Mediaboss Marketing

London attacks: Northern Ireland leaders react - Arlene Foster says 'democracy will not be thwarted or derailed by terrorism'

BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Northern Ireland's political leaders have reacted to the London terror attack with DUP leader Arlene Foster saying "democracy will not be thwarted or derailed by terrorism".

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/london-attacks-northern-ireland-leaders-react-arlene-foster-says-democracy-will-not-be-thwarted-or-derailed-by-terrorism-35786530.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article35786373.ece/00883/AUTOCROP/h342/London-attack.jpg

Northern Ireland's political leaders have reacted to the London terror attack with DUP leader Arlene Foster saying "democracy will not be thwarted or derailed by terrorism".

Seven people have died in the terrorist incidents in London and three attackers have been shot dead by police, Scotland Yard said.

Police and emergency services were called to London Bridge shortly after 10pm on Saturday, amid reports that a white van had hit pedestrians.

Read more: London terror attacks: Seven killed in London Bridge and Borough Market incidents

The white van then continued to drive to Borough Market where three men then left the vehicle and began to stab people in pubs and restaurants.

The three attackers involved in the attacks, who were wearing hoax explosive vests, were shot and killed by police within eight minutes of the first call being made.

Parties in Northern Ireland have suspended political campaigning as a mark of respect for the victims.

The Alliance Party paused campaigning for 24 hours, while the Ulster Unionists suspended theirs "until further notice".

Sinn Fein cancelled all election activity for Sunday apart from local canvassing.

Full campaigning is expected to resume on Monday, when the first big debate between the region's party leaders is due to be screened by Northern Ireland television broadcaster UTV.

The debate was postponed in May following the Manchester attack, as a mark of respect.

The DUP's Arlene Foster is the only party leader not due to take part in the televised debate. The party will be represented by deputy leader Nigel Dodds.

Also taking part in the one-hour debate are Sinn Fein's Michelle O'Neill, SDLP's Colum Eastwood, UUP's Robin Swann and Alliance Party's Naomi Long.

Reacting to the attack DUP leader Arlene Foster said: "This morning we pray for those who have been bereaved, the injured and the people of London who have been challenged once again by evil.

"We praise our security services, the police and our emergency services for their swift response and bravery.

"Terrorism depends upon fear and is the enemy of democracy. The United Kingdom is one of the greatest democracies and our Parliament is a beacon of hope around the world. Our democracy will not be thwarted or derailed by terrorism.

"Northern Ireland stands with the people of London."

Sinn Fein leader at Stormont Michelle O'Neill condemned the attacks.

Ms O'Neill said: "The attacks at London Bridge and Borough Market were horrific and I condemn them.

"My thoughts are with the families and friends of all those who have lost loved ones and those who were injured, as well as with the emergency services who attended the scenes of this tragedy.

Sinn Fin has cancelled all election activity for today apart from local canvassing as a mark of respect to those killed and injured.

Alliance Leader Naomi Long has said we must remain strong following the attack.

Mrs Long said: My foremost thoughts and prayers go to the loved ones of those killed in London, as well as anyone else caught up in this horrific attack

My thanks also go to the emergency services, who proved once again they operate without fear or favour in dealing with the incident and its aftermath. As a mark of respect, Alliance is also suspending its General Election campaign for the next 24 hours.

It is difficult to comprehend the mind-set of those who would carry out this terror against people simply out enjoying their weekend. Despite last nights incident and the recent attack in Manchester, we must remain strong and continue to live our lives without fear or trepidation. By doing so, these terrorists can never win.

"London was my second home for five years it is hugely cosmopolitan, yet made up of many bustling, friendly neighbourhood communities. Despite this horror, I know it will not lose that uniquely London aspect to its character.

Ulster Unionist Party leader Robin Swann said "no matter what the terrorists do, they will not win".

He said: "Once again the United Kingdom has come under attack from terrorists. Our immediate thoughts and prayers must be with the families of those who have been murdered and injured in this terrible terrorist atrocity. These were the wicked actions of terrorist thugs who cowardly targeted innocent people enjoying a night out.

It is a shocking manifestation of the hatred our enemies have for our way of life and the free and democratic society which we hold dear. No matter what the terrorists do, they will not win.

We must be thankful for the heroic actions of the men and women of the Metropolitan Police and Emergency Services who ran towards danger to deal with the aftermath and bring this situation to a rapid end, and also the members of the public who fought the terrorists off. But for their bravery this could have been a lot worse than it already is.

Northern Ireland will stand with the people of London. They have endured terrorism like this before but their spirit will not be broken. London and its people are resilient and will stay strong.

Mr Swann said the UUP will resume their campaign on Monday.

"Our democratic processes and systems are a threat to those who seek their objectives through death and havoc. Their ways have only served to embolden and strengthen our peoples resolve to defeat terrorism no matter where or how it manifests itself", he added.

Belfast Telegraph Digital

Continue reading here:
London attacks: Northern Ireland leaders react - Arlene Foster says 'democracy will not be thwarted or derailed by ... - Belfast Telegraph

Were past the point of shifting blame. We know who gave us the presidency of Donald Trump, and it wasnt Hillary Clinton or Jill Stein or James Comey.

The culprit was democracy.

Even if you defend democracy on the grounds that Trump lost the popular vote, its still a lame argument. After all, what kind of sensible political system generates 63 million votes for a thuggish incompetent to become its supreme leader?

Democracy was rarely an exercise in smooth sailing. Now, this.

The choice of Mr. Trump, a man so signally lacking in the virtues, abilities, knowledge and experience to be expected of a president, has further damaged the attractions of the democratic system, wrote an exceedingly glum Martin Wolf in the Financial Times this week. The soft power of democracy is not what it was. It has produced Mr. Trump as leader of the worlds most important country. It is not an advertisement.

Wolf isnt wrong, of course. If General Electric had gone bonkers and installed Trump as CEO, the smart money wouldve deserted the company, fearing for its future. Yet whats to stop Trump from doing far more damage as president?

In an interview with Vox, political scientist Larry Bartels said: History clearly demonstrates that democracies need parties to organize and simplify the political world. But parties dont make the fundamental problems of democratic control disappear; they just submerge them more or less successfully. When professional politicians are reasonably enlightened and skillful and the rules and political culture let them do their job, democracy will usually work pretty well. When not, not.

Democracy is not working pretty well in the US. Still, while there may be no reason to grant Trump himself patience, the democratic system itself has earned some.

Shashi Tharoor, a longtime United Nations official who is now a member of the Indian Parliament, emailed: Every system of government produces uneven results: There have been wise monarchs and feckless ones, capable benign dictators and incompetent ruthless ones, brilliant statesmen in democracies and people who owed their leadership positions to luck (the weakness of the alternatives) or merely inoffensiveness (the least unacceptable candidate).

The strength of democracies is that because their leadership emerges from the will of the public as a whole, the system has a way of accommodating to them and very often, blunting their worst mistakes. Undemocratic systems have nowhere else to turn, and no established way of making the turn. So however flawed individual leaders may be, the self-correcting mechanisms built into democracy limit how much damage they can do.

The nations intelligence bureaucracies and news media are already shaking the foundation of the Trump presidency, leak by damaging leak. Courts are constraining some of the White Houses baser impulses. Democratic and civil society opposition is fierce, and has been joined by a small but intellectually potent cohort of principled conservatives. Inflection points, from the scheduled testimony next week of former FBI Director James Comey to the midterm elections in 2018, present opportunities to educate the public and strengthen resistance. Whether anything can induce Trumps Republican enablers to abandon him is unknown.

If democracy produces a renewed commitment to democracy, said Harvard historian Jill Lepore in an email, democracy is working.

In his book The Confidence Trap, political scientist David Runciman pointed to the 1970s as an era in which democracy seemed to be marching haplessly toward failure, yet turned out to be gaining strength. In an interview with me last year he said: Apparently the Chinese leadership is enjoying watching Trumps rise, because it seems to confirm all their suspicions of democracy. Its hucksterism plus stupidity. But in 1974 the Soviet leadership thought Watergate showed that democracy was finished. How could it survive such a scandal?

It survived, of course, and even thrived, eventually grinding down the Soviet Union. A similar emergence from the Trumpian ashes is possible. But it is not assured. Wolf is correct to worry that democracy everywhere is undermined by Trump anywhere. Yet with profound exceptions, democracy has been very good both to Americans and the world. Both may yet rally to the cause.

By Francis Wilkinson

Francis Wilkinson writes editorials on politics and US domestic policy for Bloomberg View. -- Ed.

(Bloomberg)

Originally posted here:
[Francis Wilkinson] Democracy faces the enemy within - The Korea Herald

Professor Michal Kosinski is famous for two things: pioneering research that if you believe the hype put Trump in the White House and took Britain out of Europe, and being offered a job and threatened with a lawsuit by Facebook on the very same day.

Now at Stanford, Kosinski previously worked at Cambridge Universitys Psychometrics centre where, in 2013, he published research showing how a persons Facebook likes could predict their sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious views, intelligence, happiness and political beliefs. For example, people who were intelligent liked Thunderstorms and The Colbert Report, and heterosexual men tended to like Wu Tang Clan, Shaq and Being Confused After Waking Up From Naps. The study made it all the more clear you could psychologically profile a person based on their online activity, which lead to the threat and offer from Facebook of which neither came to fruition and Kosinskis notoriety.

It is now widely accepted that political campaigning must involve a social media element (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The theory goes that by profiling a person from their online activity (not just Facebook likes, which went private shortly after Kosinski published his research), campaigners can then target, or manipulate, a person using that information. The more they know, the better the chances they have of swaying your vote, using whats euphemistically referred to as personal communication on social media or an advert tailored to your exact psychology: nudging on steroids.

Kosinski, for the record, doesnt believe the hype. He tells The Independent Barack Obama was the first one to use big data about individual voters to target them in 2008, adding: I don't remember liberals losing sleep at that time. Politicians dont need social media to manipulate people, he says. Take the First World War where politicians convinced millions of people to literally go and die for no good reason.

But that doesnt mean Facebook hasnt changed everything. Lets say, in one day of doorstep canvassing, a campaigner can expect to walk an average of four miles to speak to around 200 people. The point of this effort is often not to change minds or sway the results of an election, but to find out who people are voting for and if they are likely to vote at all. With analysis based on someones Facebook you already have an idea and can move straight on to persuading them.

Thats a strategy Cambridge Analytica, a London-based technology company which calls itself a specialist in using data to change audience behaviour and famously worked with Trumps presidential campaign, acknowledges using to try to influence voters. The companys efforts to sway voters have been described as, alternatively, psychological warfare or shady but a spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica disputes that, telling The Independent: There are some serious misunderstandings and crazy conspiracy theories out there.

The company want to make it clear that the Trump win was not down to some mass brainwashing exercise. Cambridge Analytica used the same kind of political data programme as the Obama 2012 campaign to identify, persuade, and turn out voters. Cambridge Analytica did not have the opportunity to dive deeply into our psychographic offering during the US presidential campaign because we simply did not have the time. Building a presidential data program often takes campaigns well over a year, they said.

The Trump campaign was not the first to target voters using big data (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) (AP)

So did Facebook win it for Trump? People ask me if algorithms won the [US] election and my answer is yes and no. Its like asking if TV ads won the election. Its just a fact of political life now that if you want to be a serious politician you need to use some TV ads, and you need to have some rallies, Kosinski says. But you also need to have some personal communication on social media. All of the sides of the spectrum are using it.

To speak to Kosiniski is to be excited about Facebooks potential to transform our democracy. For one thing, he offers hope for everyone on the verge of emigrating to avoid hearing the phrase strong and stable one more time before 8 June. As he puts it, politicians need to rely on sound bites at the moment they need to connect using TV and radio appearances and as such they need to settle for a lowest common denominator slogan that could appeal to anyone and everyone. So you say Yes we can; Make America great again, Kosinski says. But if you can talk with people one on one, why would you waste time throwing slogans at them?

Not everyone is so enthusiastic. Trump representative Brad Parscale famously boasted to Bloomberg he had spent money targeting Facebook users with dark posts non-public posts whose viewership is controlled making use of a 1996 sound bite to discourage African American Democrats from voting for Clinton in Florida, a state she lost by 112, 911 votes. How can that be good for democracy?

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (Paul J. Richards/AFP/David Goldman/AP)

Theres no question that trying to discourage people from voting is an awful and anti-democratic thing, Kosinski says. The fact that we all talk about it is the best example of how a digital environment helps us to really quickly notice and spread information about these behaviours.

A Cambridge Analytica(CA) spokesperson said: Voter suppression is illegal and we did not do anything of the sort. CAs data science programme and digital marketing was entirely aimed at persuading voters to vote for our client [Trump], increasing turnout among his supporters, and boosting volunteer numbers and donations. CA did not engage in any efforts to discourage voters from casting their ballot.

In journalist Tim Shipmans authoritative account of the Brexit referendum, All Out War, Leave.EUs director of communication Andy Wigmore discusses how their campaign embraced people who had never voted before. Those people are now involved in the political process, and Kosinski says thats a very good thing for democracy regardless of how you feel about the referendum result. Mainstream politicians in the past tended to ignore whole groups of people because they didnt have time or money to talk to people. Social media gave politicians the ability to talk to everyone individually.

The next generation of politicians on both sides of the spectrum will now start talking to those who were excluded or ignored in the past. We will have more informed voters which is great for democracy.

Other experts arent so sure. Vesselin Popov, business development director at the Camdridge Universitys Psychometrics Centre where Kosinski used to work, says the issue is people often dont know if they are being targeted. If its done really well you wont realise its happening, he tells The Independent. Theres not one place that you can hide from it, its an assault. Its not all online; different people can be sent to your door based on your personality. They could send leaflets to your area with emotionally charged messages or even fake messages. Its not confined to Facebook.

There is currently no obligation for campaigns, or third parties, to report the content of digital ads (the Conservatives recently refused to disclose theirs to The Independent). While we can all see a poster campaign, or know that Theresa Mays slogan is strong and stable, online targeting can go unnoticed; whether its with voter suppression, or fake news, or a clever banner designed by an ad agency.

A Trump poster in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq (Peter Holley/Washington Post)

But is it psychological warfare? You might call it that, Popov reasons.

The solution, Popov says shortly before the Information Commissioners Office announces the very same is an inquiry sooner rather than later. The inquiry is looking at how political parties target Britons through social media and those political parties have been warned that in using peoples data to target them, they could be breaking the law. When we speak again, Popov says its a start but its not enough. Only the government can call an inquiry into the use of these methods more widely (i.e. outside of specific breach of electoral law) and therefore we may need to continue efforts outside of these channels to see progress in the daily practices around personal data.

This is new, murky ground, with obvious pitfalls and obvious benefits. If you believe Kosinski, the fact that modern campaigns will increasingly be individually targeted to voters can only be a good thing. Personalised political communication is great for everyone involved and for democracy as well. To be able to talk to you about things that are relevant to you, that youre interested in, that match your dreams or address your fears, is making you the citizen more engaged in politics. And its great for democracy if more people engage in politics.

He acknowledges that the role of journalism is to warn of the pitfalls of technology, but hes keen to point out how good the same technology could be and that goes beyond elections. Marketing tools are being used to sell you washing powder, he says. If you could use the same tools to convince people to smoke less, exercise more and pay their taxes its just great for society.

Link:
Facebook: good for democracy or a way to wage psychological warfare on voters? - The Independent

By Gershom Gorenberg By Gershom Gorenberg June 4 at 8:02 PM

It all happened so unexpectedly 50 years ago: the crisis between Egypt and Israel, the war that began on June 5, 1967, and expanded from one front to three, the silence of the guns after just six days, and the cease-fire lines that marked Israels conquests of the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Sinai and the Gaza Strip.

Suddenly, Israel was occupying land beyond its sovereign territory and ruling over the people who lived there. An official euphemism was born that summer the newly conquered land would be called administered territory. In the autumn, official maps stopped showing the pre-war lines. The new maps were also a euphemism, in pictorial form. The reality of occupation remained.

Much has changed, including the amount of occupied territory. But 50 years later we by which I mean we Israelis still have an occupation.

Or rather, the occupation has us. It has a hold on us. It is the addiction that Israel cannot shake. Much has been written on how the occupation affects the Palestinians living under Israeli rule, how it constrains their freedom of movement, their political rights and their dreams. To that, Id like to add whats less obvious: The occupation is what keeps Israel from being what it could be. It drags us down.

The occupation conceivably could have been less oppressive and might have lasted less time but for something else that happened in 1967: Israel began settling its citizens in occupied territory.

Back then Israeli strategists believed settlements would add to Israeli security. It was an anachronistic concept based on how kibbutzim had stood against relatively weak invading Arab armies in 1948. The 1973 Yom Kippur War should have buried this idea. The Israeli army had to evacuate Golan settlers in the midst of fighting Syrias powerful armored divisions.

By today its clear that the settlements have turned into an ever-larger military burden. Israeli army units deployed in the West Bank have to protect them. Soldiers, some highly trained for essential tasks, are rotated out of other units for guard duty at settlements, including outposts with a handful of families. Because of secrecy, no one know quite how much this military boondoggle costs.

Actually, no one knows exactly how much the settlement project as a whole costs. The incentives and subsidies that encourage Israelis to move to settlements are scattered throughout the budget. As just one example, a report issued last week by the Adva Center, a Tel Aviv social policy institute, detailed how over the years settlements have enjoyed more generous funding from the national government for municipal budgets than other Israeli communities.

But the total outlay is well hidden. Its like the money that a heavy drinker spends on his liquor without ever adding it up, because that would mean facing his problem. All we know is that without this outlay, Israel would have more money to reduce a child poverty rate thats among the worst in the developed world, to add academic jobs that would prevent brain drain, to add hours to the school day and reduce class sizes. As a country, were doing less with our potential than we could without our addiction.

The worst damage that the occupation does, though, may be to Israels democracy. Across a border not marked on maps, our government rules over millions of people who cannot vote. With this mortal aberration accepted as normal, it was easier to pass an election law in 2014 that aimed (unsuccessfully) at keeping parties backed by Israels Arab citizens out of parliament.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies regularly try to muzzle Breaking the Silence, an organization of veterans that publishes soldiers testimony about service in the occupied territories. They may as well say out loud that they prefer the occupation to Israels tradition of free, fierce political debate.

Back to 1967: One day that summer, French philosopher and journalist Raymond Aron interviewed Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. I found a transcript, or part of one, in Eshkols office files. Eshkol said that if Israel couldnt reach a peace agreement on its conditions with Jordan, Well stay where we are. Aron asked if he didnt fear a popular uprising. No, Eshkol replied, This isnt Algeria.

Eshkols answer showed he knew his interviewer. A decade before, Aron had scandalized his conservative political colleagues with his essay, The Algerian Tragedy. Hed argued that for Frances own sake, it had to give up its colony. Holding Algeria by force violated liberal values, he wrote, whereas, The loss of Algeria is not the end of France.

In sundry ways, the West Bank isnt Algeria. Still, Eshkol was mistaken, and Arons point holds true for Israel and the occupation. The loss of the occupied territories wont be the end of Israel. Holding on to them might be.

Originally posted here:
How occupation has damaged Israel's democracy - Washington Post

Foreign Policy (blog)

Cambodian Democracy Makes Its Last Gasps Foreign Policy (blog) It could also be the final push for Hun Sen to discard the remaining substance of Cambodian democracy. This reflects the broader retreat of democratic principles in Southeast Asia, a region that has seen serious reverses in Thailand, where a coup ... and more »

Read this article:
Cambodian Democracy Makes Its Last Gasps - Foreign Policy (blog)