Julian Assange: Can he survive this ordeal?

Julian Assange has come to redefine activism and change the face of modern journalism. A self-styled champion of free speech and a believer in the concept of "open-governance". But can this nomadic Australian-born computer genius actually face the consequences of his own invention? 

In 2010, Assange became famous for releasing to the public some of the most damaging US diplomatic cables many of which were confidential and secret information on the website Wikileaks. His idea is to lift the veil on the internal workings of governments round the world, in an attempt to create this concept of open governance where the activities of the world's superpowers can be put in check. A laudable idea if you ask me, and a very attractive one too to all journalists round the world. But behind the excitement of this type of method lies a very disturbing reality. What could be the potential consequence of highly classified diplomatic files ending up in the public domain, accessible to anyone with a computer and an internet connection? As much as Assange wants a free and open world politics, did he actually contemplate the potential dangers inherent in unveiling the private activities of sovereign nations in full glare of the public? 

In an age of terrorism, ethnic violence and cyber warfare, how will these information be processed by the public? Imagine Al Qaeda learning the internal workings of the American government through some of those diplomatic cables, imagine previous allied countries suddenly developing animosity towards one another due to exposed private discussions of its diplomats, imagine a continent like Africa where there are many ethnic groups and strong affiliations to these groups, where politics is still largely conducted along ethnic lines, will deal with private discussions of its rulers. There are so many potential dangers to putting private government information in the public space. First of all, the public are not trained to process the information contained therein and many will interprete the information out of context. Lives will be put at risk in environments where there are deep political and ethnic divisions. 

Many see Assange as a hero and a man fighting for the ordinary people. But this is also a man who in times of adversity is ready to "dine with the devil", by seeking asylum in a country whose ideals and track record are almost completely opposite to what he believes. Ecuador is a country ruled by a President notorious for curtailing press freedoms and prosecuting journalists who dare challenge him. In 2011, Human Rights Watch revealed Ecuador's President Rafael Correa's war on Press freedoms in his country. But here he is protecting Julian Assange, who if was an Ecuadorian journalist would have been facing jail for his activities. It is an irony that Rafael Correa prosecutes Assange-types in his country and yet Assange is willing to seek protection from such a country. He contradicts himself in my opinion.

Activists like Assange are rare, he's an intelligent man with a flawed world view. There is no way governments can run with absolute transparency. It is a myth and a dangerous one at that. Revealing these government secrets publicly, whatever they are, could be likened to releasing private personal information of individuals on a public website which is certainly a crime. Governments have a right to privacy and secrecy, though criminal activities of governments should be exposed in the right manner, and not in a public space, because many ordinary people wouldnt even know what to do with such information. And some may use them for even more criminal ends. 

Julian Assange's stand-off with America is set to go on for as long as he is willing to remain in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The UK has guaranteed he wouldn't be granted a safe passage to Ecuador, and will be handed over to Swedish authorities where he has a pending case of sexual assault and rape. Whether the allegations against him in Sweden are true is yet to be ascertained, but I wont be surprised if they are, as everyone fears, trumped up charges to facilitate his extradition to the US. I am not saying the US is right to seek prosecution against Julian Assange under its Espionage Act, afterall, earlier this year they protected the Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng against authorities of his own country by giving him refuge at the US embassy in China and facilitated his onward asylum in America. But I believe sovereign countries have the right to keep their secret and confidential files the way they intended. It is a sovereign right of every nation and a threat to that right is a form of aggression. 

Julian Assange has a lot of admirers and supporters all over the world, and I completely understand that. But the potential of his methods is one that fills me with trepidation.

How many more Sanduskys out there?

Jerry Sandusky on Friday, led to JailThe news filtered in on Friday that the former Penn State University assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky has finally been convicted on 45 out of 48 counts of child molestation and child abuse charges in a case that has shaken America to its soul. This is a man who had a huge public profile, received many awards, and ran a multi-million dollar charity organisation, The Second Mile, that was supposed to cater for vulnerable and at-risk kids in the society. Instead, Jerry Sandusky used his position to groom and abuse young boys as young as 10 years old. Harrowing testimonies have been heard in court of how Sandusky molested the kids in shower rooms and at the basement of his house. He would attain their trust by showering them with gifts and "affection" before seriously assaulting them. Most of the kids did not report these crimes until a two-year police investigations unveiled abuses as far back as 15years ago. 

Thousands of miles away, a few weeks ago, in a community in Rochdale, Britain, a paedophile ring composed mostly of men of Asian origin, were convicted and jailed after details emerged of how they stalked and groomed vulnerable teenage white girls for sex. Their crimes spanned over a decade and the victims were mostly children under age 16. Most of the girls were from troubled backgrounds and would hang out on the streets where predatory men will pick them up in flashy cars and shower them with takeaway foods, alcohol, drugs and phone airtime. Many of the girls were threatened with violence if they ever disclosed their ordeals to anyone. Some who did speak to police were not believed due to their troubled history, and the abuse carried on for many years.

The Catholic Church in Britain has been made to apologise several times to the public for harbouring historical cases of sexual abuse of children spanning over a century in some cases. Children, usually altar boys, were systematically abused at the hands of paedophile priests who were meant to lead a holy congregation. And again a catalogue of failures have been unveiled where Reverend Fathers in charge of these congregations have failed to alert police of reported abuses against children. 

The recurring phenomenon in these cases and many more of child sexual abuse is that vulnerable children are the most at risk. Its happening in churches, schools, sports centres, online and in the home. Reports have been heard of online padophile rings making and sharing indecent images of children (IIOC) and secret groups that sexually abuse children in remote farm houses. A few weeks ago in Britain, several people were arrested across the country in a major police sting operation targeted at online peadephiles who make and share images of child sexual abuse known as IIOC. 

As I was trawling through youtube checking out facts on the Sandusky case, I came across comments from some people that actually are sympathisers for paedophiles, who think no crime is committed if the children consent to abuse. In most countries including Britain, a child cannot legally give consent to sex, and any sexual contact with a child under 16years of age is statutory rape. Many of the defendants in the Rochdale case in Britain tried to excuse themselves by saying their victims consented to sexual abuse. How can a child give consent when they are not even old enough to understand the consequences of such actions? What life experience do children have to understand or interprete the predatory behaviour of criminal adults? It is this twisted views of some sick adults that allow child sexual abuse to go on. 

Also in some developing countries, marriage to children under 16 years of age is common due to religious or tribal customs. Particularly in Africa, the governments sometimes take a stance of willful ignorance and let these practices flourish unabated. In northern Nigeria for example, child-marriages to adults are quite common where a state governor successfully married a 13-year old bride a few years ago. I call that state-supported child sexual abuse. 

I am glad Sandusky is finally going to spend the rest of his life behind bars where he can no longer harm any children. But how many more Sanduskys are out there?  

The war on Hip-Hop music - Is the government making any sense?

I have been following carefully the way the debates have proceeded in the aftermath of the mayhem unleashed on London's streets last week. I have seen the politicians blame the whole of society but themselves, the blame going round from parents to kids, from the police to street gangs, and now the target is rap music. PM Cameron has declared his intention to wage war on Britain's "gang culture", a phenomenon common in London's inner city boroughs. Gang culture he implies, is related to rap music. PM Camron's argument is that these rap videos glorify violence, promote lavish materialism and encourage hatred of the police ("feds"). These type of music in his opinion are to blame for the gang culture we see in London and other cities across the UK, recruiting children as young as 11 into a life of violence. Even David Starkey, the renowned historian, in a controversial comment, went as far as saying the reason for the riots is that the "whites have become black, a particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion". This violent culture he implies is associated with black dominated hip-hop music. 

As a lifelong fan of hip-hop music, I have been doing some research on these accusations directed at the genre. Its not a new thing for politicians to accuse rap music and blame it for street violence. In fact in 2007, the American government set up a Congress hearing addressing issues of African-American media stereotypes within the entertainment industry, and many rappers were invited to testify. Hip-hop artistes were accused of producing music with violent lyrical imagery which encourages gang-culture, degradation of women and lavish extravagance. They were asked if they could help society by putting out more positive content in their albums. The hip hop artistes defended their lyrics as a reflection of society,  a depiction of the struggles and pain of the young black male growing up in the most deprived neighbourhoods in America. Many accused the Congressmen of being partial and hypocritical, for example, do they go up to Sylvester Stallone and other actors associated with violence, to tell them to put a more positive image out there. What about the violent video games? Why is rap singled out? In a 2003 documentary I watched on YouTube about the alleged link between rap and gun crime in London, a member of Scotland Yard's Operation Trident (set up to tackle gun crime among the black population in London) had this to say:

"Music (and Fashion) in itself is being blamed, which is not necessarily the problem, it is actually those underlying issues that are causing the problem we have today in London, which is about poor education, not much chance (or not much perceived chance) of being successful in society, which leads them to a lifestyle where they become involved in drugs, because they believe that may give them the opportunity they seek. You get involved in drug dealing, you need a gun to protect yourself, one follows the other" - DCS John Coles, Operation Trident.

Even the poular English DJ, Tim Westwood said in the documentary:

"Hip-hop isn't bringing the guns TO the streets, the guns are IN the streets and thats why there is a rise in the use of them"

Kids in the street will join a gang, get a gun and commit violent crime, not because they have just listened to Jay-Z or Tupac, but because they are already inclined in that way. 80% of gang members are growing up in dysfunctional families, poverty and have poor educational backgrounds. These are the issues which need to be addressed, not rap artistes. Yes, many rappers were former gang members and some have been to jail, but they have made a lifestyle change and instead of running the streets committing crime, they have decided to embrace music. Their music sometimes tells the stories of their former lives of crime (which is often exaggerated), but usually they just want to talk about having a good time in the club. Also not all hip-hop lyrics glorify violence, as that will be an ignorant generalization. There is a microcosm of the genre called gangster rap, which talks about violence, but rap generally is an art of poetry and wordplay. Violence wasn't invented by rap music, it is a reality in many urban areas of the world.

It is clear from what is happening at the moment in Downing Street that the government hasn't got the slightest clue how to deal with this situation. As the Labour leader, Ed Miliband said, PM Cameron and his cabinet are actually guilty of making "knee-jerk" reactions to this problem. They are coming up with new policies everyday, which are not well thought through, and with no clue about how to even actualize them. Tough talk won't end gang culture in London, the war on gangs has been waged in America for more than three decades, and they only have more toughened and hardened youths on their hands, who have made the inner city streets war zones. The war on the drugs trade was declared in Britain few decades ago, but has much changed now? No. In fact the UK newspaper, The Independent quoted a report by the UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC) in an article in 2008 questioning the tactics used by government to tackle the drugs trade:

"The report, published yesterday, paints a grim picture, suggesting that the billions of pounds spent on attempts to reduce the availability of drugs on the streets have been in vain. It said there was "remarkably little evidence" that action by customs officials, police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency has had any significant effect in disrupting illegal drug markets. The report argued that the UK should try a radically different approach to tackling the misery brought about by drug-dealing and the crime and social disorder associated with it"

So what is David Cameron thinking? The use of brute force does not correct social ills. You only need to look back at history to see that. Finger-pointing a particular genre of music surely isn't the way forward. It is not the job of artistes (in this case rap artistes) to correct the ills of society, in fact their role is to report these ills so that government can do something about it. The fundamental question is why are inner city youths joining violent gangs? The issues are very complex and it cannot be solved just by tough talk and "declaring a war on gangs" from 10, Downing Street. It is simply ridiculous to think throwing more already disadvantaged youths in jail will solve the problem. In my opinions these events witnessed across London and the UK last week should make the British society as a whole do a soul searching and find where it has gone deeply wrong. Trying to eliminate the symptoms won't cure the disease.