What will he become? (Photo by David Silverman/Getty Images)
The latest cycle of violence in Israel-Palestine might appear to be over, but a pivotal dimension of the conflict remains unresolved: the matter of population. The Israelis and Palestinians are not only engaged in a never-ending territorial struggle, but a demographic one, too.
Israel-Palestine is a distinctive region because it combines low infant mortality and high female education with high birth rates. As Paul Morland has pointed out, Jews and Arabs in the region have much higher birth rates than their “co-ethnics” outside it. For instance, Arab women in Jordan bear 2.69 children, while those in Palestine have 3.49; Jewish women in Israel average 3.17 children each, compared to 1.5 in the US and Britain.
Why is this? One explanation seems to be that birth rates are higher in regions of religious conflict — a hypothesis that also seems to map on to areas inside Israel-Palestine. For example, Arab women in relatively conflict-prone Gaza average 3.64 kids compared to 3.07 in the more peaceful West Bank. Jewish women in tense, religious Jerusalem average 4.27 compared to a national average of 3.17.
What’s particularly concerning, though, is how these high fertility rates further increase the risk of violence, producing a dangerous, combustible spiral. How so?
First of all, political demographers have long identified a relationship between population composition, politics and violence. Young men, due in part to testosterone, commit a vastly disproportionate share of murders in all societies. Indeed, statistical models show that the higher the share of a nation’s population made up of 15-30 year olds, the greater the risk of a violent conflict.
In Sons and World Power, Gunnar Heinsohn analysed this trend throughout history, arguing that surplus males have always played an important part in spurring conquest and aggression. When only the eldest son inherited land, those with the bad luck to be his siblings had to fend for themselves. And so, he explained, during periods when population growth exceeded peaceful economic opportunities, war, banditry and risk-taking became more attractive.
That’s why the ranks of invaders, from the Vikings to Conquistadors, have disproportionately featured men such as Pedro de Alvarado, a younger son from a lesser-noble background who had no inheritance and thus decided, in 1510, to seek his fortune in the New World.
By contrast, as the population of the rich world ages, nations such as China, Russia and the United States will become increasingly unwilling to sacrifice their only sons on the battlefield, producing what Mark Haas has called “geriatric peace”. Indeed, Heinsohn argued that a major reason Lebanon did not descend into full-scale war in 2006, but did so in 1975, was age structure: by 2006, its fertility rate had plummeted and its average age had matured considerably compared to 1975.
Back in Israel, the issue of population has always commanded a central role in the nation’s psyche. First, Zionists worked hard to entice and sponsor European Jews to settle in the Holy Land, with the number of Jews swelling from 60,000 in 1918 to 600,000 in 1948. After the creation of Israel in 1948, waves of immigrants arrived, first from Displaced Persons camps in Europe, then from Morocco and, after 1989, from the former Soviet Union. Without immigration, as Paul Morland notes, there would be 250,000 Jews in Israel instead of 6 million.
And these ethno-demographic considerations are woven into national policy; they shaped Israel’s border wall and helped convince Ariel Sharon to withdraw from Gaza in 2005, which contains just 1% of the territory of Israel-Palestine but over one million Palestinians.
At one time, Israeli planners became concerned that Jews would be steadily outnumbered because of the Arabs’ fertility advantage — a prospect celebrated by Palestinian leaders. In the immortal words of the PLO’s Yasser Arafat, “the womb of the Arab woman is my strongest weapon”. For American political scientist Monica Toft, the two sides were engaged in “wombfare” for control of territory and power.
But while demographers once thought that Palestinian fertility would diverge from the Jewish fertility rate, Palestinian women have been affected by the worldwide slide in Arab birth rates of the past few decades. Meanwhile, Figure 1 (below) shows that while Jewish fertility was trending downward from the 1960s to the mid-1990s, it has since defied the supposedly iron laws of demography, going into reverse to the point that the Jewish fertility rate has now overtaken the falling Palestinian one.
Yet the rise in Jewish fertility has come at a price. Secular Jews and those from moderate branches have historically made up Israel’s elite, but are losing population share due to their relatively low fertility. Instead, the Jewish fertility rise is largely due to the growth in highly religious Jews, especially the Haredim, or ultra-Orthodox. The latter have doubled their share of the adult Jewish population in Israel since 2000, and are extremely young, forming a third of Jewish first-graders — up from a few percentage points in 1960. Though they currently only make up 10% of the American and British diaspora, they are expected to form a majority of observant American and British Jews by 2050.
Within Israel, this demographic shift is already starting to cause tensions. Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men generally avoid full-time jobs and the military, and are instead encouraged to study the Torah at Yeshivas to fulfil the ideal of a “scholar society”. The Israeli Central Bank, as a result, fears that their growth will ultimately bankrupt the Israeli state.
Modern Orthodox Jews are, by contrast, successful and serve enthusiastically in the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). While the ultra-Orthodox are reluctant or pragmatic Zionists, the modern Orthodox are often passionately so, making up an increasing share of IDF officers and serving as shock troops of the Religious Zionist and Settler movements.
But while ultra-Orthodox Jews rear between 6 and 7 children, modern Orthodox women have 3 or 4 — higher than the secular Jews, who have 2.2. This dynamic is having a number of consequences. First, the relatively poor ultra-Orthodox population is spilling out from concentrated areas such as Meah Shearim, near Jerusalem. A relatively inexpensive option is to move across the Green Line into East Jerusalem or to the Settlements in the occupied territories.
There are political repercussions, too. With their increased vote-share, the Ultra-Orthodox have shifted Israel in a more Right-wing and religious direction, generating increased support for Haredi and pro-Settler parties. This, in turn, makes it more difficult for the Government to trade occupied land — and the settlements of religious Jews which now stand on it — for peace.
Meanwhile, the still-healthy Palestinian fertility rate has resulted in a young and fast-growing population in the West Bank, where the median age is 22, and Gaza, where it is just 18. Indeed, Gaza is the 13th fastest growing political unit in the world, with a population density of over 5,000 people per square kilometre.
As Figure 2 (above) shows, this, together with Jewish fertility, has resulted in a soaring population in Israel-Palestine. While it is far too crude to describe the region as a ticking time bomb, it’s equally difficult to see how this population boom can continue without resulting in increased pressure on land, as well as producing a surplus of young men willing to join militant groups.
How will this all end? In the long run, it seems possible that the ultra-Orthodox could bankrupt Israel, while Palestine may have to send its excess population to work abroad if Arab countries in the Persian Gulf once again become willing to accept large numbers of Palestinians. The region’s demographic struggle for power is heating up — and, despite yesterday’s ceasefire, it doesn’t look like it will be brought to an end anytime soon.
Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham and author of Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Led to a Cultural Revolution (Forum Press, 4 July).
epkaufm 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere are some of us who are certainly not surprised by the continued outrageous movement against democracy by the that odious entity, the EU.
I would genuinely like to hear a response from a Remainer.
Is this the same EU which you are advocating should take back control over UK policies.
IMO, the remainers are either people who have jobs directly related to the EU, or they see the EU as a warm, cuddly, safe place to be – away from the infantile British politicians. The EU is relatively faceless and if these unknown-ish politicians are making key decisions for hundreds of millions of people – then it must be OK mustn’t it???
I voted remain. I was very relieved during the covid debacle that we had left the EU and therefore had greater freedom to decide on regulations outside of it. I’m not sure that we should be gloating though, while our government is ‘holding back’ negotiations with the RMT and what about the new legislation to further restrict the power of the unions. How can we experience the benefits of brexit (better wages, more investment in public services; ha ha and greater freedoms to trade internationally), if we’re having our wings clipped by our own government?
Brexit is not just for Christmas. Vote Reform Party whenever you can. Or Nigel.
You, me, and the wife!
Brexit is not just for Christmas. Vote Reform Party whenever you can. Or Nigel.
You, me, and the wife!
I voted remain. I think my argument would have been along the lines of a) we can trust them to limit the use of their powers to blatant misinformation about really sensitive topics (racism, child abuse) b) you’ve probably misunderstood the law and it is not as bad as you make out. But having lived through the covid era (‘lived’ along with 99.9% of those infected from this slightly-nastier-disease-than-bad-flu) I am now defeated in my argument and would vote leave if asked.
I thank you for that, when asked why I voted to leave the EU, I had only the gut feeling about what I had seen and heard, I then deduced that the EU was fast becoming an authoritarian organisation way above the station of the Common Market. Being suspicious even of my own Gov,t I erred on the side of caution. A state of mind is difficult to explain and therefore my inability to do so may have led others to think their wanting to stay in the EU was superior to my out. Only time will tell who is the more correct in their thinking. Maybe your Remainer friends will understand both you and I eventually. Thanks again.
I thank you for that, when asked why I voted to leave the EU, I had only the gut feeling about what I had seen and heard, I then deduced that the EU was fast becoming an authoritarian organisation way above the station of the Common Market. Being suspicious even of my own Gov,t I erred on the side of caution. A state of mind is difficult to explain and therefore my inability to do so may have led others to think their wanting to stay in the EU was superior to my out. Only time will tell who is the more correct in their thinking. Maybe your Remainer friends will understand both you and I eventually. Thanks again.
IMO, the remainers are either people who have jobs directly related to the EU, or they see the EU as a warm, cuddly, safe place to be – away from the infantile British politicians. The EU is relatively faceless and if these unknown-ish politicians are making key decisions for hundreds of millions of people – then it must be OK mustn’t it???
I voted remain. I was very relieved during the covid debacle that we had left the EU and therefore had greater freedom to decide on regulations outside of it. I’m not sure that we should be gloating though, while our government is ‘holding back’ negotiations with the RMT and what about the new legislation to further restrict the power of the unions. How can we experience the benefits of brexit (better wages, more investment in public services; ha ha and greater freedoms to trade internationally), if we’re having our wings clipped by our own government?
I voted remain. I think my argument would have been along the lines of a) we can trust them to limit the use of their powers to blatant misinformation about really sensitive topics (racism, child abuse) b) you’ve probably misunderstood the law and it is not as bad as you make out. But having lived through the covid era (‘lived’ along with 99.9% of those infected from this slightly-nastier-disease-than-bad-flu) I am now defeated in my argument and would vote leave if asked.
I don’t think that the EU even sees itself as democratic. There is an elected parliament but key decision makers are not elected.
It is hardly surprising that Europe has NOT the slightest inkling about Democracy or indeed Freedom of Speech. They have NEVER had even an iota of it until very, very recently.
Before that the last Democratic European experiment was snuffed out over 2,000 years ago by the Homicidal Macedonian Pygmy (sometimes referred to as Alexander the Great) and his equally murderous father Philip of Macedon.
The one exception to this dreary tale was off course England, and then only for a brief period in the 17th century.
Do you mean the Glorious Revolution? William of Orqange, because it seems Janes II and Charles were not it – William? I cannot remember any history anymore.
The Republic or “Good Old Cause” first, followed by William III (Orange)..
The Republic or “Good Old Cause” first, followed by William III (Orange)..
Do you mean the Glorious Revolution? William of Orqange, because it seems Janes II and Charles were not it – William? I cannot remember any history anymore.
“We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
Jean Claude-Juncker, 1999
Juncker was the ultimate exponent of the techniques of this odious oligarchy. Thank goodness he’s disappeared to supervise his wine cellar.
Juncker was the ultimate exponent of the techniques of this odious oligarchy. Thank goodness he’s disappeared to supervise his wine cellar.
The EU are what were called ‘the crowned heads of Europe’ back in the day.
I imagine they think of themselves, without irony, as “the Great and the Good” !
I imagine they think of themselves, without irony, as “the Great and the Good” !
It is hardly surprising that Europe has NOT the slightest inkling about Democracy or indeed Freedom of Speech. They have NEVER had even an iota of it until very, very recently.
Before that the last Democratic European experiment was snuffed out over 2,000 years ago by the Homicidal Macedonian Pygmy (sometimes referred to as Alexander the Great) and his equally murderous father Philip of Macedon.
The one exception to this dreary tale was off course England, and then only for a brief period in the 17th century.
“We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”
Jean Claude-Juncker, 1999
The EU are what were called ‘the crowned heads of Europe’ back in the day.
I would genuinely like to hear a response from a Remainer.
Is this the same EU which you are advocating should take back control over UK policies.
I don’t think that the EU even sees itself as democratic. There is an elected parliament but key decision makers are not elected.
There are some of us who are certainly not surprised by the continued outrageous movement against democracy by the that odious entity, the EU.
Nah the greatest threat to free speech in the U.K. is the liberal left by a country mile. They don’t need any help from the EU in their efforts to redefine the truth and what can be stated in public.
Nah the greatest threat to free speech in the U.K. is the liberal left by a country mile. They don’t need any help from the EU in their efforts to redefine the truth and what can be stated in public.
Here is something I posted as a BTL comment on Allister Heath’s very good column in today’s Telegraph; verbatim:
‘I think it has become important to recognise that all these lunatic changes which the western Political Class has imposed on nearly all the genuine democracies are not the result simply of stupidity, incompetence and lethargic bureaucracy. Also they are animated by a positively evil impulse: the desire to be part of an upper crust who have live on ultra-pampered terms (like Harry and Meghan) while most ordinary people become poor, cold, hungry, with little freedom of movement and none of expression (so they can’t rebel).
Boris Johnson’s equally wide-boy father Stanley lately let a very big moggie out of the bag. He spoke of ‘the national plan’ for the United Kingdom: a plan which even Parliament itself has not heard of, let alone any democrat debated, and which is clearly a fruit of the Davos deliberations by the genuinely wicked World Economic Forum (whose members include all our present senior Cabinet ministers).
In the Netherlands things have gone a stage further. THEIR demented government is getting rid of the farms in order to build over them and make houses for migrants from abroad. In the USA Bill Gates is buying up all the farmland – to raise pigs, chickens, vegetables, fruit? NO: he wants us to eat bugs henceforth. (How tasty and nourishing they are I do not know. And would there really be enough bugs to go round, supplying all food needs?)
Klaus Schwab, who looks like a caricature of a Bond villain, lately openly declared the Davos programme: ‘In ze future ordinary people vill have nothing and be happy’.
Well, we are on the way to having nothing, but I don’t see the happiness.’
And when I looked just three hours later, it had been removed.
Passing laws against free speech is not the only way of silencing dissent.
Here is something I posted as a BTL comment on Allister Heath’s very good column in today’s Telegraph; verbatim:
‘I think it has become important to recognise that all these lunatic changes which the western Political Class has imposed on nearly all the genuine democracies are not the result simply of stupidity, incompetence and lethargic bureaucracy. Also they are animated by a positively evil impulse: the desire to be part of an upper crust who have live on ultra-pampered terms (like Harry and Meghan) while most ordinary people become poor, cold, hungry, with little freedom of movement and none of expression (so they can’t rebel).
Boris Johnson’s equally wide-boy father Stanley lately let a very big moggie out of the bag. He spoke of ‘the national plan’ for the United Kingdom: a plan which even Parliament itself has not heard of, let alone any democrat debated, and which is clearly a fruit of the Davos deliberations by the genuinely wicked World Economic Forum (whose members include all our present senior Cabinet ministers).
In the Netherlands things have gone a stage further. THEIR demented government is getting rid of the farms in order to build over them and make houses for migrants from abroad. In the USA Bill Gates is buying up all the farmland – to raise pigs, chickens, vegetables, fruit? NO: he wants us to eat bugs henceforth. (How tasty and nourishing they are I do not know. And would there really be enough bugs to go round, supplying all food needs?)
Klaus Schwab, who looks like a caricature of a Bond villain, lately openly declared the Davos programme: ‘In ze future ordinary people vill have nothing and be happy’.
Well, we are on the way to having nothing, but I don’t see the happiness.’
And when I looked just three hours later, it had been removed.
Passing laws against free speech is not the only way of silencing dissent.
A clinical evisceration of the modus operandi of the EU, one of the best articles i’ve read by Thomas.
It therefore goes without saying that a post-Brexit Britain has a better chance of getting our legislation around free speech on social media platforms and elsewhere closer to an acceptable balance. To do so, we must all understand that it will be a balancing act, that we may not get it right first time until the consequences are felt, be prepared to act to make adjustments to legislation in the light of any curtailments to free speech which might affect the democratic process and finally, to use our right to free speech wisely. That can begin by using public debate responsibly and without the shrillness we’ve seen over the past decade or so. Unherd can, and should, act as a beacon in that respect, but itself must ensure it’s editorial policy doesn’t prevent legitimate and well-presented comments from falling foul of its algorithms and/or moderation.
A tall order, but far from impossible, whereas the possibilities for citizens of the EU will become ever-increasingly at risk.
I agree! Thomas sees so many awkwards truths about the EU and our Blob. I only wish he would re assess his ongoing sympathy towards the Big State and denial of its concomitant suffocation of the engines of wealth creation! Also Thomas – turn your eye toward law and justice. The Equality mania & EU legal codes have utterly warped natural justice here. Victim groups now have separate – higher – legal rights. So the streets around abortion clinics are swept clear of protestors (ok), but Eco fanatics can sweep our highways clear of free movement/cars or chuck statutes and win high fives from dumb woke coppers and mad leftie judges (hello Ziegler) . BLM mass ‘bbc peaceful’ violent protests can whack police horses & the Feds and evade the covid restrictions with impunity; horribly white anti lockers protesters are battered and carted off to jug. Did human rights protect us from arbirary tyranny and imprisonment for two years,?? Did it Hell!! It has by contrast facilitated the cowards of cancel culture and soviet style censorship. Our law has been utterly corrupted by EU judicial overreach – ask the Good Judge Sumption. The greatest of many arguments for Brexit should be the restoration of our common law – the magical thread connecting us to our wayward ancestors and the guarantor of a now lost tradition of justice free speech and liberty.
Well said
Well said
I agree! Thomas sees so many awkwards truths about the EU and our Blob. I only wish he would re assess his ongoing sympathy towards the Big State and denial of its concomitant suffocation of the engines of wealth creation! Also Thomas – turn your eye toward law and justice. The Equality mania & EU legal codes have utterly warped natural justice here. Victim groups now have separate – higher – legal rights. So the streets around abortion clinics are swept clear of protestors (ok), but Eco fanatics can sweep our highways clear of free movement/cars or chuck statutes and win high fives from dumb woke coppers and mad leftie judges (hello Ziegler) . BLM mass ‘bbc peaceful’ violent protests can whack police horses & the Feds and evade the covid restrictions with impunity; horribly white anti lockers protesters are battered and carted off to jug. Did human rights protect us from arbirary tyranny and imprisonment for two years,?? Did it Hell!! It has by contrast facilitated the cowards of cancel culture and soviet style censorship. Our law has been utterly corrupted by EU judicial overreach – ask the Good Judge Sumption. The greatest of many arguments for Brexit should be the restoration of our common law – the magical thread connecting us to our wayward ancestors and the guarantor of a now lost tradition of justice free speech and liberty.
A clinical evisceration of the modus operandi of the EU, one of the best articles i’ve read by Thomas.
It therefore goes without saying that a post-Brexit Britain has a better chance of getting our legislation around free speech on social media platforms and elsewhere closer to an acceptable balance. To do so, we must all understand that it will be a balancing act, that we may not get it right first time until the consequences are felt, be prepared to act to make adjustments to legislation in the light of any curtailments to free speech which might affect the democratic process and finally, to use our right to free speech wisely. That can begin by using public debate responsibly and without the shrillness we’ve seen over the past decade or so. Unherd can, and should, act as a beacon in that respect, but itself must ensure it’s editorial policy doesn’t prevent legitimate and well-presented comments from falling foul of its algorithms and/or moderation.
A tall order, but far from impossible, whereas the possibilities for citizens of the EU will become ever-increasingly at risk.
The EU is a sanctimonious, authoritarian, busy body that has no business even existing. It is run by a group of unelected leaders accountable to no one. That it threatens to squash free speech should be a surprise to no one.
The EU is a sanctimonious, authoritarian, busy body that has no business even existing. It is run by a group of unelected leaders accountable to no one. That it threatens to squash free speech should be a surprise to no one.
I would not happen in a democracy
(Although sadly the recent reaction to the pandemic proved it can happen in a democracy)
Sadly the EU is not a democracy – there’s a fig leaf of Euro MPs with no powers and all the real power is in unelected bodies. We already know what their version of the truth is & I profoundly disagree with much of it.
I would not happen in a democracy
(Although sadly the recent reaction to the pandemic proved it can happen in a democracy)
Sadly the EU is not a democracy – there’s a fig leaf of Euro MPs with no powers and all the real power is in unelected bodies. We already know what their version of the truth is & I profoundly disagree with much of it.
Honest question. What if Musk says screw you to the EU? I know the EU is contemplating some outrageous fines if social media companies ignore its proposed rules, but is Musk really required to pay these fines? He’s not a citizen of the EU. The company is not based in the EU. Could he not simply move out all of its operations there?
The issue would be the EU would retaliate by blocking Twitter through-out the EU (you see the power they unilaterally yield)…
An iron curtain has descended over Europe….AGAIN.
A sort of Great Firewall of Europe? Sounds familiar.
Virtual networks would make any ban unworkable?
An iron curtain has descended over Europe….AGAIN.
A sort of Great Firewall of Europe? Sounds familiar.
Virtual networks would make any ban unworkable?
The issue would be the EU would retaliate by blocking Twitter through-out the EU (you see the power they unilaterally yield)…
Honest question. What if Musk says screw you to the EU? I know the EU is contemplating some outrageous fines if social media companies ignore its proposed rules, but is Musk really required to pay these fines? He’s not a citizen of the EU. The company is not based in the EU. Could he not simply move out all of its operations there?
Europe is very close to the event horizon surrounding the black hole of political censorship. If the EU bureaucrats aren’t forced to change course, silence like that from behind the old Iron Curtain will descend again. (Am I still allowed to say this?)
Europe is very close to the event horizon surrounding the black hole of political censorship. If the EU bureaucrats aren’t forced to change course, silence like that from behind the old Iron Curtain will descend again. (Am I still allowed to say this?)
” The response of European Union commissioner Thierry Breton to Musk’s first post-takeover tweet — “the bird is freed” — was telling: “In Europe, the bird will fly by our EU rules”
Now imagine that with ‘Putin’s’ response and ‘our Russian rules’. Not so different.
” The response of European Union commissioner Thierry Breton to Musk’s first post-takeover tweet — “the bird is freed” — was telling: “In Europe, the bird will fly by our EU rules”
Now imagine that with ‘Putin’s’ response and ‘our Russian rules’. Not so different.
A well-written article on a serious issue. Predictably, the usual suspects use it as another EU bashing exercise. Agreed – what is being addressed here deals with the EU, but the overall problem/trend is by no means confined to that entity.
A well-written article on a serious issue. Predictably, the usual suspects use it as another EU bashing exercise. Agreed – what is being addressed here deals with the EU, but the overall problem/trend is by no means confined to that entity.
The EU is, of course, Germany’s Fourth Reich…
The EU is, of course, Germany’s Fourth Reich…
Eventually we will all have to choose between free speech and anonymity online – because no-one can deny the toxic effect that the Internet free-for-all has had – and continues to have – on children.
Ending anonymity online effectively ends free speech. Parents, do your job.
Ending anonymity online effectively ends free speech. Parents, do your job.
Eventually we will all have to choose between free speech and anonymity online – because no-one can deny the toxic effect that the Internet free-for-all has had – and continues to have – on children.
Just posted a comment. Ironically, it’s being queued for approval. lol
Just posted a comment. Ironically, it’s being queued for approval. lol
LOL, such a lopsided and nakedly-partisan article.
Not even an attempt at balance. All peanut galleries sated.
I grew up in N Ireland.
I’m a former City lawyer, who never received as much a parking ticket.
Yet, growing up, our telephone line was regularly monitored by the British army. You could hear the chattering on the old analogue lines. Occasionally, voices would break in and admonish us for expressing certain opinions.
You got used to being listened to, and admonished, all the time.
Sinn Féin was openly censored for years. It was felt that the expression of certain views, repugnant to the British establishment, must openly be censored, so as not to give the “oxygen of publicity” to viewpoints they politically disagreed with.
And, separate to our little historic local difficulties in NI, the D-Notice regime is a wider problem, where under Britain exercises a discreet form of Chinese style censorship all the time, throughout the UK.
https://theasiadialogue.com/2013/07/01/the-d-notice-system-in-the-uk-on-par-with-censorship-instructions-in-china/
Have you never even heard of D Notices?
And let’s not even get started on the UK’s Online Safety Bill lol:
https://reason.com/2022/08/10/u-k-s-online-censorship-bill-causes-far-more-harm-than-it-attempts-to-prevent/
People assume that I, as an Irish Republican, should have been “annoyed” at the blatant British censorship I grew up under.
Not in the least. I can see exactly why, from a British perspective, such censorship suited their interests. The British were no worse or no better than anyone else.
In fact, growing up under censorship matures you.
You learn to avoid binary positions.
You learn to avoid being like cossetted naïve middle-class people in peaceful societies. They believe pretty much everything, on principle. Dumb.
And to avoid being like working class conspiracy theorists who disbelieve everything, on principle. Equally dumb.
Be positive, but never gullible – sometimes, governments lie.
Be sceptical, but never cynical – sometimes, govts tell the truth.
But please folks, do not lecture others about censorship.
There is a wider, rational discussion on the limits of free speech.
How we balance the rights to free speech with safeguards to individuals and the public by giving free rein to malicious falsehoods and / or crazed conspiracy theories.
But this little screed is far from being a rational and fair-minded discussion.
No, I don’t believe there’s “a wider, rational discussion on the limits of free speech.” Speech is free or it is not. There are always bossy types around eager to put limits on it in order to control opinions they don’t like; Lately it’s the Left, but in the past it’s been the Right. Disapproved opinions never go away, so limiting speech about them always escalates. (See Twitter pre-Musk.)
No, I don’t believe there’s “a wider, rational discussion on the limits of free speech.” Speech is free or it is not. There are always bossy types around eager to put limits on it in order to control opinions they don’t like; Lately it’s the Left, but in the past it’s been the Right. Disapproved opinions never go away, so limiting speech about them always escalates. (See Twitter pre-Musk.)
LOL, such a lopsided and nakedly-partisan article.
Not even an attempt at balance. All peanut galleries sated.
I grew up in N Ireland.
I’m a former City lawyer, who never received as much a parking ticket.
Yet, growing up, our telephone line was regularly monitored by the British army. You could hear the chattering on the old analogue lines. Occasionally, voices would break in and admonish us for expressing certain opinions.
You got used to being listened to, and admonished, all the time.
Sinn Féin was openly censored for years. It was felt that the expression of certain views, repugnant to the British establishment, must openly be censored, so as not to give the “oxygen of publicity” to viewpoints they politically disagreed with.
And, separate to our little historic local difficulties in NI, the D-Notice regime is a wider problem, where under Britain exercises a discreet form of Chinese style censorship all the time, throughout the UK.
https://theasiadialogue.com/2013/07/01/the-d-notice-system-in-the-uk-on-par-with-censorship-instructions-in-china/
Have you never even heard of D Notices?
And let’s not even get started on the UK’s Online Safety Bill lol:
https://reason.com/2022/08/10/u-k-s-online-censorship-bill-causes-far-more-harm-than-it-attempts-to-prevent/
People assume that I, as an Irish Republican, should have been “annoyed” at the blatant British censorship I grew up under.
Not in the least. I can see exactly why, from a British perspective, such censorship suited their interests. The British were no worse or no better than anyone else.
In fact, growing up under censorship matures you.
You learn to avoid binary positions.
You learn to avoid being like cossetted naïve middle-class people in peaceful societies. They believe pretty much everything, on principle. Dumb.
And to avoid being like working class conspiracy theorists who disbelieve everything, on principle. Equally dumb.
Be positive, but never gullible – sometimes, governments lie.
Be sceptical, but never cynical – sometimes, govts tell the truth.
But please folks, do not lecture others about censorship.
There is a wider, rational discussion on the limits of free speech.
How we balance the rights to free speech with safeguards to individuals and the public by giving free rein to malicious falsehoods and / or crazed conspiracy theories.
But this little screed is far from being a rational and fair-minded discussion.
Censorship of social media is necessary for a healthy and functioning society. Conspiracy theories and hate speech are a threat to law and order as we saw on January 6th.
What I saw on January 6th was a bunch of grannies wandering around taking selfies. Not much of an ‘insurrection’ really.
It was the most buffoonish coup attempt in history. If social media companies were more responsible in tackling the spread of misinformation such as Q anon and the election deniers Jan 6th would not of happened.
You sound like you work for the ACLU.
What have I said that is factually incorrect?
It was not a coup attempt and to characterise it as such is factually incorrect
Trump instructed his supporters to stop the certification of the election result by “showing strength”. What do you think they were there to do?
The same thing Martin Luther King did with the million man march. You know, that shit you’re normally happy to see drip fed to moronic boomers. Turn up with enough people with enough self-righteousness and enact change! ™. Make our voices heard! Yes We Can! All that BS. The difference is the stupid retrogrades didn’t realise it’s not FOR them. It’s only supposed to work for people on the right side of history and their client groups. “We shall persevere!”
The same thing Martin Luther King did with the million man march. You know, that shit you’re normally happy to see drip fed to moronic boomers. Turn up with enough people with enough self-righteousness and enact change! ™. Make our voices heard! Yes We Can! All that BS. The difference is the stupid retrogrades didn’t realise it’s not FOR them. It’s only supposed to work for people on the right side of history and their client groups. “We shall persevere!”
Trump instructed his supporters to stop the certification of the election result by “showing strength”. What do you think they were there to do?
But you could, just, tell nothing but the truth and still work for the ACLU.
It was not a coup attempt and to characterise it as such is factually incorrect
But you could, just, tell nothing but the truth and still work for the ACLU.
What have I said that is factually incorrect?
Maybe it would not have happened either.
Censorship is a symptom of authoritarian dictatorship, not a healthy and functioning society.
Q anon is what you get with not enough censorship. Q kookery and election denial should of been snuffed out at a much earlier stage.
Q anon is what you get with not enough censorship. Q kookery and election denial should of been snuffed out at a much earlier stage.
Agree Q anon is a problem. Only old people that haven’t spent enough time on the Internet don’t understand this:
QAnon High Priest Was Just Trolling Away as a Citigroup Tech Executive
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-10-07/who-is-qanon-evangelist-qmap-creator-and-former-citigroup-exec-jason-gelinas?leadSource=uverify%20wall
Hats off to Frederick Brennan and the reporters that went after it. Jason gelinas is typical example of too much money and a few screws loose, links to Citigroup, he’s now been sacked but it went on for ages before anyone did anything, then only cos a few people took it upon themselves to investigate. Question I’m not sure of the answer to though is where do you draw the line with stuff, if at all. It is spawning weird ideas in strange corners of the Internet though, there’s no denying that.
Read this only this week:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en/article/qjk5k7/germany-far-right-qanon-coup-plot
You sound like you work for the ACLU.
Maybe it would not have happened either.
Censorship is a symptom of authoritarian dictatorship, not a healthy and functioning society.
Agree Q anon is a problem. Only old people that haven’t spent enough time on the Internet don’t understand this:
QAnon High Priest Was Just Trolling Away as a Citigroup Tech Executive
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-10-07/who-is-qanon-evangelist-qmap-creator-and-former-citigroup-exec-jason-gelinas?leadSource=uverify%20wall
Hats off to Frederick Brennan and the reporters that went after it. Jason gelinas is typical example of too much money and a few screws loose, links to Citigroup, he’s now been sacked but it went on for ages before anyone did anything, then only cos a few people took it upon themselves to investigate. Question I’m not sure of the answer to though is where do you draw the line with stuff, if at all. It is spawning weird ideas in strange corners of the Internet though, there’s no denying that.
Read this only this week:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en/article/qjk5k7/germany-far-right-qanon-coup-plot
It was the most buffoonish coup attempt in history. If social media companies were more responsible in tackling the spread of misinformation such as Q anon and the election deniers Jan 6th would not of happened.
Jan 6th resembled a frat party gone awry.
These are just excuses for criminality.
Surely it was just a peaceful protest?
A peaceful protest does not entail smashing windows, assaulting police officers and invading the centre of the American government to stop the certification of an election result. I am frankly shocked that the US government and police have been so lenient on the rioters.
January 6th happened because of the government’s weak response to the BLM riots during a period of stringent lockdown measures. By being so lenient to one group they implied that all forms of protest were acceptable. This is extremely concerning because it shows that law and justice are not being equally applied.
Smashing windows at Walmart is different than smashing windows at the Capitol obviously.
Are you being facetious? With you I can’t tell.
Are you being facetious? With you I can’t tell.
Smashing windows at Walmart is different than smashing windows at the Capitol obviously.
But there were lots of peaceful protests in US cities well before the election that involved assault (even killings) smashing of property and looting. But they WERE peaceful??
January 6th happened because of the government’s weak response to the BLM riots during a period of stringent lockdown measures. By being so lenient to one group they implied that all forms of protest were acceptable. This is extremely concerning because it shows that law and justice are not being equally applied.
But there were lots of peaceful protests in US cities well before the election that involved assault (even killings) smashing of property and looting. But they WERE peaceful??
Like the ones that took place the summer of ‘20 that were excused by The Beast.
A peaceful protest does not entail smashing windows, assaulting police officers and invading the centre of the American government to stop the certification of an election result. I am frankly shocked that the US government and police have been so lenient on the rioters.
Like the ones that took place the summer of ‘20 that were excused by The Beast.
Surely it was just a peaceful protest?
These are just excuses for criminality.
What I saw on January 6th was a bunch of grannies wandering around taking selfies. Not much of an ‘insurrection’ really.
Jan 6th resembled a frat party gone awry.
Censorship of social media is necessary for a healthy and functioning society. Conspiracy theories and hate speech are a threat to law and order as we saw on January 6th.
Greater risk than the CCP or Putin? Or the current Iranian leadership? Or Kim Jong-Un?
Fine to criticise some aspects of how EU handling certain media related issues. To claim, in the headline, this is greatest threat to Free Speech is utter codswallop.
I disagree. The greater threat really does come from those who profess to champion the Western idea of free speech, rather than those whose idea of free speech is known to be corrupted and have no compunction in making that clear.
“ And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”
Mathew 36:10.
“ And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”
Mathew 36:10.
Twitter, a single company, has more influence over free speech on the Internet in the west than any national government. Have you even been on the wider Internet since 2012?
Its unclear what you mean by that – or rather that’s the whole point of the article and current debate
Its fair to say that the social media companies including Twitter have influence over free speech on their platforms & the US constitution prevents the government from silencing ‘free speech’.
The debate is should the government have more control over free speech – the traditional argument was free, independent companies can make their own rules..
But now we see a hegemony of left wing suppression of free speech by those companies the argument fails.
Unfortunately its the very same lefties that want to take control of fee speech now it appears one of the Social Media companies might just not be so leftie after all.
So what’s your point – are you in favour of state control of what media companies publish or not?
Your mistake is assuming that there is a difference between the state and media companies. They are the same entity.
Or rather Twitter was doing what the government wanted but was unable to do so. Not sure why you got downvoted. You weren’t saying anything particularly controversial.
Or rather Twitter was doing what the government wanted but was unable to do so. Not sure why you got downvoted. You weren’t saying anything particularly controversial.
Your mistake is assuming that there is a difference between the state and media companies. They are the same entity.
How many Twitter bots do you think the FSB runs? Or the MSS from China? Thousands and thousands. Same with other social media. I daresay you are pinged loads as you’ll probably trigger their algorhythm for confirmatory bias. I suspect I get some too.
Yes what should and should not be permissible on Twitter one can debate – I’ll tend to if it’s not incitement to violence then let it be – but the real threat is how it’s used by far more malign parties.
Its unclear what you mean by that – or rather that’s the whole point of the article and current debate
Its fair to say that the social media companies including Twitter have influence over free speech on their platforms & the US constitution prevents the government from silencing ‘free speech’.
The debate is should the government have more control over free speech – the traditional argument was free, independent companies can make their own rules..
But now we see a hegemony of left wing suppression of free speech by those companies the argument fails.
Unfortunately its the very same lefties that want to take control of fee speech now it appears one of the Social Media companies might just not be so leftie after all.
So what’s your point – are you in favour of state control of what media companies publish or not?
How many Twitter bots do you think the FSB runs? Or the MSS from China? Thousands and thousands. Same with other social media. I daresay you are pinged loads as you’ll probably trigger their algorhythm for confirmatory bias. I suspect I get some too.
Yes what should and should not be permissible on Twitter one can debate – I’ll tend to if it’s not incitement to violence then let it be – but the real threat is how it’s used by far more malign parties.
Indeed, and he also conveniently ignores the many excesses of ‘freedom’ that lie at the heart of American dysfunction.
As I proud free American, Dominic A, I am free to tell you to go, shall we say, treat yourself in an inappropriate way…
An excess of freedom is when my fist fails to stop before your nose.
Matt, Terry, thank you for so aptly demonstrating the excesses of freedom: pride in ignorance, indulgence of violence, and refusal of criticism.
Matt, Terry, thank you for so aptly demonstrating the excesses of freedom: pride in ignorance, indulgence of violence, and refusal of criticism.
Would you please enumerate these?
Hello Betsy,
I’ll try – briefly. I’ll start by saying i actually love America, have spent many years living there – across 1970s to 2010s. Americans are encouraged to think, feel, do be whatever they want to be – this results in positives from Rock and Roll, to business, science, literature innovations, and personal happiness…….and also social entitlement, rampant violence, gun culture, cults divorce, drugs, obesity, etc. Of course I am not saying other countries are free from these things, or don’t have other faults all of their own.
Hello Betsy,
I’ll try – briefly. I’ll start by saying i actually love America, have spent many years living there – across 1970s to 2010s. Americans are encouraged to think, feel, do be whatever they want to be – this results in positives from Rock and Roll, to business, science, literature innovations, and personal happiness…….and also social entitlement, rampant violence, gun culture, cults divorce, drugs, obesity, etc. Of course I am not saying other countries are free from these things, or don’t have other faults all of their own.
As I proud free American, Dominic A, I am free to tell you to go, shall we say, treat yourself in an inappropriate way…
An excess of freedom is when my fist fails to stop before your nose.
Would you please enumerate these?
Just don’t think you understand what you’re reading… Typical EU:good blindspot
“Greater risk than the CCP or Putin? Or the current Iranian leadership? Or Kim Jong-Un?”
The countries governed by those people are not free and consequently do not have free speech, but that is not the point: the point is that we in the West are supposed to have free speech, and it foreign despots do not have any power to threaten it. Our own governments do, however, and that is where the problem is. So the headline is quite correct.
I think the EU and the Left generally definitely IS the greatest current threat to free speech, in the sense that it’s already dead in China and Putin’s Russia, whereas the EU’s creeping (actually more like galloping) censorship is the force actively undermining it out here in the free world.
I disagree. The greater threat really does come from those who profess to champion the Western idea of free speech, rather than those whose idea of free speech is known to be corrupted and have no compunction in making that clear.
Twitter, a single company, has more influence over free speech on the Internet in the west than any national government. Have you even been on the wider Internet since 2012?
Indeed, and he also conveniently ignores the many excesses of ‘freedom’ that lie at the heart of American dysfunction.
Just don’t think you understand what you’re reading… Typical EU:good blindspot
“Greater risk than the CCP or Putin? Or the current Iranian leadership? Or Kim Jong-Un?”
The countries governed by those people are not free and consequently do not have free speech, but that is not the point: the point is that we in the West are supposed to have free speech, and it foreign despots do not have any power to threaten it. Our own governments do, however, and that is where the problem is. So the headline is quite correct.
I think the EU and the Left generally definitely IS the greatest current threat to free speech, in the sense that it’s already dead in China and Putin’s Russia, whereas the EU’s creeping (actually more like galloping) censorship is the force actively undermining it out here in the free world.
Greater risk than the CCP or Putin? Or the current Iranian leadership? Or Kim Jong-Un?
Fine to criticise some aspects of how EU handling certain media related issues. To claim, in the headline, this is greatest threat to Free Speech is utter codswallop.