In the first part of my discussion of the new draft of Egypt's constitution that I can read here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/egypts-draft-constitution-part-1.html I covered the first 100 articles covering The Sate, Basic Components of Society, Public Rights, Duties and Freedoms and The Rule of Law. I found this section to be very strong containing very minor concerns none of which would individually justify rejecting the entire constitution at referendum.
In the second part of my discussion that can be read here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/egypts-draft-constitution-part-2.html I covered articles 184 - 221 which covers the so-called apparatus of state including the military, the Courts and the police force. Although this section was again generally very strong I did find a number of significant problems that would justify rejecting the entire constitution at referendum.
In this third and final part I'm going to look at articles 101 - 183 which make up chapter 5 and covering The Ruling System made up of the legislative branch of government (the House of Representatives) and the executive branch (the Presidency and the Government). This is the section which has presented me with the highest number of very serious problems any of which would justify the rejection of the constitution. That is a shame because this is probably the most important section of the entire constitution.
The first thing you notice about this section is that it has clearly been deeply scarred by the experience of Mohamed Morsi's disastrous time as President. So for example the President can now only dissolve the House of Representatives following a public referendum (Article 137/2013). Also the House of Representatives (Henceforth "The House") can only move from its seat in Cairo at the request of the President or a one third majority of its members (Article 144/2013) and can only be considered in session if attended by a majority of its members (Article 121/2013). These provisions are a direct reference to Morsi's dismissal of Parliament in order to rule by diktat and Muslim Brotherhood members of Parliament holding rival Parliamentary sessions following Morsi's ouster. They are though very sensible provisions.
The big change in the ruling system is that it sees Egypt move from a bicameral system with two legislative chambers (House of Representatives and Shura Council) to a unicameral system with the House acting as the sole legislative chamber. This change was clearly brought about in response to the constant conflict and gridlock between the House and the Shura Council and initially had me very worried. That's because the bicameral system is intended to function with the two chambers acting as a safety valve cancelling out each others worst excesses and is the system I personally prefer.
However the unicameral system is the most widely used system globally although many of the nations that use it such as China, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK), Azerbaijan and Cuba are hardly bastions of democracy while other such as Mali, the Central African Republic (CAR) and Somalia are not exactly famed for their political stability. That said though there are some very good examples of unicameral republics including Israel, South Korea, Finland and probably most importantly Turkey which is still just about the leading example of an Islamic democracy. Therefore it is possible for this system to work and it seems appropriate for Egypt especially as I expect its burgeoning political scene to produce lots of disparate coalitions based on co-operation rather then overall majorities for the foreseeable future at least.
In terms of the organisation of the House the draft is again very sensible, reasonable and a bit dull. For example it contains a version of what in the UK is known as "Parliamentary Privilege" with members being immune from normal restrictions such as injunctions and libel actions during the course of their work (Article 112/2013) and can only be subject to criminal proceedings with the permission of other members of the House (Article 113/2013). This last point is important because it stops the police doing things like arresting Representatives in order to prevent them voting in favour laws that would, for example, cut the police's pay.
There are though two big problems with the structure of the House both of which warrant the entire constitution being rejected at referendum. The first of these which I've already mentioned is the provision that prevents the House from passing a budget that "incurs new burdens on citizens" (Article 124/2013). My reading of this is that it prevents the government from ever raising taxes or introducing new taxes. A government simply cannot function like this especially when it has constitutional obligations to raise public spending on things like education (Article 19/2013), health care (Article 18/2013) and scientific research (Article 23/2013). In fact there are many cynics who would say that increasing the burden on it's citizens is the entire purpose of government.
The second big problem is that the experience of Morsi has caused the balance of power between the House and the President to shift too far in favour of the House. Although the President must sign any law passed by the House of Representatives before it can be enacted and has the right of veto the President can veto only once (Article 123/2013). If the veto is used the matter must be referred back to the House within 30 days in order to prevent it being enacted automatically and then if two thirds of the House pass the law a second time it automatically gets enacted.
Although in any nation - especially one with Egypt's history - there needs to be a mechanism to prevent the head of state repeatedly denying the will of the people there also needs to be safeguards to prevent a single party - like the Freedom & Justice Party - winning a majority in the House and then abusing that position to defy the will of the people. This is especially true in a unicameral system.
To avoid this problem I would give the President a second or even third veto over a two thirds majority. After the final veto the law automatically gets enacted but that would cause such a constitutional crisis the House would probably have tabled a motion of no confidence in the President by then meaning that the people get to speak for themselves in a referendum (Article 161/2013).
In terms of the Presidency itself despite all these new limits of Presidential powers it is still far from a mere ceremonial role with the President retaining real powers. Primarily it appears that the framers of the constitution have gone for a French style split between the office the President and the office of the Prime Minister. That is to say that the President is responsible for setting out the general direction of the nation and concentrating on foreign affairs while the Prime Minister and Cabinet the concentrates of the day to day running of the nation.
Generally the way the structure of the Presidency is laid out in this draft is all so sensible, reasonable and dull there isn't a lot for me to add. For example the President can only declare a state of emergency or send the nation to war with the support of the House (Articles 154 & 152/2013).
I am though seriously concerned by the language the prevents the President from holding any partisan position (Article 140/2013). This has clearly been inserted to make sure that the President serves the best interests of the nation during their term in office rather then any party political agenda. However I'm worried that it could be interpreted to mean that the President cannot be a member of a political party. This presents a problem because President is an elected position which means any candidate needs to mount an election campaign in order to secure the position. Election campaigns do not come cheap so if candidates are not able to rely on the resources of political party's the office will only really open to the richest Egyptians which goes against the principle that any Egyptian citizen over 40 years of age can become President (Article 141/2013). Therefore I will need to have this point clarified before I can endorse this draft.
Despite all the efforts to limit the power of the President I am worried that they remain too powerful in certain key areas. The first area of concern is the provision that if a vote of no confidence in the President is rejected at referendum the House that forced the referendum is automatically dissolved (Article 161/2013). This seems too severe a punishment on the House because while the people might still have confidence in the President they may also still have confidence in the House and prefer to see the two work together to resolve their differences rather then an all or nothing outcome. Therefore I would remove this provision because the President would still retain the power to call a referendum to dissolve the House.
The main area where I'm concerned that the President retains too much is over the control of the military. The President continues as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces (Article 152/2013) although as previously discussed this directly contradicts the provision that makes the Minister of Defence the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (Article 201/2013).
While the constitution prevents the President from sending the armed forces to war or into combat outside of state territory without the approval of the House it makes no such provision for deploying the military within state territory which obviously allows the President to unilaterally deploy the military to crush protests which is hardly in line with democracy.
The circumstances that would reasonably see the military deployed within Egypt's borders - such as an invasion - don't really allow for debates and votes in the House though so I would enshrine in the constitution a right of veto over domestic deployments to either the National Defence Council or the National Security Council which is why it is essential that it is established which Council has superiority as I previously discussed.
The part of this section that causes me the most problems though are the provision for the Government made up of the Prime Minister and their Cabinet which is the state's supreme executive power (Article 163/2013). Under the draft the President appoints a Prime Minister who in turn appoints a Cabinet. The House then has 30 days to approve this government and if it fails to do so the President appoints a replacement Prime Minister who is nominated by the leader of the largest bloc or party in the House (Article 146/2013). The problem is that the Prime Minister or any members of the Cabinet cannot be members of the House (Article 164/2013).
This rather bizarre system was clearly devised to allow government to operate separately from the House in response to the constant gridlock that existed under Morsi. The problem is that it also means that the day to day running of Egypt bears absolutely no relation to the will of the people expressed through elections. That is completely incompatible with the principles of democracy especially where members of the government are obligated to introduce laws (Article 167/2013) and I can think of no other nation on earth that operates this way. As such I simply cannot endorse a constitution that structures a government this way.
Therefore as an alternative I would make it a constitutional requirement that the Prime Minister has to be an elected member of the House although that does not necessarily mean they need to be the leader of the largest bloc or party. I am less concerned with members of the Cabinet having to be elected because in nations such as the US all members of the Cabinet are appointed by an elected President and usually hold no elected office in order to ensure that the most talented people get the top jobs. However I do not think that membership of the House should be an automatic barrier to being a member of the Cabinet.
Finally the draft makes provisions for local government which has got to be the least interesting part of any government. It was clearly of no interest to the framers of this draft who appear to have simply inserted the phrase "as regulated by law" after every article in an effort to rush the draft to referendum in order to keep up with the transitional roadmap. That is simply unacceptable when drafting a constitution. In the rare area where explicit provisions for local government are made they seem totally dominated by trade unionists and similar special interest groups. For example 50% of seats on local councils are reserved for workers or farmers (Article 180/2013). This gives workers and farmers an automatic majority on and therefore control over all local councils. So if seats in local government are to be reserved for special groups I think they should be limited to no more then 25%.
So in conclusion despite its many strong points this constitutional draft contains so many significant problems in key areas I have no choice other then to recommend that the Egyptian people reject it at referendum so it can be sent back to the drafting committee for further clarification and strengthening.
I appreciate that this will delay the roadmap and Egypt's transition to democracy but a delay of a few months is certainly preferable then adopting a faulty constitution before waiting six months and having to go through another bloody revolution.
22:40 on 2/1/14 (UK date).
Thursday, 2 January 2014
Monday, 30 December 2013
Egypt's Draft Constitution: Part 2.
In the previous part of this discussion that can be read here; http://watchitdie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/egypts-draft-constitution-part-1.html I noted that the first 100 articles of the 2013 draft of Egypt's constitution was generally very strong and didn't contain any problems significant enough to justify it being rejected at the upcoming public referendum.
Unfortunately though articles 184 to 221 covering the apparatus of state such the military, the Courts and the police force contain much more serious problems. I should start though by pointing out the areas where the constitution is particularly strong. The main one of these is the police force which the constitution mandates as an organisation whose loyalty is to the people rather then any branch of the government and whose duty is to uphold the constitution and the law above all else (Article 206/2013). This independence is guaranteed by the formation of the Supreme Police Council made up of senior police officers and a legal adviser from the State Council which the Minister of the Interior must consult before changing the way the police force operates (Article 207/2013). This is all a pretty standard, sensible and internationally recognised way of ensuring an independent police force. The only improvement I would make is to give the Supreme Police Council an explicit rather then implied right of veto over any instruction given by the Interior Minister or any other member of the government that contradicts the values of the constitution.
Another area where the constitution is very strong is the Judiciary which makes up all the Courts and Judaical bodies. Here the draft is quite clear that the Judiciary is wholly independent of government and the military (Article 184/2013). I though would be explicit that the powers of the Judiciary are defined by the constitution and the law rather then simply the law as the current draft reads. The independence of the Judiciary is further re-enforced by an obligation that they and they alone are responsible for managing their own affairs (Article 185/2013) and that its members cannot be dismissed under any circumstances and can only be disciplined by other members of the Judiciary (Article 186/2013). Finally to ensure that the people can see the Judiciary to be acting with integrity all Court sessions are to be held in public unless exceptional threats to public order or public morals require them to be held in closed session (Article 187/2013). Again this is a pretty standard requirement of Courts throughout the democratic world.
Obviously a nation's Judaical system is only as good as the laws it upholds. In the draft this is covered primarily by Chapter 4 made up of articles 94-100. Again here the draft is very strong with the rule of law being made the ultimate authority in the running of the nation (Article 94/2013). This means that the law applies to all Egyptians without exception regardless of race, gender, religion, political affiliation or profession. My only concern is that the current wording describes members of the Judiciary as being immune from the law. This is a problem because while the Judiciary need to be independent from political interference they still need to be bound by the laws they uphold.
The constitutional draft goes on to explicitly state that punishments can only be imposed on an individual after a Judaical ruling (Article 95/2013).This prevents a person being sent to prison without first being convicted of a crime and prevents the friends or relatives of an offender being punished for their crime. The draft goes on to explicitly states that punishments ordered by a Court have to be carried out (Article 100/2013). This prevents offenders using financial, political or other forms of influence to bribe public officials to avoid their punishment.The draft also explicitly grants an accused person a right to a defence and obligates the state to provide assistance to individuals who are financially unable to mount a defence (Article 98/2013). The draft explicitly states that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by a fair Court of law (Article 96/2013).
Exactly what constitutes a "fair Court of law" is more precisely defined by the provisions of Chapter three, articles 51 to 93 because any criminal investigation or Court ruling that violates these articles is by its definition unfair. The most important articles here are the right of personal freedom (Article 54/2013). Unless a person is caught in the act of committing a crime this prevents them being arrested without a Judge first being convinced that there is enough evidence to issue an arrest warrant. When a person is arrested they must be given a valid reason why, informed of their rights, have someone informed of their arrest and have a lawyer present during any questioning. An arrested person must be brought before an investigating authority (similar to a Magistrate) within 24 hours who will check that their arrest is justified and their rights are being respected. If an arrested person is to be detained beyond 24 hours this must be reviewed by a Judge every 7 days. This is a widely accepted democratic practice known as Habeus Corpus.
Whilst under arrest an individual has a guaranteed right to silence and may not be tortured, terrorised or coerced into breaking that silence (Article 55/2013). The right to private life (Article 57/2013) and the inviolability of homes (Article 58/2013) protect the individual from unlawful search and seizure such a wiretapping or searches of a private residence. These provisions are all stronger then the system I live under here in the supposedly free United Kingdom so rather then criticising them I'm actually tempted to try and copy them.
In terms of the Judaical system that protects all these rights and enforces the law the draft is again very sensible, reasonable and a bit dull. The Supreme Constitutional Court is the highest Court in the land with Jurisdiction to rule over all civilian legal decisions including disputes between lower Courts and Judaical bodies (Articles 194 & 192/2013). To ensure its independence the Supreme Constitutional Court chooses its own President and members subject to the approval of the President (Articles 193 & 194/2013).
In order to maintain the independence of the Supreme Constitutional Court and all other Judaical bodies matters relating to their administration and disciplinary matters of their staff are handled by the State Council (Article 190/2013). This all very standard seems simply to be an Egyptian name for what is known in other nations as the Bar Association.
In support of the Courts there is the Public Prosecution which deals with investigating and prosecuting crimes. It is headed by a Prosecutor General who is selected by the Supreme Judaical Council from either assistants to the Court of Cessation, assistants to the Court of Appeals or deputy Prosecutor Generals (Article 189/2013). Again this is all pretty standard and in the UK the similar body is known as the Crown Prosecution Service. Then there is the State Cases Authority which defends the government when it gets sued and offers legal advice to government departments to stop them getting sued in the first place (Article 196/2013). In the UK and the US the similar body is known as the Office of the Attorney General. Finally there is Administrative Prosecution which functions much the same as the Public Prosecution but deals exclusively with financial and administrative corruption (Article 197/2013). Personally I think this is a little redundant because I think its work could be done by the Public Prosecution but if Egyptians want a dedicated body to tackle corruption that is their choice.
The area where this draft constitution deals with the apparatus of state that gives me the most serious problems though is the provisions it makes for the military. The first problem is with the National Defence Council (Article 203/2013). This is set up to ensure the safety and security of the nation. Although given Egypt's history I think this body should have a power of veto over its head - the President - my main problem is that its work is duplicated by the National Security Council which is set up to ensure the security of the nation against all threats (Article 205/2013). While there is an unanswered question over whether the National Defence Council or the National Security Council is the superior body having two bodies mainly strikes me as needless bureaucracy and suggests the issue hasn't been given the level of thought and consideration it requires.
The second problem is with the role of the Military Judiciary (Article 204/2013). I have absolutely no problem with the military having its own codes of justice and a Judiciary to enforce them. However I have great problem with the military being able to exert its codes of justice over civilians. Ideally civilians should only be answerable to civilian Courts but given Egypt's history and current security situation I can appreciate that under certain circumstances terrorist groups who are mounting military attacks will need to be dealt with by military Courts. The problem is that the draft gives military Courts authority over all crimes against the military's equipment, vehicles, weapons, ammunition, documents, military secrets, public funds or whatever falls under [the military's] authority. This is far too broad and I think that military Courts should be limited only to attacks on military buildings, barracks and stipulated military or border zones. Civilians engaged in crimes against other aspects of the military should in the first instance be dealt with by civilian Courts. After all as the do in the US it only takes a matter of minutes for a civilian Judge to review a case and then decide that it is best handled by a military Court.
My main problem with the way the draft deals with the military is the provision that makes the Minister of Defence the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (Article 201/2013). This directly contradicts the provision that makes the President the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces (Article 152/2013). The Armed Forces can only have one ultimate commander therefore this glaring contradiction is totally unworkable and to my mind grounds alone for this constitutional draft to be rejected at the referendum.
22:10 on 30/12/13 (UK date).
Unfortunately though articles 184 to 221 covering the apparatus of state such the military, the Courts and the police force contain much more serious problems. I should start though by pointing out the areas where the constitution is particularly strong. The main one of these is the police force which the constitution mandates as an organisation whose loyalty is to the people rather then any branch of the government and whose duty is to uphold the constitution and the law above all else (Article 206/2013). This independence is guaranteed by the formation of the Supreme Police Council made up of senior police officers and a legal adviser from the State Council which the Minister of the Interior must consult before changing the way the police force operates (Article 207/2013). This is all a pretty standard, sensible and internationally recognised way of ensuring an independent police force. The only improvement I would make is to give the Supreme Police Council an explicit rather then implied right of veto over any instruction given by the Interior Minister or any other member of the government that contradicts the values of the constitution.
Another area where the constitution is very strong is the Judiciary which makes up all the Courts and Judaical bodies. Here the draft is quite clear that the Judiciary is wholly independent of government and the military (Article 184/2013). I though would be explicit that the powers of the Judiciary are defined by the constitution and the law rather then simply the law as the current draft reads. The independence of the Judiciary is further re-enforced by an obligation that they and they alone are responsible for managing their own affairs (Article 185/2013) and that its members cannot be dismissed under any circumstances and can only be disciplined by other members of the Judiciary (Article 186/2013). Finally to ensure that the people can see the Judiciary to be acting with integrity all Court sessions are to be held in public unless exceptional threats to public order or public morals require them to be held in closed session (Article 187/2013). Again this is a pretty standard requirement of Courts throughout the democratic world.
Obviously a nation's Judaical system is only as good as the laws it upholds. In the draft this is covered primarily by Chapter 4 made up of articles 94-100. Again here the draft is very strong with the rule of law being made the ultimate authority in the running of the nation (Article 94/2013). This means that the law applies to all Egyptians without exception regardless of race, gender, religion, political affiliation or profession. My only concern is that the current wording describes members of the Judiciary as being immune from the law. This is a problem because while the Judiciary need to be independent from political interference they still need to be bound by the laws they uphold.
The constitutional draft goes on to explicitly state that punishments can only be imposed on an individual after a Judaical ruling (Article 95/2013).This prevents a person being sent to prison without first being convicted of a crime and prevents the friends or relatives of an offender being punished for their crime. The draft goes on to explicitly states that punishments ordered by a Court have to be carried out (Article 100/2013). This prevents offenders using financial, political or other forms of influence to bribe public officials to avoid their punishment.The draft also explicitly grants an accused person a right to a defence and obligates the state to provide assistance to individuals who are financially unable to mount a defence (Article 98/2013). The draft explicitly states that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by a fair Court of law (Article 96/2013).
Exactly what constitutes a "fair Court of law" is more precisely defined by the provisions of Chapter three, articles 51 to 93 because any criminal investigation or Court ruling that violates these articles is by its definition unfair. The most important articles here are the right of personal freedom (Article 54/2013). Unless a person is caught in the act of committing a crime this prevents them being arrested without a Judge first being convinced that there is enough evidence to issue an arrest warrant. When a person is arrested they must be given a valid reason why, informed of their rights, have someone informed of their arrest and have a lawyer present during any questioning. An arrested person must be brought before an investigating authority (similar to a Magistrate) within 24 hours who will check that their arrest is justified and their rights are being respected. If an arrested person is to be detained beyond 24 hours this must be reviewed by a Judge every 7 days. This is a widely accepted democratic practice known as Habeus Corpus.
Whilst under arrest an individual has a guaranteed right to silence and may not be tortured, terrorised or coerced into breaking that silence (Article 55/2013). The right to private life (Article 57/2013) and the inviolability of homes (Article 58/2013) protect the individual from unlawful search and seizure such a wiretapping or searches of a private residence. These provisions are all stronger then the system I live under here in the supposedly free United Kingdom so rather then criticising them I'm actually tempted to try and copy them.
In terms of the Judaical system that protects all these rights and enforces the law the draft is again very sensible, reasonable and a bit dull. The Supreme Constitutional Court is the highest Court in the land with Jurisdiction to rule over all civilian legal decisions including disputes between lower Courts and Judaical bodies (Articles 194 & 192/2013). To ensure its independence the Supreme Constitutional Court chooses its own President and members subject to the approval of the President (Articles 193 & 194/2013).
In order to maintain the independence of the Supreme Constitutional Court and all other Judaical bodies matters relating to their administration and disciplinary matters of their staff are handled by the State Council (Article 190/2013). This all very standard seems simply to be an Egyptian name for what is known in other nations as the Bar Association.
In support of the Courts there is the Public Prosecution which deals with investigating and prosecuting crimes. It is headed by a Prosecutor General who is selected by the Supreme Judaical Council from either assistants to the Court of Cessation, assistants to the Court of Appeals or deputy Prosecutor Generals (Article 189/2013). Again this is all pretty standard and in the UK the similar body is known as the Crown Prosecution Service. Then there is the State Cases Authority which defends the government when it gets sued and offers legal advice to government departments to stop them getting sued in the first place (Article 196/2013). In the UK and the US the similar body is known as the Office of the Attorney General. Finally there is Administrative Prosecution which functions much the same as the Public Prosecution but deals exclusively with financial and administrative corruption (Article 197/2013). Personally I think this is a little redundant because I think its work could be done by the Public Prosecution but if Egyptians want a dedicated body to tackle corruption that is their choice.
The area where this draft constitution deals with the apparatus of state that gives me the most serious problems though is the provisions it makes for the military. The first problem is with the National Defence Council (Article 203/2013). This is set up to ensure the safety and security of the nation. Although given Egypt's history I think this body should have a power of veto over its head - the President - my main problem is that its work is duplicated by the National Security Council which is set up to ensure the security of the nation against all threats (Article 205/2013). While there is an unanswered question over whether the National Defence Council or the National Security Council is the superior body having two bodies mainly strikes me as needless bureaucracy and suggests the issue hasn't been given the level of thought and consideration it requires.
The second problem is with the role of the Military Judiciary (Article 204/2013). I have absolutely no problem with the military having its own codes of justice and a Judiciary to enforce them. However I have great problem with the military being able to exert its codes of justice over civilians. Ideally civilians should only be answerable to civilian Courts but given Egypt's history and current security situation I can appreciate that under certain circumstances terrorist groups who are mounting military attacks will need to be dealt with by military Courts. The problem is that the draft gives military Courts authority over all crimes against the military's equipment, vehicles, weapons, ammunition, documents, military secrets, public funds or whatever falls under [the military's] authority. This is far too broad and I think that military Courts should be limited only to attacks on military buildings, barracks and stipulated military or border zones. Civilians engaged in crimes against other aspects of the military should in the first instance be dealt with by civilian Courts. After all as the do in the US it only takes a matter of minutes for a civilian Judge to review a case and then decide that it is best handled by a military Court.
My main problem with the way the draft deals with the military is the provision that makes the Minister of Defence the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (Article 201/2013). This directly contradicts the provision that makes the President the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces (Article 152/2013). The Armed Forces can only have one ultimate commander therefore this glaring contradiction is totally unworkable and to my mind grounds alone for this constitutional draft to be rejected at the referendum.
22:10 on 30/12/13 (UK date).
The Saudi War Against the Olympics Has Begun.
Back in July 2013 the head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service Prince Bandar bin Sultan visited Russia to discuss the conflict in Syria. Prince Bandar's message was quite clear; If Russia gave Saudi Arabia everything it wanted on Syria Saudi Arabia would reward Russia by keeping the global oil price above USD100/barrel. If Russia refused to give Saudi Arabia everything it wanted Saudi Arabia would respond by equipping and instructing Islamist groups in Russia's North Caucasus region (Chechnya & Dagestan) to launch terrorist attacks against the 2014 Winter Olympics being in Sochi, Russia.
Russia has clearly not given into Saudi intimidation so the terrorist campaign against the winter Olympics has begun. On Friday (27/12/13) a car bomb exploded outside a police station in the Russia city of Pyatigorsk 250km east of Sochi killing two.
On Sunday (29/12/13) a female suicide bomber attacked the central railway station in Volgograd which is around 750km north-east of Sochi and is the main transport hub to the coastal town. 17 people were killed and countless more injured.
Today (30/12/13) another suicide bomber attacked a trolleybus/tram in Volgograd's Dzerzhinsky district. So far the death toll stands at 14 with at least 20 injured.
It really says something about the Saudis lunatic sense of entitlement that they cannot conceive of how these series of brutal attacks on what is essentially the global community could be a bit of a PR disaster for them.
It obviously goes without saying that due to these attacks there simply cannot be any negotiations of Syria until at least until the winter Olympics are over.
11:05 on 30/12/13 (UK date).
Russia has clearly not given into Saudi intimidation so the terrorist campaign against the winter Olympics has begun. On Friday (27/12/13) a car bomb exploded outside a police station in the Russia city of Pyatigorsk 250km east of Sochi killing two.
On Sunday (29/12/13) a female suicide bomber attacked the central railway station in Volgograd which is around 750km north-east of Sochi and is the main transport hub to the coastal town. 17 people were killed and countless more injured.
Today (30/12/13) another suicide bomber attacked a trolleybus/tram in Volgograd's Dzerzhinsky district. So far the death toll stands at 14 with at least 20 injured.
It really says something about the Saudis lunatic sense of entitlement that they cannot conceive of how these series of brutal attacks on what is essentially the global community could be a bit of a PR disaster for them.
It obviously goes without saying that due to these attacks there simply cannot be any negotiations of Syria until at least until the winter Olympics are over.
11:05 on 30/12/13 (UK date).
Saturday, 28 December 2013
Egypt's Draft Constitution: Part 1.
On December 3rd 2013 (3/12/13) a new draft of the constitution was submitted to Egypt's interim President Adly Mansour and will go to public referendum on January 14th and 15th 2014 (14&15/1/14). As the document states in Article 227 the constitution represents a single, coherent unit with different articles interacting to compliment and counter-balance each other. However for the purposes of simplicity I will be conducting this discussion in several parts.
The first four chapters comprising of 100 articles covering The State, Basic Components of Society, Public Rights, Freedoms and Duties and The Rule of Law are all excellent work. So much so that it is difficult to criticise provisions that are reasonable, sensible and rather dull. After all when it comes to constitutional law reasonable, sensible and dull are what we aspire to. Therefore the first 100 articles are marked out more by what they don't contain rather then what they do.
The first big improvement on the 2012 constitution is that gone are all the subtle and not so subtle attempts to turn Egypt into a Sunni Islamic state. For example there is no longer a constitutional prohibition of insulting the Prophets and Messengers of Islam (Article 44/2012). Of course the 2013 draft does make Islam the official state religion and makes the principles of Sharia the primary source of legislation (Article 2/2013). In itself this is not a problem because at it's core Sharia is merely a moral code that is universal to all human standards. Also the majority of Egyptians are Muslims so it is more acknowledging that fact rather then trying to change the nation.
The constitution goes on to to protect the rights of Christians and Jews by making their religious principles the source for legislation governing their personal affairs (Article 3/2013). This should be sufficient to prevent Egypt moving from laws inspired by the principles of Sharia to all out Sharia law. The sale and consumption of alcohol is a rather good example of how this would work. Muslims are of course forbidden to consume alcohol and will be free to continue to resist temptation under this constitution. However Christians and Jews and under no such religious obligation and the consumption of alcohol is actually required under Christianity as one of the sacraments. Therefore any attempt to pass a law banning the sale or consumption of alcohol in Egypt would impinge on Christians and Jews personal status and religious affairs violating Article 3 making any such law unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The rights of Egypt's religious minorities and those of no religion at all are further strengthened by a provision ensuring equal opportunity to all citizens without discrimination (Article 9/2013).
Also missing from the 2013 draft are articles relating to incredibly specific aspects of economic and social policy such as an obligation for the foster small handicraft industries (Article 17/2012). As I commented at the time these issues may well be perfectly valid but their specific nature means that they have no place in a constitution. The essence of a written constitution is that it is very difficult to change meaning that it acts as a constant under-pinning the day to day, year to year government policies and ensuring the equity and fairness of all laws. As a result it needs to focus on vague principles and ideals rather then specific details. Fortunately the 2013 draft has been mindful of this distinction between constitutional law and everyday legislation with certain articles being excluded entirely and others being re-written. For example where the 2012 Constitution obligated the state to support workers co-operatives "in all forms" (Article 23/2012) the 2013 draft talks more vaguely about the state caring for worker's co-operatives and co-operative property being protected and supported under the law (Article 37/2013).
This shift away from specifics towards more general principles means that many articles in the 2013 draft now end with variants of the phrase; "The forgoing is regulated by law." For the most part this is entirely sensible because it allows the government of the day a degree of discretion in passing laws while staying within the principles of the constitution. A perfect example of why this discretion is necessary is the use of DNA evidence in criminal trials. Forty years ago DNA profiling simply was not possible so recently many legal systems have had to change the laws and regulations to allow DNA evidence to be used while still maintaining the principle of due process. This has recently been a specific issue in the US where arguments have abounded over whether a compulsion for suspects to provide DNA samples is compatible with the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination.
However the amount of discretion given to a government of the day can be too broad and allow it to undermine the constitutional principle. An example of this would be the provision in the 2012 constitution that guaranteed the right to establish places of worship as regulated by law (Article 43/2012). This was inserted specifically to persecute Egypt's Christians because it was well known that the existing law made it extremely difficult for Christians to build Churches for worship. For the most part the 2013 draft deals with this problem by having complimentary provisions providing a sort of double lock on certain constitutional principles. For example a government of the day can pass new laws regulating the way the National Election Commission conducts elections and referenda (Article 208/2013). However those laws must uphold the principle that every citizen has the right to vote, run in elections and express their opinion in referendums (Article 87/2013). However there are other areas where the inclusion of variants of the phrase; "regulated by law" creates more problems then it solves. For example I think its inclusion is totally superfluous in dealing with protections for aides to the judiciary (Article 199/2013).
On a related note I consider the current wording on legal continuity (Article 224/2013) to be a significant problem. The current phrasing talks about all laws passed before the adoption of this constitution to "remain valid and in force." While it is essential that existing laws to remain in force until new ones can be passed the insistence that they remain valid seems to prevent them being challenged no matter how wildly they contradict the values of the constitution - the current laws governing the building of Churches being a specific example. On that issue specifically I would re-write the obligation on the National Assembly to issue a new law on the subject (Article 235/20/13) so that the existing laws expire at the end of the first session regardless of whether a new law has been passed or not.
The main problem with the first 100 articles is the over representation of trade unionist and other socialist special interest groups that has been carried over from the 2012 constitution. Significant work has been done to limit this influence. For example gone is the obligation on the state to "divide revenues between capital and labour" (Article 14/2012) replaced with a more flexible obligation to ensure "a fair distribution of development returns" (Article 27/2013). However serious problems exist such as the obligation to give workers a share in the management of projects and their profits (Article 27/2012 & Article 42/2013) and the obligation on the state to "buy basic agricultural crops at prices to ensure a profit for farmers" (Article 29/2013). These are attempts to cling onto a Marxist command style economy and are things that I think Egyptians will come to regret and even resent over time. After all far more then Rihanna what caused the Egyptian revolution was the fact that its command style economy simply wasn't working causing high rates of unemployment.
That said although I completely disagree with them I don't think these economic articles alone represent sufficient reason to reject the entire constitutional draft. After all while written constitutions should be incredibly difficult to alter they should not be impossible to change. The 2013 draft sets out a framework by which the Constitution can be amended that requires first a two thirds majority in the National Assembly and then an overall majority at public referendum. The economic articles particularly the obligation on the state to preserve food subsidies (Article 79/2013) are all prime candidates for national discussion and public vote as part healthy, functioning democracy.
21:55 on 28/12/13 (UK date).
The first four chapters comprising of 100 articles covering The State, Basic Components of Society, Public Rights, Freedoms and Duties and The Rule of Law are all excellent work. So much so that it is difficult to criticise provisions that are reasonable, sensible and rather dull. After all when it comes to constitutional law reasonable, sensible and dull are what we aspire to. Therefore the first 100 articles are marked out more by what they don't contain rather then what they do.
The first big improvement on the 2012 constitution is that gone are all the subtle and not so subtle attempts to turn Egypt into a Sunni Islamic state. For example there is no longer a constitutional prohibition of insulting the Prophets and Messengers of Islam (Article 44/2012). Of course the 2013 draft does make Islam the official state religion and makes the principles of Sharia the primary source of legislation (Article 2/2013). In itself this is not a problem because at it's core Sharia is merely a moral code that is universal to all human standards. Also the majority of Egyptians are Muslims so it is more acknowledging that fact rather then trying to change the nation.
The constitution goes on to to protect the rights of Christians and Jews by making their religious principles the source for legislation governing their personal affairs (Article 3/2013). This should be sufficient to prevent Egypt moving from laws inspired by the principles of Sharia to all out Sharia law. The sale and consumption of alcohol is a rather good example of how this would work. Muslims are of course forbidden to consume alcohol and will be free to continue to resist temptation under this constitution. However Christians and Jews and under no such religious obligation and the consumption of alcohol is actually required under Christianity as one of the sacraments. Therefore any attempt to pass a law banning the sale or consumption of alcohol in Egypt would impinge on Christians and Jews personal status and religious affairs violating Article 3 making any such law unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The rights of Egypt's religious minorities and those of no religion at all are further strengthened by a provision ensuring equal opportunity to all citizens without discrimination (Article 9/2013).
Also missing from the 2013 draft are articles relating to incredibly specific aspects of economic and social policy such as an obligation for the foster small handicraft industries (Article 17/2012). As I commented at the time these issues may well be perfectly valid but their specific nature means that they have no place in a constitution. The essence of a written constitution is that it is very difficult to change meaning that it acts as a constant under-pinning the day to day, year to year government policies and ensuring the equity and fairness of all laws. As a result it needs to focus on vague principles and ideals rather then specific details. Fortunately the 2013 draft has been mindful of this distinction between constitutional law and everyday legislation with certain articles being excluded entirely and others being re-written. For example where the 2012 Constitution obligated the state to support workers co-operatives "in all forms" (Article 23/2012) the 2013 draft talks more vaguely about the state caring for worker's co-operatives and co-operative property being protected and supported under the law (Article 37/2013).
This shift away from specifics towards more general principles means that many articles in the 2013 draft now end with variants of the phrase; "The forgoing is regulated by law." For the most part this is entirely sensible because it allows the government of the day a degree of discretion in passing laws while staying within the principles of the constitution. A perfect example of why this discretion is necessary is the use of DNA evidence in criminal trials. Forty years ago DNA profiling simply was not possible so recently many legal systems have had to change the laws and regulations to allow DNA evidence to be used while still maintaining the principle of due process. This has recently been a specific issue in the US where arguments have abounded over whether a compulsion for suspects to provide DNA samples is compatible with the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination.
However the amount of discretion given to a government of the day can be too broad and allow it to undermine the constitutional principle. An example of this would be the provision in the 2012 constitution that guaranteed the right to establish places of worship as regulated by law (Article 43/2012). This was inserted specifically to persecute Egypt's Christians because it was well known that the existing law made it extremely difficult for Christians to build Churches for worship. For the most part the 2013 draft deals with this problem by having complimentary provisions providing a sort of double lock on certain constitutional principles. For example a government of the day can pass new laws regulating the way the National Election Commission conducts elections and referenda (Article 208/2013). However those laws must uphold the principle that every citizen has the right to vote, run in elections and express their opinion in referendums (Article 87/2013). However there are other areas where the inclusion of variants of the phrase; "regulated by law" creates more problems then it solves. For example I think its inclusion is totally superfluous in dealing with protections for aides to the judiciary (Article 199/2013).
On a related note I consider the current wording on legal continuity (Article 224/2013) to be a significant problem. The current phrasing talks about all laws passed before the adoption of this constitution to "remain valid and in force." While it is essential that existing laws to remain in force until new ones can be passed the insistence that they remain valid seems to prevent them being challenged no matter how wildly they contradict the values of the constitution - the current laws governing the building of Churches being a specific example. On that issue specifically I would re-write the obligation on the National Assembly to issue a new law on the subject (Article 235/20/13) so that the existing laws expire at the end of the first session regardless of whether a new law has been passed or not.
The main problem with the first 100 articles is the over representation of trade unionist and other socialist special interest groups that has been carried over from the 2012 constitution. Significant work has been done to limit this influence. For example gone is the obligation on the state to "divide revenues between capital and labour" (Article 14/2012) replaced with a more flexible obligation to ensure "a fair distribution of development returns" (Article 27/2013). However serious problems exist such as the obligation to give workers a share in the management of projects and their profits (Article 27/2012 & Article 42/2013) and the obligation on the state to "buy basic agricultural crops at prices to ensure a profit for farmers" (Article 29/2013). These are attempts to cling onto a Marxist command style economy and are things that I think Egyptians will come to regret and even resent over time. After all far more then Rihanna what caused the Egyptian revolution was the fact that its command style economy simply wasn't working causing high rates of unemployment.
That said although I completely disagree with them I don't think these economic articles alone represent sufficient reason to reject the entire constitutional draft. After all while written constitutions should be incredibly difficult to alter they should not be impossible to change. The 2013 draft sets out a framework by which the Constitution can be amended that requires first a two thirds majority in the National Assembly and then an overall majority at public referendum. The economic articles particularly the obligation on the state to preserve food subsidies (Article 79/2013) are all prime candidates for national discussion and public vote as part healthy, functioning democracy.
21:55 on 28/12/13 (UK date).
Thursday, 26 December 2013
Egypt's Continuing Revolution: Month 19, Week 1, Day 4.
I have just finished a cursory reading of Egypt's proposed new constitution. Obviously it will take several more readings and some quiet contemplation before I'm able to form a full opinion. However it is immediately clear that this is a far stronger and improved document then the attempt that was made under Mohamed Morsi. For example it doesn't raise any immediate concern about the Islamification of Egypt or a threat to Egypt's religious minorities.
One area I am having great trouble understanding is the concept of an elected President, an elected Parliament (House of Representatives) and then a Government as a separate, unelected entity. That is not to say that there is anything right or indeed wrong about this model it's just I don't as yet understand it. Also my interpretation of the wording of Article 124 which states the national budget cannot incur new burdens on citizens is that it is impossible for any branch of government to ever raise taxes. Even the US Tea Party will agree that this will present a problem.
Hopefully over the coming days my understanding of the document will improve to the point where I am able to give a fuller opinion. However I think it is only right to raise for discussion the possibility of the constitutional draft being rejected at referendum so it can be sent back to committee for - say a further three months - so some of the kinks can be worked out. After all it would be better to delay things for a short time rather then to try to press ahead with a flawed constitution.
21:30 on 26/12/13 (UK date).
One area I am having great trouble understanding is the concept of an elected President, an elected Parliament (House of Representatives) and then a Government as a separate, unelected entity. That is not to say that there is anything right or indeed wrong about this model it's just I don't as yet understand it. Also my interpretation of the wording of Article 124 which states the national budget cannot incur new burdens on citizens is that it is impossible for any branch of government to ever raise taxes. Even the US Tea Party will agree that this will present a problem.
Hopefully over the coming days my understanding of the document will improve to the point where I am able to give a fuller opinion. However I think it is only right to raise for discussion the possibility of the constitutional draft being rejected at referendum so it can be sent back to committee for - say a further three months - so some of the kinks can be worked out. After all it would be better to delay things for a short time rather then to try to press ahead with a flawed constitution.
21:30 on 26/12/13 (UK date).
Tuesday, 24 December 2013
Bah Hum-Zzzzzzz!
Sub-titled "Oh f*ck it's Christmas Eve!"
Having retired in the past year my mothers decided they wanted to spend Christmas at their very nice Salisbury along with their new puppy. The problem is that I've been really busy this year and that's culminated in the type of deeply ingrained exhaustion that takes weeks to shift. You may have noticed that there has been a slight drop-off in my workload.
As I result I simply didn't have the energy to go Christmas shopping and co-ordinate getting my complex family down to the Salisbury and back again before writing an incident report on the whole thing. So instead I'll be staying in Croydon with my father where we'll be doing an extremely low key Christmas which essentially means just means having a roast lunch.
Anyway since I decided all that the UK has been hit by severe storms that have more or less crippled the transport infrastructure. We are currently at the point of waiting to see whether my brother will be able to make it down to Salisbury or will give up and join my father and I.
So in summary I'm feeling rather vindicated.
16:45 on 24/12/13.
Having retired in the past year my mothers decided they wanted to spend Christmas at their very nice Salisbury along with their new puppy. The problem is that I've been really busy this year and that's culminated in the type of deeply ingrained exhaustion that takes weeks to shift. You may have noticed that there has been a slight drop-off in my workload.
As I result I simply didn't have the energy to go Christmas shopping and co-ordinate getting my complex family down to the Salisbury and back again before writing an incident report on the whole thing. So instead I'll be staying in Croydon with my father where we'll be doing an extremely low key Christmas which essentially means just means having a roast lunch.
Anyway since I decided all that the UK has been hit by severe storms that have more or less crippled the transport infrastructure. We are currently at the point of waiting to see whether my brother will be able to make it down to Salisbury or will give up and join my father and I.
So in summary I'm feeling rather vindicated.
16:45 on 24/12/13.
Tuesday, 17 December 2013
Operation Misery: Month 10, Week 2, Day 6.
Yesterday (15/12/13) the video was released to support the Eminem & Rihanna song "The Monster." The release of this video will obviously draw fresh attention to the song which I, personally, think is a bad idea. Although The Monster is without a doubt the strongest song that Rihanna has released in 2013 from start to finish the whole song has been quite a big joke at Rihanna's expense.
You may remember that Rihanna recorded her part of the single in London, UK just before embarking on the third and final leg of the Diamonds World Tour. A lot of people think that it would have been a better idea for Rihanna to use this time to meet up with me in preparation. Then the fact that I've long been acknowledged as Eminem's psychological 'monster' meant that the song featuring Rihanna singing lyrics like "I'm friends with the monster" was Rihanna being tricked into publicly admitting that she is friends with me. That of course reinforces the idea that Rihanna really should have met up with me in person by now. The video for the song continues in this mocking theme.
The concept shows Eminem in a sort of psychiatric hospital setting (lots of straight jackets and padded cells etc) reviewing aspects from his life. The main aspects included feature the film "8 Mile" which is about Eminem's life which was released in 2002/3 just as I was exploding onto the global stage and being assigned the pseudonym "Eminem.". It also features snippets from the video for "The Way I Am" which features Eminem leaping from a tall building in an apparent suicide attempt. According to my medical/police records I once attempted suicide by leaping off a tall building. The video also features snippets of Eminem performing live with renowned homosexual and British gay rights activist Elton John. I'd hazard a guess that this collaboration was imposed on Eminem in order to send out the message that I am not homophobic. So the aspects of Eminem's life shown in the video are intended to highlight exactly why I'm acknowledged as his psychological 'monster'. All these events of course occurred during the Presidency of George W Bush during which time members of the US intelligence community were, in all seriousness, talking about sending one of the 'Eminems' to the actual Guantanamo Bay. Hence all the caged/prison and military imagery although I believe Eminem has an endorsement deal with one of the "Call of Duty" video games.
Apart from some obligatory hand dancing in a darkened room Rihanna's main role in the video is that of Eminem's psychiatrist/therapist. This is a reference to something I amongst others have picked up on during my time in contact with Rihanna. It seems that as far as she is concerned Rihanna has absolutely no problems in her life and every decision she makes is nothing short of perfect. However the rest of us - all the South Africans, the Filipino victims of Typhoon Haiyan, every victim of domestic violence/sexual violence worldwide and in particular me - we all have very serious problems and we need Rihanna to help us and look after us.
That makes Rihanna a perfect example of what Sigmund Freud termed "Psychological Projection." This is a phenomenon in which a person with significant emotional/personal problems seeks to avoid them by denying their existence and instead projecting them onto the people around them. Often the person doing the projecting will then attempt to solve these imagined problems by helping that other person. They cast themselves in the role of the person's therapist so to speak. Therefore the video for The Monster is clearly attempting to highlight this flaw in Rihanna's personality. If Rihanna is in on the joke this could have been an attempt at something positive. However in my experience when people realise they've been engaging in psychological projection it is often a humiliating experience that leaves them feeling emotionally vulnerable. Therefore having several million people point and laugh at you whilst it's happening has got to be the worst way to go about it. As such I hope there are plenty of people prepared to show Rihanna warmth for reasons other then the video. After all she seems intent on insisting that I can't be that person for her.
This reference to psychological projection actually leads me onto a wider concern I have about Rihanna at present. Having been developed in the 19th Century Freud's work on psychoanalysis has been discredited to the point of being useless to people suffering from genuine mental illness. However Freud inspired psychotherapies are still of use to people suffering from deep seated emotion problems - such as Rihanna. The problem is that psychotherapy is a very subtle process in which the intention is really for a person to realise certain things about themselves without really noticing that it is happening. By moving to New York City to avoid Chris Brown and indicating that she is smoking less marijuana Rihanna appears to be attempting to treat herself. This rarely works and can sometimes lead to a person going on to develop genuine mental illness such as personality disorders. With the risk of mental illness being quite low I think the best outcome of Rihanna's current situation is that nothing changes. The worst outcome is that Rihanna develops an over-analytical personality which destroys her ability to form meaningful relationships in the future and robs her of the warmth that helps make her so popular. I find this particularly frustrating because I know how easily all this could have been avoided if Rihanna had just picked up the phone following the 2012 para-Olympic closing ceremony.
The release of the Monster video was of course timed to coincide with a Court appearance by Chris Brown. Basically what happened here is that Judge Brandlin Gluber stuck to the script he followed at Chris Brown's last Court appearance. Brown had his probation revoked but no further action was taken because he is currently in a rehabilitation facility. The Court heard from that rehab facility which claimed that - against all prevailing scientific knowledge - it is successfully treating Chris Brown. Rather then blaming Brown's errant behaviour on a deep rooted personality disorder the rehab facility instead blamed it all on his marijuana use and claimed he is being responsive to psychotropic drugs. Although the exact nature of these psychotropic drugs was not disclosed I suspect they are remarkably similar to the psychotropic drugs I myself take. With Brown being magically rehabilitated the Court of course saw now need to impose a restraining order keeping Brown away from Rihanna or indeed any other woman. Brown is next scheduled to appear in Court in Washington D.C to answer an assault charge on January 8th 2014 (8/1/14) and will reappear in front of Brandlin Gluber at a yet to be specified date in February 2014. If justice is allowed to run its course Brown should be making that appearance via video link from a Washington D.C prison.
In order to maximise the drama surrounding his Court appearance Chris Brown yesterday released the record "Loyal" on the Internet. Featuring lyrics like "These B*tches aren't loyal!" this was supposed to give the impression that Brown was insulting Rihanna. The intention being that there is no need for a restraining order to be imposed because Brown is clearly over Rihanna and moving on with Kerruche Tran. However you don't need to be a psychoanalyst to know that a person who is constantly badmouthing their ex clearly isn't over that ex. The deeper analysis of the song "Loyal" which I somehow doubt the song writer told Chris Brown about is that it is a reference to Brown's CIA handler. This handler may or may not be a woman but I have assigned them the pseudonym "Carrie Mathison" - the mentally unstable character from the TV Show "Homeland." With this operation now having done substantial and practical damage to US interests internationally the intention being to promote discussion about whether 'Carrie' is been disloyal to the US by continuing to protect Chris Brown?
In a transparent attempt to reinforce the idea that there is no need for Chris Brown's restraining order to be reinstated Rihanna last night attended a party with A$AP Rocky in an attempt to fuel speculation that the two are now dating. As I've said before I think this is extremely unlikely but as with Drake before him the fact that A$AP Rocky is prepared to play along with this game means that in my book he now has a big, black mark against his name.
Also while I'm here it appears that I'm being blocked on Twitter by Kerruche Tran following some comments I made about her lack of an invitation to the American Music Awards. I think this is a shame because the point I was trying to make it that I think she is talented enough to make it in the industry without having to sully herself by dating Chris Brown.
17:10 on 17/12/13 (UK date).
Edited at around 14:25 on 18/12/13 (UK date) to add;
Also on Monday it was announced that Rihanna is to be the face of the French fashion house Balmain's Spring/Summer 2014 advertising campaign. In itself this is great news because it shows that Rihanna's reputation is still strong enough to enhance high end brands.
The problem is that is was leaving this photoshoot last Thursday (12/12/13) that Rihanna was photographed sporting a new Zindzi Mandela style haircut. Along with Rihanna's use of a picture of Nelson Mandela as her Twitter avatar this was quite offensive because it placed extra pressure on the South Africans to find out what, if any, message Rihanna and the US were trying to send just as the South Africans were preparing for Nelson Mandela's logistically challenging funeral. To make matters worse this photoshoot was accompanied by rumours that US Vogue magazine is to fly Rihanna to World Cup host Brazil in January 2014 for a photoshoot that will also help reduce the pressure for a career ending South American leg of the Diamonds World Tour. That of course created speculation that the story of the Brazil trip was just a lie and the whole thing was being used as a coded reference to the Balmain photoshoot actually being a Vogue photoshoot.
Therefore I think the way that Balmain not only announced their Rihanna campaign on the next working day but also identified everybody involved the photoshoot suggests that they came under a lot of peer pressure to admit to their role. This is generally a bad thing for Rihanna because if every endorsement campaign she's involved in gets surrounded by this sort of controversy pretty soon the offers will stop coming in a Rihanna's CIA handlers/Live Nation (the management) will have succeeded in destroying her career despite the best efforts of everybody.
You may remember that Rihanna recorded her part of the single in London, UK just before embarking on the third and final leg of the Diamonds World Tour. A lot of people think that it would have been a better idea for Rihanna to use this time to meet up with me in preparation. Then the fact that I've long been acknowledged as Eminem's psychological 'monster' meant that the song featuring Rihanna singing lyrics like "I'm friends with the monster" was Rihanna being tricked into publicly admitting that she is friends with me. That of course reinforces the idea that Rihanna really should have met up with me in person by now. The video for the song continues in this mocking theme.
The concept shows Eminem in a sort of psychiatric hospital setting (lots of straight jackets and padded cells etc) reviewing aspects from his life. The main aspects included feature the film "8 Mile" which is about Eminem's life which was released in 2002/3 just as I was exploding onto the global stage and being assigned the pseudonym "Eminem.". It also features snippets from the video for "The Way I Am" which features Eminem leaping from a tall building in an apparent suicide attempt. According to my medical/police records I once attempted suicide by leaping off a tall building. The video also features snippets of Eminem performing live with renowned homosexual and British gay rights activist Elton John. I'd hazard a guess that this collaboration was imposed on Eminem in order to send out the message that I am not homophobic. So the aspects of Eminem's life shown in the video are intended to highlight exactly why I'm acknowledged as his psychological 'monster'. All these events of course occurred during the Presidency of George W Bush during which time members of the US intelligence community were, in all seriousness, talking about sending one of the 'Eminems' to the actual Guantanamo Bay. Hence all the caged/prison and military imagery although I believe Eminem has an endorsement deal with one of the "Call of Duty" video games.
Apart from some obligatory hand dancing in a darkened room Rihanna's main role in the video is that of Eminem's psychiatrist/therapist. This is a reference to something I amongst others have picked up on during my time in contact with Rihanna. It seems that as far as she is concerned Rihanna has absolutely no problems in her life and every decision she makes is nothing short of perfect. However the rest of us - all the South Africans, the Filipino victims of Typhoon Haiyan, every victim of domestic violence/sexual violence worldwide and in particular me - we all have very serious problems and we need Rihanna to help us and look after us.
That makes Rihanna a perfect example of what Sigmund Freud termed "Psychological Projection." This is a phenomenon in which a person with significant emotional/personal problems seeks to avoid them by denying their existence and instead projecting them onto the people around them. Often the person doing the projecting will then attempt to solve these imagined problems by helping that other person. They cast themselves in the role of the person's therapist so to speak. Therefore the video for The Monster is clearly attempting to highlight this flaw in Rihanna's personality. If Rihanna is in on the joke this could have been an attempt at something positive. However in my experience when people realise they've been engaging in psychological projection it is often a humiliating experience that leaves them feeling emotionally vulnerable. Therefore having several million people point and laugh at you whilst it's happening has got to be the worst way to go about it. As such I hope there are plenty of people prepared to show Rihanna warmth for reasons other then the video. After all she seems intent on insisting that I can't be that person for her.
This reference to psychological projection actually leads me onto a wider concern I have about Rihanna at present. Having been developed in the 19th Century Freud's work on psychoanalysis has been discredited to the point of being useless to people suffering from genuine mental illness. However Freud inspired psychotherapies are still of use to people suffering from deep seated emotion problems - such as Rihanna. The problem is that psychotherapy is a very subtle process in which the intention is really for a person to realise certain things about themselves without really noticing that it is happening. By moving to New York City to avoid Chris Brown and indicating that she is smoking less marijuana Rihanna appears to be attempting to treat herself. This rarely works and can sometimes lead to a person going on to develop genuine mental illness such as personality disorders. With the risk of mental illness being quite low I think the best outcome of Rihanna's current situation is that nothing changes. The worst outcome is that Rihanna develops an over-analytical personality which destroys her ability to form meaningful relationships in the future and robs her of the warmth that helps make her so popular. I find this particularly frustrating because I know how easily all this could have been avoided if Rihanna had just picked up the phone following the 2012 para-Olympic closing ceremony.
The release of the Monster video was of course timed to coincide with a Court appearance by Chris Brown. Basically what happened here is that Judge Brandlin Gluber stuck to the script he followed at Chris Brown's last Court appearance. Brown had his probation revoked but no further action was taken because he is currently in a rehabilitation facility. The Court heard from that rehab facility which claimed that - against all prevailing scientific knowledge - it is successfully treating Chris Brown. Rather then blaming Brown's errant behaviour on a deep rooted personality disorder the rehab facility instead blamed it all on his marijuana use and claimed he is being responsive to psychotropic drugs. Although the exact nature of these psychotropic drugs was not disclosed I suspect they are remarkably similar to the psychotropic drugs I myself take. With Brown being magically rehabilitated the Court of course saw now need to impose a restraining order keeping Brown away from Rihanna or indeed any other woman. Brown is next scheduled to appear in Court in Washington D.C to answer an assault charge on January 8th 2014 (8/1/14) and will reappear in front of Brandlin Gluber at a yet to be specified date in February 2014. If justice is allowed to run its course Brown should be making that appearance via video link from a Washington D.C prison.
In order to maximise the drama surrounding his Court appearance Chris Brown yesterday released the record "Loyal" on the Internet. Featuring lyrics like "These B*tches aren't loyal!" this was supposed to give the impression that Brown was insulting Rihanna. The intention being that there is no need for a restraining order to be imposed because Brown is clearly over Rihanna and moving on with Kerruche Tran. However you don't need to be a psychoanalyst to know that a person who is constantly badmouthing their ex clearly isn't over that ex. The deeper analysis of the song "Loyal" which I somehow doubt the song writer told Chris Brown about is that it is a reference to Brown's CIA handler. This handler may or may not be a woman but I have assigned them the pseudonym "Carrie Mathison" - the mentally unstable character from the TV Show "Homeland." With this operation now having done substantial and practical damage to US interests internationally the intention being to promote discussion about whether 'Carrie' is been disloyal to the US by continuing to protect Chris Brown?
In a transparent attempt to reinforce the idea that there is no need for Chris Brown's restraining order to be reinstated Rihanna last night attended a party with A$AP Rocky in an attempt to fuel speculation that the two are now dating. As I've said before I think this is extremely unlikely but as with Drake before him the fact that A$AP Rocky is prepared to play along with this game means that in my book he now has a big, black mark against his name.
Also while I'm here it appears that I'm being blocked on Twitter by Kerruche Tran following some comments I made about her lack of an invitation to the American Music Awards. I think this is a shame because the point I was trying to make it that I think she is talented enough to make it in the industry without having to sully herself by dating Chris Brown.
17:10 on 17/12/13 (UK date).
Edited at around 14:25 on 18/12/13 (UK date) to add;
Also on Monday it was announced that Rihanna is to be the face of the French fashion house Balmain's Spring/Summer 2014 advertising campaign. In itself this is great news because it shows that Rihanna's reputation is still strong enough to enhance high end brands.
The problem is that is was leaving this photoshoot last Thursday (12/12/13) that Rihanna was photographed sporting a new Zindzi Mandela style haircut. Along with Rihanna's use of a picture of Nelson Mandela as her Twitter avatar this was quite offensive because it placed extra pressure on the South Africans to find out what, if any, message Rihanna and the US were trying to send just as the South Africans were preparing for Nelson Mandela's logistically challenging funeral. To make matters worse this photoshoot was accompanied by rumours that US Vogue magazine is to fly Rihanna to World Cup host Brazil in January 2014 for a photoshoot that will also help reduce the pressure for a career ending South American leg of the Diamonds World Tour. That of course created speculation that the story of the Brazil trip was just a lie and the whole thing was being used as a coded reference to the Balmain photoshoot actually being a Vogue photoshoot.
Therefore I think the way that Balmain not only announced their Rihanna campaign on the next working day but also identified everybody involved the photoshoot suggests that they came under a lot of peer pressure to admit to their role. This is generally a bad thing for Rihanna because if every endorsement campaign she's involved in gets surrounded by this sort of controversy pretty soon the offers will stop coming in a Rihanna's CIA handlers/Live Nation (the management) will have succeeded in destroying her career despite the best efforts of everybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)