Category Archives: rights

Hong Kong and Freedom

Posted on by
2

The backdrop is this: in the last few days in the Hong Kong district of Mong Kok, there have been violent clashes between peaceful student and other protestors on the one hand and “locals” consisting, allegedly, of older residents and small business owners mixed with members of the triads on the other hand, this mix attacking the protesters. The latter are losing income from their prostitution and drug…enterprises…and they’re upset about it.

My own view is that the residents and business owners are being provoked and the triads winked at by the PRC in the hope of getting sufficient pretext to justify the government’s coming violent crackdown. That’s a separate question, though; what interests me here are the charges being leveled by the current Hong Kong administration against those who were arrested during those weekend clashes.

Hong Kong’s Secretary for Security, Lai Tung-kwok, said that among other charges, those arrested had been charged with unlawful assembly.

How is it possible to unlawfully assemble in a free society?

PRC, Hong Kong, and Rights

Posted on by
2

The situation in Hong Kong, which the People’s Republic of China has created with its high-handed treatment of the Special Administrative Region, is getting tighter.

[Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying] Leung told voters it is better to agree to Beijing’s plans for nominating candidates and to hold an election, than to stick with the current system of having an Election Commission choose the chief executive.

“It is definitely better to have universal suffrage than not,” Leung said. “It is definitely better to have the chief executive elected by 5 million eligible voters than by 1,200 people. And it is definitely better to cast your vote at the polling station than to stay home and watch on television the 1,200 members of the Election Committee cast their votes.”

This is cynically misleading. The 1,200 to whom Leung referred are the nominating committee of the Communist Party of China. They’ve been the ones—and they continue to be the ones, now formally under the control of the Party’s Standing Committee—who will determine who the candidates will be that those “5 million eligible voters” can select from. Those 5 million are only being allowed to rubber stamp the selection made by those 1,200. This is no elective choice. Of course, Leung and his PRC masters know this.

And

[PRC President] Xi Jinping, who has taken a hard line against any perceived threat to the Communist Party’s hold on power, vowed in a National Day speech to “steadfastly safeguard” Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability.

This is just wind in the trees. Xi knows full well that Beijing cannot “steadfastly safeguard” Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. Only the people of Hong Kong, acting for and by themselves, without outside interference, can do that.

And

China’s government…so far it has not overtly intervened, leaving Hong Kong authorities to handle the crisis.

This is a misunderstanding. The Hong Kong authorities are in the streets, not in the government buildings. The people are sovereign over their government in a free state. Of course, this is hard to realize from inside a despotic state.

The protesters, upset that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has refused to meet them, have threatened to expand their demonstrations unless he resigns and the Chinese leadership agrees to broader electoral reforms.

It’s clear from the breadth of these protests, that the PRC has lost the consent of the Hong Kong-ese to govern them. PRC governance, thus, is illegitimate. This is corroborated by the protest news clampdown the PRC has done, especially in contrast to the freely flowing protest news within Hong Kong.

And finally, there’s this failure, this one from the West.

British Prime Minister David Cameron saying he planned to summon the Chinese ambassador to discuss the dispute, saying it is essential that Hong Kong’s people have a genuine right to choose their top leader.

This is an even greater misunderstanding, both by its existence and coming as it does from the leader of the birthplace of John Locke. No, Prime Minister, each one of Hong Kong’s people is created with an inalienable right to his own liberty and happiness. That means he has an inalienable right to choose his own government and the men who operate it. What is essential is that Hong Kong’s people have that right genuinely acknowledged and accepted.

Ireland, Luxembourg, UK, and EU Commitments

Posted on by
Reply

In a letter to the Irish government published Tuesday, the European Commission, the 28-member bloc’s central antitrust authority, said it had reached the “preliminary view” that tax deals struck in Ireland in 1991 and 2007 in favor of Apple constituted state aid.

1991! No statute of limitations here. That’s a small matter, though. The larger matter is the degree of freedom that sovereign nations have to govern their internal affairs while remaining a part of the European Union.

The beef here, and it’s a similar one involving Fiat in Luxembourg, and Starbucks and others in other constituent nations of the EU (the details vary from case to case), is this. Ireland didn’t impose a high enough tax on Apple’s Irish-earned income to suit the Authorities of the EU. That letter, in the form of a “report,” complained:

The main question in the present case is whether the rulings confer a selective advantage upon Apple insofar as it results in a lowering of its tax liability in Ireland….

The EU long has objected to the low Irish tax rates, insisting that these are somehow unfair to the other member nations, nations that have much higher tax rates. And no, don’t expect those nations to lower their taxes to compete; Ireland must raise its taxes so as to be less competitive.

The EU complained further:

[There were] several inconsistencies in the application of the transfer pricing method chosen when determining profit allocation [and costs had been] reverse engineered so as to arrive at a taxable income.

Because it’s shameful for a company—or a nation—to work to protect the company’s (and so the company owners’) money. It’s not their money, after all, it belongs to the EU. To paraphrase a man from the other side of the Pond, they didn’t earn that. Somebody else made that happen.

As James Stewart, a tax expert at Trinity College Dublin, noted,

There’s no doubt that this is damaging to Ireland. There’s a deeply held belief that our low corporate tax regime is central to Ireland’s industrial policy. The commission letter gives notice that these types of tax rates are under scrutiny. It will be much more difficult for Ireland to give similar deals to other multinational companies.

But that doesn’t matter. Ireland didn’t earn that, either.

The UK needs to watch this situation in Ireland very carefully and to think long and hard about the value of an EU commitment and the cost of EU insistence on intruding into the domestic affairs of its member nations. The importance of the occurrence of the UK’s EU membership referendum has gained immeasurably from this EU behavior, and the outcome of that referendum now is even more important to the vitality of the UK.

Ireland, Luxembourg, and the others, also need to think very carefully about the value they’re gaining from EU membership, and the costs they’re bearing from that membership. What is the EU’s commitment to its members, if it reserves the right to intrude?

The European Commission’s allegations can be seen here.

A Thought on Birth Control

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Manny Alvarez, one of the house doctors for Fox News, had a useful piece the other day on teen birth control, in particular IUDs. He’s basically spring-loaded against them for teenage girls, for a number of reasons.

Very common side effects of placing this foreign object inside the womb include cramping, spotting, heavy menstrual flow and possibly even an infection that could lead to a condition called pelvic inflammatory disease, ultimately rendering the individual infertile.

Not to mention, uterine perforation—although extremely rare….

Rather than IUDs, Alvarez pushed for more sexual education information from (and for, say I) parents and physicians.

This is a right step, but I think there’s another aspect to IUD use that’s overlooked. Pregnancy is a serious thing that disrupts and alters lives and is the creation of a new one, and pregnancy does this whether it’s wanted or accidental.

An IUD, leaving aside its side effects, is a fire-and-forget device: by design, it’s intended to block pregnancy for a long time, so the woman and her partner don’t have to think about it while they’re being sexually active. This is fine for adults.

However, the teen years are where habits are being set on matters regarding sex and the outcomes of sex. It’s useful, then—it’s actively beneficial—for the teen girl to think about this more than on just the single occasion of getting the IUD installed. She’ll form better habits regarding safe sex (including STDs, even though birth control, per se, does nothing to counter these) if she’s encouraged to think about it more often, at the least on the occasion of taking her daily birth control pill.

The same habit benefit accrues to the each time use of a condom by the boy, even if the condom isn’t as effective as a birth control pill.

Arrogance and Encryption

Posted on by
2

I wrote a bit ago about liberty and encryption. Here’s an example of the arrogance of the government’s attitude toward an American citizen encrypting his communications against government snooping.

Regarding Google and Apple plans to market encryption capabilities for their smart phones, FBI Director James Comey had this to say:

What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law[.]

This comes in the context of Brent Kendall’s paraphrase of Comey’s concern in Kendall’s WSJ article, also summarized in the link just above

FBI Director James Comey on Thursday said he is concerned about moves by Apple Inc and Google Inc to market phones that can’t be searched by law enforcement….

There are two things wrong with this, both of which a talented lawman at the peak of his career knows full well. First is the fact that encryption does not at all place anyone “beyond the law:” get a warrant. Also, the government, as has been well publicized, has an IT capacity fully capable of breaking encryption should the cell phone’s owner decide jail is preferable to honoring the warrant. Finally, the cell phone service providers aren’t the ones engaged in the communications of government interest; the cell phone owners are. The only legitimate targets of warrants for communications are the communicators, not the service providers.

The second thing wrong is the appalling arrogance inherent in Comey’s quoted statement. Leaving aside the foolishness of his claim of unsearchability, he’s cynically conflating “the law” with “law enforcement,” the police. Of course, this is…inaccurate. “The law” is what we citizens, through our elected representatives, say it is; the police are not the law but folks we hire to enforce it.

Here is the modern Liberal government in action.