D'you buy?

One Salient Oversight has posted a brief item (with a link that's well worth a look) about wasted resources in Dubai's development. This was originally going to be a comment on OSO's blog but then it started to grow beyond comment size so I thought I'd post this on my own blog.

I was in Dubai for a few days in March this year and a lot of the things in that link ring true with my experience. I was travelling from Europe to Australia and since my flight was with Emirates, instead of just changing planes at Dubai and immediately flying on to Australia I decided to make use of the possibility for a free stopover and see Dubai. (Well it was "free" in the sense that the airline didn't charge me any more for it -- of course I had to pay for things in Dubai such as accommodation, food and ground transport.) My own conclusion was that while Dubai is an interesting place as a stopover destination it's not the kind of place I would go to as a travel destination in its own right. If (like I was) you are flying from A to B via Dubai and a stopover in Dubai won't add to the cost of your flight and you have a few days to spare (and you are prepared to spend money on the ground in Dubai and put up with the combination of desert heat and congestion everywhere) then by all means check the place out. I have no regrets about visiting the place. But that's because I effectively had a free flight there and I had the time to spend a few days there. Had I had to fork out over $1000 on a flight to get there and back then I wouldn't be so sure. Given the cost of flying it's not really the kind of place I would want to spend my hard earned money travelling to. But everyone's different. Your tastes in a tourist destination may be completely different from mine: De gustibus non est diputandum. And Dubai is also not really the kind of place I'd visit twice.

A number of things really struck me about Dubai of which I'll talk about three here. One was the imbalance (in numbers and in lifestyle) between the locals and expats; a second was the emphasis on the high-end luxury market and tying Dubai's prosperity to the world economy; and a third was the audacity of the development going on there, with an awful lot of waste.

First, the imbalance between locals and expats. Foreigners outnumber locals to such an extent that once you leave the airport (where the customs officials are Emiratis), apart from the odd policeman (and invariably it's a man) you may run into on the street (I came across one in four days!) you'd be hard pressed to see any locals. The place is full of foreign workers (Gastarbeiter?), the majority of whom come from "South Asia" (i.e. the Indian subcontinet and Sri Lanka) with a good dose from other Asian countries as well (eg the Phillipines, Indonesia). Of course before I went there my idea of "expats" was one of white collar workers (from many different countries -- including my own Australia) earning good money and paying no income tax (Dubai doesn't have any). And while there is this kind of expat in Dubai, they make up a very small proportion of the population. The majority of the population are expats working at the "lower end" of the economy, in construction, as domestic servants, in the service industry in general. living a life of relative hardship (although probably earning more than they would at home which is no doubt why they're in Dubai to start with). The local Emiratis on the other hand live a life of relative luxury and are rarely to be seen on the street. For the most part they live in luxury villas (air-conditioned of course) and drive air-conditioned luxury cars (or are chauffeur driven) to get from their air-conditioned luxury villas to their air-conditioned workplaces or to the air-conditioned shopping centre. As a tourist you will see very few local Emiratis.

I don't know enough about the other Emirates which comprise the UAE but I have heard that Dubai is the most "liberal" and I suspect that if you went to others you may see more locals and fewer expats. When I visit a place, I like to get a feel for the local culture. Yes I'm aware of the fact that I'm a tourist and that I'll always be an outsider, and no I don't look down on people who choose to go to closed resorts such as Club Med where there is no interaction with the outside world, but that's not me. If I go to the UAE I like to see Emiratis and experience Emirati culture and I didn't get that feeling in Dubai. Of course all the expats in Dubai contribute to the culture of the place in their own unique way and I had some wonderful Indian food as well as some very interesting conversations with Indian, Indonesian and Filipino residents of Dubai about what it's like for them to live there.

At the end of it all I was left concluding that somewhat paradoxically the expats are the real Dubai and the local Emiratis are living a fantasy.

Second, the emphasis on the high-end luxury market and tying Dubai's properity to the world economy. I'm a student and I don't have a lot of money for travel, let alone staying in five star resorts. I'm currently doing postgraduate study overseas and was travelling home to Australia to see my family and happened to get a cheap flight with Emirates and hve a few days in Dubai on my way home. When I travel I have to be quite frugal. I tend to stay in youth hostels or backpacker accomodation rather than in hotels. Well, Dubai is not exactly a backpacker's paradise. The whole place is built for the luxury end of the market. I stayed in Dubai's one and only youth hostel (which is YHA affiliated) which is not that centrally located (although it could have been worse) which meant I got to know the Dubai bus network quite well and after a few days was giving other tourists plenty of advice about the buses! But my point is not really about the scarcity of backpacker accommodation but Dubai's whole strategy of aiming at the top end of the market. Apart from the lack of backpacker accommodation there are very few lower end hotels (eg 2 and 3 star) in Dubai. Dubai is marketing itself as a five star tourist destination rather than as a tourist destination with 2, 3, 4 and 5 star hotels for you to choose from. Obviously Dubai is trying to attract a certain kind of tourist -- which is fair enough -- but you've got to wonder whether such a strategy will actually work in the long term. I mean, there just aren't that many millionaires in the world, and of the millionaires, why would they want to come to Dubai in favour of other destinations? And what really struck me is that they are building more and more of these luxury hotels. Dubai is one massive construction site with luxury hotel after luxury hotel going up. I don't think that all this extra tourist accommodation is a response to demand or even sensibly forecast demand. Rather, the place is awash with money and people are optimistically building things in the hope that it will generate demand. I think these people are going to be in for a rude awakening. Where are all the tourists going to come from? Blowed if I know. There's virtually no domestic tourist market to speak of. Dubai is in the desert with very little in terms of the natural environment to attract people to the place and what it lacks for in its natural geography as a draw card it's trying to make up for with construction work. They are building beach resorts, golf courses, theme parks, sporting venues and even (indoor) ski slopes in the desert. But none of this is (primarily) for the domestic market. Dubai is doing this in an effort to attract wealthy foreign tourists. But again I ask where are they going to come from? Around Dubai are the other Emirates of the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Of course there are some very wealthy people in these countries and the chance to play golf or go skiing in Dubai offers something different from home. But the majority of these people live quite modestly (if not in poverty) and would not be travelling to a five star tourist destination any time soon. So Dubai would realistically have to rely on wealthy tourists from further afield flying in. But I just don't see what Dubai has that will attract many of these people. Obviously Dubai is trying very hard by building things you would not normally find in the desert in order to attract people. But I just don't see it working. If I were a wealthy European or North American why would I want to go to Dubai to go to a beach resort or to play golf or go skiing (indoors) when there are plenty of other places closer to home (and with much more bearable climates) I can do it? Of course maybe Dubai is banking on all the millionaires in India (and perhaps China) for its continued prosperity. So maybe there is some method to the madness after all. But I seriously doubt it. As soon as the word economy slows down a bit or the peak oil problem becomes a reality then Dubai is going to become one massive white elephant.

Third, the audacity of the development going on there, with an awful lot of waste. It's not just that Dubai is a massive construction site. It's what they're building. Building housing and hotels is not a bad thing. Nor is building leisure facilities. But so much of what's going on in Dubai is just wasteful, both in terms of quantity and quality. In terms of quantity: there is already an oversupply of luxury hotel accommodation and yet they are still building more. And in terms of quality: they are spending billions on projects that don't meet any real need; this is the case with building taller and taller buildings just for the sake of being able to boast about having the tallest building in the world, or spending billions in changing the natural environment for no real need in projects such as the Palm Islands or the World Islands.

Look, I'm by no means anti-development. But I reckon that about 95% of the stuff they are building in Dubai is just excessive. They are devoting all this money to building new luxury hotels when they haven't got the guests to fill them and when there is a real shortage of affordable housing for the expat workers. Some of the construction (like the subway system -- traffic congestion in Dubai would have to be among the worst in the world) is long overdue; other stuff (like the airport expansion or new housing) is sensible planning for the future. But much of it is wasteful or wishful thinking.

Daylight wasting

Rant time: I really and truly hate (so-called) daylight saving time. Of course when you think about it, it doesn't actually "save" daylight at all. All it does is rob Peter to pay Paul. You lose an hour in the morning and gain an hour in the evening: A zero-sum game. So what's the point? Well, the theory is that some people would like an extra hour of daylight in the evening and be prepared to give one up from their morning. The kind of people who like this are usually people who have nothing to do of a morning and like to lounge around in cafés, bars and restaurants of an evening. The problem is that in most of Australia (Tasmania is a little bit of an exception) the evening daylight effect is not that great. Even with daylight saving the sun sets comparatively early because we are too close to the equator to get the pronounced evening daylight effects that you would experience closer to the pole. But what does it matter, I hear you ask? "An hour's an hour; extending sunset from 6.30pm to 7.30pm in regions closer to the equator still gains you an extra hour of evening daylight as you would if you extended sunset from 9pm to 10pm in regions closer to the pole. True, but you have to weigh the purported benefits of daylight saving time with its costs. And I don't think extending sunset from 6.30pm to 7.30pm is worth the hassle. Here are two reasons why daylight saving is not worth it.

For starters it's not good for your health. It disrupts your sleep patterns which leaves you feeling tired and cranky and as a result unproductive. I can testify to that first hand. I always feel much better in Summer when I am in a time zone adopting standard time (eg Queensland, or Western Australia before it adopted its current trial of daylight saving time). I would feel much more rested than I would under a regime of daylight saving time. Traditionally I would have to put up with five months of sleep deprivation but now my state's useless politicians have gone and extended that to six. Thanks a bunch! The only positive in all this is that things aren't (yet!) quite as bad as Europe where they have seven months of "Summer" Time a year. And how's "Summer Time" for a false descriptor anyway? The UK, along with much of Northern Europe, doesn't even get one month of Summer a year, let alone seven! Anyway, I digress.

A second reason against daylight saving time is that it causes disruption to business, as this article before the changes came in predicted and this article about Ebay auctions now shows. Of course this specific incident was not a result of daylight saving in general but some states (namely Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales as well as the ACT) extending their daylight saving period. I experienced the wrong end of this first hand when I flew home to Australia this year. I was due to land in Sydney in the autumn just after daylight saving had ended (by a matter of hours actually, i.e. I was due to land at 7.45am standard time after the clocks had been put back an hour six or so hours previously). Anyway, after I'd booked my ticket and at very short notice my state's spineless politicians simply decided to extend daylight saving without giving any good reason and without properly consulting the public. The "reason" for doing this was simply because other states such as Victoria and South Australia wanted to extend theirs and we therefore had to follow suit. (I thought the point point of federalism was that states have the freedom not to conform to everyone else's mistakes!) Anyway, this change caused a lot of confusion in Australia -- both in the silly states that introduced it (as people didn't know that the usual date for putting the clocks back had been delayed) and in the more sensible states which eschew daylight saving (as people there had no idea what time it was in the silly states). And if so many people in Australia didn't have a clue when the clocks were going back, you can imagine the chaos it caused for people outside of Australia -- including me! When I booked my flight I was told I was arriving in Sydney at 7.45 am. At the time of my booking that was right. And that's what time I told my family. who would be meeting me at the airport. And shortly before my departure I again told them that time because (a) I had no idea that the Government had changed the rules about when daylight saving ends and (b) the airline (Emirates) also had no idea (in fact shortly before departure its website was still quoting the scheduled arrival time in standard time). Of course daylight saving was indeed extended further into the autumn which had the effect of pushing back my scheduled arrival time by an hour which meant that my brother who along with the rest of the state was still on daylight saving time turned up at the airport an hour earlier than necessary which meant that he had to pay for an extra hour's parking (on top of the plane's added delay due to a medical emergency while we were on the ground in Bangkok).

Anyway, rant over. I really don't like daylight saving -- but with good reason. And there's even a facebook group for others who want to see an end to daylight saving in Australia.

Der Fall Töben: the plot thickens

NOTE: This is not the first post on this subject. Before reading this you may first like to read my initial comments on the case of Gerald Fredrick Töben.

Since originally posting on the case of one Gerald Fredrick Töben being arrested in the UK for holocaust denial, further details of the case have come to light. I am of course relying largely on press reports for information and while I am obviously thankful to journalists as a profession for what they do, they don't always tell us everything we would like to know. Anyway a few more facts have come to light which don't change my argument; if anything they strengthen it.

1) Although Germany is claiming that Töben committed offences both within and outside of Germany, the conduct amounting to the offence he is alleged to have committed in actual fact took place not in Germany but in Australia (and cyberspace). Töben did not set foot in Germany. Rather, from his home in Australia, Töben published statements on the internet which were accessible from essentially anywhere in the world (including Germany). The basis for Germany's claim that Töben committed an offence within Germany is simply that his statements which he uploaded onto the internet from Australia are accessible on computers in Germany. And likewise the claim that he also committed offences outside of Germany is that the same material is accessible on computers outside of Germany!

2) A couple of further interesting facts have now come to light about implementation of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) procedure. One is that although the EAW procedure is supposed to apply without exception to the 32 "serious categories of offences" Belgium has indicated that it will not send suspects to Poland on murder charges relating to abortion. If this is the case then this would appear to be a clear breakdown in the EAW approach to extradition. Of course on one level this is not at all surprising. The most "pro-integration" countries in the EU typically play fast and loose with the rules, picking and choosing what suits them and what doesn't, while the poor old "Eurosceptics" play by the rules and as a result get shafted for their sense of fair play. I'm not saying that the fact that Belgium has said it won't play by the rules thereby makes it acceptable for the UK not to play by the rules. But what it does suggest is that there may be a serious problem with the rules -- if not the whole structure of the EU -- which needs to be addressed. If Poland thinks that abortion is murder -- one of the most serious crimes imaginable -- and Belgium thinks that abortion is a fundamental human right and we have a rule which says Belgium must extradite people accused of this crime in Poland then obviously we've got a serious problem on our hands. And this is exactly the kind of problem that the principle of dual criminality in extradition is supposed to avoid. It respects the fact that sovereign states can and do differ about what kind of conduct should be made criminal. Personally I happen to think that abortion (or many instances of abortion) should be illegal. But I do not therefore think that Belgium (where abortion is legal) should be extraditing doctors who perform abortions (or the women who have them or the men who encourage them to have them) to Poland to be tried for murder. If abortion is legal in Belgium then Belgium shouldn't be extraditing these people to Poland for conduct which is perfectly legal in Belgium. And I happen to think that regardless of my personal views on abortion. And exactly the same principles should apply to cases of holocaust denial: if the UK doesn't think this conduct should be made criminal then it's not right that someone should be extradited from the UK to Germany for this "crime" -- regardless of whether I think holocaust denial should be a crime (which I don't). And what's more, this is a similar principle to that by which we object to countries such as the United States (where torture is illegal) handing people over to other countries to be tortured on their behalf. Just as we should object to the Americans using other countries to torture people when their political leaders don't have the balls to take the unpopular -- and probably unconstitutional -- step of legalising torture in their own country so we should likewise object to the British Government getting other countries to lock people away for holocaust denial when they don't have the balls to pass unpopular laws which would make that a possibility in their own country. The British Government should not be allowed to send people who are innocent in the eyes of their own law to another country in order to have it "do their dirty work for them".

A second interesting fact is that at the time the changes were being introduced into British law, ministers gave assurances that under the proposed changes a British citizen could not be extradited to Germany for exactly the type of offence Töben is alleged to have committed (i.e. publishing statements on the internet outside of Germany but accessible in Germany). While Töben is an Australian and not a British citizen, this distinction is irrelevant as a matter of law: If an Australian citizen in the UK can be extradited to Germany for this then as a matter of law so too can a British citizen in the UK -- which makes a mockery of the politicians' "assurances" about the changes to the law. Now of course Töben hasn't yet been extradited (he's being remanded in custody until his extradition hearing takes place) and he has a few lines of legal argument he can run to try to avoid extradition, but he's facing an uphill battle and even if he does get off it won't be any vindication of the prior "assurances" given by ministers about this law. All this just goes to show that "assurances" by ministers about the effects of an EU diktat (or any proposed law for that matter) -- no matter how honest their intentions in making the "assurance" -- are worthless. It shouldn't take the arrest of Gerald Töben to bring that fact home to you. The law is not what politicians say or think the law means but rather what the text of the statute (as interpreted and applied by the courts) actually says. The fact that ministers thought the law didn't cover offences such as this and even gave "assurances" to the public to this effect is completely beside the point. It's the district court judge -- and possibly the appeal courts -- who will have to decide the issue according to law.

3) Töben is applying for bail before the extradition hearing which opens the possiblility of his trying to flee the country before his extradition hearing. But if he is granted bail I would imagine the court would impose some conditions, not least of which the surrender of his passport and his regular reporting to police. But of course these conditions wouldn't make it impossible for him to flee, just more unlikely that he will. After surrendering his passport he could try applying for a new passport at the Australian High Commission in London or even seek refuge there (or possibly asylum at another country's embassy such as Iran). But all of that is unlikely in the extreme. For one, I doubt the Australian Government would want to get involved in any of this or that Töben would want to go and live in Iran (assuming they'd be happy to take him)! The Australian Government pobably has a policy of not issuing a new passport in the event that an old one has been surrendered to a court as a condition of bail. And regardless of whether he can get his hands on a passport or not he would still have to leave the UK. He couldn't just turn up at an airport and get on a plane. They'd be aware of that possibility and catch him before he got away. The only way he could possibly do it is to be smuggled onto a container ship (or something like that) to a safe third country before travelling on to Australia (or wherever he wants to go next). But if he did this he would then have the further problem of now having committed an offence in the UK -- skipping bail -- which may then be subject to extradition from Australia (as well as a number of other countries) back to the UK! So while making for an interesting thriller, it's almost impossible to see Töben pulling it off -- at least without the help of a foreign government. And in any event if granted bail Töben would probably be under police surveillance the entire time making an escape all the more difficult.

4) In my previous post I highlighted the fact how the EAW procedure removes the political element of the extradition process and judicialises the whole prodecure. One thing I didn't expressly mention is that under the EAW procedure the judicial process is now much less rigorous than under the traditional approach, making extradition to another EU state a near certainty. In a traditional extradition hearing the accused could argue that there was no prima facie case against him or that he wasn't likely to get a fair trial abroad or that the punishment would be disproportionate to the crime etc etc. Well all of those arguments are basically out the window. Under the EAW procedure you can't argue that another EU state won't give you a fair trial or doesn't have a prima facie case against you etc. Their criminal justice systems are simply presumed to be virtuous -- regardless of the atual state of affairs.

That said there are still a few legal arguments up Töben's sleeve. The article I have referred to here lists them well (although I obviously don't agree with the author's perspective that Töben ought to be extradited) so I won't go into too much detail repeating the arguments here, instead commenting on two:

First, assuming that the English court accepts that Töben's offence comes under the EAW procedure and is extraditable (which it most likely will; it's almost impossible fo Töben to argue otherwise), the conduct amounting to the offence must not have taken place in Britain. Obviously Germany is alleging "publication" in Germany, Australia etc (which are clearly not Britain); but is that sufficient? Töben published the statements on the internet from Australia -- statements which were accessible in both Germany and the UK. So unless Germany can prove that Töben made statements which were not also published in the UK he has a shot at avoiding extradition. Personally I think this is Töben's best chance and I hope he has good lawyers who run with it. But to be honest I have no idea how sympathetic the courts will be to this kind of argument. From what I've heard from lawyers who work in this area of the law, where the law is ambiguous the courts usually read the law in a way which facilitates rather than hinders extradition.

A second argument involves the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Basically British extradition law prevents a judge from ordering extradition if it would be incompatible with the ECHR. What's more, this requirement still seems to apply to offences under the EAW procedure which means that in the very unlikely event you could prove that extradition to an EU member state would breach the ECHR an English judge would be duty bound not to order the extradition. Now normally the courts apply this to things such as extradition to countries which practise torture and obviously extradition to Germany is a very long way from that scenario. But, the argument goes, the ECHR also contains a right to free speech so Töben could argue that his extradition to Germany would be in breach of this right under the ECHR. A nice argument, but I doubt it would succeed since the ECHR allows for its signatories (of which Germany is one) to make such exceptions to the principle of free speech "as are necessary in a democratic society ... for the prevention of disorder or crime". Obviously Germany is going to argue that its laws against holocaust denial are a legitimate exception under this principle and, moreover, I doubt an English district court judge would have the courage to rule that the German law in question was not "necessary".

In the case law of the the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights there is what's called (in an awkward translation from the French) a margin of appreciation. What this means is that in judging claimed exceptions to ECHR rights the Strasbourg court will apply a less than fully rigorous standard because it takes the line that the national authorities (including the courts) are in a better position than an international court to judge what kind of exceptions are "necessary" in a particular country. So if Töben was arrested in Germany he could argue that the German law is in breach of his ECHR rights and the German court would as a matter of law have to rule on whether the law was "necessary". If the German court rules in the Government's favour then Töben could appeal the decision to the Strasbourg court which as a matter of law would have to rule on this question. But in doing so it grants what it calls a "margin of appreciation" (marge d'appreciation in French) to the German authorities. It says that while it has the right and the duty to rule on the question, the German authorities (including the German courts) are in a better position than it to judge and it will accord a high degree of respect to the decision of the national authorities (as judged by the German courts). In other words the threshold for convincing the Strasbourg Court to overturn the opinion of the German authorities on what is "necessary" is quite high. Now come to the situation at hand where Töben is not in Germany but the UK. He would be asking a British (or more correctly an English) court to rule that a German law was not "necessary ... for the prevention of disorder or crime" in Germany. If the German courts have not ruled that these laws are in breach of the ECHR (and this matter has already come before the German courts) and the Strasbourg court is not likely to overturn such a decision of the German courts, then what realistic hope is there of an English court deciding differently or indeed the Strasbourg court on appeal siding with the English court's interpretation if the English court were so to decide? The whole thought of an English court being asked to decide whether a German law violating free speech is "necessary ... for the prevention of disorder or crime" in Germany is simply risible. And yet that is the situation we have under the ECHR. Lex asinus est -- and this kind of quasi-national, quasi-international human rights law is even more of an ass than most law! It would certainly be a very "courageous" decision (in the full Applebian sense of that term!) for an English judge to make, regardless of what he actually thought was the correct decision according to law.

Anyway, Töben's bail application will be heard in London on Friday 10 October and his extradition hearing on Friday 17 October. If it's an open hearing (which I presume it will be) and I can get into the court (and assuming he hasn't fled the country after having been granted bail!) I may try going down to London to watch the extradition proceedings.

Les polyglottes du pop

If you're at all familiar with continental European pop music of the 1950s to the 1970s (particularly the genre known as Schlager) what's surprising is the number of artists who were plying their trade in foreign tongues. I'm most familiar with the German scene, but I also know that there were also English-speaking singers who had success with French and Italian language hits. A few of the British and American singers who had great success by recording in German were Petula Clark, Connie Francis, Ireen Sheer and Peggy March. All of these names were also (to various extents) known at the time in the English speaking countries. And here's one you probably haven't heard --and who doesn't even have an English wikipedia article, but unsurprisingly has one in German -- South African singer Howard Carpendale. Hey, even the Beatles recorded two songs in German (German language versions of I want to Hold Your Hand and She Loves You) despite not being able to speak any German and having to have the German texts written out "phonetically" for them! And some singers even had success by recording in several European languages. And that's just the English speaking stars I've mentioned. France's France Gall also had a very successful German recording career (particularly after her fame in France started to wane) as did a number of Swedish and Dutch stars. Anyway, I could keep going but I'm sure you get the idea.

Some of these stars, although not completely unknown in their home countries, were much bigger stars in their "adopted" lands. In the 60s and 70s Peggy March was a much bigger sensation in Germany than her native America. To my mind this represents an admirable entrepreneurial spirit; why be content to be a mediocre star in Britain and the United States who is soon forgotten when you can become a much bigger international star by recording in German, French and Italian? Instead of today's bland homogeneity where the same record in English is sold the entire world over the true pop music entrepreneurs of days past would adapt to local markets by singing in the local language.

Compare that with the pop music scene of today where this entrepreneurial spirit is for the most part lacking. Of course on one level the pop stars of today also want to break into foreign markets. But on another level it's not the stars themselves but the marketing executives that do it for them. While not denying that back in the day pop stars (as was the case with the Beatles) were pushed into doing foreign language recordings by their record companies, for the most part there was a good dollop of individual ambition and entrepreneurship. After all it was the pop stars themselves who would go to the effort of learning a language well enough to sing (and possibly also give interviews) in it. And some of them would do it very well. While the very early Peggy March had a noticeable (but by no means bad) American accent when she sang in German, within a short time her German was such that it was very hard to detect an accent. And many of them were up and coming stars who while having some success failed to crack the big time at home and went off looking for greener pastures abroad. Not all of them made it, but some of them did. But can you imagine any of that happening today? Seriously, I can't imagine your average British or American pop star (or band) being bothered to learn a foreign language in order to sell records abroad. Just think of some of the big name pop bands of today or the last 10-15 years and the thought becomes risible. Most of them can barely string together an intelligible sentence in English let alone in a foreign language. Can you imagine the Spice Girls, Girls Aloud or the Pussycat Dolls doing their routines in French or German ... or Japanese or Chinese? :-D

Of course in all of the non-English speaking countries there are local stars recording in their local languages, but apart from that the foreign acts all tend to sing in English. Acts from the various English-speaking countries sell their records in English to non-English speaking audiences and even singers from non-English speaking countries will record in English (or least try!) if they want to sell records in other non-English speaking markets. Compared to days past it's all rather bland I have to say. There's something exciting about hearing Petula Clark sing in Italian or the Beatles in German (quirky accents included!). But in an important respect the difference reflects the linguistic and commercial reality of our time. Linguistically, more young people today have at least a basic knowledge of English than in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and the saturation of American popular culture (not least of which MTV) means today's youth are much more attuned to hearing music in English (of course how well they understand it is a different matter). And commercially, the music market, although not fully international, is far more internationalised today then the period under discussion. Back in the day there wasn't really such a thing as an international pop music scene or market let alone international stars. The Beatles were probably the first truly international stars and their success would eventually pave the way for a more internationalised pop music market. Although recording in German, the Beatles never wanted to record in a foreign language but were forced to by their record company as the company thought that they would need to sing in German in order to crack the German market -- at least initially until the public was familiar with them. In retrospect we can say that the Beatles would still have been big enough to crack the German and other European markets without ever recording in German (or other European languages). The Beatles paved the way for international pop stars. But of course it would take some time for the full transition to occur and in the meanwhile there was still a place for stars recording in foreign languages. But by the 1980s, however, this was petering out.

Today's world of pop music is a very different place to that of the 1950s-1970s and I doubt we'll ever see a return to anything like the situation of those days. So here's to all the polyglots of pop from a bygone era. I'll leave you with a few renditions of Down Town in various languages by Petula Clark. Enjoy!

English


German


and Italian


There's also a French version which sadly I've not been able to locate online.

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit? Der Fall Töben

UPDATE: I've also posted a few comments on this subject at another blog which you may also be interested in reading.

UPDATE 2: I've now posted again on this subject.

For those of you with some knowledge of German you may recognise the first part of the title to this post as the opening words of the third stanza to the Deutschlandlied (the Song of Germany), which comprises the present German national anthem:

Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
für das deutsche Vaterland

which can be rendered into English as:

Unity and justice [or: right/law] and freedom
for the German fatherland

Anyway, the reason for this post is that one Gerald Fredrick Töben, a German-born Australian citizen, was denied his Recht (right) and Freiheit (freedom) after being arrested by British police at London's Heathrow Airport for the alleged crime of holocaust denial. But, I hear you say, holocaust denial is not a crime in the United Kingdom? The lady doth protest too much, methinks! These things no longer matter in today's European Union. Although arrested in Britain by British police, the law which Töben is alleged to have breached is a German law -- and what's more one with extraterritorial effect which means that even if he'd never set foot in Germany but merely made some statement in Australia denying the holocaust (an act which is not a crime in Australia) and then come to the UK, (where the conduct is also not a crime) he still could (and would) have been arrested by British police for something that is perfectly legal in both Britain and Australia. That I find rather troublesome. Now in actual fact Germany is alleging that Töben committed this crime both in Germany and abroad. But where the conduct is alleged to have taken place is actually beside the point; even if the allegation were that the conduct took place solely in Germany what happened to Töben at Heathrow Airport would still be wrong. And equally beside the point is the argument that as an Australian going to Germany Töben has an obligation to respect and abide by the laws of Germany. Of course he does and if he breaks German law and the German police arrest him in Germany he gets less sympathy (and not much of a blog post!) from me (although I personally happen to disagree with the law he is alleged to have contravened). But manifestly that's not what happened; -- hence this blog post. What has happened is that as a result of a European Arrest Warrant being issued by a German court for an allegation of a crime against German law -- perhaps committed in Germany, perhaps in Australia, perhaps not at all (who knows) -- Töben was arrested in Britain by British police for conduct which is perfectly legal in Britain (and Australia for that matter). Once issued, a European Arrest Warrant is valid in all EU countries (plus a few others which have signed up to the scheme).

Look, I don't have any time for holocaust deniers like Töben. I believe the holocaust happened and that it was a momentous tragedy not just for the Jewish people but for the entire human race. We should never forget that dark chapter of human history and those responsible for these hideous crimes should be brought to justice. Moreover, people who deny this are wrong and should be exposed. I believe in refuting their arguments, shaming them even. And I also have a lot of sympathy for countries such as Germany and Austria who have to deal with this dark chapter of their past. I fully sympathise with the desire behind such laws. It is in no-one's interest to see the holocaust downplayed or forgotten. Yet, I strongly disagree with these laws. The end does not justify the means. Hauling people before a court and incarcerating them for holocaust denial is not the right approach. That is a very dangerous path to go down. Convicting people for thought crimes is the stuff of Orwellian or Kafkaesque nightmares, not democracies which seek to live up to the rule of law. So while I sympathise with the fact that Germany is trying to act to right a past wrong and avoid a repetition of past mistakes, the end does not justify the means. I can only say shame on Germany for criminalising this activity. This kind of law is not consistent with a Rechtsstaat. And shame again on Germany for giving this law extraterritorial effect so that Australian citizens who make certain statements in Australia without ever setting foot in Germany would still be subject to a prison sentence in Germany. That is a truly perverse law and needs to be exposed as such. If the Australian Government had any balls they'd be reprimanding Germany over this. But like that's gonna happen. Australia is a diplomatic lightweight.

But what I find far worse than Germany criminalising holocaust denial (and my country's spineless diplomatic response in standing up for the basic human rights of one of its citizens) is the complicity of the United Kingdom and other European countries in this by way of the European Arrest Warrant procedure. This is one of the most illiberal laws in the entire world and ought to be exposed as such. Like most EU measures it was sold with the idea of "streamlining" existing procedures to make them more efficient. Well when it comes to the criminal justice system some inefficiency is desirable if you believe in the liberty of the person. The existing extradition agreements between the member states, we were told, needed to be made "more efficient" to catch the bad guys (terrorists, drug dealers, organised crime syndicates etc). All noble aims. But the devil, as they say, is in the detail.

So how does extradition work? Well I'll outline two important points about the traditional approach to extradition and then explain how the European Arrest Warrant procedure differs in both respects. First, there is the principle of dual criminality. Under the traditional approach two countries would negotiate an extradition treaty and only acts which are criminal in both countries would be subject to extradition proceedings. That is why the German authorities could not ask their Australian counterparts to hand Töben over to them for trial in Germany; holocaust denial is not (yet!) a crime in Australia. And if it weren't for the European Arrest Warrant procedure, Germany could not have asked the UK to hand him over. Secondly, the traditional approach to extradition involves a mixed political-judicial extradition process. If country A wants to extradite someone from country B, then Government A puts in a formal request to Government B. Government B can either approve or refuse the request. This process respects the principle of sovereignty in international law and the Government of country B makes the decision taking its own domestic and foreign policy interests into account. If Government B refuses the request then that is the end of the matter (at least for the time being -- it may subsequently change its mind and approve the request for extradition). If however, it approves the request then the judicial procedure begins where the case comes before a judge (or magistrate) in country B to examine whether all legal requirements for extradition have been satisfied. The most important are naturally (1) whether the offence is properly subject to extradition proceedings (i.e. it (a) is sufficiently serious and (b) meets the requirement of dual criminality), (2) whether there is a prima facie case against the accused, (3) whether the accused is likely to get a fair trial in country A, and (4) if convicted whether the likely penalty will be proportionate to the crime. As you can see that is quite an "inefficient" process and the "inefficiency" arises at two levels: (1) respect for the principle of state sovereignty in international law and (2) respect for the rights of the accused.

The European Arrest Warrant procedure makes two important changes to this traditional approach to extradition. First, it removes the dual political-judicial approach to extradition and replaces it with a purely judicial approach. Under this approach Government B can no longer reject an extradition request on political grounds and extradition is now purely a legal question for a judge in country B. So if Germany wants to extradite someone from the UK, the British Government can no longer deny the request on political grounds. Under the European Arrest Warrant procedure extradition is a purely judicial function. That in itself is not such a bad thing if the states agree to it and have sufficient confidence in the fairness and functioning of each other's criminal justice systems. After all, that is how extradition functions within federal systems (such as Australia) where criminal law is a matter for the respective states and an extradition from one state to another is a purely judicial decision. Secondly, it abolishes the principle of dual criminality for "32 serious categories of offences" (see the EU site for Justice and Home Affairs http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/criminal/extradition/fsj_criminal_extradition_en.htm). This is a dangerous move and this is why Töben is now in hot water. Obviously abolishing the requirement of dual criminality makes extradition a lot easier, but is that necessarily a good thing? What about the rights of the accused (who is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty)? If these offences are so "serious" then you have to wonder why they wouldn't already be criminal in every member state of the EU (and therefore subject to the principle of dual criminality anyway). To my mind, the fact that holocaust denial is not criminal in most countries of the EU (let alone the world) suggests that this offence should not be the subject of extradition proceedings.

But, you may say, there is an argument for lifting the dual criminality requirement in the case of serious offences. Why should dangerous criminals (such as terrorists etc) get off on a technicality merely because one country hasn't got around to introducing anti-terror laws? If people commit an act of terrorism in the UK all they would need to do is flee to another European country with no anti-terrorism laws and as a result of the principle of dual criminality they couldn't be extradited to the UK to face charges for committing acts of terrorism. So, the argument goes, we need to abolish the requirement of dual criminality in order to avoid this problem. Well even if you accept that argument for easing the restrictions with respect to "serious" offences, I would submit that holocaust denial is manifestly not such an offence. It is simply unacceptable that the principle of dual criminality was lifted with respect to thought crimes such as holocaust denial. The British Government as well as every other Government in Europe should at least have opposed this aspect of the European Arrest Warrant procedure. In this respect the European Arrest Warrant really has made criminal justice in the EU an Orwellian nightmare.

Anyway, now that that's out of the way I should say two further things about the Töben case. First, I don't at all blame the British police. In arresting Töben they were following the law. My problem is with the law that allowed them to arrest Töben in the first place, not with their actions in executing that law. Secondly, as wicked as Germany's law is and as bad as it is that the UK is complicit in this injustice, Töben needs to take some responsibility for his own actions. He knew about the German law and still made the statements he did. Once he does that he is a wanted man as far as the German authorities are concerned and he therefore needs to use some common sense about where he travels. If he values his liberty (and maybe he doesn't -- often people like this are happy to be "martyred" for their cause) then at the very least he should avoid travel to (1) Germany and (2) any country from which he can be extradited to Germany for the crime of holocaust denial (which now includes every EU country). He really ought to have done his homework on the law of extradition and realised that the UK is no longer a safe country for people like him.

Atlas of the "real world"

This represents an interesting twist on the standard problem of map projection (which has to balance such competing ideals of area, shape, direction, bearing, distance and scale when projecting the surface of the earth -- which is roughly spherical -- onto a flat surface). The "atlas of the real world" takes the idea that the different projections emphasise different aspects of reality and uses software to depict the nations of the world by their demographic importance on a range of subjects. It makes for interesting viewing.

Evangelical humour

If you're not too familiar with (anglophone) evangelical Christianity then you probably won't get this. But for those of you who are you may find this (courtesy of the Internet Monk) humorous. I certainly did.

UPDATE (2 Oct 2008): The story continues HERE.