Mediaboss Marketing

Thomas Maresca, Special for USA TODAY Published 2:59 p.m. ET March 22, 2017 | Updated 12 hours ago

Joshua Wong, who became the face of Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests in 2014, discusses the city's upcoming election.(Photo: Thomas Maresca)

HONG KONG Days before a controversial election, a student who becamethe face of thecity's pro-democracy protests in 2014 said Chinese communist leaders are squelchingpolitical freedom in this former British colony.

Autonomy is at a low point in Hong Kong, said Joshua Wong, 20, who led the "umbrella" movement against Beijing's crackdown on the drive for open elections to choose Hong Kong's chief executive. The protest got its name from the umbrellas students used to repel tear gas fired by police.

China, however, didnt give in to the student demands. Instead of a popular vote, Sunday's election ofchief executive is a three-person race of candidates approved by Beijing. The winner will be chosen by a 1,200-member election committee.

From the archive:Meet the 17-year-old face of Hong Kong's protests

Former chief secretary Carrie Lam, the No. 2 under unpopular outgoing Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, is favored by Beijing and expected to win. The other candidates are John Tsang, who leads public polls, and retired judge Woo Kwok-hing.

It is a selection rather than an election, Wong said in an interview near the Central Government Offices, where the protests kicked off three years ago. Who becomes chief executive is still under control of the Beijing government.

China's growing control of Hong Kong affairs alarms Wong and other activists.

They see Beijings influence in an upcoming trial of four democratically elected members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. The four legislators, including Nathan Law, Wongs fellow student leader, face removal by Hong Kong's Justice Department over charges that their swearing-in oaths were invalid because they did not repeat word-for-word astrictpledgeof allegiance to mainland China.

When Britain handed Hong Kong to China in 1997 after more than a century of rule, China agreed to a policyof one country, two systems: The communist regime would regain sovereignty, but the bustling Asian financial hub would maintain its openeconomic and political systems.

What we worry about is one country, two systems turning into one country, 1.5 systems, or finally one country, one system, Wong said. China has its own definition of democracy, but in fact it's totally against rule of law and judicial independence. So that will be a nightmare for us.

Chinas increasing economic, political and military influence is being felt around the region.

This file photo taken Aug. 26, 2015, shows student protesters Joshua Wong, left, and Nathan Law, right, standing outside the Wanchai police station in Hong Kong.(Photo: Philippe Lopez, AFP/Getty Images)

In October, Wong was denied entry into Thailand to speak at a student activist event. He was held in solitary confinement for 12 hours in Bangkoks Suvarnabhumi Airport before being sent back to Hong Kong and blacklisted from Thailand. In January, on a visit to Taiwan, Wong and his traveling group were accosted by hundreds of pro-China demonstrators at the airport in the capital Taipai.

Taiwan, which China considers to be a breakaway province, is governed autonomously.

On returning from Taiwan, fellow activist leader Law was assaulted by pro-China protesters at Hong Kong international airport, sending him to the hospital with minor injuries.

I think my experience can prove the threat of China in Asia, Wong said. Allowing a total anti-democracy (country), with no human rights and rule of law, to be a leader of Asia is a threat, and it should not be ignored by the international community.

Wong hopes to enlist the support of democratic countries to restore freedom to Hong Kong.

Images from 2014 protest

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

It's time to renew the foreign policy of different countries towardHong Kong, said Wong, who traveled to the United Kingdom this month to press his case with members of Parliament.

Wong also plans to visit the United States to lobby for passage of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which proposes measures against officials in Hong Kong or mainland China responsible for suppressing freedoms in the city.

The billwas reintroduced in February by Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Ben Cardin, D-Md.

"Joshua is an impressive and thoughtful young man who, along with his fellow activists, represents the future of Hong Kong a future that must not go the way of Beijings failed authoritarianism and one-party rule, Rubio said in a statement.

Wongs democracy crusade will be featured in a Netflix documentary later this year calledJoshua: Teenager vs. Superpower,which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival.

Cheung Chor-yung, assistant head of the department of public policy at City University of Hong Kong, said that most people in Hong Kong want greater democracy, but Wong's movement has become splintered and ineffective in the face of Beijing's overwhelming might.

We don't have any leaders or any effective political organizations that can really consolidate the opposition. It's very fragmented after the "umbrella" movement.

Wong countered that he and other activists aren't giving up.We know it will be a hard time for us, and that's the reason we hope to seek the international community's support," he said.On Election Day, it will be the time for civil disobedience on the street.

We are facing the largest authoritarian regime in the world, Wong added. So the fight for democracy is not a short-term thing.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2nD0nob

Excerpt from:
Joshua Wong, 20-year-old 'Umbrella' rebellion leader, decries rigged Hong Kong election - USA TODAY

Common Dreams

Stubborn Facts and the Lies That Kill Democracy Common Dreams The verity of our second president's words should serve as a call to action against the alternative facts, lies and myths, which have already come to define the current Trump administration and pose so grave a threat to our weakened democratic ... and more »

Original post:
Stubborn Facts and the Lies That Kill Democracy - Common Dreams

Mark Rowley of the Metropolitan police makes a statement outside of New Scotland Yard on 22 March. The terrorist is helpless without the assistance of the media and those who feed it with words and deeds. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images

The current bout of global terrorism came to the heart of London today in a fatal attack outside the Palace of Westminster. The symbolism is impossible to escape. An assault on the home of democracy induces a peculiar sense of outrage. That people, including a policeman, should die in such an assault is tragic.

As yet, nothing is known of the motive. All that can be said is that the attacker failed to enter parliament itself. Bystanders were killed and injured, but the massive security inevitable for such an institution was effective in protecting its occupants. In a busy modern city there is no way absolute security can be assured, but the police can say that the system was tested and worked. Short of holding parliament in a bunker, there are limits to what more can or should sensibly be done.

Parliament will have been subjected to this test because of its high profile. The initial purpose of such incidents is to kill and wreak havoc. But the culprit cannot have sought simply to damage a wall or cause death and injury. We can assume he anticipated massive publicity for his deed and thus for his message. His purpose may well have been to spread fear, to test the robustness of democracy and, if possible, make it change its behaviour.

Our response to these incidents must not be to overreact. This week is the anniversary of the Islamic State outrage at Brussels airport, when 32 people lost their lives in a coordinated assault on Belgiums transport system. It followed earlier attacks in Paris.

The reaction then was extraordinary. Europes media and politicians were close to hysterical. For days, BBC reporters on the spot repeated the words panic, threat and menace by the hour. Frances President Franois Hollande declared that all of Europe has been attacked. Prime minister David Cameron announced that the UK faces a very real terror threat. Donald Trump declared to cheering supporters that Belgium and France are literally disintegrating. Isis could not have asked for a greater megaphone.

The terrorist is helpless without the assistance of the media and those who feed it with words and deeds. In his thoughtful manual, Terrorism: How to Respond, academic Richard English points out that the so-called threat to democracy, about which politicians like to talk at such times, lies not in any bloodshed and damage. It is the more real danger of provoking ill-judged, extravagant and counterproductive state responses. But this puts those who choose to be provoked in a peculiar and compromising position. Only if the media respond in a certain way can the terrorists achieve whatever spurious ends they may have.

The paucity of incidents in countries that censor news shows the crucial role of publicity to terrors methodology

We should recall that Theresa May as home secretary used the Paris and Belgium attacks to champion her snoopers charter, the most severe intrusion on personal privacy anywhere in the western world and described as such by Bill Binney, formerly of Americas National Security Agency. May added that the terrorist threat was why we should stay in the EU, as otherwise they would roam free. She warned that it took 143 days to process terrorist DNA outside the EU, against 15 minutes inside. Does she still say that? We have to respect those who defend us, but terrorism induces a strange madness.

At the time, the British government also rushed ahead with its Prevent strategy, commanding every educational institution to show it had programmes in place to counter nonviolent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism. The attendant bureaucracy is now massive. Hardly a week passes without the Metropolitan police demanding vigilance inducing fear, caution and nervousness towards strangers. A recent BBC drama documentary titled Attack was ill-concealed publicity for more money for the police.

In struggling to put these incidents into proportion, we need to remember that there are now huge amounts of money in counterterrorism. Now is not the time to say this money is disproportionate, but it is open to the charge of serving terrors purposes. Everyone involved has, in truth, a sort of interest in it, from journalists and politicians to police and security lobbyists. The paucity of terror incidents in totalitarian countries that censor news shows the crucial role of publicity to terrors methodology. That said, suppressing such news cannot be justified in a free society. There is even a reluctance to admit self-censorship. When last year the French newspaper Le Monde decided not to publish the names of those responsible for terrorist killings as it clearly aided their martyrdom, it was criticised for denying coverage.

But every decision to publish an item of news involves a choice, a judgment. That is not censorship. For those seeking publicity for their misdeeds, there is a world of difference between the top spot on the news and the bottom. If the intention is not just to kill a few but thereby to terrify a multitude, the media is an essential accomplice. It is not the act that spreads terror, it is the report, the broadcast, the edited presentation, the decision on prominence.

All analysts of terrorism reiterate that it is not an ideology. Guns and bombs pose no existential threat to a country or society. Politicians who exploit it to engender fear are cynics with vested interests. Terrorism is a methodology of conflict. There is no real defence against madmen who kill, though its worth restating that Londons streets have probably never been safer places.

The use of vehicles to convey death is as old as the motor car or at least since Mario Buda exploded his car bomb in Wall Street in 1920. Recent advances in electronics have clearly taken this a step further, hence the new horror of laptops on board aeroplanes. But planes are safer vehicles than ever.

That is why the response of British governments to IRA incidents in the 1970s and 80s to regard them as random crimes not quasi-political gestures was surely correct. IRA terrorism was a much worse threat than anything experienced at present. Some freedoms were curtailed, as in detention without trial and the censoring of IRA spokespeople. They were minor victories for terror. But for the most part, British freedoms were not infringed, life went on and the threat eventually passed. Let us hope the same applies today.

Read more:
The Westminster attack is a tragedy, but it's not a threat to democracy - The Guardian

Republicans collectively twisted themselves into knots Monday in order to ignore what was really happening in the hearings on Russian election hacking and tried to use it as an opportunity for another attack on the free press.

In case you missed it: FBI Director James Comey confirmed during the House Select Intelligence Committee hearing that the FBI is investigating connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. The FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russias efforts, Comey said.

During the hearings Comey repeated the claim that Putin wanted to hurt our democracy, hurt her [Clinton], help him [Trump].

(Given Comeys own role in the electionshifting the momentum to Trump when he announced that Clinton was under investigation less than two weeks before the electionit was hard not to take that sentence at least slightly autobiographically.)

Comey also thoroughly discredited Trumps deceitful tweets claiming that he was wiretapped or otherwise surveilled by Barack Obama.

But the right was having none of that. Fox & Friends tweeted: If you missed yesterday's congressional hearing with FBI Dir. James Comey, you didn't miss much.

Remember, many of these are the same people that argued how bad it would be to have a president under FBI investigationwhen it seemed like that president would be Hillary Clinton.

Devin Nunes, who chaired the House committee, complained that with the investigation Comey put a "big gray cloud over" the Trump administration. He didnt mention that he served on Trumps transition team. Nunes and the rest of the Republican majority of the committee spent the entire day trying to make the hearing about the need to investigate the leaking of classified information to the press.

Among the most fervent of these is South Carolinas Trey Gowdy. Back when Trey Gowdy probably looked even more like the little boy from Deliverance, he had a paper route in Spartanburg, South Carolina. But some four or five decades later, the weird little guy has moved beyond throwing papers into the gutters and wants, instead, to throw reporters in the slammer.

Is there an exception in the law for reporters who want to break a story? Gowdy asked.

Thats a harder question as to whether a reporter incurs criminal liability by publishing classified information and one probably beyond my ken, Comey replied.

Hint, yall: there is an exception. Its called the First Amendment.

Gowdy, if you know him at all, is that weird little ultra-white guy with the weird white hair who ran the Benghazi hearings. He looks a little bit like Truman Capote, if Capote had a child with a salamander. GQ points out how bad Gowdys hair is. But its really his face that is the problemand whatever kind of consciousness lies behind it.

Gowdy was a tea partier who drove out far-right Bob Ingliss because he wanted to work with Democrats on climate change. Gowdys Benghazi hearings were ultimately a long political campaign against Hillary Clintoneven if Trump said he failed miserably.

In a press conference following the hearing, however, the press-hating Trump regime seemed to respond favorably to Gowdys ideas that the Obama administration is behind the leaks and that both they, and potentially the press, should be prosecuted.

We should expect to see, despite Comeys claims, the White House and Republicans push for a rehash of Benghazi when it comes to the leaks, while ignoring the subjects of the leaks altogether.

More:
Democracy in Crisis: Republicans Seek Leaks, Raise Possibility of Prosecuting the Press - The Independent Weekly

With the likes of Pablo Iglesias and Ada Colau coming to power in Spain, we are witnessing the rise of the post-representatives.

This article is part of the Democracy Futures series, a joint global initiative with the Sydney Democracy Network. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.

On May 15, 2011, Spain was convulsed by one of the most spectacular popular uprisings in its history, and in the history of the modern democratic world. Eight million Spanish citizens took part in the occupation of public squares and buildings in at least 60 towns and cities across the country. The movement of Los Indignados (the outraged) was born.

At the time Spanish citizens had plenty to be disgruntled about: economic recession, high unemployment, endemic corruption, cronyism, wasteful and reckless mega-projects, mounting central and local government debt and much else. With both major political parties complicit in these dynamics, the public themselves began searching for an antidote to the business as usual mantra offered by the cartel parties and mainstream media.

From that 2011 occupation of public space to the creation of new political parties in 2013 and 2014, politics in Spanish social circles remains as lively as ever today.

The country has been transformed into a democratic laboratory, where the participation and use of new communication strategies born in peripheral political contexts are primarily active, open and ready for experimentation and innovation.

Its true that Spanish politics still suffers the same old defects: political corruption, austerity, inequality, inadequate separation of powers (in key sectors such as the judiciary) and limited citizen participation in government. Though reduced to a parliamentary minority, Partido Popular still governs, and it does so without serious modification of its pet policies.

Yet believing that nothing has changed in either Spanish politics or social life is unwarranted.

Several weeks ago, Rodrigo Rato, the former International Monetary Fund director and former Spanish minister of economy under Jose Maria Aznar, was handed a 4.5-year prison sentence.

He was not alone. Thanks to the monitoring work of Xnet, a small activist group from Barcelona, 65 employees of the Spanish banks Caja Madrid and Bankia were found guilty of misappropriating funds.

Since the 2014 local elections, compositions of political parties and city councils in many towns has also radically changed. Some cities are now led by well-known activist figures, including Ada Colau, who in 2015 became the first female mayor of Barcelona.

Madrid, Zaragoza and Cdiz were also among the cities to be governed by new political parties linked to the indignados M15 movement.

In Barcelona and Madrid, experiments are under way with early-warning corruption detectors and bold new forms of citizen participation.

So why has the M15 movement been so powerful? What was it all about? In its initial phase, expressions of anger took the form of general criticisms of the decadence and disintegration of Spains dysfunctional political order. The renowned claim no nos representan (they do not represent us), together with a demand for democracia real (real democracy), brought together two ideas: the crisis of representation and a craving for more citizen participation.

Then, under the real democracy slogan, and to highlight the gap between the promise and reality of Spains democratic system, citizens began to create parallel intuitions and processes. They wanted to shame politicians into acknowledging their lack of democratic legitimacy.

What was most innovative in the organisation of this outbreak of public protest was that no traditional political actors were involved. In the place of trade unions and political parties, digital networks played a vital role in organising, mobilising and publicising M15.

Even without mass media coverage (which came only after demonstrations proliferated), outrage spread quickly through many Spanish cities. Faith in the democratic credentials of the Spanish political system crumbled. Citizens were asking: how can the search for an improved democracy be sustained, and what might that mean in practice?

In the era of monitory democracy, new forms of representative politics involving people not elected at the polls are flourishing. Citizen efforts to draw attention to institutionalised corruption, secrecy, violence and social injustice become essential demonstrations of the limits of political parties and parliaments.

Indeed, monitory democracy has given new weapons to the weak and in some ways turned power relations upside down. Today, citizens and their representatives have a considerable advantage against the secretive and petulant elites who could previously do as they liked in splendid isolation, out of public sight and mind.

This is not to say that we are witnessing the emphatic end of representative politics, only that the ecology of representation is becoming more complex and more dispersed. In Spain and beyond, the aura previously surrounding the political class is clearly being replaced by public disdain.

The very fact that there is an attitude of hostility towards parliaments and other forms of representation, however, has cast a shadow over current initiatives in Spain. New contenders cannot escape considerations of transparency and must be the first to modify aspects of political parties to prevent new elites from springing up within them.

Several parties have already introduced defence mechanisms to ensure that leaders do not become arrogant. However, measures like revocation, rotating official positions and reducing salaries for elected positions have their limits.

Much of Podemos success is due to the easily identifiable figure of Pablo Iglesias; Ahora Madrid would not be where it is now without Manuela Carmena; and Barcelona en Coms election campaign would not have had the same success without the formidable presence of Ada Colau.

How is it possible to avoid what seems to be an inherent oxymoron of the new politics an anti-representative style of representative politics? In a media-saturated environment, where political actions are carried out on a scale involving millions of citizens, there will always be charismatic personalities and visible figureheads who adopt and embody a particular stance on the major questions of the moment; they provide a focus for the ordinary persons attention.

At the same time, we are witnessing the evolution of political figures whose raison detre is to reject the legacy of the politician as representative.

These are the post-representatives, representatives who are simultaneously monitory and monitored, even though they have their roots in criticism of the very legacy of politics and politicians.

Ada Colau, who largely came to fame for drawing attention to the shortcomings of the established political elite and of the very democratic process itself, can no longer be regarded as a street activist. Following her election as Barcelonas mayor, she is now at the forefront of action within the political process.

But it is on this point that numerous observers have questioned just how this more direct political alternative can be put into practice.

Does it imply a desire to keep up the overwhelming impetus of the public forums and assemblies, the memory of which is still very much alive among many activists in the Spanish democratic laboratory?

And if so, is this not a formula for what has been termed the tyranny of structurelessness that is, the transfer of burden to ordinary citizens, who are forced to find the time, energy and click power to spend hours in public debates, both on and offline?

Is it not simply making a fetish of presence over voice, regardless of how weak or mediated it is by other processes? Why should those with responsibilities for looking after children or older relatives, people who work, or those without access to online participatory digital media become hostages of people who are crazy about politics and perfectly happy to spend all their free time in group debates?

Is there no argument to suggest that the practices of direct, monitory democracy look less to the future than to the past, based perhaps on the nostalgic desire for face-to-face, neighbourhood interactions; a slower, community-based way of life; and other tropes that go back to the assembly democracy of classical Greece? The question arises of whether the danger of this nostalgic ambition is that it starts to move away from the reality of many citizens lives.

Still, the lingering ambivalence about parliamentary representation among millions of Spanish citizens is understandable. Simply going back to the mass political parties with their memberships of millions seems highly improbable.

Whatever happens to representative politics, we are observing an extraordinary desire to rethink the basic coordinates of democratic life in Spain. It is not easy to think of another modern political system where this sense of contingency runs so deep, and where the alternatives seem so real.

The main arguments of this article were abridged from the authors forthcoming book Reconfiguring Democracy, published by Routledge. It will be the first in the Crick Centres new Anti-Politics and Democratic Crisis book series co-edited by Matt Wood.

Continue reading here:
How the Spanish political laboratory is reconfiguring democracy - The Conversation AU