So I disagree. It’s only the christian organisations that are organised as anti-US that are adversaries. Quaker organisations for example tend to be accepted as friends or at least neutrals. Habitat for Humanity (which I think does accept nonchristians) is not an adversary. Etc. It’s mostly fundamentalist christian political groups who have political goals that are in the nation’s worst interest that behave as adversaries.

Muslim organisations in the USA are minority groups that typically need some protection. If at some time they get so strong that they’re effectively lobbying for money to get israel dismantled and nukes for palestine, then they will be adversaries. (And of course before then, but the point is right now they’re no threat.) And foreign cultures that happen to be muslim need to get treated as foreign cultures, of course.

It looks to me like this doesn’t color the dialog. It more removes some of the coloring that’s present in some other places.

The Moscow Times documented, in very great detail, that there was extensive rigging of the election when Putin gained his first full term so as to avoid a run-off. (Too big of a hurry now to find the link, but you can probably find it from the Moscow Times web pages.) There was good reason to think that the last big Duma elections were messed with so as to keep the SPS and Yabloko just under the 5% level needed to get Duma seats, too. Regional elections are pretty much all conceded to be fraudulent, always in favor the the Kremlin-backed candidate, so I really think you just don’t know the issue well here. There have been many political killings in Russia during Putin’s time-not all obviously directed from the Kremilin, but some possibly so, and none solved in a way that anyone there believes. (An example- one of the heads of the “Liberal Russia” party killed just when he starts to be annoying. It’s blamed on the mafia, and maybe that’s right, but certainly the Kremlin wasn’t very eager to have it deeply or seriously investigated. Finally, as to political parties, look in to the on-going fun with the National Bolshivik Party, which has been banned at several times recently and also had it’s members jailed and beaten by Kremlin-backed gangs of young thugs. So really, I think you’re just not fully up on the evidence here. All this is going on, even if not on a massive scale.

I take it you would have been a Tory if you were in north america in the 1770’s.

Or maybe you’re not talking about ‘disruption’ but about some specific idea in your own head.

`I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

Well that’s not my understanding. In 2002 a law was passed that prevented the formation of ‘extremist’ political parties but to the best of my knowledge it hasn’t been used. Putin doesn’t (again to the best of my knowledge and after a quick google search) ‘ban’ political parties. Instead they are legally harassed, but let’s live with our eyes open for a second shall we? Putin’s a bastard, but that doesn’t mean that his opponents are saints. His political opponents tend to be other oligarchs, and while it’s true that these prosecutions have political motivations, allegations of corruption (etc.) might well be true as well .

As for assassinations (outside Chechnya) again, my understanding is that that’s not Putin’s style. There are a lot of assassinations in Russia of course, but they tend to be carried out by the mafia, with the state turning a blind eye, not directly by the State itself.

Again it’s true there were a few allegations of vote rigging at the last elections, but not substantiated onces. In any case, Putin would almost certainly have won anyway so it really doesn’t matter.

What Dan Simon overlooks of course, is the extent to which Putin has used ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ (ie in Chechnya) as an excuse for removing basic civil liberties and freedoms. And as long as the public remain frightened (and ignorant) they will tend to go along with this.

Something that is doubtless being watched closely in Washington and London.

Finally: ‘But there’s still enough freedom in Britain (as well as where I live) for citizens to object in public to such a law, and if enough do so, then the law will inevitably be repealed.’

Actually laws are very very rarely repealed in Britain (or in the US for that matter) as a direct result of street protests. The last one I can think of was the poll tax, but that took more than just protests, it took riots (and the political situation was VERY different then: the Thatcher government was dying, and the opposition was comparatively strong: moreover, the Labour Party was still strongly committed to civil liberties in those days, not something its bitterest enemy would accuse it of nowadays).

Moreover, there are far more restrictions on freedom of assembly and free speech (in public) now than there were then. For example, it is now illegal to ‘take part in an unauthorised demonstration within one kilometre of the Palace of Westminster, even if they are simply standing on their own, neither posing a threat nor inconveniencing anybody else.’

So: ‘a nurse protesting against pay and conditions outside St Thomas Hospital on the other bank of the Thames would be breaking the law unless authority had been obtained in advance from the police.’

There are many other laws now on the statute books that are similarly authoritarian.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/12/do1202.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_12122005

(finally it should be noted that the reason that the UK and even Italy are not (yet) as bad as Putin’s Russia is because of EU human rights legislations, which Blair and Berlusconi at least have to pay lip service to, in a way which Putin doesn’t).

I wish that were true – in the way radical (and non-radical) civil rights activists changed the behavior in the US, but unfortunately the press, corporations and governments are as racist, condescending and hostile towards Muslims and Arabs as ever.

Actually, I don’t give a tinker’s crap what you mean by the term “abused”. What I care about is that you used the terms “understandable” and “admirable” to describe “disruptive” behavior which is most definitively neither understandable nor admirable—even if performed by the most “abused” people on earth (not that it is, mind you).

The behavior you find so “understandable” and “admirable” only increases the tally of abuse in the world. It simply has no mitigating features. You should be ashamed and embarrassed to be defending it—end of story.

While I mostly agree with you here, I’d like to point out that political assassinations, rigged elections, and the banning of political parties are all quite common elements of Putin’s Russia, and have been since the begining of his time in power. They are not used in every case and on a nation-wide level, but it’s pretty well documented that all of these tactics are used fairly regularly.

Of course, that’s why I’m concerned about intimidation of the press by threats of violence from Islamist radicals. The anti-”glorification of terrorism” law in Britain is certainly disturbingly broad and vague, and I’d worry about it, too, if I thought it was likely to be imitated anywhere else. But there’s still enough freedom in Britain (as well as where I live) for citizens to object in public to such a law, and if enough do so, then the law will inevitably be repealed.

How, on the other hand, do ordinary citizens repeal the death threats issued against writers and journalists judged to have been insufficiently “respectful” towards Islam?

You could, of course—but then someone might remind you just what kind of “disruptive” activity you were calling “admirable”. And then, if you had any shame at all, you would feel obliged to crawl away with your tail between your legs, and refrain from commenting any further on this topic.

Ah now we get to the nub of the matter. This issue is quite important, actually. The point here is quite simple, but frequently not understood (especially by Americans). It’s this.

There are many things that are essential to a democracy, and by definition elections (even free and fair (i.e. no vote rigging)) can only be one of those things. Why? Because in a true democracy you have to have a choice between genuine options, and you have to be well informed about these options.

For example: look at elections that were probably free and fair in the broadest sense of the word, but no sane person would view as being democratic in the true sense of THAT word. The Nazis held plebiscites or referenda on various issues (for example the Anschluss). The Nazis probably rigged these, but that doesn’t really matter. They would almost certainly have gotten their majorities whether they rigged the vote or not.

So: it wasn’t vote rigging that was the problem. So what was it? The problem was: the absence of a free press. No free press, no free press debate, and an absence of vital information, as to the possible benefits or otherwise of the various actions proposed by Hitler.

So: in a situation of press censorship, or lack of information, you can’t have a genuine choice, and so any elections held on that basis are automatically not democratic in the true sense of that word.

Dan Simon assumes that democracies are ‘self-regulating’, and that’s true….but only in a situation where there is a free press, access to relevant information, and a genuine debate. But THEN he says that state should be allowed to curtail that debate, and censor information.

BUT BY DEFINITION ANY ELECTION HELD ON THE BASIS OF CENSORED INFORMATION AND A STIFLED PRESS WILL BE INVALID.

In other words, when you lose your freedoms, you will tend to lose them permanently, because the democracy can no longer ‘right itself’.

You want an example? Look at Putin’s Russia. Look at Berlusconi’s Italy. Are political parties banned? No. Are the elections rigged? Of course not. Are there political assassinations? No. Are there concentration camps, gulags, a secret police? Don’t be ridiculous.

But are these states actually democratic, in a meaningful sense? Berlusconi (and Putin) control the media (Well Berlusconi controls almost all the media but he’s going for the rest.) There is rampant political corruption, and at the top levels, merging of organised crime with the apparatus of the state. The opposition is weak, splintered, and provides no meaningful alternative to the increasingly autocratic leaders.

In short, Berlusconi and Putin are, in embryo, paving the way for a new form of government: not totalitarian or authoritarian (in the 20th century style) but not democratic either. Instead it’s a kind of media-ocracy, or oligarchy, where real power is kept well away from the masses and behind closed doors.

In a state like Berlusconi’s Italy or Putin’s Russia, the state can no longer ‘right itself’ (think of the metaphor of the ship): things have gone too far. Only radical change will bring democracy back to these countries.

And what is the real problem, the source problem of these countries? The state has too much control over the media, there is too much censorship, and, despite what you say, despite the formal process of democracy, the ship of state can’t right itself because there can’t be any genuine debate about these issues…because Putin and Berlusconi control the debate, because the Russian people and Italian people let them take their freedoms away to begin with.

And the moral is: despite the fact that a state is ‘democratic’ it’s much safer just not go give your freedoms away to begin with.

Cos you might not be able to get them back.

I agree that sectarianism in Northern Ireland has been the cause of enormous misery. Indeed, violence and threats from sectarian groups have unquestionably undermined freedoms in Northern Ireland. But I doubt that anyone commenting on Crooked Timber—or just about anywhere else, for that matter—would deny or downplay that concern, local as it is. On the contrary, it’s long been a major international issue, despite its relatively local effects.

On the other hand, threats and violence from radical Islamists appear to be changing the behavior of press organs, corporations and even governments all over the world—yet Kieran has pooh-poohed them as “a lot of posturing”, and ridiculed the idea that “some clerical thugs are so awesomely powerful that they are in a position to destroy the institutions of western democracy”.

Incidentally, forgive me if I’m wrong but the thrust of your post would seem to be that we shouldn’t really bother that much about the State taking away our freedoms because it might (or might not) give them back at some indeterminate point in the future?

Not quite—it’s that in a functioning democracy, the state will not be permitted to take away more freedoms than the public at large considers tolerable. And they are ultimately a better judge of which freedoms are necessary, which ones preferable, and which ones superfluous than any subset of them—let alone a radical foreign religious movement.