case."

---

¹This Huffington Post article appeared in a Google News search (american british terror), so it must be news. I'd have taken it for op-ed. My guess is that Google News doesn't distinguish between the two.

British Hotel Refuses Room to Soldier: How Americans are Viewed Abroad

"World opinion of U.S. sinking / Dislike of everything American on the rise." Everybody knows it. And has, for years. As one publication put it, a couple of years ago, "The United States has often irritated the rest of the world, but lately it's gotten worse -- and more dangerous."

So, it's no surprise that a hotel in England refused service to a soldier. Everybody know what a low opinion the world has of America, and particularly the American military-industrial complex.

Just one thing: this soldier is Corporal Tomos Stringer, soldier since the age of 16 in her majesty's army. He's currently serving in 13 Air Assault Support Regiment of The Royal Logistic Corps.

Corporal Stringer wasn't in uniform when he tried to check in to the Metro Hotel, on Crown Square, in Woking, Surrey, England. He did, however, present his (British) army warrant card when asked for identification.

Then, as The Times put it, Corporal Stringer was told "That it was company policy not to accept members of the Armed Forces as guests."

Corporal Stringer spent the night in his two-door car, his wrist in a cast - healing from a combat injury. My guess is that he's slept in less comfortable places, but that's not the point.

The Metro Hotel, Surrey, has received letters from Corporal Stringer's local MP, Hywel Williams, the British Defence Minister, Derek Twigg, and Bob Ainsworth, the British Armed Forces Minister. All of them suggesting that the hotel acted inappropriately.

The Metro Hotel, after being deluged by phone calls and threats, asked for police protection. And, finally, apologized. That may not be enough. Somewhat non-positive reviews are popping up in travel sites: "Metro Hotel - Military Personnel NOT welcome" (TripAdvisor.com), for example.

According to the Metro Hotel, a receptionist made a mistake. Anyway, the Metro has experienced " 'some rather serious incidents" involving soldiers from the nearby barracks," as a letter to a Mr Williams, MP for Caernarfon, put it.

The Metro Hotel is owned by a company called American Amusements, Ltd. So far, I've found two addresses for American Amusements, Ltd. One is on Crown Square, Woking, Surrey. The other is in Bournemouth, Dorset. Despite the name, by guess is that it's a British company.

How America is Viewed Abroad

Corporal Stringer's mother isn't a statistically significant sample of the British population, but I think her comment, quoted in The Times, was quite interesting:

"I'm very, very angry. It's discrimination. They would never get away with it if it was against someone of ethnic origin."

That's not the really interesting part. This is: "In America, they treat soldiers as heroes. We went to Disney World with Tomos and the whole family was moved to the front of the lines. Everybody was standing up and clapping and cheering. Here, soldiers can't even get a bed for the night." (The Times (September 5, 2008))

She doesn't seem to be expressing an anti-American sentiment.

I've long suspected that America and Americans aren't quite as roundly despised, world-wide, as the self-described best and brightest think. Sure, there's anti-American sentiment in many quarters, including some American universities, but I do not see evidence that it's quite as wide-spread as might be hoped.

In the news:

• "Soldier forced to sleep in car after hotel refuses him a room"
  TimesOnline (September 5, 2008)
• "British war hero turned away from hotel"
  The Famagusta Gazette Online, Cyprus (September 5, 2008)
• "American Amusements: Soldiers Not Welcome"
  Associated Content (September 4, 2008)
• "Reports: U.K. soldier had to sleep in car because of hotel's 'no military' policy"
  USA Today (September 4, 2008)
• "British Soldier Refused by Metro Hotel, Forces Minister Demands to Know Why"
  ShortNews.com, Germany (September 4, 2008)

Some of my views on how America's 'better sort' view America:

• "Haditha, Iraq; My Lai, Vietnam: This Isn't the Good Old Days"
  (July 13, 2008)
• "FISA: Senate Decides Al Qaeda Bigger Threat than FBI"
  (July 9, 2008)
• "American Academic Institutions: Impartial, Neutral, Nonpartisan, Dispassionate"
  (April 29, 2008)
• "Academia Listens to All Sides, And Brooklyn Bridge is For Sale"
  (September 23, 2007)
• "Professor Ward Churchill: 9/11 Truthteller, or Nincompoop?"
  (July 25, 2007)

Special Hospital Bed Service for Brit Muslims

First the burqa, now the bed: what's next?!

Last year, Britain's National Health Service (NHS) decided that British hospitals had to give Muslim patients Burqa-style gowns, if the patients didn't want medical staff to see their faces.

This year, the Mid-Yorkshire NHS Trust is seeing how much more British hospital staffs can take. The executive-types have decided that the beds of Muslim patients have to be turned to face Mecca.

Five times a day.

That's just the start of the fun. Fresh bathing water is part of a complicated process that the Muslims apparently require. The idea is to give Muslim patients "a more comfortable stay in hospital." In a spasm of common sense, the directive says that medical personnel should stop dealing with illness and human suffering to play musical beds "whenever possible."

---

I understand how important it is to accommodate the beliefs and customs of patients. I'm Catholic, and have spent my share of time in hospitals: including quite a bit of 2006. I found comfort in objects and sacraments related to my faith. The room I was in had a crucifix over the door, and the hospital let someone come regularly with a consecrated Host. During visiting hours, of course. It was a Catholic hospital, which explains the crucifix.

There's a lot more to being a Catholic than that, and rules that apply when I'm not plugged into several machines. However, the Church recognizes that sometimes it's not practical - or possible - to practice every pious custom. I can be Catholic without insisting that a hospital pick up

• Me
• A wheelchair
• An IV feed
• A blood recycler

- and carry the whole kit and kaboodle to Mass once a week.

Once a day, if I got really scrupulous.

---

Back to the special requirements of British Muslims, as imagined by the National Health Service.

Religious practices are important to many people, and should be accommodated, withing reason. "Within reason" is a critical phrase here. The news articles covering this alleged need of Muslim patients didn't say what the patient-staff ratio is in British hospitals, but my guess is that it isn't even close to 1-to-1.

Hospital beds, the ones I'm familiar with, are big, bulky, and heavy. One person can turn them, but it takes two to do the job in a reasonable time.

I think that, in the long run, it would be easier to

• Jack up those British hospitals
• Slip turntables under them
• Align the beds of devout Muslims so that they all point in one direction throughout the hospital
• Turn the whole building as Islam dictates

My guess is that, even if the NHS did this, it still wouldn't be good enough.

At least, not for permanently-affronted minority rights outfits.

If Muslims have such remarkably labor-intensive needs when they're hospitalized, maybe Britain needs to build special hospitals, specifically designed for their needs. But that would be segregation, and that's on the civil rights' black list, too. Or, rather, the 'unacceptable' list.

Some Islamic nations, organizations, and individuals have a well-established track record of being easily offended by everything from cartoons to trousers and teddy bears.

But, the Incredible Case of the Rotating Beds doesn't seem to have its roots among British Muslims, at least not directly. the Daily Express reports that "The changes have been instigated by Dewsbury and District Hospital’s chief matron, Catherine Briggs...." Ms. Briggs had talked with quite a few people and groups to find to find out "what staff could do to further improve Muslim patients' experience of the NHS." These included

• Local Asian GPs
• Ethnic minority patients groups
• Muslim chaplain Ilyas Dalal

Consulting people to find out what's wanted: that's a good idea. Taking what I suspect is an ideal of Islamic behavior under perfect conditions, and dictating that real people in a real hospital try carrying it out is an idea that comes from Ms. Briggs. Someone who probably isn't a Muslim.

Tolerance and accommodation of different religious beliefs and practices is important. But, I don't think that the Briggs Whirlybed Project is going to improve the status of Islam and Muslims in Britain.