The writing’s on the wall. The 2012 presidential race is shaping up
to be a truly dispiriting, lackluster slog. Herman Cain and Rick Perry
keep making news for all the wrong reasons. Like the “Red Shirts” in a
Star Trek landing party, they’re both conspicuously doomed. In our heart
of hearts, we know it’s going to come down to Obama – whose soaring
proposals of the 2008 campaign have been, for the most part, stuck in
Beltway traffic for four years – and Romney, whose chief selling point
is that he’s probably not a raving lunatic. The nation deserves better.
Big Think would like to inject a little lifeblood
into the campaign trail. Like his hero, Abraham Lincoln, our candidate
is an autodidact with strong convictions and an open mind. A tireless,
passionate problem-solver who’s not afraid to ask the tough questions
and hash out solutions mano a mano with his
fiercest opponents. Most importantly, perhaps, he believes in America’s
promise and is mad as hell about the many ways in which our nation has
gone off the rails. We’re talking, of course, about Henry Rollins, one-man media industry and former frontman of the hardcore punk band, Black Flag.
What's the Significance?
Henry’s pacifist agenda is well documented. Occupants,
his recently released book of travel photographs and essays,
unflinchingly investigates hidden corners of many war and crisis-wracked
regions of the world including Cambodia, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq.
As president, Henry’s first order of business would be to repair our
badly damaged international image and bring our troops home from costly,
far-flung, unwinnable wars.
But what of the war of words that continues to
paralyze US politics, over the limits of Federal power and
responsibility to intervene in our lives? A self-made man –musician,
author, spoken-word artist, actor, publisher, and activist – Henry is
all about personal responsibility, but he’s no hardcore libertarian. He
views patriotism as a fierce commitment to our collective national well
being:
Henry Rollins: This is not a
nanny state. The people’s investment is in its government and the
government’s investment is in its people. So the government should be
saying “get your education because we need you to steer this country.”
Education and opportunity were the birth of the middle class – and that
made America this great powerhouse. Now many people want to get around
it and basically say “I got mine, so you have to deal with yours.”
On days when I'm frustrated with some people I say
“Let’s go this Ron Paul, Ayn Rand route and let’s see how long you
last.” Without the power of government to help, the freedom and rugged
individualism some people claim to seek will be that which kills them.
And so when some politicians say when a hurricane
comes through Texas New York’s tax dollars shouldn’t be diverted to
Texas to help, because Texas is Texas, 10th amendment, I say “No! It’s
the United States.” We’re a team, America. I want to help the people in
Texas. They are my neighbors. Take my California tax dollars to help
these people. I don’t want to see them flooded. I want to see them
rescued and that’s where we stick up for each other.
That is what the founding fathers (who some people like
to mention so often), that is what they were beating each other up over
in un-air-conditioned rooms in sweltering Philadelphia – that we stick
together through thick and thin. That, to me, is being patriotic. That
is what paying taxes is all about. That is what you see in great
American cities. You see people looking out for one another. When we
lose that, we lose the whole ball of wax.
In it, I discuss the enormous wealth owned by churches, financed in
part through generous tax exemptions not available to any other
organization; the shameless greed of "prosperity gospel" theology; and
the bizarre rhetoric of resentment spreading among the American
religious right which insists it's a sin to call for higher taxes on the
rich or greater social equality. Read the excerpt below, then click
through to see the rest:
I bring this up because, thanks to the Occupy protests, inequality
has come to dominate the American political conversation. Poverty and
inequality are at their highest levels since the Great Depression, and
there's a growing clamor to raise taxes on the wealthy to provide more
opportunity for the rest of us. I think this is an excellent idea, and
I'd like to suggest that beside Wall Street bankers and stock traders,
there's another group of the mega-wealthy that's often overlooked.
Why don't we consider taxing the churches?
Not all churches or all ministers are rich, but some of them are very
rich indeed. And that's no surprise, because society subsidizes them
through a constellation of generous tax breaks that aren't available to
any other institution, even non-profits.
Required Viewing for every citizen in the Free World.
How government and big media businesses cooperate to produce an effective propaganda machine in order to manipulate the opinions of the United States populace.
The national and state intelligence agencies have advised the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that “ some rights organisations ” that decry state violence are purposefully or at least effectively taking sides with Maoists and “ actively helping spread the Maoist ideology ”. The intelligence age ncies (“IB” is the term used in the report title), therefore opine that “ rights organisations ” lay themselves open to prosecution for “ aiding and abetting a criminal conspiracy .” The advice goes on to say that these rights organizations “ have extended their reach to those areas which help spread Maoist ideology ” and that they are “ functioning as the points persons for the Maoists ”. Accordingly, they have suggested that “ the Union government take steps to limit the activities of leading human rights organizations ”. [1] .
This bodes ill for rights organizations and persons who agitate for civil, democratic, dalit, women's, human et al
rights. That such advice is condemnable is to put it mildly. It is a
generalized verdict against rights organizations (notwithstanding that
the word “some” has been used), implying that demanding people's
constitutional rights from the State and agitating for them with the
State tantamounts to opposing the very idea of the State as the Maoists
are reputed to do. This amounts to equating dissent with disloyalty. If
people are not to agitate for rights for fear of being clubbed with
Maoists, it amounts to denial of democratic rights by instilling fear
into public life to enforce conformity with whatever the State deems fit
to provide to the public. This leads in the direction of a totalitarian
state disguised as a democracy, with the people's servants becoming the
people's masters. As one wag put it, the leaders who shout “Power to
the people!” want the people to shout “Power to the people!” so that
people's power is transferred to the leaders who shout “Power to the
people!”.
Workers in rights organizations support
the rights of people who are not empowered to agitate their own rights
themselves. This involves demanding information from governments, or
criticizing, rejecting or resisting governments' policies, plans,
projects or actions. This is dissent being voiced within society.
Dissent should be used as a “thermometer” by governments to get a
measure of social agitations and diagnose their fundamental reasons.
These agitations may be for food, water, employment, fair wages or their
enhancement, better working conditions, minimum support price (by
farmers), etc. However, in present times, the agitations are more
frequently in the form of resistance to governments' plans or policies,
or government-approved corporate projects that take away land and/or
livelihood from people who are already variously disadvantaged.
Agitations in Odisha against mining and industrial projects of Vedanta
and POSCO; Jaitapur (Mah), Koodankulam (TN), Kovvada (AP) against
nuclear power plants; Polavaram (AP), Tipaimukh (Manipur), Gerukamukh
(Assam) against dams, are merely the most recent, on-going agitations
that are reported in the media. Governments with a sense of social
justice and equity would “treat” the agitations as social ills, with the
democratic political tools of consultation and dialogue. But this is
not happening. Rather, governments use the intelligence agencies to
stoke trouble so as to provide justification for use of police or
military force to brutally break the backbone of the dissenting
movement.
Dissent can be peaceful and persuasive,
or peaceful and vocally militant, or militant and armed. Thus, not all
dissent is militant or armed. (We are not discussing insurgency or
terrorism). This may be observed across the length and breadth of the
country. However, the intelligence community – which operates under
intense secrecy and is, in that sense, an anti-democratic organization –
glosses over these differences in dissent. In the report mentioned
above, it seeks to tar all dissent with the same brush, and then brand
it as direct or clandestine support to Maoists.
The intelligence community is neither
stupid nor inefficient. Their advice rendered to MHA is designed to
ensure advantage to corporate demands for land and other resources. The
intention of the advice in question is clearly to sideline or minimize
dissent or criticism of state policies and actions; and if that is not
possible, to crush it using state / central police or the military. The
reason for this intention is widely understood as inspired by corporate
need for land and/or raw material resources, to provide obscene profits
to the corporates and huge kick-backs to those who collude with the
concerned corporates. A P-B-P-C
(politicial-bureaucrat-policeman-corporate) nexus that implements
neo-liberal economic policies and operates against already poor and
disadvantaged people by dispossessing them of their lands or
livelihoods, is behind such use of state force. (Not all politicians,
bureaucrats, policemen or corporations form this nexus). What is worse,
this is done in the “public interest”, which makes it even more hurtful
to those whose lives are small change in this so-called pursuit of
public interest by governments to benefit corporates. This has been
exposed repeatedly in many states in our country.
It is by now well recognized that the
State has a predilection to suppress dissent by use of police or
military force rather than address it by time-tested political means of
dialogue and consultation. Further, the State is also prone to report
its use of force as achievements of body-counts of militants and capture
of weapons and ammunition. When human rights organizations question and
investigate these actions and encounters, and bring the matter into the
public domain, the police often (and the military less often) spin a
web of lies and half-truths to deny wrong-doing. This is as often as
not, at the behest of, or with the tacit support of, or at least within
the knowledge of, the State.
This has been brought out most recently
and very succinctly by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aftab
Alam and C.K.Prasad . In a news report [2] , the counsel for the State
of Gujarat denied the allegations of fake encounters and questioned the
bonafides of the petitioners, who were obviously defending the right to
life of those killed in police encounters. The Court told the Gujarat
State counsel, “ It [sic] is no point questioning the bonafides of the petitioners. Why in Gujarat [sic]
when the matter comes [up before court] the state initially stoutly
denies it. When the matter is scratched even slightly the fact comes to
light and then the State government admits it as a fake encounter .”
While this particular case refers to Gujarat, a similar attitude of
State governments can be easily demonstrated from almost every state in
India. Such rights petitioners are “bad boys” who possibly get to be
watched for suspected links with Maoists. Even a person who comments
upon or criticizes governments' policies and actions, especially their
handling of dissent would possibly be on some intelligence watch list.
The advice of the IB to MHA questions
the bonafides of rights organizations across the board even though they
may have named only “some” organizations. (The names of such
organizations or persons is often confidential or secret). It goes on to
advise that they may be prosecuted for “ aiding and abetting a criminal conspiracy .”
It is well known that police are apt to foist false criminal charges
against leading activists in peaceful movements that stand their ground
in opposing State policies or actions. One of the methods in their
capacious “bag of dirty tricks” (framing false charges, illegal
detentions, faked encounter killings, custodial torture and killings,
etc.) is for police intelligence to secretly infiltrate their operatives
or agents into peaceful protest meetings and demonstrations to initiate
violence – just stone-throwing sometimes suffices, but at other times
public or private property is destroyed. This gives police the necessary
“justification” for filing suitable criminal charges against “ring
leaders”. Suppressing people's dissent is itself certainly
anti-democratic, but using police intelligence methods as outlined above
is plainly State criminality by elected and appointed officials who are
de jure public servants but de facto public masters. To be fair, peaceful movements do occasionally turn violent on their own, without “help” from the police.
This not a
digression from the IB's advice to MHA. It indicates the mind-set of
people in government, who are in positions of power. Whether these
worthies actually serve the people of their constituencies or of the
state or country has been discussed ad nauseum , but the preponderant view is that they do not. One view point that bears repetition in this context is, “ It
is unfortunate that governments do not understand the oft-repeated
position of human rights and other social activists, that standing
against [state] violence does not mean sympathy with or
support for militant groups, that there is a third position which is
equidistant from both sides of the conflict, and that the position of
“if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are-against-us” is deeply flawed in the
common law and social senses. Equally unfortunate, speaking against
violence and in favour of peaceful negotiations is interpreted by
government as opinions of misguided peaceniks at best, or as overt or
clandestine collaboration with militants. ” Also, “ In matters
such as the militancy and terrorism that are presently rife, many people
fear that governments' policy that militancy (caused by decades-long
neglect and misgovernance) should be crushed by the use of police and
military firepower, will make presently bad situations worse. Such
people take the so-called third position, ... and [are] in favour of
peace and harmony. ” [3] . This is a viewpoint that is socially responsible and the only viable long-term solution to militancy.
All people who respect the Constitution
and value the rights and freedoms that flow from that hallowed document
need to vehemently and publicly condemn the advice of the intelligence
agencies against rights organizations, that diminish those freedoms and
rights and make nonsense of the Constitution. We do not want India to
become a police state. The MHA needs to unequivocally assure the people
that such unconstitutional advice from the intelligence agencies will be
rejected out of hand and the person(s) of the intelligence community
who rendered the advice will be put through a formal course of education
on the Constitution of India.
2. “ Supreme Court orders probe into all fake encounters in Gujarat ”; The Hindu, Bangalore; January 26, 2012, page 1.
3. Vombatkere S.G., “ The Third Position – Non-alignment with violence ”; Mainstream, New Delhi; Vol XLVIII No 13, March 20, 2010, p.29-31.
S.G.Vombatkere retired
as major general after 35 years in the Indian military. He is engaged
in voluntary social work, and is member of the National Alliance of
People's Movements (NAPM) and People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).
As Adjunct Associate Professor of the University of Iowa, USA, he
coordinates and lectures a course on Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development for under-graduate students from USA and Canada. He holds a
master of engineering degree in structural engineering from the
University of Poona and a PhD in civil structural dynamics from I.I.T,
Madras.: sg9kere@live.com
"Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."- Edward Bernays 1929
Revelers
gather at the White House and chant "USA! USA!" after the death of
Osama bin Laden, 05/21/11. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
By Bill Quigley, CounterPunch
24 January 12
[REPRINT]
"I am convinced that if we are to get on the
right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a
radical revolution of values."
– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1967
ne.
Human rights must be taken absolutely seriously. Every single person
is entitled to dignity and human rights. No application needed. No
exclusions at all. This is our highest priority.
Two. We must radically reinvent
contemporary democracy. Current systems are deeply corrupt and not
responsive to the needs of people. Representatives chosen by money and
influence govern by money and influence. This is unacceptable. Direct
democracy by the people is now technologically possible and should be
the rule. Communities must be protected whenever they advocate for
self-determination, self-development and human rights. Dissent is
essential to democracy; we pledge to help it flourish.
Three. Corporations are not people
and are not entitled to human rights. Amend the US Constitution so it
is clear corporations do not have constitutional or human rights. We
the people must cut them down to size and so democracy can regulate
their size, scope and actions.
Four. Leave the rest of the world
alone. Cut US military spending by 75 percent and bring all troops
outside the US home now. Defense of the US is a human right. Global
offense and global police force by US military are not. Eliminate all
nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. Stop allowing scare
tactics to build up the national security forces at home. Stop the myth
that the US is somehow special or exceptional and is entitled to act
differently than all other nations. The US must re-join the global
family of nations as a respectful partner. USA is one of many nations
in the world. We must start acting like it.
Five. Property rights, privilege,
and money-making are not as important as human rights. When current
property and privilege arrangements are not just they must yield to the
demands of human rights. Money-making can only be allowed when human
rights are respected. Exploitation is unacceptable. There are national
and global poverty lines. We must establish national and global excess
lines so that people and businesses with extra houses, cars, luxuries,
and incomes share much more to help everyone else be able to exercise
their basic human rights to shelter, food, education and healthcare. If
that disrupts current property, privilege and money-making, so be it.
Six. Defend our earth. Stop
pollution, stop pipelines, stop new interstates, and stop destroying the
land, sea, and air by extracting resources from them. Rebuild what we
have destroyed. If corporations will not stop voluntarily, people must
stop them. The very existence of life is at stake.
Seven. Dramatically expand public
spaces and reverse the privatization of public services. Quality public
education, health and safety for all must be provided by transparent
accountable public systems. Starving the state is a recipe for
destroying social and economic human rights for everyone but the rich.
Eight. Pull the criminal legal
prison system up and out by its roots and start over. Cease the
criminalization of drugs, immigrants, poor people and people of color.
We are all entitled to be safe but the current system makes us less so
and ruins millions of lives. Start over.
Nine. The US was created based on
two original crimes that must be confessed and made right. Reparations
are owed to Native Americans because their land was stolen and they were
uprooted and slaughtered. Reparations are owed to African Americans
because they were kidnapped, enslaved and abused. The US has profited
widely from these injustices and must make amends.
Ten. Everyone who wants to work
should have the right to work and earn a living wage. Any workers who
want to organize and advocate for change in solidarity with others must
be absolutely protected from recriminations from their employer and from
their government.
Finally, if those in government and those in power do
not help the people do what is right, people seeking change must
together exercise our human rights and bring about these changes
directly. Dr. King and millions of others lived and worked for a
radical revolution of values. We will as well. We respect the human
rights and human dignity of others and work for a world where love and
wisdom and solidarity and respect prevail. We expect those for whom the
current unjust system works just fine will object and oppose and accuse
people seeking dramatic change of being divisive and worse. That is to
be expected because that is what happens to all groups which work for
serious social change. Despite that, people will continue to go forward
with determination and purpose to bring about a radical revolution of
values in the USA.
Bill Quigley is Legal Director of the Center for
Constitutional Rights and law professor at Loyola University New
Orleans. You can reach Bill at
quigley77@gmail.com.
For some time now, voices have been crying out in unison against the ACTA treaty. The gross inadequacies of the new laws being passed internationally have been pointed out repeatedly. Our chief complaint is that such measures would restrict people's access to the internet.
In these modern times access to the internet is quickly becoming a basic human right. Just like any other basic human right, we believe that it is wrong to infringe upon it. To threaten to cut people off from the global consciousness as you have, is criminal and abhorrent. To move to censor content on the internet based on your own prejudice is at best, laughably impossible, at worst, morally reprehensible.
To impede on the rights of the public, with unjust precendent, is not acceptable to Anonymous, nor to the public in whom we represent. This has become quite clear across the globe. And so too, shall we make it clear to the European Parliament.
The unjust restrictions you impose on us, will meet with disaster and only strengthen our resolve to disobey, and rebel against your tyranny. Such actions taken against you, and those you out source your malignant litigation to, are inevitable, involuntary,unavoidable and unstoppable.
It is to interest of us, that this is not the first time ACTA was heard, or spoken of. We take note, to incidents arising in 2009, relating to the significant amount of nondisclosure agreements between ACTA and companies like Google, eBay, Sony, and Verizon. This further proves our point, that the purpose of ACTA is to impose nothing more than internet censorship across Europe.
In September 2008, a number of interest groups urged parties to the ACTA negotiations to disclose the language of the evolving agreement. In an open letter, the groups argued that: "Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited." The interest groups included: the Consumers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Essential Action, IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Global Trade Watch, the US Public Interest Research Group, IP Left (Korea), the Canadian Library Association, the Consumers Union of Japan, the National Consumer Council (UK) and the Doctors without Borders' Campaign for Essential Medicines. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge have filed a FOIA request which was denied
The University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic filed an access to information request but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.
Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration had rejected requests to make the text of ACTA public, with the White House saying that disclosure would cause "damage to the national security
In 2009, Knowledge Ecology International filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request in the United States, but their entire request was denied
Much like Guy Fawkes stood for freedom of Britian, so too will we stand for freedom of the internet from the hands of ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and all other entities that impose censorship on the internet we know and love.
Members, and supporters beware, the European Parliament may stand to impose your legislation, but Anonymous does not. If you shall be so inclined as to doubt our power, we bear in mind that we have toppled the Playstation Network, The US Department of Justice, Universal Studios, The FBI and WMG.
In the past, we have brought justice to, and toppled the governments of Tunisia, The United Arab Emirates, The United States of America, Austrailia, and New Zealand.
Let this be our only warning to you, withdraw ACTA or so too, will we topple ACTA and the European Parliament.
“This year’s index sees many changes in the rankings, changes that reflect a year that was incredibly rich in developments, especially in the Arab world,” Reporters Without Borders said today as it released its 10th annual press freedom index. “Many media paid dearly for their coverage of democratic aspirations or opposition movements. Control of news and information continued to tempt governments and to be a question of survival for totalitarian and repressive regimes. The past year also highlighted the leading role played by netizens in producing and disseminating news.
“Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom. Dictatorships fear and ban information, especially when it may undermine them.
“It is no surprise that the same trio of countries, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and North Korea, absolute dictatorships that permit no civil liberties, again occupy the last three places in the index. This year, they are immediately preceded at the bottom by Syria, Iran and China, three countries that seem to have lost contact with reality as they have been sucked into an insane spiral of terror, and by Bahrain and Vietnam, quintessential oppressive regimes. Other countries such as Uganda and Belarus have also become much more repressive.
“This year’s index finds the same group of countries at its head, countries such as Finland, Norway and Netherlands that respect basic freedoms. This serves as a reminder that media independence can only be maintained in strong democracies and that democracy needs media freedom. It is worth noting the entry of Cape Verde and Namibia into the top twenty, two African countries where no attempts to obstruct the media were reported in 2011.”
Protest movements
The Arab world was the motor of history in 2011 but the Arab uprisings have had contrasting political outcomes so far, with Tunisia and Bahrain at opposite ends of the scale. Tunisia (134th) rose 30 places in index and, with much suffering, gave birth to a democratic regime that has not yet fully accepted a free and independent press. Bahrain (173rd) fell 29 places because of its relentless crackdown on pro-democracy movements, its trials of human rights defenders and its suppression of all space for freedom.
While Libya (154th) turned the page on the Gaddafi era, Yemen succumbed to violence between President Ali Abdallah Saleh’s opponents and supporters and languished in 171st position. The future of both of these countries remains uncertain, and the place they will allow the media is undecided. The same goes for Egypt, which fell 39 places to 166th because the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, in power since February, dashed the hopes of democrats by continuing the Mubarak dictatorship’s practices. There were three periods of exceptional violence for journalists: in February, November and December.
Already poorly ranked in 2010, Syria fell further in the index, to 176th position, because total censorship, widespread surveillance, indiscriminate violence and government manipulation made it impossible for journalists to work.
Elsewhere in the world, pro-democracy movements that tried to follow the Arab example were ruthlessly suppressed. Many arrests were made in Vietnam (172nd). In China (174th), the government responded to regional and local protests and to public impatience with scandals and acts of injustice by feverishly reinforcing its system of controlling news and information, carrying out extrajudicial arrests and stepping up Internet censorship. There was a dramatic rise in the number of arrests in Azerbaijan (162nd), where Ilham Aliyev’s autocratic government did not hesitate to jail netizens, abduct opposition journalists and bar foreign reporters in order to impose a news blackout on the unrest.
Led by President Yoweri Museveni, Uganda (139th) launched an unprecedented crackdown on opposition movements and independent media after the elections in February. Similarly, Chile (80th) fell 47 places because of its many freedom of information violations, committed very often by the security forces during student protests. The United States (47th) also owed its fall of 27 places to the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests.
Several European countries fall far behind rest of continent
The index has highlighted the divergence of some European countries from the rest of the continent. The crackdown on protests after President Lukashenko’s reelection caused Belarus to fall 14 places to 168th. At a time when it is portraying itself as a regional model, Turkey (148th) took a big step backwards and lost 10 places. Far from carrying out promised reforms, the judicial system launched a wave of arrests of journalists that was without precedent since the military dictatorship.
Within the European Union, the index reflects a continuation of the very marked distinction between countries such as Finland and Netherlands that have always had a good evaluation and countries such as Bulgaria (80th), Greece (70th) and Italy (61st) that fail to address the issue of their media freedom violations, above all because of a lack of political will. There was little progress from France, which went from 44th to 38th, or from Spain (39th) and Romania (47th). Media freedom is a challenge that needs addressing more than ever in the Balkans, which want to join the European Union but are suffering the negative effects of the economic crisis.
Endemic violence
Many countries are marked by a culture of violence towards the media that has taken a deep hold. It will be hard to reverse the trends in these countries without an effective fight against impunity. Mexico (149th) and Honduras (135th) are two cases in point. Pakistan (151st) was the world’s deadliest country for journalists for the second year running. Somalia (164th), which has been at war for 20 years, shows no sign of finding a way out of the chaos in which journalists are paying a heavy price.
In Iran (175th), hounding and humiliating journalists has been part of officialdom’s political culture for years. The regime feeds on persecution of the media. Iraq (152nd) fell back 22 places and is now worryingly approaching its 2008 position (158th).
Noteworthy changes
South Sudan, a new nation facing many challenges, has entered the index in a respectable position (111th) for what is a breakaway from one of the worst ranked countries, Sudan (170th). Burma (169th) has a slightly better position than in previous years as a result of political changes in recent months that have raised hopes but need to be confirmed. Niger (29th) achieved the biggest rise in a single year, 75 places, thanks to a successful political transition.
It was Africa that also saw the biggest falls in the index. Djibouti, a discreet little dictatorship in the Horn of Africa, fell 49 places to 159th. Malawi (146th) fell 67 places because of the totalitarian tendencies of its president, Bingu Wa Mutharika. Uganda, mentioned above, fell 43 places to 139th. Finally, Côte d’Ivoire fell 41 places to 159th because the media were badly hit by the fighting between the supporters of rival presidents Laurent Gbagbo and Alassane Ouattara.
The biggest fall in Latin America was by Brazil, which plunged 41 places to 99th because the high level of violence resulted in the deaths of three journalists and bloggers.
In order to have a bigger spread in the scores and increase the differentiation between countries, this year’s questionnaire had more answers assigning negative points. That is why countries at the top of the index have negative scores this year.
Although the point system has produced a broader distribution of scores than in 2010, each country’s evolution over the years can still be plotted by comparing its position in the index rather than its score. This is what the arrows in the table refer to – a country’s change in position in the index compared with the preceding year.